ICCO food security programme Country report Madagascar final version

ICCO food security programme Country report Madagascar final version Country report Madagascar ACE Europe December 2010

ICCO food security programme Country report Madagascar Hannelore Beerlandt Ramy Razafindralambo

AKNOWLEDGMENTS Our sincere gratefulness for all time and critical analysis by the partners of ICCO in V.7.V (Fiantso, SAF, TIAVO, COLDIS); of the LIFE Coalition, and of Mr. Peter Egging and Mrs. Estelle Antilahy of ICCO in Madagascar. We want to express our special appreciation to all villagers who participated actively in the workshops (Albohitsara, Ambila, Sandrohy, Mizrilo Gara and Marofarity). We are also grateful to other local institutions and international partners for their voluntary cooperation. Ramy Razafindralambo and Hannelore Beerlandt ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 4/105

Table of content 1. Introduction 7 1.1 Introduction to the evaluation in Madagascar 7 1.2 Execution of the evaluation 7 1.3 National and regional Context 10 1.4. ICCO supported projects in Madagascar 17 2. Main findings and conclusions 22 2.1. Evaluation question 1: Relevance of the underlying policy and strategy of the program 22 2.2. Evaluation question 2: coherence of the implementation strategy 26 2.3 Evaluation question 3: improved food availability on the household level 33 2.4. Evaluation question 4: improved acces to food by vulnerable households and individuals 38 2.5.Evaluation question 5: Improved (proper) utilisation of food by vulnerable households and individuals 45 2.6.Evaluation question 6: Improved position and capacity of organizations to influence policy making 46 2.7. Evaluation question 7: National and international policy makers demonstrate more interest for the right to food 53 2.8. Evaluation question 8: assessment of the contribution of ICCO 55 3. Summary and conclusions 60 4 Annexes 63

Annex 1 - List of abbreviations and Acronyms 63 Annex 2 - Comments on the evaluation framework (contextualising) 65 Annex 3 - List of documents consulted 72 Annex 4 - Programme of the mission 73 Annex 5 - List of persons interviewed 74 Annex 6 - List of persons participating 76 Annex 7 - PPT used for debriefing 81 Annex 8 - Short internal report on the indepth work sessions in the villages 82 ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 6/105

1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION IN MADAGASCAR The field mission to Madagascar took place between Sunday 30 th of October till Sunday 14 th of November and was mainly held in the intervention area in the South East of Madagascar, in the region of Vatovavy Fitovinany, and more particularly in the districts of Ifanadiana, Mananjary and Manakara. Three individual partners of ICCO have been visited and assessed in depth: SAF/FJKM, FIANTSO and TIAVO. During these visits, attention has been spent to (a) the partner organisation, its achievements and challenges; (b) to evolutions as perceived by villagers (beneficiaries and non beneficiaries) within their target area and to the dynamics and functioning of their organisations (in particular to the network of SIIV, water committee, COLDIS, and les mutuelles of TIAVO), and to (c) other regional stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the programs of the different partners. COLDIS has been visited, but the assessment has not taken the same depth as for other 3 partners (concerning session with partner and target group). A joint workshop has been organised in the region to meet members of the Coalition LIFE (these are all partners of ICCO linked to the food security program). 1 day was spent in the Antananarivo (capital) during which national stakeholders were consulted individually. 1.2 EXECUTION OF THE EVALUATION Regarding the selection of the 3 key partners to be consulted and assessed in depth, the choice for SAF and FIANTSO was obvious, given their relative part in the budget MFS/FS 1 and seen the structural role they have played for food security via different intervention strategies. As third partner TIAVO has been selected, although formally budgeted under ICCO s MFS/DREO program, TIAVO has been linked directly to the food security in the field with a considerable budget (about 400.000 euro bank guarantee). The program initially established for the evaluation mission in Madagascar has been maintained. Compared to other field missions for this evaluation, the field mission in Madagascar (i) has spent less time per partner (shorter consultation with target group and with partners) but has been able to (ii) combine the consultation of regional stakeholders related to the different partners programs; partners work in one region and deal with similar stakeholders. 1 SAF: 48% of total MFS FS budget and FIANTSO 19% of total MFS FS budget during considered time period

(iii) Because the partners have partially achieved geographical integration of their activities, the consultations with the target group were related to a combination of activities of at least 2 partners. (iv) Attention has been spent to the complementarities with the EU projects (ICCO) by finding communities which were also involved in the PAMOLEA (supported by ICCO FS partner (SAF) and funded by ICCO and EU Water Facility). (vi) Groups and committees of beneficiaries have been visited as they are quite prominent in the projects (consultation of SIIVs, water committee, of caisses of TIAVO, guichet fonciers and local commune, COLDIS, Coldis collectors, product sorters and producers). The villages visited during the field mission are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Location of Communities visited during the Field Visit in Madagascar in the region of Vatovavy Fitovivany Partner Villages SAF (SIIV), SAF (PAMOLEA), TIAVO SAF (SIIV), SAF (PAMOLEA), TIAVO FIANTSO, TIAVO FIANTSO, TIAVO TIAVO, COLDIS Ambohitsara Sandrohy Ambila Mizilo Gara Marofarihy Regarding the consultations in the villages (focus group discussion and 2days workshops), the methodology provided by the evaluation and based on PADEV has been slightly adapted and shortened. Module 1 and 2 were integrated and module 4 and 5 were integrated, meaning these modules (1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5) were first performed in the sub groups and the results were presented and discussed together in plenary afterwards. Smaller adaptations to the methodology were: (i) for module 2, the exercise was built around the following question: what are 5 factors that influence what and how people eat daily?. From there, the subgroups discussed whether these factors improved during the last 10 years or not, and why (not). (ii) Concerning module 3, the exercise started with the questions: if an external organization happens to arrive in your commune, how would you describe possible different categories of people in terms of well being?. (iii) With regard to module 5, only the 5 best and 3 worst projects were asked for and discussed. In the discussion quite some time has been spent on sustainability related issues ( are possible effects of these projects lasting or not, and why 2 ). (iv) During the focus group discussions, men and women were consulted separately. The selection of the villages by ICCO s partners has only partly been representative in the sense that: (i) the first selected commune (Ambohitsara) demonstrated certainly a more dynamic SIIV than average. This has been compensated by the selection of a second commune (Sandrohy) and by a visit to a third SIIV (Bac Mamoroma) of average degree of 2 Seen the presence and occurrence of many punctual and short term projects in the region. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 8/105

dynamism. (ii) In the first commune, almost all participants of the workshop were members of the SIIV. This has been compensated during the second workshop and focus group discussions by including non beneficiaries of the projects. During the consultations in the villages, the same translator has been maintained for all workshops/ focus groups. The translator was recruited by the evaluation team, external to all projects, experienced in facilitation and native to the region. His support and assistance in the workshops and focus group discussions has been crucial for their success. At the end of the field mission a joint meeting was held with representatives of each partner of ICCO (one representative per partner). It concerned partners involved in food security projects and formally member of the Coalition Life. In this meeting, TIAVO was not represented by its director and it was difficult for the representative of TIAVO to judge the dynamics of the Coalition, since he hadn t followed up the Coalition closely before. COLDIS has not participated in the joint workshop. The executive director of the Coalition has only just been recruited. It has been rather difficult to find relevant national stakeholders in Antananarivo and to fix appointments with them. Mainly organizations and donors that (i) have information on the food security situation and evolutions in the country and in the region of V.7.V.; (ii) which have experience in food security projects in Madagascar or in V.7.V; and (iii) who know one or more of ICCO s partners and can witness of the quality of their representation activities on the national level, have been consulted. Data on impact (food security) are not available at the level of the partners. Partners have data available at the level of outcome and direct outreach. These data have been combined with the information from the groups discussions during this mission regarding impact and regarding wealth category (PADEV methodology). The attribution issue (impact) has been addressed by combining available outcome data with the results of the group discussions held with the PADEV methodology. The negative impact from cyclones and caused by political events have also been included within this methodology (see annex 5). The ICCO FS strategy is based on 3 pillars: availability of food, access to food, and proper utilization of food. The division of the different interventions and of the different effects of the interventions over the different pillars, has not been obvious in Madagascar. Interventions are oriented towards improvement in preconditions for food security, and some activities can thus contribute towards food availability and towards access to food. The effects are therefore divided according to the main intended type of impact within the partners vision. For Madagascar this results in the following ranking: Food availability: effects related to better storage of food, effects related to increased production of food crops Access to food: effects related to improved access to credit, effects related to improved land rights, effects related to improved position in the market, effects related to improvements in productivity and transformation of cash crops.

Utilization of food: effects related to improved access to potable water and to improved nutritional, hygiene and sanitation attitude. 1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 1.3.1 NATIONAL CONTEXT Trends in food insecurity Madagascar, with a population of roughly 19 million, is classified as a least developed, lowincome, food deficit country, and is ranked 145th out of 177 countries by the 2009 UNDP Human Development Report. About 70% of the population lives below the poverty line and 60% of the population lives on less than one US dollar per day. Since 2008 economic perspectives are bleak because of the international economic crisis and the national political crisis that disrupt the economy. Food insecurity once peculiar to the southern region is gradually reaching other rural regions and urban centers. Twenty five percent of the rural population has been identified as food-insecure (WFP, June 2009). During the lean season, the global acute malnutrition rate gets as high as 15%, and even higher in drought or cyclone affected areas. The prevalence of stunting and underweight among children under 5 is 53% and 36% respectively. No major decline of malnutrition rate was registered in the last decade. ICCO partners work in the Vatovavy Fitovinany Region (V7V), classified as medium vulnerable zone compared to the most vulnerable regions in the South and South-West of the country (SIRSA, 2006). The malnutrition rate amongst children under 5 is 48.9% (INSTAT, 2008-2009) in the ICCO region; the hungry season may last up to 6 months during which poor households mainly eat manioc, banana and other harvested food to complement the lack of rice (SIRSA, 2006). The diet of the majority of Malagasy population is based on rice and often nutritional supplements are absent from the diet. Food insecure households are recurrently net-buyers of food; in the Vatovavy Fitovinany region. Income from sales of typical cash crops such as coffee, clove, litchi but also of rice and bananas, are used by the households to meet the daily expenses on food. During the 2009/2010 agricultural campaign, the national cereal domestic availability of 3,680,000 tons (rice, manioc and sweet potato roots, maize, wheat) were not sufficient to cover the cereal demand of which 90% is made of rice (GWIES/ FAO, August 2010). Cereal import requirement was estimated at 58,000 tons which is 39% less than the average import tonnage in the previous five years. The cereal production in 2009/2010 has increased by 29% compared to the previous five years average production. This production increase was primarily due to ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 10/105

improved access to production capacities and credit for rice producers, as well as assistance in professionalizing farmer associations through the Green Revolution implemented by the Malagasy government during 2007-2008. The agricultural sector represents on average 28% of GDP and the rice sector as the main economic activity of Madagascar in terms of volume, represents 43% of the agricultural GDP and 12 per cent of GDP in 2000. The public expenses allocated to the agricultural sector were 9% of the national budget. Causes of hunger and food insecurity Underlying causes of food insecurity in Madagascar include low levels of agricultural productivity due to out-of-date farming techniques, insufficient and poorly maintained infrastructure and limited access to agricultural extension services. Although significant progress has been made in recent years, the performance of the agricultural sector remains low to ensure food self-sufficiency for many households. The farming system remains subsistence or semi-subsistence agricultural system. The lack of arable land is not a constraint in agricultural production. In fact, less than 10% of 33 million hectares of potentially arable land are cultivated on the island. Vulnerability is strongly linked with unequal access to land. Only 10 % of the population is entitled to secured land ownership, which also strongly handicapped commercial and contractual land transactions, and prevented the emergence of a truly competitive land market meeting the needs of farmers and major agro-industrial investors. Poor physical access to many parts of Madagascar, especially in the rainy season, severely limits transport and marketing opportunities. Difficulties to access market due to inadequate road infrastructure and low storage capacity contribute to maintain low farm gate prices during harvesting period and much higher consumer prices during the lean season. The efficiency of food utilization is undermined by relatively high rates of disease and exacerbated by limited health care services as well as poor hygiene, care and sanitation practices. 67% of rural households consume water from non-improved sources such as nonprotected wells or surface water which practices increase the risk of spreading hydric diseases; the vaccination coverage in rural areas is low (60%) according to the 2008-2009 national demographic and health survey. High population growth (2.7% annually), close birth spacing and the low level of education (percentage of men and women without education are respectively 19% and 23% in rural areas) are other risk factors that affect food and nutrition security of children. The large proportion of young population (45%) under 15 and less than 5 increases the dependency rate estimated as 100 adults of active age supporting 91 individuals under 15 and over 65 (INSTAT, 2010).

Women control and make decisions about the use of income they have earned for only one third of men-headed households; for 63% of households, this decision is made jointly with the husband or partner (INSTAT, 2010). Women usually have control on the daily needs including food for the family and the major expenses for the household. Although polygamy is prohibited in Madagascar, it is worth noting that 6% of women in the Vatovavy Fitovinany (compared to 3% national average) declared having co-spouses. This traditional practice has great effects on the household s resource management (e.g. land) and the vulnerability of women-headed households composed by descendants outside legitimate union. Additional pressure on food security The country is faced with frequent droughts, cyclones and floods that exacerbate an already precarious food security situation. In the last four decades, over 50 natural disasters have affected the country. According to World Bank studies, 11 million people were affected in 30 years (between 1970 and 2004), or 400,000 people per year. The effects of climate change are already changing the frequency and intensity of weather disturbances and generate significant impacts particularly in terms of loss of life, reduced agricultural production and livestock, destruction of infrastructure, degradation of natural resources (water, soil and forests) and coastal erosion, causing precarious food security, water supply and irrigation, public health and environmental management and livelihood. These climatic difficulties are exacerbated the national political crisis which had tremendous impact on public finances, exports, tourism, unemployment, the national currency and disrupted some agricultural sectors. International aid in key development programs affecting rural areas has been greatly reduced. Steps to take Food insecurity usually affects several socioeconomic groups of population: laborers, small farmers, households dependent on markets for food. Therefore, interventions to alleviate food insecurity varied and must be adapted according to needs and underlying causes. Support to agriculture is more than ever recognized as a priority for increasing agricultural productivity and improving farming system from subsistence to market-oriented system. After many consecutive years of poor harvest, the lack of seed at the household level in affected areas is a serious issue that agricultural input support programs should resolve through better access to seed. In general, safety net strategies are necessary to protect the poor and vulnerable against economic shocks and climate in the Madagascar context. Under certain conditions, depending on the magnitude of the shock, the price variability and stock availability, targeted free distribution of grain or sale at reduced prices could also be considered. The purpose of these interventions is to strengthen and protect the populations livelihoods so that they do not drift into a situation of chronic food insecurity by disinvestment and debt. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 12/105

Programs to prevent malnutrition among children under 5 and pregnant and lactating women are also needed to address problems of food insecurity amongst vulnerable groups. Demands for school canteens are particularly high because they promote better access to education especially for girls and in the poorest regions of the country. Political and institutional factors Strategies to address food insecurity and natural disaster management are closely linked in the Malagasy context. The Madagascar Action Plan (MAP 2007 2012) was a key national development plan that aims to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and proclaims strong political will to shift from a policy of disaster response to one of disaster prevention and mitigation. The "Green Revolution" was a key strategy in the MAP in order to develop the agricultural sector as the primary growth sector, to attract local and foreign private investments, to improve the land management, to increase agricultural productivity, to increase credits and reduce risks for farmers. The main purpose of the Green Revolution was to obtain large increase in yields and production in a relatively short time period. Since the 2009 political crisis, the MAP ceased to apply as the national driving policy; no clear transition policy has been declared. Various measures have been taken by the government in 2008 to increase production and reduce the impact of high commodity prices on the food situation in the country. These actions focused primarily on supporting the production of off season rice through an awareness campaign across the country and input subsidies. Analysis of 2008-2009 rice campaign showed that these drastic measures seemed to have significant impacts on rice production which covered 90% (compared to 80% in the previous years) of the national cereal demand in 2008 (GWIES, 2010). Since 2005, the Malagasy Government has initiated a reform of the land ownership registration system. Today, local communities play a role in the recognition process of the actual landownership situation and the new laws provide authorities to decentralized communes to register and coordinate land issues. Several donors support the implementation of the Malagasy land reform through the National Land Program (PNF). In 2010, 397 communal land offices are currently operational and delivered 59,000 land certificates (44,000 hectares) of which 20% to women. In Vatovavy Fitovinany region, there are 23 operational land offices which delivered 349 land certificates in 2010 (200 hectares) 3. The Government developed a National Nutrition Policy (NNP) and a National Plan of Action for Nutrition (NPAN) in 2007. As a result, National and Regional Nutrition Offices were created to oversee the implementation of the NNP but faces funding difficulties during the political crisis in 2009-2010. 3 www.observatoire-foncier.mg

Most of food security programs such as the European Union program refer to the National Food Security Strategy adopted in 1997 and the Rural Development Action Plan which focus development interventions on Communes and combine traditional actions to improve productivity with other types of interventions: building foundation for integrated regional development, strengthening local capacities and resources, improving access to health and education services, access to safe drinking water and watershed protection. The European Union is the leading partner in funding for capacity building of public agencies responsible for rural development and food security. Over 13 million were mobilized during the last five years in this field. Due to the State s withdrawal and given their proximity to the beneficiaries and their field experience, NGOs have been privileged partners of donors involved in food security. Since the start of the political stalemate in early 2009, the international community has limited contact with the Government and major aid programs were limited to ongoing humanitarian activities. After democratic elections take place, relationships with the new government are expected to normalize. 1.3.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT 4 Without going into detail, some differentiating elements of the regional context of V7V are summed up (this is the region in the South East of Madagascar where the project of the partners are concentrated). They are important to support the discussion of the evaluations questions on relevance and coherence, further in the text. Food security and agriculture, gender Important differences exist between districts in the region V.7.V. and especially between districts at the coastal side of the region and in the mountains, regarding in food security, agricultural systems, coping mechanisms, attitude and traditional governance. The main activity of most households at the Coastal side is fishing. Cash crops play an important role in the region for food security of households, at the Coast side (cloves, black pepper, litchis, ) as well as in the mountains (bananas, coffee, ). Even staples as rice are sold, also by vulnerable households. Some of the cash crops in particular put an end to the lean period for many households (e.g. harvest of cloves). Most vulnerable and average vulnerable households are net buyers of food. Agricultural productivity is generally very low, characterized by very low level of agricultural intensification, limited availability and access to traditional and alternative agricultural inputs, decreasing soil fertility. Declining soil fertility and droughts are linked with high degree of deforestation. 4 This chapter is based on the results of the Group discussions, on the GTDR Vatovavy Fitovinany and on the information gained from consultations with local and national stakeholders. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 14/105

Zones with one harvest per year are affected by a sharp lean period of 4 months or more during which the number and quality of meals is reduced. Land is unequally distributed. In the group consultations during the evaluation, it has been observed that important land owners exist (depending on the zone, from 5 to 20 or 100 hectares). In 2 of the villages (Coast side) and based on the results of the group discussions (PADEV) 40% of the population is not exploiting any land anymore. This doesn t necessarily imply that these households are not involved in agriculture anymore. In about half of these cases (based in information of group discussions at the Coast side), households don t have land or have lost their land in informal credit arrangements between land owners and vulnerable households, with their land as guarantee or in informal share cropping arrangements. Other households still own land but don t dispose of the labor nor of other inputs to cultivate land. (ii) Women are disadvantaged in the traditional land systems (although depending on the local traditional systems). Women mostly don t inherit land or loose land after divorce. Also, even if they can use land, mostly they can t start cultivation of permanent crops. In the communes at the Coast side, a lot of titled state land (AMVR) exists, often concerning previous colonial plantations. Intra family land conflicts appear frequently and take up an important part of the court cases at the local level. In some districts at the coast side, a tradition exists to have different illegitimate children with several women, resulting in high vulnerability of some of these women and their households. Women are disadvantaged regarding (i) alphabetization and thus access to information and limited awareness of their rights, (ii) formal access to land and credit, (iii) formal participation into local institutions, (iv) access to potable water, (v) neglect of illegitimate households by men. The region, and the coast side more intensively than the rest of the region, is yearly touched by at least one cyclone (variable in strength), impacting heavily on social structure of the local population and agricultural investments. Yearly households drop into poverty because of the cyclone. Agricultural inputs, cultivars and systems and community management are not well adapted yet to prevent and manage the effects of these shocks. Governance and cooperation As a consequence of the yearly occurrence of the cyclones, emergency programs are almost to be considered as permanent. Overall, but even more pronounced in the districts at the Coast side, traditional leadership is still very strong. This goes together with limited accessibility by local population towards these leaders, poor communication with leaders and by leaders. In general, traditions and superstitions are still very present in these districts as well.

Partly as a consequence of the fragile situation overall, the region is characterized by many punctual, ad hoc programs, relying on subsidies and short term interventions. Civil society is very weakly organized and hardly present in policy dialogues. The chore of the decentralization process in the region lies with the communes, which are considered as the main point of entry for many projects. State services (incl. agricultural services) have financially almost completely been dismantled and new ministries are being created or are yet to be created (e.g. new ministry of Water). Regarding wealth categories in the local communities in V.7.V ( poor, vulnerable, average vulnerable, wealthy ), following characteristics differentiate poor and vulnerable households (for elaboration - see reports on group discussions in annex 5). These households don t cultivate land except as laborers for others, they have many, young children and no access to additional labor. Households of the poor category work occasionally on field of other people and sell charcoal and wood. The percentage of widows and divorced women is high in this category. Households of the vulnerable category work in a regular mode on larger agricultural estates and rent out their own land. Households of the average vulnerable category, cultivate 2-5ha of land and often also rent out some of their land. They have access to small credits (TIAVO) but also regularly work on estates to cover immediate expenses. Households of the most wealthy category own and cultivate important surface of land, employ permanently labor (agriculture), use fertilizer, have commercial activities or salaried persons in the extended family and have access to more important amounts of credit. They regularly consume meat. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 16/105

1.4. ICCO SUPPORTED PROJECTS IN MADAGASCAR 1.4.1. ICCO S FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO FS PROJECTS IN MADAGASCAR The total support via MFS FS in Madagascar, between 2007 and June 2010, is of 1.193.710 euro. A total of 9 partners are involved, but 2/3 of the budget is spent by 2 partners. More than 80% of the total budget of ICCO in Madagascar is spent to projects with links to food security (incl. water). Also support to FED exists in Madagascar. The total support via MFS FS in Madagascar, between 2007 and June 2010, is of 1.193.710 euro 5. The support to food security in Madagascar by MFS, represents 4,17% of the total support to FS by MFS (ICCO) and 22% of the expenditure of MFS to food security in Southern Africa. The first ICCO intervention strategy dominates, with 70% of the total budget in Madagascar. A total of 9 partners is involved, but 2/3 of the budget is spent by 2 partners (SAF/FJKM and FIANTSO), which are the only partners having spent more than 200.000 euro during this time period on FS. The total budget dedicated to Madagascar by ICCO during the considered time period is of 2.448.233 euro, implying that about half of the budget is taken by FS MFS. In reality ICCO also facilitates programs supported by the EU (EU, ECHO), through the same partners and related to food security (access to potable water and disaster risk management). Including these programs, then in total 2/3 of the ICCO budget in Madagascar (2007-2010) is related to food security. The rest of the ICCO support in Madagascar is to be found under the program of value chain approaches for a total of 704.068 euro divided over TIAVO (micro-credit, stands for 1/6 of total budget ICCO in Madagascar) and COLDIS (cooperative). However, the products of TIAVO and the relation between TIAVO and ICCOs partners have been focused on food security, during 2007-2010. The contribution of ICCO has been in terms of a bank guarantee. 1.4.2. INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF THE TOTAL SET OF FS PROJECTS (ICCO) IN MADAGASCAR The ICCO projects in Madagascar are not integrated in nature, they present specialised sector projects (water, land, credit, cereal banks and risk management), but they originated from a large integrated EU program in the past 6. Considered over the long term, there exists a clear tendency of (i) moving from an integrated food security project implemented by one partner (the project was part of a larger EU program), towards a increased number of partners each 5 The other roles of ICCO are described under evaluation question 8. 6 Within this EU program, ICCO had a relatively small budget but high ambitions in terms of target area and sectors covered.

involved for their specific specialisation, (ii) progressively improving and intensifying collaboration between partners and (iii) geographical concentration (V7V) and (iv) including increasingly elements of the FED approach, with support to cooperatives, creating structural opportunities for improved competitiveness of farmers. Important evolutions took place since 2007, when food security became the main focus of the MFS finance. SAF has put more focus on improving organisation of producers at village level, and created the SIIV network, a network of cereal banks. The cereal banks improve the availability of the main staple food (rice) in the villages and can also serve as guarantee to have access to credit (linked to Tiavo, see further). To arrive at a more sustainable management of the credit fund, ICCO facilitated a strategic link between the network of SIIV and the MFI Tiavo. The ICCO support to TIAVO (guarantee fund for loan of BoA) allowed TIAVO, as the only rural MFI in V7V to continue and expand its rural banks. Since 2007 TIAVO opened progressively rural banks in each municipality in which the SIIV has installed one or more warehouses (currently 35 warehouses). The SIIV supported didn t manage to develop other economic activities (than rice storage) and for TIAVO it was too costly to maintain its banks in the rural communes without sufficient economic activity.to guarantee better the economic aspects of the SIIV and rural dynamics, the mutuelles of TIAVO have started another cooperative for economic activities (COLDIS). The vision is that SIIV and other local actors become member of COLDIS. SAF/FKJKM are currently reorganising FACOPA to support COLDIS and to support the network of SIIV and cooperatives towards autonomy and to integrate them in market dynamics, potentially linked to COLDIS. A separate pilot project for land ownership has been launched in 3 communes with a specialised partner organisation (FIANTSO,2007-2009). This pilot project, called FIELD, will now be extended to 28 communes. The component of the EU-project in the field of water and sanitation has been valorised to formulate an ambitious water and sanitation project called PAMOLEA (2007-2012) implemented by SAF/SJKM and 3 other NGO s and subsidized by EU. During the EU project the malnutrition problem has been addressed through nutritional education for women groups at village level in collaboration with the ONN. In august 2007 a project proposal was submitted to the «Programme d appui à la Nutrition à Madagascar (Pronumad III) but hasn t been approved by the EU. Seen the continuous impact of droughts and floods on the households in the V7V region and on the effects of the projects, co-funding from ECHO and ICCO has facilitated the implementation of a Disaster risk reduction project by SAF/FJKM. The DRR project knows currently follow-up in the form of different short term projects: (i) scaling up of the initial project by the project RARIVATO, (ii) linking with FAO to integrate FS and agricultural aspects in the original DRR philosophy (project PATSA) and (iii) a project to capitalise experiences under joint initiative, with other partners of ECHO. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 18/105

Other partners have been involved to strengthen lobby activities, to improve information flow and to include environmental aspects (CEDII, VOARISOA, CCDN, CMP). In 2008, 7 organisations, each of them partner of ICCO, have started a platform, to exploit better potential complementarities (TIAVO, SAF/SJKM, COLDIS, CEDII, CPM, VOARISOA, FIANTSO). Since 2010 the Coalition Life is officially registered as an association and in November 2010 the Coalition has recruited an executive director. In table 2 (below) an overview is presented of the involved partners for food security in the V7V region or at the national level, together with their main sector involvement and their budget within MFS.

Table 2: Overview of partners MFS involved in food security in Madagascar Partner Role/sector Level regarding involvement FS/MFS % of budget for direct poverty alleviation SAF/FJKM* FIANTSO* Network of cereal banks (FACOPA) and moving to : organisation of farmers, cooperative movement Land certificates and decentralisation Budget MFS/FS (2007- June 2010) % of total MFS/FS budget Madagascar Remarks Mainly regional (V7V) 83% 577.503 48% Access to water and saniation (PAMOLEA with EU) (Disaster Risk Management (with ECHO): DRR and FS:rehabilitation of small scale irrigation systems, seed production etc. Region (V7V) 44% 230.943 19% ICCO has supported a general decentralisation project of FIANTSO, of which only part was financed under food security and has also financed a project on decentralised land offices (commune level) Region (V7V ) 70% 39.650 3% ICCO broke up contract because of not-transparent accounts Region (V7V) and 0% 65.000 5% national National 20% 27.346 2% Currently no contract with ICCO, are CCDN Forest corridor, AGR for women, nutrition CMP Management of natural resources Voarisoa Biological farming, phytosanitary products working on a proposal CEDII Information centres, Region (V7V) and 25% 103.827 9% coordination and national strengthening of civil society CNOE Democratisation National 0% 52.500 4% Not under FS program anymore, financed on other funds currently VU Research access to National 8% 58.155 5% Currently not involved in the Amsterdam land projects anymore TIAVO* Rural micro finance 4 regions, amongst 100% 398.968 (bank - Financed under MFS DREO (cooperative) which (V7V); union on guarantee) the regional level, mutelles at intermediate level, caisses at the commune level ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 20/105

COLDIS Cooperative (mainly export) Region (V7V) and international 100% 250.000 (bank guarantee) (in November 2010, COLDIS has received a new bank guarantee of 325.000 euro for the ongoing campaign) - Financed under MFS DREO *Involved in this evaluation

2. Main findings and conclusions 2.1. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: RELEVANCE OF THE UNDERLYING POLICY AND STRATEGY OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 1: Relevance of the underlying policy and strategy of the program DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent have the ICCO policy and strategies offered a specific framework to address the rights and needs related to food security of the most vulnerable? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 1.1 ICCO has developed clear and useful strategies and policies. 1.2 The strategies and policies are relevant with view to current context and policies regarding the right to food. Main findings and conclusions 1.1. ICCO (Madagascar) has not developed a formal strategy document on food security or on a food security program and has never had the intention to do so. ICCO selects and supports a set of partners and the strategy and strategy setting of partners is supported/ facilitated by ICCO. Each partner focuses on a different aspect of rural development. Since 2008 ICCO has promoted closer collaboration and exchange between these partners (programmatic approach), which is strengthening their motivation to focus together more on food security in future). The global ICCO FS strategy is thus not useful for partners, they develop their own sector strategies or potentially common FS strategies. Based on observations by the consultants and based on direct input from the 3 ICCO partners, it is concluded that the global ICCO FS strategy is not fully clear or relevant in the context of Madagascar, for the following aspects: (a) finality of partnerships; (b) pathways to make inclusion of vulnerable groups operational;(c) importance of micro credit for food security (is lacking in the FS strategy); (d) link between pillar of access to food and FED strategy (local markets). The consultant also observes that the role of decentralized institutions for food security is not mentioned in the food security strategy of ICCO, while considered as important in the intervention strategies of some of the partners in Madagascar. 1.2. Several elements support the relevance 7 of ICCO FS strategy in Madagascar compared to the context. The support of ICCO and the interventions of the partners regarding rural credit 7 Which is not an explicit strategy but rather refers to a total set of partners and their strategies and projects ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 22/105

and to improve secure land rights, strengthen basic conditions for rural development. The focus on improved access to water and improved stock management (agricultural products) until the lean period and improved disaster risk management are coherent with priority needs of women in vulnerable households. The recently increased attention for agriculture and economic development in the strategies of ICCO s partners is relevant given the motivation of the population to move towards increasing their agricultural productivity and market access. Structuring farmers in cooperatives for marketing creates future opportunities to increase competitiveness and participation in markets of small farmers in the Madagascar context. The way this is approaches allows to make links with the existing associations and credit systems linked to food security. 2.1.1.EXISTENCE AND CLARITY OF STRATEGIES ICCO or the partners together have not developed a formal and written document regarding a possible food security strategy or program in Madagascar. ICCO in Madagascar has not had the intention to develop its own food security program or strategy. ICCO works with a set of partners and projects, each supporting a different aspect of rural development which are concentrated in V7V to increase impact and efficiency (but several projects or activities also touch neighboring regions). Partners determine their own strategy. Effects for food security are not monitored so far. Since 2008 ICCO has promoted closer collaboration and exchange between these partners (programmatic approach), which is strengthening their motivation to focus together more on food security in future (via vision development, monitoring of common indicators, intensifying joint activities, learning, lobby, etc.). In case they would agree in future to express together their vision or contribution to food security, ICCO would support them in that respect. Based on observations by the consultant, on input from partners and compared to the local realities in Madagascar, some unclear or incomplete aspects of the overall ICCOs FS and partner strategies appear. The final purpose of the partnership with ICCO is not clear for the partners: will ICCO strengthen partners with the idea to finalize the partnership once they have grown into more autonomous organizations or does ICCO envision lasting but changing partnerships and role?. Does ICCO envision one FS program (one program document, central funding), in which all ICCO partners take up one role, or, will partners be financed individually?. According to the partners and the target group aspects of agricultural productivity and access to markets, should be accentuated in the ICCO food security policy. It is also not clear what the differences are between the access to markets aspects of FS compared to an operational FED approach.

It is not clear to what extent vulnerable groups need to be specifically targeted. For the partners, the gender aspect is the main entry point towards reaching vulnerable groups, they are not convinced additional measures are necessary or feasible. They expect clearer orientation of ICCO or share experience with ICCO and partners on how to make this pro poor orientation operational. Partners note that it would require very different strategies to include the most vulnerable in a direct way, the approach would also ask for more time and budget (than the current projects can provide). Access to micro credit, for agriculture, but also for education and other small needs or investments, is crucial for food security, according to partners and later confirmed during the group discussions in the villages. It is not clear why the FS strategy of ICCO is not referring or giving orientation towards microfinance. The consultant also observes that the role of decentralized institutions for food security is not mentioned in the food security strategy of ICCO, while considered as important in the intervention strategies of some of the partners in Madagascar. 2.1.2. RELEVANCE OF STRATEGIES The total set of strategies of the partners, supported by ICCO firstly demonstrate some strong points regarding their relevance within the local context. Focus lies on (i) organization of small producers at grass root level to better manage and stock their harvest to increase food availability and access to food during the lean period; (ii) support to the penetration of rural micro finance and agricultural credit into rural areas; (iii) support to the development of land certification systems to secure land ownership rights; (iv) establishing formal links between storage and ownership at one side and access to credit at the other side. In this way the projects choose explicitly (and increasingly) for a structural development approach, supporting to an enabling environment and in contrast with the many emergency programs and short term punctual grants that are common in the region of V.7.V. Improved access to water and the improved management of food/crop stocks and income during the lean period, are perceived as being at heart of the needs of rural women. Even though access to land and land rights never appear on the top of problems/ needs as perceived by the rural population, it appears that land conflicts, mostly within families, are on top of the local court cases and that land is increasingly unequally distributed in rural areas. Also, seen the decreasing soil fertility, more investments in land will be necessary, and thus clarity on ownership of land will be increasingly important. For future structural rural development concerns, formalizing access to land, also for women, appears thus necessary. During 2009 and clearly in 2010, the attention for economic aspects in the set of ICCO supported FS projects is increasing ( access to food ). These aspects have been stated as ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 24/105

crucial for food security in the villages. Households sell a lot of their produce (cash crops, but also food crops) and buy in general a lot of food. Their incomes depend directly or indirectly on the level of agricultural productivity. The demand for adapted agricultural inputs, irrigation schemes and water management; to add value to products and to market more efficiently, is high. Structuring farmers in cooperatives for marketing creates future opportunities to increase competitiveness and participation in markets of small farmers in the Madagascar context. The way this is approaches allows to make links with the existing associations and credit systems linked to food security. Rural households have systematically accentuated the negative impact of cyclones on their well being and on the social structure in the villages and the need of adapted measures and crops. Support to risk management and adaptation measures are thus rightly included within the total set of projects by ICCO s partners (currently short term projects implemented by SAF with ECHO support). Also some gaps have appeared in the light of the local context and needs. The attention for agricultural development (access to fertilizer, agricultural techniques and follow up, irrigation and water management) and commercialization (to improve availability of food and access to food) has only increased very recently (e.g. in PATSA agricultural plays an important role, attention for development of SIIV cooperatives and for COLDIS). The intended partnerships (by SAF and Fiantso with local projects as Interaid, Prosperer, ) for these aspects were limited to punctual interventions during 2007-2010 (mostly training for farmers) and were not always formalized in conventions between NGOs/programs 8. Very few pilot projects were included for setting up sustainable and affordable input supply systems. Support to youth (18-30 years old) is not very explicit in the strategies of the partners (based on their (draft) business plans, project documents and based on the discussions with 3 partners, although young people compose an important part of the population, show potential for innovation but are traditionally not taken into account. Also during the group discussions in the villages it emerged that the majority of the beneficiaries of the partners projects are not belonging to this age category. 8 However, Fiantso did have a convention with Interaid however and is now in the stage of formalizing cooperation with Prosperer. SAF works together with IFAD for Parakam and with FAO for PATSA, related to agriculture but in the field of disaster risk management or emergency aid. It is for example only very recently that pathways are sought to connect cooperatives with state induced instruments to finance agricultural interventions (CSA, FRDA)

2.2. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: COHERENCE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 2: Coherence of the implementation of the strategy DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent are the ICCO strategies and policies translated into the cooperation and to what extent have possible synergies in the strategies been used optimally? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 2.1. The ambitions and theory of change of the ICCO food security strategies are translated into partner selection and in the budget allocation 2.2. ICCO can guarantee that translation of strategies in the field are adapted to local context 2.3. Complementarities between objectives, partners, country strategies have been optimally used Most important findings and conclusions 2.1 The global ICCO FS strategy is not well reflected in the projects/ partners in Madagascar. (i) The total set of projects in Madagascar reflects a structural rural development approach and supports pre-conditions (enabling environment) for agricultural income generation by vulnerable rural households. The projects mostly don t intervene directly at the household level. (ii) Food security is not analyzed, nor monitored, although intentions exist by the recently founded Coalition Life (partners of ICCO). (iii) Proper utilization of food 9 has not been included in the total set of projects, mainly due to the fact that a related project proposal has not been approved. (iv) support to improve agricultural production and agricultural productivity has only punctually been addressed during 2007-2010. Partnerships in this domain, have only poorly been developed by ICCOs partners (with recently increased attention). The food security program seems to know a prudent transition towards a value chain program, which is relevant given local needs but poses challenges regarding inclusion of vulnerable households and right to food angle. Aspects of the right to food are most clearly reflected by interventions of 1 of the 3 partners (Fiantso has a very clear lobby strategy and strengthens capacity of decentralized institutions in the framework of right to land) but is not integrated in the dynamics of 9 Complementarities with ICCO supported water project exist (EU funding). ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 26/105

structuring the civil society at grass root level. SAF demonstrates a need based approach. Tiavo has a commercial approach (credit). Intra household aspects a basic element of the right to food approach- don t get explicit attention. Women rights are however addressed successfully. The intervention area (with a concentration in V.7.V. is one of the most vulnerable zones in Madagascar. Criteria to include vulnerable communes and households are not clearly applied by partners, orientation in that respect is weak. Still, partners address typical structural vulnerabilities of the rural population to increase resilience and income generation. Activities are also adapted to interests of women and are accessible for women. But strengthening women rights and support for effective institutional integration of women is only addressed by one partner. 2.2. ICCO has supported strategic orientation of the food security program in Madagascar by selection of specialized partners. Strategic orientations of the projects themselves (by partners) are mainly based on valorization of past achievements and on opportunities to access (external) financial resources. Partners design and write their proposals and involve the target group. ICCO asks diagnostics by the partners. Diagnostics remain sector specific (each partner NGO for its proper sector, not focused on food security). 2.3. ICCO and partners are moving increasingly to a set of specialized partners (in 1 sector, Fiantso: land, Tiavo: credit, SAF: organization of farmers and cereal bank concepts) with increased concentration of activities in 1 region (V.7.V). Operational integration (same target group) within the intervention region exists already, concentrated around links to rural micro finance (link between members of cereal banks and micro finance of TIAVO are already very important), but overlap of targeted zones is generally still weak, although improving. The existing examples of this integration have demonstrated deepened effects on households. Also complementarities between projects funded from different sources (MFS, ECHO, EU) exist and are increasing. There exists a clear link between the FED projects and the FS project which is moving to a process to integrate the same cooperatives and both are linked to Tiavo (storage credit, founding members). Capitalization of local experiences for replication or lobby at the national level are still rare, but do appear already (Fiantso has used this strategy more systematically: see evaluation question 7). Role division between partners for interventions on the local or national level has remained vague.

2.2.2 THE AMBITIONS AND THEORY OF CHANGE OF THE ICCO FOOD SECURITY STRATEGIES ARE TRANSLATED INTO PARTNER SELECTION AND IN THE BUDGET ALLOCATION A formal, written food security strategy or program doesn t exist in Madagascar (ICCO). ICCO supports well selected partners for their strategic priorities. Also this is to be seen as a process in evolution, the strategy evolves, the partners specialize etc. The orientation of the set of partners that support FS in Madagascar is more on creating/supporting development of preconditions for rural development. It is recently, with Coalition Life that ICCO is more explicitly facilitating the partners to discuss their vision on food security amongst each other. The line between activities to improve food availability or to improve access to food is very fine in the projects in Madagascar, in fact most interventions envision both changes, budgets are not clearly divided between these two pillars. Currently there is no budget for the nutrition aspect, except indirectly for the PAMOLEA (EU water facility - access to potable water). The set of partners doesn t fully reflect the global ICCO FS strategy (i) in terms of final goal: food security is only explicitly considered as a final goal by 1 partner (SAF) and is still not monitored, (ii) in terms of sectors covered (nutrition aspects not included, agricultural productivity only very punctually addressed during the period 2007-2010), and in terms of (iii) in right to food: intra household aspects are not explicitly addressed, 1/3 partners is really active and prominent for local and national lobby for aspects related to the right to food. The aspect of right to food is present in the mission and interventions of 1 of the 3 partners (Fiantso, access to land). Fiantso has also strengthened downward accountability of communes, but this aspect is classified in Fiantso s action plan as to be further elaborated and strengthened (and this was confirmed during field visits and dialogue with the commune and local population). There exist a tendency to include the FED aspects within the FS approach of ICCO in Madagascar. This is relevant and strengthen the economic capacity and voice of rural households, but (i) risks to change target groups (e.g. with the creation of local cooperatives next to the SIIV associations, the most vulnerable members of SIIV have not yet adhered to the cooperatives). Regarding the focus on vulnerable groups, (i) the geographical focus on V.7.V. is relevant. V.7.V. is amongst the most vulnerable regions in Madagascar with high levels of malnutrition (see chapter on context), but V.7.V is not the most vulnerable but amongst the most vulnerable regions. (ii) The selection of communes is not based on poverty criteria but rather on (a) vague perception regarding dynamism of the commune and (b) on obvious gaps in respective sub sectors (e.g. % or number of people without access to potable water or communes which are most severely affected by cyclones). (iii) SAF and Fiantso clearly ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 28/105

express pro poor values and a philosophy of inclusion 10. However there are no criteria used or no analysis or monitoring in place to make sure that vulnerable households are effectively included. Also within their support to institutional development of SIIVs (SAF) or communes (Fiantso), aspects of systematic inclusion or monitoring of vulnerable groups are not reflected (for effects on vulnerable groups see evaluation question 3 and 4). ICCO regularly mentions aspects of vulnerability in their dialogue with the partners, but this is not binding and ICCO doesn t necessarily give orientation on how to make this concept operational. SAF and Fiantso lack operational vision on translation of their vision on inclusion into their interventions. Gender is taken well into account by the partners in terms of adaptation of activities oriented towards interest of women (specific credit products for school fees/costs, social cereal bank, access to land for women), even though their participation is not always institutionalized/formalised. For the SIIVs for example, only about 1/5 of members are women and these concern mostly women as head of single headed households. But the challenge of managing food stocks and managing the lean period is clearly a women s matter within the households in the intervention region (see also group discussions and result of discussions with SIIVs during the evaluation). On several occasions it became clear (in discussions with SIIV and in the villages) that the wives of members of SIIV in fact keep the key of the food storage. The same counts for FIANTSO: the number of land certificates that are eventually delivered to women remain so far a minority compared to certificates for men. Still, one of the main effects has exactly been the improved awareness of women (and men) on women s rights in general (see evaluation question 3 and 4). Also TIAVO has developed specific credit products adapted to needs of women (e.g. credit for education), despite the fact that under the elected leaders, women are a minority. Even if the gender aspect is very present, the intra household effects don t get attention or not well known by the partners. 2.2.3.ADAPTATION TO LOCAL CONTEXT SAF and Fiantso systematically implement participatory diagnostics (before formulation of a project or/and just before implementation of a project). These diagnostics are sector specific (e.g. % of land with land title, % of households with land certificate, tax income of communes, communication capacity of the commune etc.). The initial diagnostics are followed up by frequent consultation of the involved beneficiaries or villages or local institutions. These diagnostics and consultations don t regularly include an analysis of the 10 Tiavo (micro credit) clearly expresses in its mission and vision that only this segment of the population is envisioned which can guarantee reimbursement of the credits. This was also confirmed during village discussions: the guarantees asked by Tiavo and the procedures proposed by Tiavo are currently too high for many vulnerable and poor households. Still, it also became clear that the guarantees asked are mainly severe compared to the non existence of guidance for the implementation of their projects.

overall food security or vulnerability status of the population and of their priority needs. There doesn t exists a gender analysis (not by individual partners or by the Coalition). Intra household relations are not analyzed. Strategic priorities by partners are set before these diagnostics take place and seem to be mainly based on: (i) valorization of what has worked in previous projects, of achievements or pilotes; (ii) availability of resources for specific sectors or projects. (iii) TIAVO has a policy to cover rural areas and, if possible, to do this in complementarity with accompanying services for rural population (SIIV, land certificates, agricultural projects as Prosperer). (iv) ICCO has played a role in inspiring some of the strategic orientations. It is not so much ICCOs explicit opinion that has been translated into strategic orientation but rather the ambiguity or the possible/perceived ICCO orientation that sometimes makes partners move in a certain direction, undoubtedly linked with the persisting dependency of partners of the financial support of ICCO 11. 2.2.4.COMPLEMENTARITIES ICCO has selected (increasingly) specialized partners. The ICCO partners are active in complementary sectors for rural development (micro credit, access to water, access to land, disaster risk management, environmental issues, cooperatives, etc.) and are operationally supported to concentrate increasingly in one region. Different sources of funds are used in a complementary way (e.g. EU water facility, ECHO for risk management are all seen in the same theory of change as the MFS FS funds). The partners and interventions demonstrate consequently an important potential for synergies (influencing target groups from different angles). In reality the synergies have remained limited but are currently being intensified. In Figure 1 (below), the intervention zones of the different ICCO partners within the region of V.7.V. are indicated (source: ICCO Madagascar). It becomes clear that the geographic integration is limited but existing (only a small minority of communes knows a combination of interventions of 4 partners). Given the fact that food security is not analyzed, there doesn t exists an overall view on priority needs or priority communes for food security. There are no objective criteria used related to food security for selection of communes by the partners (yet). Also, it is clear that full operational integration would not be relevant. It wouldn t be relevant to impose support to sectors if there doesn t exist a demand by the village. Still there exists integration of some activities between the different partners and these are mainly linked to finding synergies with rural micro credits (Tiavo). Tiavo has established local banks ( caisses ) systematically where SIIVs have been supported in order to match the 11 This influence has lead sometimes to too early evolutions compared to the capacity or needs of target groups. An example is the formation of local cooperatives based on the SIIV associations, supported/ stimulated by SAF. SAF had perceived ICCOs interest in the cooperative COLDIS and other signals as to be important signs for future priorities for a value chain approach and has hastily proceeded with supporting the creation of cooperatives. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 30/105

storage certificates of SIIVs as a guarantee to access credits. For the selection of future communes (in the new FIELD project), Fiantso will prioritize communes where FACOPA (SAF) and TIAVO (local banks) are already present. These synergies, although their potential has not been exploited and valorized fully (see evaluation questions 3 and 4), are trendsetting for other programs to increase synergies with rural micro credit (Interaid, Prosperer, soon Salohi). The cooperation between the rural credit institution (TIAVO) and local development organizations (like SAF and FIANTSO) has not been obvious, although strategically necessary and relevant. Their organizational culture differs, TIAVO having commercial objectives (economic growth), and SAF and FIANTSO having development objectives (economic (re)distribution). ICCO has been able to involve partners that are active on the local level and partners that are active on the national level or both (see table 2). Local experiences are mainly capitalized to be used in national lobby trajectories by Fiantso and Fiantso also involves local institutions (mainly communes) within this national lobby. Still the capitalization of local experiences remains rather oral and is mostly not illustrated or analyzed in depth 12 (see also evaluation question 6 and 7). The division of roles between the local and the national organizations remains vague, also in the coalition LIFE (see evaluation question 6). 12 Although with the lobby trajectory concerning the AMVR, a quantitative interpretation of local reality was available, also the lobby trajectory regarding the rail way, a video was produced: see evaluation question 6 and 7.

ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 32/105

2.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: IMPROVED FOOD AVAILABILITY ON THE HOUSEHOLD LEVEL Methodological aspects Availability of data on impact (=food security of vulnerable groups) is weak (partners, local availability of data on food security), analysis is thus difficult. However, outcome and direct outreach are monitored by partners (per project). These data have been crossed with the results of the group discussions during the evaluation (results regarding impact and changes from group discussions based on PADEV methodology). The effects of partners lie mainly in creating an enabling environment/ preconditions to improve food security. Certain activities and their outcomes are therefore linked to both food availability as well as to access to food. The distinction of activities and outcomes of partners (which only indirectly food security) over the different pillars of food security (global ICCO FS strategy) is therefore quite artificially. The possible effects of the cereal banks and organization of farmers are discussed under availability of food and the improved access to credit and land under access to food. Note that members of the cereal bank associations can use the stored product as storage certificate to obtain credit. The program exists out of different projects by different specialized partners, each supporting one niche or sub sector. Therefore, in the section that follows, partners have been discussed sometimes separately. EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 3: Improved food availability at the household level DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence food availability for vulnerable households in a structural and gender sensitive way and why? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 3.1. Availability of food for vulnerable households has changed 3.2. The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households 3.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household level 3.1. Members of the network of SIIVs (35 socio-economic cereal banks, total of 1730 members) witness of improved management of food (and cash crops stocks to lesser extend) and changed attitude towards storage of their harvest. The lean period of the members of SIIV (about 1700) has been reduced (1/2 to 1/3 shorter) and quality of meals during the lean period has improved (on the level of household, no clear view on intra household distribution of this improvement) (based on group discussions during the mission). The amplitude of these effects is limited still; the total volume of the stocks are currently small because of weak agricultural productivity of farmers. The SIIVs have not developed other economic activities.

The SIIV associations have been able to include some very vulnerable households/individuals. Gender is well taken into account, especially the fact that the envisioned changes are at the centre of the interest of women and are accessible for women. Women remain however underrepresented in governance and leadership positions in local structures. The stocks in the cereal banks can be used by individual members to gain access to credit (Tiavo, based on storage certificates). SIIVs have promoted the rural penetration of Tiavo: Tiavo has systematically started caisses in SIIV zones (one caisse per commune, while there can be several villages with a SIIV in one commune). Reimbursement by SIIV members reaches almost 100%. 3.2 Farmers have been organized in associations, which are organizationally stable but not fully financially viable yet and not fully autonomous yet. Their role towards their members is still quite limited (and associations have not developed other economic activities). The recently created local cooperatives (and their possible membership to COLDIS in future) are still in an immature stage but have the potential to grow into more sustainable structures and to strengthen the competitiveness of farmers in terms of productivity and market access. The sustainability of the effects is not fully guaranteed yet. Overall, the sustainability of the different results of the interventions will depend on (i) improved disaster risk management by households and communities; (ii) on increasing agricultural productivity (cereal banks stock capacity is not fully used and members have no access to support their agricultural productivity except by punctual agricultural training), (iii) on further efforts to support SIIVs towards autonomous structures. 3.3 The consultant finds elements that these effects can be attributed to efforts of SAF and Tiavo (ICCO s partners). 2.3.1. CHANGES IN FOOD AVAILABILITY Following objectives and expected results were fixed for the project FACOPA 13 of SAF. General Objective : Economic development is stimulated and food security has improved in the region of V.F. Specific objectives: Within the limits of respect for legislation and of the requirements by the sector of microfinance, agricultural producers, excluded from formal bank services, 13 Before 2007, the support to SIIVs, by SAF/FJKM, was part of an integrated project PSA-SE in which the SIIV network represented only one component and they were not yet linked to TIAVO (micro credit). Also in the PSA-SE the agricultural component was quite weakly developed. At the end of the project, it was recommended to strengthen the SIIVs further organisationally and to differentiate their roles into more economic activities (e.g. Provision of inputs). ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 34/105

are organized to constitute a network of warehouses which benefits from adapted financial products on the size of their activities. Expected results: (i) By the end of 2010, 35 new warehouses are equipped and adapted to the specificities of the zones (cyclones) and based on investments for which maintenance and replacement of pieces can be done with the financial profits (ii) Members play their role, in accordance with the regulations of management of the SIIVs (55 community warehouses), in order to guarantee their continuity.(iii) The credit takers develop viable activities with the credits based on storage and with the benefits gained from the price increased of their stored products. (iv) An effective partnership between TIAVO and SAF/FJKM is developed to install advise and follow up services of the technical activities supported by the local financial services. With FACOPA, SAF has firstly supported a network of SIIVs to improve storage capacity and management of food (and other agricultural product stocks) via warehouses and warehouse associations. The expectations are that the improved management of stocks allows better food availability during the lean period and also allows to take profit of the price increases towards the period of the lean period. As presented in the first indicators in table 3, progress has been made indeed in this respect. The network of SIIV has expanded and the number of members has increased (to about 1730 members). Although both are below expectations, the achievements are considered as important. About 1/5 of the local households have a member in SIIV, sometimes one household has several members at the SIIV. The % of stock capacity of the SIIVs effectively used, remains below expectations and remains too low to guarantee viability. The storage is mainly used for rice, but also for cash crops (especially coffee in the highlands, cloves at the coast side). Based on discussions with beneficiaries the weak use of the storages is due to low production volumes of members and due to effects of cyclones. The management and governance capacity of the SIIVs has improved, more than 80% has renewed its governance structures (management committees and general assembly). However, these changes mostly happened because of weaknesses in transparence of financial management; During the discussions with the SIIV members and during the group discussions in the villages, it became clear that the duration of lean period was about halved for members of the SIIVs (from 4 months to about 2 months) and that quality of meals during the lean period has improved, thanks to access to food stocks and thanks to access to extra income (linked to price increase of stored produce). Women also insisted to include the fact that the household management of food and budget improved overall. Given the small quantities stored in the SIIVs, price stabilization (in the respected zone) has not been influenced.

A second focus of FACOPA has been the link between micro credit and the SIIVs; a concept in which certificates of stocks are used as guarantee to get credits. The expected results lay in the field of increased access to credit and improved economic investments by members of SIIV and in the penetration of rural microfinance in the rural zones of SIIVs. SAF and TIAVO have indeed started and maintained a partnership. TIAVO has expanded systematically its local banks ( caisses ) in zones where SIIVS are active and has, by doing so, improved its rural penetration (although still below expectations - see table 3). Their penetration is higher in SIIV areas. However, not all SIIV members have taken credit, on average 40% only. There are thus 60% members of SIIV which only use the SIIV for the storage facility. The reimbursement of the credits goes smoothly, no problems are recorded in that respect. Table 3: Overview of results and outcome of SAF (FACOPA) Type of expected result Target Achievement 1 Number of households involved in SIIV 2900 1730 (454 women), about 1/5 of households living in the specific interventions areas of SIIV 2 Number SIIVs 37 32 3 % of stocking capacity of SIIVs used 90% 50% 4 % of SIIVs that renewed their CDG/CG 87,5% (mostly because of weak financial management) 5 % of members SIIV that took credit 75% 40% 6 Penetration of IMF (Tiavo) in the area 35 25 (number of communes where present) 7 Penetration of IMF (TIAVO) I rural areas (% 15% 5% (15% in areas SIIV) of households being member of caisse) 8 % of members of TIAVO (IMF) that are 65% member of SIIV 9 % of reimbursement by SIIV 97% 100% 10 Number of members that took a stock 2900 252 (of average value of 547 euro) credit of a value of at least 100 euro 11 % of SIIV members that took different type of agricultural credits 44,3% to finance agricultural activities, 26,2% to finance small commerce, 23% to finance comm activities on large scale, 0,4% for renting material 12 % of credits for activities that were viable 67% 13 % of members SIIV who have a viability 70% Very few (partnership with CSA has started now, but analysis of the activity to undertake for which credit is are isolated cases) asked (before demand for credit) Source: End evaluation of FACOPA, 2010, SAF. Attention for vulnerable groups has not been explicit by the SIIVs (no specific selection mechanism or orientation); the SIIVs were not created with an orientation to include specifically the most vulnerable households. Still, some vulnerable households (from the category poor or vulnerable) are member of SIIVs, the threshold to access SIIVs are low. Vulnerable households generally don t attend sufficient production levels to stock their produce (many don t exploit land anymore anyhow, but work for other households enterprises). Vulnerable households also fail more frequently to present viable projects for micro credit. Although about only ¼ of the members of SIIV are women, the gender aspect is informally taken into account. Household food stocks are managed by women in the intervention area. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 36/105

In fact women manage the stocks of the SIIVs behind the screens. They are also the ones that have most explicitly witnessed (during group discussions) of impact in their households regarding food availability during the lean period and of improved food stock management at household level. The gender aspect has thus been taken into account but has not been formalized. Further differentiation of intra household impact has not been clarified during the mission and is not followed up by the project. 2.3.2. STABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES (SAF) Management, participation, governance and procedures of the SIIVs have improved. SIIVs have the potential to become sustainable structures. The sustainability of the SIIVs network is however not yet fully guaranteed (e.g. especially on the level of management and financial viability), the volumes stored are not yet sufficient and their autonomy is doubtful (they still rely on regular follow-up by SAF). The external links they have are mostly limited to Tiavo. The role they play for their members remains limited too, even though most associations have now also created a cooperative structure to allow them to be involved in economic transactions (input supply, commercialization etc.). Despite sensitization of these cooperatives on cooperative work, on their statutes and on organizational aspects, their exact vision on how to progress and how make a business remains rather weak. The structural impact of the project is undeniable. The project has contributed to the penetration of microfinance into rural areas (TIAVO) and has introduced the concept of storage credit in the region V7V, which will be an essential link in future value chains (see also start-up phase of COLDIS). Organization of farmers has progressed, which presents an opening for further organization of farmers for market access ( the vision of COLDIS is that the SIIVs become members of COLDIS, see further under COLDIS). The partnership between SAF and Tiavo and between the SIIVs and Tiavo seems sustainable and resistant but seems to vary from one zone to another. Generally the partnership has experienced a lot of tensions. Tensions were situated at the level of the organizational vision of SAF and Tiavo (SAFs vision supporting securing of food and income, TIAVO s vision based on a rural growth strategy) or were situated at the local level (e.g. competition between Tiavo and SIIV for storage facilities offered to their members; discussion about credit application procedures, guarantees needed, timing of allocation of credit, quality of credit in natura, etc.). The fact that TIAVO still prefers ICCO to facilitate the communication between SAF and Tiavo, witnesses of a continuous delicate relationship.

2.3.3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE PARTNER ORGANISATION SAF The partner organizations of ICCO (SAF and Tiavo) have contributed greatly to these achievements by their financial support, permanent follow up and capacity building and by facilitating exchange between associations (the SIIV members have not been supported by other organizations or programs) and with Tiavo. The effects have been tempered by the effects of cyclones. 2.4. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: IMPROVED ACCES TO FOOD BY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS EVALUATION QUESTION EQ4: Improved access to food by vulnerable households and individuals DESCRIPTION QUESTION To what extent have the interventions contributed to a changed access to food for households and individuals in a structural and gender sensitive way and why? CENTRAL JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 4.1. Access to food and food ingredients for vulnerable households and individuals has changed 4.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals 4.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level 4.1 Access to rural credit has improved. With support from (ICCO, bank guarantee) Tiavo has continued and expanded its rural penetration. Tiavo is currently the only MFI that offers rural micro credit nearby small farmers in V.7.V. Tiavo has currently more than 60.000 individual members (40% women), more than 70 local rural banks and grants more than 10.000 credits in 2009. The system of storage is formally linked to the credit system. Tiavo has created openings and basis for future value chain approaches with its storage credit. The credits have contributed to stabilization of schooling (of children) in vulnerable households and to securing agricultural campaigns, but overall the impact of the credit remains small compared to the total income of the households and have mainly stabilized incomes of more vulnerable households. Tiavo has also contributed to commerce and to agricultural investments of more wealthy farmers/households. Also regarding the access to land, progress has been made by ICCO s partner Fiantso. The Plofs, local committees for recognition of land rights and land certificates have contributed to a decrease in land conflicts and tranquility about land issues for present and future generations. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 38/105

Access to land by women is now accepted, also by local leaders. This has also promoted a more general awareness on women rights. The support to 3 local land offices (commune level) has not lead to an important increase in land certificates yet. Governance and management by the communes (3) improved, just as tax recovery. Communication towards population improved structurally in these 3 communes. The model of support to decentralization and local land rights systems is currently being replicated in 25 other communes by Fiantso. The improved access to credits and to land, have not been able to involve the majority of the vulnerable households. Women in general are affected positively by the direct improvements (almost half of clients of Tiavo are women and awareness on women rights has been stimulated by Fiantso via the angle of access to land). The interventions have thus lead to structural impact ( enabling environment ) in terms of access to land, credit, storage (see availability), improved quality of decentralization, improved awareness on women rights, improved structuring of farmers (the latter see availability ). These structural changes have only resulted in small concrete and economic differences for the target group (small credits, few farmers have currently land certificates). The structural effects have thus not been valorized economically for the target group, due to impact of cyclones, lack of support to increase agricultural productivity and market access for peasants. 4.2. The sustainability of the initiatives (land offices, financial results of TIAVO) is improving but especially the financial sustainability is not yet guaranteed and sensitive to the effects of cyclones. Some points of attention are (based on self assessment by partners during the evaluation): Tiavo (microfinance) considers it as an important challenge to further increase savings and to make members more responsible for the capitalization and management of their local banks. Communication will be strengthened in this domain. Fiantso. Despite the structural approach and important focus on capacity building and improved governance, the commune-initiatives are not yet financially viable or sustainable governance-wise and need further punctual support. The sustainability of the system is still very sensitive to political events and to cyclones, rendering the fiscal recovery difficult. Coldis. COLDIS organizational and institutional capacity is improving, including its international links to private sector, but still shows gaps. COLDIS anchorage at grass root (with producers) can further improve. COLDIS doesn t yet dispose of sufficient capital to finance a campaign. 4.3. There exist sufficient elements to judge that the contribution of the partners to the effects has been important. Tiavo is the only rural micro credit institution in the region of V.F. Fiantso supports communes which are not supported by other programs regarding land and decentralization issues. COLDIS doesn t differ from other collecting and exporting cooperatives at this moment but shows openings as a cooperative to expand its membership towards SIIVs or other local cooperatives and to diversify its services to their members.

2.4.1. CHANGES IN ACCESS BY FIANTSO (LAND), TIAVO (CREDIT) AND COLDIS The general objective of the intervention of FIANTSO is to stimulate the regional economy. The specific objective of their project has been to increase the investments in the agricultural sector by securing land rights. Expected results are: (i) all actors assume their roles and duties to promote decentralized management of land ; (ii) the decentralized land offices and the CRIF are operation ; (iii) the communes integrate CRIF-land offices as services ; (iv) the management of communal matters in the respective communes has improved. Fiantso has been supported for food security by ICCO via two projects: one project guichet foncier which was classified fully on the program of food security (MFS) and one project to support decentralization, of which only one fourth of the program was classified under the MFS food security program (PAD 14 ). In fact both projects concern decentralization projects. The project has guichets foncier has not only installed communal land offices but has sensitized and trained all involved local actors on their role in the process (CLF, elected authorities, deconcentrated services, traditional leaders, etc.). Fiantso has invested a lot of effort in the overall capacity and approaches of the commune with a strong focus on financial management, fiscal management and transparence/communication with the local population. In all stages, traditional authorities have been closely involved. The results have not yet, or weakly, been valorized economically at the household level. The 3 land offices are now functional, just as local land committees. The communal land offices have been installed and 2 agents per land office have been trained. Local structures and entities are strengthened and trained. Population has been sensitized on the relevance of land certificates and on tax recovery. Communication between the commune and the population has improved and communication committees are in place to distribute public information to the grass root level. Communes make results of fiscal earnings public and link them more explicitly to expenditure on public infrastructure in the communes. Fiscal incomes have increased (15% in 2008 to 70% in 2009 and for tax on land specifically from 50% in 2007 to 90% in 2009). The link between the decentralized entities and deconcentrated services has been strengthened, the link between different communes has also been strengthened. Important effects are: PLOF has been elaborated (as a technical requirement to opening the guichet ), local comité de reconnaissance foncier have been created (composed by community 14 There doesn t exist an end evaluation of the PAD program (1/4 financed within the FS program) and no household survey took place at the end of project to assess impact or satisfaction. 10 communes have been involved. At the end of the project, only 5 communes have been able to present a new action plan or priorities, and only these communes are further taken into the process by Fiantso. In the PAD, agricultural and local economic development have been promoted via the communes, mainly via installing a revolving fund at the commune level (renting of material etc.). ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 40/105

members) who have exact knowledge of borders of land. This leads to increased tranquility regarding land use for present and future generations. The number of land conflicts has decreased (e.g. Mizilo, in 2007 7 land conflicts a year were treated formally, which dropped to 2 in 2009). Land ownership and certificates for women are now accepted, also by traditional authorities. Together with this evolution, there is a growing recognition of women rights, still more amongst women than men. These structural achievements have, up till now, only weakly been translated into demands for land certificates 15 by the local population, especially for districts at the coast side (less for mountainous areas). This is not only so for FIANTSO but is also true for other similar projects in the wide area. The number of certificates actually delivered to women remains thus limited although the effect in terms of recognition of rights for women has been important, as has been witnessed in the group discussion in the villages and by other donors and actors. The certificates have not been fully valorized in terms of improved access to credit, a minority of the beneficiaries of the certificates have used their certificate as guarantee for a credit (Tiavo) (credit has been asked based on certificates for 1ha 44 only out of 118 ha certified (end of 2009)). Fiantso has set up conventions with Tiavo, Interaid and Prosperer for integration of their activities towards the beneficiaries of certificates (to valorize better the certificates in economic terms), but results have to be evaluated. Except for the important attention to rights of women in this context, vulnerable households have not (yet?) been influenced by the dynamics in the land sector (or only very indirectly by the public infrastructure that has improved thanks to better local tax income from communes). Tiavo is an IMF founded in 1997 and existing out of three layers: a union, 11 Mutelles and 88 caisses (of which 15 urban). ICCO has supported Tiavo with a loan guarantee (of about 400.000 euro) for a BoA loan (800.000 euro) to reach about 9.500 beneficiaries/members via storage credit. In the meantime, Tiavo has also developed storage-credit loose from the SIIV network. Currently the penetration of TIAVO in rural areas is around 5%. The number of members has increased to 60.000 and is planned to reach 100.000 by 2012. At least 2/5 of the members are women. TIAVO is not planning to increase the number of mutuelles but to increase the density of the local banks ( caisses ). TIAVO offers 4 type of agricultural credit products, and other credits (education, urgency etc.), all well adapted to farmers needs. Every credit demand is studied in depth and followed up closely. 70% of the credit demands gets a credit granted. The number of credits granted in 2009 mounts to more than 11.500. 75% of the credits and 64% of the total credit amount are intended for agricultural purposes. The average credit is 607.934 Ar (about 229 euro). 15 Possibly certificates are mainly asked for these lands where conflicts exist (mostly intra family disputes). Possibly the population has not been fully sensitized or fear to be taxed more once their land has received a certificate.

The impact of the credits for existing large enterprises and for larger farmers are important (based on group discussions in villages and based on discussion with members of SIIV and TIAVO). But for most SIIV members, the impact in the field of economic development especially, has remained rather limited. The majority of credits are taken for small projects, and in terms of immediate needs, not in the framework of investments in opportunities. The benefits taken from these credits remain limited. A minority of the projects has had a thorough viability assessment before the credit was taken (see also end evaluation of the SIIVs). Most of all, the use of the credit hasn t been accompanied by services to improve agricultural/ economic management, nor by analysis of value chains, nor by agricultural advice or follow-up. Some elements regarding inclusion of vulnerable households by Tiavo: Tiavo provides a range of micro finance products, amongst others credits related to small agricultural activities and to specific needs of women ( crédit éducative ) About 100 of the elected 380 elected leaders (all levels) are peasants; The segment of the population envisioned by Tiavo are households that can provide guarantee for reimbursement. The majority of credits are taken by more wealthy households or households with average vulnerability, not by vulnerable or poor households (based on group discussions in the villages during evaluation). With the improved financial sustainability, Tiavo expresses to invest more actively in promotion of vulnerable households to take credits. This will be mainly reached by improved communication and sensitization at grass root and by linking the number of adherents attracted per agent with a bonus system. It remains difficult to address aspects of inclusion seen the high costs of this segment of the population. COLDIS is a young cooperative (2009) that emerged from the 11 mutuelles of TIAVO in 2008 (11 mutelles are owner). Seen the limited economic size of the activities of SIIV, the mutuelles have started a cooperative COLDIS. COLDIS has been constituted in 2008 to be able to export cloves. The first campaign was entirely financed by TIAVO (credit stockage for 400 tons of cloves). Of this quantity, 66 tons have been exported by COLDIS. For the second campaign (2009), COLDIS received a credit from TRIODOS to pre-finance the campaign (about 500.000 euro). This process has been facilitated by ICCO and ICCO provided a loan guarantee of 50% of the loan. COLDIS works through two layers of collectors (in total 7 collection points), with 300 women to sort the cloves (quality) and 500 producers. The relations with these collectors and producers and the system used to collect the harvest are currently only loosely organized and there is no contract enforcement mechanism in place. The demand for cloves is high. The producers are currently not selected, nor really sensitized to work with COLDIS. COLDIS looks for sufficient quantity and therefore approaches any producer. Producers can deliver directly to COLDIS or via the collectors. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 42/105

The profile of the involved producers varies greatly, some are important producers with large surfaces. The production volume by these farmers is not sufficient to satisfy the market demand, therefore COLDIS also addresses smaller producers. They are allowed to deliver smaller quantities. The involved producers are members of TIAVO. The COLDIS membership fee is about 100.000 Ar. COLDIS mainly envisions local cooperatives to become their members in future. The activities of COLDIS have undoubtedly had an impact on the 500 households of producers, although they are not from the most vulnerable category and although, for the producers, they can find the same direct impact by selling to other companies. Cloves are an important cash crop in the area, also for the average-vulnerable households (some stems only). The harvest coincidences with lean period, the income of cloves is directly used to end the lean period for these producers. More importantly, COLDIS creates openings to make a more structural difference in the future by linking COLDIS to small cooperatives at the basis (for example the SIIV cooperatives), by their cooperative characteristics and thus the influence members have on decisions. Also COLDIS can pay shares to members, which they have already been able to do at the end of the first campaign. 2.4.2. STABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CHANGES IN ACCESS (FIANTSO, TIAVO, COLDIS) The approach of Fiantso, has exactly been adapted to contribute as much as possible to the sustainability of the dynamics at the commune and local level (focus on sensitization regarding land certificates and fiscal recovery, communication and on training. Guarantee that the legal procedures are followed by the land offices. Involvement of local structures and traditional leaders, focus on division of roles between different local structures, multi actors approach.the price of certificates is set to cover the costs of the land offices. Combination of measures to improve tax recovery and management of this tax income). Budget for land offices is now integrated in the commune budget (by the considered communes). Communes and Fiantso have lobbied at national level to allow to use part of the general subsidy for the communes to cover for the budget of land offices (however, the subsidies have not yet arrived). With the measures taken by FIANTSO and the communes, sustainability is not yet guaranteed and therefore the pilot communes will still be supported punctually for their capacity building and communication strategies in the new phase. Also financially the offices are not yet sustainable, despite improvement. The overall increase of the number of members of TIAVO (although with a slowdown of the speed in 2009 due to the crisis), the improvement of the PAR, the increase of total savings and of the operational efficiency, indicate that Tiavo is on the way towards more sustainability

(see further, indicators), but remains fragile. The variety of partners of Tiavo continues to increase. The sustainability of COLDIS is not yet guaranteed. Important aspects to increase sustainability are: increase its outreach and network to farmers and organize its outreach and network; increase financial basis (COLDIS does not provide of financial base to pre-finance a campaign yet); improve organizational and professional capacity; improve access to inputs and training for farmers; convince other donors/actors to stop clientelism). COLDIS sees an integration with cooperatives of SIIV as one, not the only, possibility to increase their network/outreach. 2.4.3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE NGO (FIANTSO, TIAVO, COLDIS) Tiavo is the only rural micro credit institution in the region of V.F 16. Also the Worldbank has contributed to the institutional development of Tiavo during the considered time period (not to credit capital, but 600.000 $/year for institutional development, AGEPE until 2010, new phase of support is yet to confirmed) and TIAVO has also other partners (mainly from French cooperation). There exists a regional distribution of different actors which contribute to land offices and land certification. Fiantso has been the only actor supporting decentralization processes at the commune level in these communes. The approach has focused quite strongly on the exchange between communes, between groups and between institutions. COLDIS has not received any support from other donors/programs. COLDIS is not necessarily different than other collector and export companies. The most important added value is probably the fact that small quantities can be delivered to COLDIS and the fact that an entry is made to link with grass root cooperatives and organization of a possible pro poor value chain in cooperation with the stock credit of TIAVO. 16 The momentum of this support by ICCO has been of great importance. AFD had quitted to support TIAVO at that moment (loan guarantee to BoA), and TIAVO would have had to close its rural banks, which hadn t reached financial viability yet. With the guarantee of ICCO, the network of rural banks could be further supported and expanded, and could be linked to the SIIV network and storage credit. TIAVO is up till now the only IMF that offers rural bank services in the respective area. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 44/105

2.5.EVALUATION QUESTION 5: IMPROVED (PROPER) UTILISATION OF FOOD BY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 5: Improved (proper) utilization by food by vulnerable households and individuals DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent have the interventions allowed to influence households and individuals utilization of food in a structural and gender sensitive way and why? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 5.1. Proper utilization of food has structurally changed 5.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals 5.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level Most important findings and conclusions 5.1 ICCO has not supported nutrition programs (2007-2010), but is supporting one water and sanitation project with SAF and within a consortium of NGO s (PAMOLEA, EU finance). Access to potable water has improved (in 15 water systems for municipalities) and households attitude to hygiene have changed (especially increased washing of hands, awareness on latrines). Cases of diarrhea have decreased (incl. children), which allows women to work more permanently in agricultural activities during the planting season. Gender issues are well addressed, the orientation towards the most vulnerable is almost naturally present. 5.2 Sustainability is as much as possible guaranteed by involvement and capacity building of local committees, local artisans and communes and by contribution of local communities. 5.3 Pamolea is the most important water program in the region of V.7V. Ongoing preventive health programs in the region might of course have contributed to the reduction of diarrhea.

2.6.EVALUATION QUESTION 6: IMPROVED POSITION ORGANIZATIONS TO INFLUENCE POLICY MAKING AND CAPACITY OF EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 6: Improved position and capacity of organizations to influence policy making DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent have partner organizations improved their organizational capacity and accountability, to what extent are they part of structural networks (i) to learn about the right to food and (ii) to represent together the target group towards other local and national stakeholders and (iii) to diversify their resources? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 6.1 Organizational capacity and accountability of partner organizations has changed 6.2 Cooperation of partner organizations with other relevant organizations develops into legitimate networks 6.3 Changed recognition and capabilities of the network and of the partner organizations to claim right to food 6.4 Partner organizations have contributed to improved positions of networks to influence policy making 6.1 Partners have gone through important changes in organizational structure. Human resource management and financial management of the partner organizations have improved. Fiantso has improved knowledge and applications regarding its interventions to strengthen decentralization processes and lobby. 6.2 The three respective partner organizations participate in networks at the regional and national level, within their sector, but formal and concrete collaboration with programs/actors regarding agricultural development and access to markets, have been rather weakly developed. The regional networks are oriented towards solving practical issues and problems and to make operational arrangements. Fiantso has played a catalyzing role in 1 regional and 3 national networks. Fiantso also supports directly downward accountability of the commune towards the population. 7 partners of ICCO form together Coalition Life, a formal association. The Coalition does not have its own program yet, and has no formal external links as a Coalition yet. Since the partners have come together in this coalition their strategic interest for food security has increased, but this has not yet resulted in an elaborated vision of food security. A strength is that partners have already developed integrated operational activities amongst each other on the field and for lobby activities (SAF and Tiavo, Fiantso and Tiavo, Fiantso and CEDII, SAF and Voarisoa etc.). The Coalition envisions to lobby together in future (national), to monitor food security together, to learn and exchange on specific approaches (e.g. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 46/105

decentralization and food security) and to develop integrated activities in well defined communes. 6.3 The lobby and advocacy capacity or the partners appears not to be very systematic yet, with the exception of Fiantso. Fiantso has clearly made progress in its systematic approach to claiming but still shows gaps as well (based on self assessment by partners facilitated by the consultant). Fiantso and Tiavo are increasingly recognized by government and other stakeholders, and are asked for tools or for structural cooperation. The improved recognition is recently also resulting in diversification of financial resources for the partners. Some results on the local and the regional level are: contribution to modalities of FRDA by Tiavo, influence on attitude regarding grants vs. credits by of other programs/donors, convention on rural regional security by Fiantso (as part from alliance with other actors), communes present the result of tax recovery to population (Fiantso). 6.4 Especially Fiantso has played a crucial role (of the three studied partners) regarding starting or stimulating networks at the local and the national level (CRF, SIF). The fact that Fiantso has received a considerable budget of ICCO has further strengthened their recognition at the national and regional level. The Coalition Life is unique for the context of Madagascar, there is no other similar platform for food security in Madagascar. 2.6.1.CHANGES IN ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY OF NGO PARTNERS 17 The 3 considered partner organizations have undergone important organizational changes (see further under evaluation question 8: role of ICCO). (i) SAF has for example acquired the NGO status which will facilitate the partnership with other donors. Also, the executive director is now recruited, not elected. (ii) Fiantso was originally supported as FIANTSO- ARC, of which Fiantso was split off. Fiantso has since then concentrated regionally (F.V.), used QIP as main approach and focused on land issues later in the process. (iii) TIAVO has expanded his rural network and has designed several specific agricultural related credit products. Financial management has improved in the organizations and financial managers of partner organizations communicate better amongst each other. Participatory organizational capacity assessment has taken place in the organizations but is little illustrated. The organizations have draft strategic of business plans for their 17 This section has not been based on the organisational scans of the partners by ICCO. The scans have not been done in a participatory ways with the partners and ICCO in Madagascar has not promoted them as being a reliable input. The results presented above are based on a quick participatory self assessment of partners during the evaluation, facilitated by the consultant and supported by documents from the partners ((draft) businessplans, evaluation reports).

organization. For SAF and TIAVO the organizational and institutional development aspects are included. Based on their self assessment during the evaluation, important current organizational weaknesses of the 3 partner organizations are (some aspects weaker one organization than in the other) : (i) weak strategic capacity; (ii) weak formal downward accountability and communication systems; (iii) weak evaluation capacity and weak capacity for writing project and policy proposals; (iv) strategic capacity is concentrated in a few persons in the organization; (v) financial dependency of ICCO. The monitoring systems are relatively well developed. Monitoring happens (sometimes not timely) systematically against targets and involve other stakeholders and the target group. Impact evaluation remains a more important challenge. Even though success stories are available (also information of effects of households are available for separate projects, or individual files per client are available for Tiavo), they have not been consolidated per organization (e.g. SAF collects data on effects and outreach per project, but not consolidated), don t include data on food security. SAF and Fiantso have both recently recruited a special officer to improve the monitoring and evaluations systems (in parallel with the information systems). At the moment partners are still dependent on the financial support and the facilitation by ICCO, but there is an ongoing positive evolution. (i) Tiavo has partnerships with Credit Agricole du Morbihan, ICAR, AFDI and there are ongoing negotiations with Oikocredit. Tiavo is still waiting for further institutional support by the Worldbank (no for credit funds, but institutional support). (ii) SAF is also in final phase for other external support (AFD). SAF has partnership with IFAD in the V.7V. region in the framework of Parekam (emergency project). (iii) Fiantso has undertaken several attempts to find more diversified funding and proposal to the EU has recently been approved. Fiantso will probably also succeed to find support from Prosperer in the near future. (In the past Fiantso has already received support of the EU (institutional support: hard ware ). 2.6.2. COOPERATION AND NETWORKING The partners of ICCO participate in regional and national networks. Apart from having regular contact with other programs in the area, the partner organizations formally participate in institutions or networks at the regional level. Tiavo plays a role in the CSA for example (screening project proposals and awarding funds). Tiavo s network is oriented towards expansion of the rural bank network. Fiantso has started the CRF, a regional, (active and successful) multi actor platform for land issues. Fiantso has further anchored its network by signing formal conventions for collaboration with many other organizations/institutions, including the PNF 18 (regional). Three monthly progress of the program is discussed together with PNF. 18 PNF at the regional level of V.F. is responsible for monitoring the progress of land certification and respective capacity building, for the orientation of the capacity building and implementation of the national Code Foncier. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 48/105

The partner organizations participate in networks of their sector. Platforms specifically related to FS don t exist in Madagascar, besides operational meetings related to FS as organized by ECHO. At the regional level, the issues discussed are relatively operational in nature (solving practical problems, coordination, discussing approaches orally). Structural partnerships/links with agricultural programs/institutions have been rather weak. Concrete results exist. Tiavo has recently booked successes in influencing the attitude of other organizations/donors in the field of using short term grants instead of credits for investments in economic activities of the rural target group. Fiantso has been able to support a regional lobby trajectory (together with CEDII) which has resulted in signing of a regional convention on rural security. Also at the national level, the partner organizations are member of networks, although Tiavo to a lesser extent (member of association of MFIs). The networks and the participation are linked again to the technical sectors the organizations are active in, not to food security in general. SAF takes part in many different networks at the national level (as they are active in 5 thematic fields) but seldom takes the lead in lobby trajectories or in these networks. The networks are not very orientated to lobby, but are rather coordination, information and harmonization platforms. SAF contributes mainly by promoting specific operational approaches from the field. It is again Fiantso which is most active, especially in the SIF network, but also in MOSC and CORS, and with an important role in specific lobby trajectories. 2.6.3. CHANGED RECOGNITION OF NETWORKS AND PARTNER ORGANISATIONS Although all partners participate in networks and have formal (Fiantso) or informal links with like minded organizations, they don t demonstrate a very structural lobby or advocacy approach, except for Fiantso. First at all the objective of participation in networks is mainly to share and get information or to discuss practical approaches. Secondly, the capacity lacks to develop lobby strategies. Thirdly, SAF and Tiavo find it a priority to mobilize resources and to increase direct impact on poverty reduction, rather than to lobby for policy changes. Fiantso has been able to demonstrate a systematic approach (QIP) for advocacy, in alliance with other actors. They have important allies in their lobby trajectories (CNOE, Cedii, CPM, communes) and (increasingly) share costs for lobby and advocacy between them. Fiantso has used strategic plans for their most important lobby trajectories (always in alliance with other actors). They have developed strong links with university in Madagascar. Another strong aspect is that they have directly involved communities, organizations, communes in the lobby trajectories (they quantify local information concerning the local situation, they join Fiantso at the national level, they write letters to the national policy makers etc.). Fiantso is also investing in action research (women and land rights, with ICRA).

Based on self assessment during the evaluation, remaining weaknesses of Fiantso regarding lobby and advocacy are: (i) not all lobby trajectories are as systematically organized;; (ii) capitalization of experiences at grass root can improve, more systematic monitoring and evaluation of impact at grass root could further support this capitalization; (iii) writing concrete and technical proposals remains a challenge (currently consultants are hired to do this for Fiantso) and (iv) Fiantso would prefer to have more information on international land and food security related topics (although their access to information has improved, it remains fragmentary). 2.6.4.CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNERS TO IMPROVED POSITION OF NETWORKS Especially Fiantso has played a crucial role (of the three studied partners) regarding starting or stimulating networks at the local and the national level (CRF, SIF) (based on their initiatives and based on the appreciation by other stakeholders during the evaluation). The fact that Fiantso has received a considerable budget of ICCO has further strengthened their recognition at the national and regional level. Coalition Life Evolution and current status - Coalition Life is a formal association (since 2010) of partners (7) of ICCO directly or indirectly related to food security. As such, the coalition exists of NGOs and associations 19 (SAF, Fiantso, Varisao, Cedii, CMP) and of private cooperative actors (Tiavo and Coldis). The member organizations treat different domains of structural rural development and thus competition between the organizations within the Coalition is limited. The Coalition has not been preceded by a stakeholder analysis or by analysis of opportunities (complementarities between different niches of members are however clear). The coalition was called together in 2008 by ICCO (under the impulse of ICCO s programmatic approach). Each partner had its own strategy and project and ICCO financed the activities of the informal group of partners separately and looked after the logistics of the meetings. Up till now the organizations keep their own projects and only joined activities of the Coalition (all partners) are financed by ICCO. The initial meetings were an eye-opener for the partner organizations but did not lead to many concrete actions of the group in the first 1,5 year. It was ICCO who inspired the group to become a formal association and to recruit an executive director to be able to follow up better on ideas and decisions and to structure the functioning of the group better. 19 CNOE originally joined the group but is presently not a member of the Coalition Life (CNOE is still supported by ICCO though). Varisoa (member of the Coalition) has currently not a project running supported by ICCO but are in the process of designing a new proposal. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 50/105

Since then CEDII takes the presidency of the association and the Coalition has recruited an executive director. This lack of concrete progress of the total group during the first 1,5 year needs to be interpreted cautiously. Some of the partners had started a collaboration (bilateral) during that team period, but not with the implication of all organizations of the Coalition and not strictly related to food security. This collaboration took place at the operational level (centered around cooperation for micro credits); and also involved lobby and advocacy (e.g. CEDII and Fiantso and local actors lobbied together regarding management of railway). The organizations have not lobbied systematically together to find resources and have limited external links yet as a Coalition at his moment (given also their recent formalization). There doesn t exist a similar network at the national level for food security in Madagascar.The exact future orientation of the coalition is not yet clear; they are together to innovate and to get a stronger position towards other institutions and donors in food security related matter. They see their cooperation in the field of: (i) operational cooperation in the field towards food security; (ii) for lobby, (iii) to monitor food security and (iv) to learn on operational approaches. The Coalition finds it important and priority to elaborate their vision on food security and some common monitoring indicators on food security. Self evaluation - The members of the Coalition were involved in a self evaluation of their maturity during the joint workshop. They were first asked to indicate at which stage they were situated concerning their interconnected development 20. (i) Regarding their degree of integration, members agreed that they situated themselves just beyond the stage of dialogue and learning, with first signs of pragmatic alignment (cfr. existing cooperation between some of the members of the Coalition above). The Coalition intends to continue their integration to combine their activities better, e.g. to use the same context analysis and concept of food security, to cooperate in well defined communes etc. Still the members of the Coalition have stressed not to become part of one big program, with central subsidy of ICCO. Partners don t want to lose their identity and their individual funding resources. Possible themes/actions for further integration that were suggested by the members of the Coalition are: elaborating the concept/vision on food security and have a database to analyze and monitor food security, decentralization issues, lobby for (adult) alphabetization. (ii) Regarding their diversity members of the coalition have situated themselves between the level of homogeneous and initial mixing. With their mixture of civil society organizations and private cooperative institutions (Tiavo and Coldis), and with their complementary mix of different niches/ sectors, the Coalition feels they have gone beyond the initial stage. But due to their limited external links and partnerships to other organizations, they felt they hadn t reached the stage of initial mixing. Although the Coalition is currently open to new members, it is not clear yet for them whether new members need to enter as full members. 20 See: this methodology was prescribed in the evaluation method for this mission.

Participants to the joint workshop were asked to assess the quality of the collaborative process as a network on food security (how strong is the collaborative process on a scale of 0 to 4?). The scheme was presented on a flip chart and the understanding of the six different elements were discussed in sub groups. Additional understanding/ criteria for each of the 6 elements were added to the flip chart and presented and discussed in plenary 21. Afterwards, a copy of the scheme was distributed to the participants (not mentioning of name or partner organization) and they were asked to score (1-4) each element of the collaborative collaboration 22. The consultation resulted in a great homogeneity in the answers. Not one criteria received a 4. The criteria with the highest notes are embrace diversity ; competent representation and collaborative attitude. The criteria with the lowest scores are: collaborative context (mainly because there does not exist yet a common vision on the concept of food security and a common vision on the future form and actions of the Coalition) and effective communication (the reason given is that the Coalition has not communicated much to external actors and not to the grass root level neither). Figure 2: Assessing collaborative Processes, Coalition Life, Madagascar Source: Workshop Coalition Life, November 10 th, 2010. 21 For the context of the collaboration : common objectives, interest of different members is discussed, connectedness of domains. For competent representation : the necessary parties are engaged, similar commitment, respect for commitments of different partners, effective participation. For embrace diversity : accepting diversity, equal treatment, differences in power are addressed and less members with less power are listened. For collaborative attitude: respect of others, transparency, sharing data and information. For effective communication: dialogue, open to learn, communication plan. For collaborative structure: taking decisions, having financial resources, convention for collaboration. 22 The participant from the side of TIAVO did not participate in the exercise as he was not the usual representative of TIAVO in the coalition and didn t know enough the dynamics. This also shows that the Coalition is currently still mainly an dynamic of some of the persons within the partner organizations, not necessarily of the whole organization. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 52/105

2.7. EVALUATION QUESTION 7: NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS DEMONSTRATE MORE INTEREST FOR THE RIGHT TO FOOD EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 7: National and international policy makers demonstrate more interest in the right to food DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent have partner organizations and/or their networks changed their lobby and advocacy activities and to what extent have they been able to influence the interest of the policy makers to promote the right to food for all? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 7.1 The national and international lobby strategies of partner organizations address relevant issues 7.2. Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has changed 7.3 Partner organizations have contributed to increased interest of policy makers for the right to food for all 7.1 SAF and Tiavo don t consider their role (and intervention strategy) in the domain of lobby important compared to their other roles. Fiantso has been able to address some relevant issues with strategic importance for food security, mainly related to access to land. Issues directly related to food security and agricultural policies and strategies at the national level have only been weakly addressed by partners. International lobby is weakly and not strategically developed so far by ICCO s partners, Fiantso starts to establish contacts. 7.2 Despite the lack of policy and policy making processes at the national level in Madagascar (currently) some strategically important punctual changes were achieved by Fiantso, in alliance with other actors (e.g. changed status of AMVR land (of which much is to find in the region V.7.V). 7.3 Fiantso has most obviously contributed to changes in practice by the government, but this has always happened in alliance with other local actors and thus the attribution question remains important. For the lobby trajectory regarding AMVR land and specific contributions by Fiantso can be found.

2.7.1. LOBBY STRATEGIES OF PARTNERS The individual partners have all invested in national and regional networking to search for additional financial resources, as discussed above, with some recent successes. The other lobby efforts are not specifically focused on agricultural or nutrition policies, neither on issues related to national food security (and increasing food imports to Madagascar). The national lobby trajectories are not yet conducted by the Coalition but by the partners within their sector alliances (e.g. SIF for Fiantso, Wash for SAF (water and sanitation), Association of MFI s for Tiavo) or by 2 or 3 partner organizations of ICCO together. Fiantso contributed (within the SIF coalition) to an important lobby trajectory regarding the status of AMVR land. This issue of the status of this former plantation/colonial land has been of great and direct importance for the region V.7.V. Lobby at the international level has only started recently (considering the 3 visited partners), by Fiantso (via SIF, SIF is member of the ILC). It is not to be considered as very systematic or important yet. Some of the partners have been involved, via facilitation of ICCO, in international conferences in the past years, but these have never been part of more structural lobby trajectories of one of the partners in Madagascar 23. 2.7.2.CHANGES AT THE LEVEL OF POLICY MAKERS Fiantso and CEDII have contributed to a lobby trajectory of the civil society (with its roots in the region V.F.) to rehabilitate railway to V.F. (and management of the railway) (a railway which finds its importance in the evacuation of agricultural products -mainly vegetables and fruits- and for tourism). CEDII was leading organization. Fiantso has taken a prominent role in SIF to lobby for changing status of AMVR. Also in this case progress is made. 2.7.3.CONTRIBUTION OF PARTNER ORGANISATIONS Fiantso has most obviously contributed to changes in practice by the government on the named points. It was Fiantso who brought up the AMVR case in the SIF coalition, and who documented the case together with the communes, who detached a jurist, and engaged communes in these lobby trajectories. In the lobby regarding the railway by several civil society organisations, Fiantso has contributed, but did not take leading role (contributed to video, supported the civil society for its role in the lobby trajectory etc.). Fiantso is also 23 Other members of het Coalition, which have not been studied in depth during this evaluation, have been involved in international lobby and sensitization trajectories regarding environmental issues. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 54/105

known by other stakeholders as being very present and influential in regional and national networks related to land and decentralization. 2.8. EVALUATION QUESTION 8: ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF ICCO EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 8: Assessment of the contribution of ICCO/KIA DESCRIPTION CENTRAL QUESTION To what extent has ICCO applied different roles and how have these been appreciated by ICCO s partners? To what extent have ICCO and its partners developed adequate partnership relations to reach their objectives? To what extent does ICCO add specific value compared to other programs and stakeholders? How efficient have the contribution of ICCO and partners been? JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 8.1 Extent to which ICCO has played different roles 8.2 Partners appreciate the role of ICCO and the partnership relation supports the objectives of the partners and ICCO 8.3 Possibility to verify and support the efficiency of the program 8.1 ICCO has played 3 explicit roles: ICCO has financed partners (financing operational and institutional costs of Fiantso and SAF, and providing bank guarantees for COLDIS and Tiavo); ICCO has supported capacity development of partners and ICCO played its role as broker (linking to other partners, to donors, to financial institutions, to specialized support for capacity development). Partners don t really know ICCO as a lobbyist. ICCO has played its role as donor in a proactive and strategic way, through well selected and evolving partnerships. The support to capacity development of partners has demonstrated multiplication effects in the partner organizations (e.g. structural changes in partner organizations, adaptation of approaches of partners at their national level. ICCO as a broker has contributed to the partners development efforts but also resulted in multiplication effects outside the direct intervention area (of the partners). 8.2 ICCO s role has been mainly appreciated by partners as being in partnership, proactive, inspiring and respectful of partners identity. Partners want ICCO to strengthen their role for international exchange between partners, and insist on further support for their capacity development. Partners would appreciate more clarity on the long term vision of ICCO on partnerships. Partners judge that the increased result orientation by ICCO contradicts the

necessary room of partners to develop and implement concrete tools to include most vulnerable groups. 8.3 Partners perceive an increased result orientation from ICCO s side regarding their projects. Partnerships however, are considered (implicitly) within a long term perspective. Partners and ICCO have given a lot of attention to replication and multiplication strategies in direct and indirect ways, (based on replication of models and tested mechanisms, based on their link to microfinance and for Fiantso also via results of lobby). ICCO is trendsetting in Madagascar for its partnership approach and for its facilitation of operational cooperation between its partners and for its support to the development of rural microfinance in V.7.V.. ICCO has been active in searching harmonization with other donors/agencies active in the region of V.7.V. and at the national level and has recently contributed to the support of the French Cooperation for basket funding for CSO in Madagascar. 2.8.1. ROLES OF ICCO ICCO has provided financial support to projects (operations) of every partner involved. ICCO has moved towards financial support for operations, but is still granting budget for institutional support of the partner organizations as well (e.g. the staff of Fiantso is still fully financed by the project with ICCO). For the 3 studied partners, the moment and scope of financial support have been crucial for the organizational development of the partner and for their contribution towards the development of basic conditions for rural development, as explained under previous evaluation questions. For the three studied partners, ICCO remains the most important donor but partners demonstrate progress regarding donor diversification. The leverage obtained through a strategic use of MFS funds has been important, for example to increase considerably the impact of the DRR/FS and WATSAN interventions (to obtain 1,65 million funding for DRR/FS activities only 15% MFS funds have been invested. In the WATSAN sector ICCO has added 38,5% MFS funds to a total project budget of 6.3 million). Through the use of MFS guarantees Tiavo has obtained access to a credit line of 800.000 and the farmers cooperative COLDIS has received trade loans with a total value of 1.150.000. Apart from their financing role, ICCO has also supported capacity development of partners in different ways. (i) They have organized specific collective training and capacity development trajectories for the partners (implemented by external consultants) under the PRO program. This included trajectories regarding financial management and decentralization. Partners identified the themes and recruited the required support. ICCO assisted with the organizational analysis (tools, etc. ) and monitored the quality and progress of the work done by the local consultants. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 56/105

ICCO has also a permanent and critical dialogue with partners based on their results and strategies - including aspects of gender and vulnerability but also oriented proactively to possible future challenges or opportunities. Partner organizations consider this dialogue as a important basis for learning processes or as inspiration for future opportunities. Also, within the project budgets, separate results and budgets are increasingly present for capitalization and sharing of experiences, stimulating the partners to learn from their own experiences (cfr. Project FIELD, PAMOLEA, ). The multiplication effects of this capacity building are to be considered as important. SAF for example, as an organization at the national level, works in all regions of Madagascar and uses its increased capacity for strategic and operational approaches in other regions in Madagascar. The improved capacity of the partners, also allows them to approach other donors, as they can better respond to the exigencies of the international donor organizations. An project proposal for the EU, formulated independently by Fiantso for example, has recently been approved. ICCO has been very pro active in its role as broker, (i) to link partners with each other (e.g. Tiavo and SAF); (ii) with other donors (e.g. ICCO has brought several donors together around TIAVO in 2007); (iii) with other organizations in their sector (e.g. ICCO has facilitated initial meetings between CEDII and Fiantso, and with other international partners of ICCO (e.g. Fiantso is in dialogue with partners from Burkina Faso and Bénin); or (iv) with international institutions (ICRA in France for action research by Fiantso; KIT in Amsterdam for capacity building of Fiantso); (iv) with commercial partners (COLDIS). The broker role of ICCO has been of strategic importance in Madagascar and has catalysed important effects (cfr. Rural penetration of Tiavo). Their broker activities aren t always directly linked to the FS projects financed by ICCO. For instance, through the funding of some consultancies and workshops and 1,5 years of brokering, a proposal has been submitted to the French embassy for the set-up of a basket-fund for the CSO in Madagascar. The embassy finances the start-up phase of the basket-fund. The basket-fund will invest in capacity building as well as the implementation of projects by CSO. ICCOs role as lobbyist is limited to (i) participating in some platforms, but with the intention to promote the participation of the partners in these platforms, sometimes participating together with partners; (ii) critical questioning of potential and present lobby positions and strategies of partners, (iii) linking partners to N/S lobby trajectories of ICCO in a rather punctual way (not within a long term strategic lobby trajectory). 2.8.2. APPRECIATION OF ROLES ICCO s partners have overall appreciated ICCO s role greatly. The fact that ICCO works in partnership and is not implementing, is exceptional in Madagascar and forms a main point of appreciation by the partners. The fact that ICCO

inspires them by a critical and proactive dialogue is considered as a strong point in their partnership.the fact that the design of new projects lays in the partners hands, is considered as positive by partners.the fact that ICCO reasons implicitly in terms of long term partnerships, supporting partners throughout difficult organizational phases and giving them the necessary room for development in the past, has been much appreciated. The support to capacity building trajectories by ICCO has been exceptional for the partners and very useful to translate into the operations of the partner organizations. Especially the combination of capacity building with related follow-up during implementation has been appreciated. ICCO s role as broker has been considered as very important by partners and has allowed them to open up their orientations and visions. Partners have appreciated the national and international network of ICCO to support partners with specialized advice and contacts. Aspects of the partnership that have been negatively commented by ICCO s partners are: (i) the ambiguity or in-clarities regarding ICCOs long term vision on partnerships. (ii) The recently increased degree of result orientation by ICCO, combined with (too) short term projects has been felt by partners as rather compulsory and leaving less room for quality and attention for vulnerability by the partners 24. (iii) Partners find that there is fine line between facilitating and inspiring and interfering/influencing by ICCO. Partners find that at some moments, ICCO influences/interferes in organizations, especially regarding internal organizational matter. ICCO arguments this is only situated within a result oriented dialogue. Partners want ICCO to reinforce specific roles. (i) ICCO s role for their capacity development can be intensified (continuation of PRO ). (ii) The partner organizations would prefer more institutional financial support (given the difficult political circumstances and the fact that not many donors are present in Madagascar for the moment). (iii) Partners also see a need to increase ICCO s role to facilitate access to information on international strategic discussions on food security. (iv) Finally, partners desire ICCO s role for international exchange between ICCO s partners to be strengthened. 2.8.3. POSSIBILITY TO VERIFY EFFICIENCY ICCO has the possibility to check the efficiency through regular reports in which intermediate objectives, results and timelines are included. ICCO expects that this progress/milestones are also discussed within the partner organizations and with other 24 Partners refer also to ECHO projects, which indeed are short term (1 or 2 years). Remind that it is ICCO s partners themselves that write proposals and indicate the targets, in fact burdening themselves with ambitious objectives. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 58/105

(local) stakeholders (e.g. Fiantso with PNF) and that partners come up with their own suggestions to adapt targets or timelines, approaches etc. ICCO discusses this efficiency explicitly with partners. ICCO links the efficiencies with organizational aspects of the partners in these discussions, which is not always fully appreciated by partners. Regularly the initial targets and timelines are adapted (downwards) after 1 year of implementation (cfr. guichets fonciers of Fiantso). ICCO is flexible in this adaptation. Even if ICCO has insisted on results and on transparent monitoring of progress and has had a result based dialogue, the actual results have not really influenced partnerships negatively. A strong point of the ICCOs and partners approaches and projects is their focus on replication or multiplication of tests/ pilots (for examples of ICCO see above under the description of ICCO s roles). Replication and multiplication by partners activities does not only happen through expansion of the activities towards new communes (e.g. 3 to 28 communes in land project of Fiantso) but also by connecting to other organizations or partners; by lobby and advocacy by partners (mainly Fiantso) and recently by sharing lessons learnt and instruments with other local actors (formulated as a separate result in the project of Fiantso, in PAMOLEA, etc.) 25. ICCO is active in its contacts with other donors and in platforms. ICCO tries to introduce its partners into these platforms. ICCO is known and recognized by other donors and seeks permanently rapprochement to other actors, donors/agencies (see AVSF, GRET). ICCO shows in fact some unique added value compared to other donors or programs in Madagascar and in particular in the region V.F. (i) ICCO works through partnerships, is not implementing projects (exceptionally in Madagascar). (ii) ICCO is strengthening local civil society organizations through long term partnerships, through specific capacity building trajectories. (iii) ICCO has through its combination of partners and through strategic financing of these partners on crucial moments, contributed to structural conditions for rural development in F.V. (iv) ICCO has included private cooperative partners (TIAVO, COLDIS). (vi) ICCO has played its broker role not only to influence directly the main intervention zone (V7V) but also wider and has contributed to changes at the national level (see above). ICCO has been trendsetting for other donor (agencies) for their type of partnerships, the support to rural microfinance and their support to the initiative for basket funding for CSO in Madagascar. 25 Despite this positive result, it needs to be added that while expanding towards new communes and SIIVs and local banks, the first initiatives (communes, SIIVs, local banks) are not always fully sustainable and remain supported (see Evaluation question 3 and 4: sustainability).

3. Summary and conclusions Madagascar is characterized and to be differentiated from other context by its transitional political context, by persisting high poverty and malnutrition rates, by yearly cyclones, decreasing biodiversity and fast declining soil fertility. The specifically concerned region (V.7.V) knows yearly emergency programs. Cash crops and fishing activities play an important role in the intervention region (also staples as rice are sold as cash crops). Madagascar still mainly relies on its own rice production for consumption, although rice import has increased slightly during the last years (to keep prices for urban consumers low). Three partners have been assessed in depth: Fiantso (support to processes to clarify and register land ownership rights), Tiavo (rural micro finance) and SAF (cereal banks, organization of farmers, access to potable water). ICCO in Madagascar has not translated the global ICCO FS strategy into a country strategy for food security or into a food security program as such. ICCO in Madagascar supports the strategies and strategy making processes of a set of well selected, specialized partners in different sectors with increasing focus on one geographic region (V.7.V). The different partners support preconditions for future food security (enabling environment). Since 2008 ICCO has promoted closer collaboration and exchange between these partners (programmatic approach), which is strengthening their motivation to focus together more on food security. The global ICCO FS strategy is not well reflected in the projects/ partners in Madagascar: (i) The total set of projects reflect a structural rural development approach support basic conditions for agricultural income generation. (ii) Food security is not analyzed, nor monitored, although intentions exist by the recently founded Coalition Life (members are partners of ICCO). (iii) Proper utilization of food (nutrition) has not been included in the total set of projects because of non acceptance of project proposal by potential donor (but complementarities with water project funded by ICCO and by EU Water Facility exists. (iv) Support to improve agricultural productivity has only punctually been addressed between 2007-2010. Aspects of the right to food are most clearly reflected by the mission and interventions of 1 of the 3 studied partners (Fiantso has a clear lobby strategy and strengthens capacity of decentralized institutions in the framework of right to land). SAF demonstrates a needs based approach. Tiavo has a commercial approach (credit). Intra household aspects a basic element of the right to food approach - don t get explicit attention. Partners are fully responsible for their own strategies and projects proposals. Strategic orientations for projects of partners are mainly based on valorization of past achievements and on opportunities to access (external) financial resources. The intervention area V.7.V. is one of the most vulnerable regions Madagascar, for the rest the targeting approach remains ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 60/105

vague. Selection of communes (by partners) is not based on food security criteria. Criteria to include vulnerable households are not explicitly applied in the projects, orientation in that respect is weak. However: the partners and projects address structural vulnerabilities for future food security; activities are adapted to interests of women and are accessible for women. Strengthening women rights and support for effective institutional integration of women is only addressed by one of the three studied partners. ICCO works increasingly with specialized partners. The projects of different partners are increasingly concentrated in one geographic region and have increased their cooperation for direct poverty reduction and for lobby. Operational integration (same target group) within the intervention region exists already, concentrated around links to rural microfinance (e.g. link between members of cereal banks and TIAVO), but generally overlap of intervention zones remains weak. The existing examples of integration have demonstrated multiplication effects (e.g. rural penetration of microfinance thanks to link to storage system of cereal banks). Also complementarities between projects funded from different sources (MFS, ECHO, EU) exist and are increasing. There exists a very clear link between the FED projects and the FS project. They are considered within one strategy and strategic links between microfinance and storage and land certificates are elaborated. The cooperative COLDIS envisions to find membership amongst the grass root cooperatives originally linked to the cereal bank associations from the SIIVs and Tiavo has provided storage credit to Coldis. This harmonization and shift to economic development has not been obvious so far in terms of partners and strategies (different visions and approaches by partners, different local structures involved, different degree of inclusion of interventions, etc.). Based on the results of the group discussions, the consultants have found that cereal banks have contributed to improved food availability in terms of shortened lean period for members (1/3 of lean period and better quality of meals during lean period) and have supported penetration of rural micro finance via the link with storage credit. The SIIV associations have been able to include some very vulnerable households/individuals and their effects to be considered at the heart of interest of women. The rural microfinance of Tiavo ( caisse épargne et crédit ), currently the only rural microfinance institution in the V.7.V region, has been able to maintain and expand its rural network thanks to support of ICCO. Tiavo counts currently more than 60.000 individual members (40% women), more than 70 local rural banks and has granted more than 10.000 credits in 2009. The credits have contributed to stabilization of schooling (of children) in vulnerable households and to securing agricultural campaigns. Overall the impact of the credit remains small for vulnerable households and have mainly stabilized incomes of households. The Plofs, local committees for recognition of land rights, the communal land offices have contributed to a decrease in land conflicts and tranquility about land issues for present and future generations. Access to land by women is now accepted, also by local leaders. This has also promoted a more general awareness on women rights. The support to 3 local land

offices (commune level) has not lead to an important increase in land certificates yet. Also governance and management by the communes (3) improved, just as tax recovery. Communication by the involved communes towards the population has improved structurally and communication systems are in place. The model of support to decentralization land rights systems is currently being replicated in 25 other communes by Fiantso. These structural effects have only been weakly valorized economically by the target group up till now, due to impact of cyclones, lack of support to increase agricultural productivity and market access for peasants (small credits, few farmers have currently land certificates) and the improved access to credits and to land, have not been able to involve the majority of the vulnerable households. ICCO hasn t supported nutrition programs between 2007 and 2010, but has supported one water project in the V.7.V. region with SAF and within a consortium of NGO s. Based on the results of the group discussions, the evaluators find that access to potable water has improved and households attitude to hygiene has changed (especially increased washing of hands, awareness on latrines). According to the respondents in the group discussions, cases of diarrhea have decreased (incl. children), which allows women to work more permanently in agricultural activities during the planting season. The 3 studied partners have strengthened their organizational capacity, through capacity development trajectories and critical dialogue, supported by ICCO. Their improved organizational capacity of partners has resulted in improved recognition hand as recently also been translated in access to more diversified financial resources for the partners. The three respective partner organizations participate in networks at the regional and national level, within their sector. Concrete collaboration with programs/actors regarding agricultural development and access to markets have been rather weakly developed. The regional networks are oriented towards solving practical issues and problems and to make operational arrangements. Fiantso has played a catalyzing role in 1 regional network and has contributed to the dynamics of at least 3 national networks. Fiantso also supports directly the commune level and the downward accountability of the communes towards the population. Fiantso has been able to address and influence some relevant issues with strategic importance for food security at the national level, mainly related to access to land or related to the sustainability of facilitation of land issues by communes and communities. Fiantso has clearly made progress in its systematic approach to claiming but still shows gaps regarding their capacity as well (based on self assessment by partners facilitated by the consultant). 7 partners of ICCO form together Coalition Life, a formal association (recently formalized). The Coalition does not have its own program yet, and has no formal external links as a Coalition yet. Since the partners have come together in this coalition, their strategic interest for food security has increased, but this has not yet resulted in a joined vision on food security. The fact that partners have already developed integrated operational activities amongst each other is to be considered as a strength of the Coalition (SAF and Tiavo, ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 62/105

Fiantso and Tiavo, Fiantso and CEDII, SAF and Varisoa etc.). The Coalition envisions to lobby together in future (national), to monitor food security together, to learn and exchange on specific approaches (e.g. decentralization and food security) and to develop integrated activities in well defined communes. ICCO has played 3 explicit roles: ICCO has financed partners (financing operational and institutional costs of Fiantso and SAF, and providing bank guarantees for COLDIS and Tiavo); ICCO has supported capacity development of partners and ICCO played its role as broker (linking to other partners, to donors, to financial institutions, to specialized support for capacity development). Partners don t really know ICCO as a lobbyist. ICCO has played its role as donor in a proactive and strategic way, through well selected and evolving partnerships. The support to capacity development of partners has demonstrated multiplication effects in the partner organizations (e.g. structural changes in partner organizations, adaptation of approaches of partners at their national level. ICCO as a broker has contributed to the partners development efforts but also resulted in multiplication effects outside the direct intervention area (of the partners). 4 Annexes ANNEX 1 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AFDI AGR A.M.V.R BoA CNS CdG CG CSA CRIF CRF CRS DIPECHO DRDR FED FIDA Agriculteur Français pour le Développement International Activités Génératrices de Revenus Aire de Mise en Valeur Rurale Bank of Africa Comité National de Secours Comité de Gestion Conseil Général Centre de Service Agricole Centre de Ressources et d Information Foncière Comité Régional Foncier Catholic Relief Services Disaster Preparedness ECHO Direction Régionale du Développement Rural Fair and Economic Development Fonds International pour le Développement Agricole

FRDA FS GTDR ILC MAEP MAP MF MFI MFS ONN OP OS/ID PANSA PAR PLOF PNF PRO PSA-SE QIP SAP SAF/FJKM SIF SIIV TIAVO UE VF VU WB Fond Régional Développement Agricole Food Security Groupe de Travail pour le Développement Rural International Land Coalition Ministère de l Agricuture, de l Elevage et de la pêche Madagascar Action Plan Micro finance Micro finance institution Program ICCO financed by Dutch Goverment Office National de Nutrition Organisations Paysannes Organisational strengthening, institutional development Plan d Action National pour la Sécurité Alimentaire Portefolio at Risk Local Land Occupation Plan Plan National Foncier Programme Renforcement Organisationnel Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire dans le Sud-est Question d intérêt publique Système d Alerte Précoce Department of development (NGO) of Church of Jésus Christ in Madagascar Solidarité des intervenants sur le foncier Greniers communautaires pour le Crédit Mutuelle d Epargne et de Crédits Union Européenne Vatovavy Fitovinany Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam World Bank ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 64/105

ANNEX 2 - COMMENTS ON THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK (CONTEXTUALISING) EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 1: relevance of the underlying policy and strategy of the program EQ 2: Coherence of the implementation of the strategy FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 1.1 ICCO has developed clear and useful strategies and policies 1.2 The strategies and policies are relevant with view to current context and policies regarding the right to food 2.1. The ambitions and theory of change of the ICCO food security strategies are translated into partner selection and in the budget allocation 2.2. ICCO can guarantee FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS Measures to reach the most vulnerable groups; - Approach pro-vulnerable groups is Indicators for 1.2. suppose that Adaptations to climate changes and climate often mentioned in strategies but should be well periodic analysis of changes in variability; defined in terms of measures because of local policy, priorities in FS, ag. Balance between emergency aid and structural aid constraints (cost of intervention, lack of social will, investment, etc. at national level Balance between food security and value chain etc.) encountered by project implementers when have been developed (from the approach; applying this approach in field realities Ministry?) and made available to - Adaptations to climate variability is allow in-country programs and crucial for food security in M. projects adjust their strategies and - Difficult integration of food security and policies. Is there any such info development approach against value chain available to check against approach by local structures and partners? mechanisms/strategy adopted by ICCO and partners? Currently the government doesn t have priority plans yet. Homogenous understanding of theory of change and - Opportunistic attitude of partners in the None attention for different objectives and strategies and why field vis-à-vis a potential funding may lose sight of Processes for priority setting; especially on choice to the real essence of their interventions for the support certain sectors, partners and areas (why focus on target groups; land, not on agricultural productivity, not on irrigation, not on - Rural development issues are multisectoral agribusiness and have perverse effects that only Evidence for taking into account the local strategies for FS; synergic operations are most effective to make

EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 3: Improved food availability at the household level FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA that translation of strategies in the field are adapted to local context 2.3. Complementarities between objectives, partners, country strategies have been optimally used 3.1. Availability of food for vulnerable households has changed 3.2. The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households 3.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household level FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS Use of complementarities of objectives and intermediate the difference in many areas; results - How to integrate if different areas have Overlapping target groups between different partners? different priorities for FS? Link/balance/rationale between value chain program and - Not clear what vision is on difference food security program and their effects. Balance between between FS and value chain approach protective security strategy and economic approach, how to - Not clear how priorities are set in terms link/integrate/find balance? of supporting different aspects (and thus partners) Do the selected partners represent the target group and for FS how do their systems guarantee this? - Not clear how/extend to which partners How are producer organizations involved in strategic represent target groups and how they relate to choices? producer organizations What is the rationale of the way the target group is - Not clear on what finality is of structured and how do they relate to existing POs. Is target structuring the target group group structured for functional reason, for claiming capacity etc. How are lobby issues set by individual partners and coalition Changes in duration/intensity of hunger period, - In less than 5 years of evaluation -Need to have comparison household stocks, sales, etc. period, those variables are likely to greatly group/village before ICCO Access to input and market change and can be measured even without formal intervention? System changes in access to input distribution, household surveys. -Local statistics on food production; agricultural services, credit, water and land - Possibly programs are sustainable but -Availability of data on sustainability Reinvestments in agricultural campaign by the depend on external reinvestment of changes at household level. program - Target group should be strengthened Database from organizations working Economic viability of security networks, professional to express or defend ideas (based on theory of in disaster management during management of local structures for food security change of ICCO) 2009-2010 can be checked; Level of specialization of partner - Some of the organized target group ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 66/105

EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 4: Improved access to food by vulnerable households and individuals EQ 5: Improved (proper) utilization by FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 4.1. Access to food and food ingredients for vulnerable households and individuals has changed (in a gender sensitive way) 4.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals 4.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level 5.1. Proper utilization of food has structurally FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS Budget is in relation with expected results seems to be focused on security aspects of food Distinction between influence of drought and others security, how economically viable are they? Distinction between influence of agricultural projects - Seen the complexity of the strategic in the region and the projects of ICCO partnesr and operational issues, partners should be specialized - Considerable budgets are asked to make a difference for food security in vulnerable areas Changes of income, land productivity, functioning of - In less than 5 years of evaluation -Need to have comparison cereal banks, potential to acquire food and cover social period, those variables are likely to greatly group/village before ICCO expenses, etc. change and can be measured even without formal intervention? Proof of reinvestment, better business approach of household surveys. -Availability of quantitative data on cereal banks, access to market by CBO, control and - Possibly programs are sustainable but income disaggregated at household management of markets, etc. depend on external reinvestment level valid for the zone. Better use of Reinvestments in agricultural campaign by the - Target group should be strengthened case studies. program- attitude of target group for structural development to express or defend ideas (based on theory of Level of specialization of partner change of ICCO) Budget is partner in relation with expected results - Is organizational structure of partner Attention for and way of structuring of target group and/or target group adapted to its economic role? for representation and for access to inputs and markets - Seen the complexity of the strategic and operational issues, partners should be specialized - Considerable budgets are needed to make a difference for food security in vulnerable areas Chronic malnutrition indicators, - Tangible changes easy to measure Data quality on health biased by Prevalence of diseases, related to access to (supposing that the Commune Health Centers outdated data on target population

EVALUATION QUESTION food by vulnerable households and individuals FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA changed 5.2 The changes are stable and sustainable for vulnerable households and individuals 5.3 Partner organizations have contributed to these changes at the household and individual level FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS potable water and sanitation have the basic data on the indicators) and to (no census has been done since Changes in application of hygiene and sanitation check with villagers. 1993??) Complementarities with programs for access to - The program has only really invested water in potable water, only very small investments in Changes regarding intra household relations and nutrition during the period covered by the positions evaluation - Assessing whether the program has been able to find effective complementarities with water programs - To change food consumption patterns, intra household relations and effective control of food sales/ purchase and consumption by women, are necessary in a context with high gender disparities - Traditionally respected local people involved in (preventive) health care need to be included to find sustainable results. EQ 6: Improved 6.1. Organizational capacity Evolution in human resource development, M&E - Those are areas of common none position and capacity and accountability of partner and organizational development of partners; weaknesses in Malagasy NGOs to be able to of organizations to organizations has changed Mechanisms for accountability towards target group empower themselves. influence policy 6.2 Cooperation of partner (representation of target group in the organization, involvement - Networking for local organizations is making organizations with other in planning and evaluation, information about strategies and new learning initiative which assessment reflects relevant organizations results, system for grievances and for measuring satisfaction the degree of maturity of their commitment in FS. develops into legitimate of target group - those indicators inform well about the networks existence of dynamism, leadership and motivation 6.3. Changed recognition Diversity and maturity of network inside the network. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 68/105

EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 7: National and international policy makers demonstrate more interest in the right to food FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA and capabilities of the network and of the partner organizations to claim right to food 6.4 Partner organizations have contributed to improved positions of networks to influence policy making 7.1 The national and international lobby strategies of partner organizations address relevant issues 7.2. Interest of national and international policy makers in the right to adequate food has changed FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS Objective of network and level to which it is more - Program has been able to test out new than only finding additional financial resources, Network to approaches, the degree to which these are share, learn strategies/approaches, etc.; Network to integrate shared in network and used in local services towards the same target group. representation and lobby can be important. Added value of the network to existing other platforms or networks Network has developed a context analysis, vision, etc.. Accountability of the network towards target group Improved access to information, improved understanding of role of duty bearers and complexity of policy situation Networks is asked to give advice to policy makers Networks participate formally in policy making platforms and influences platforms Use of local experiments in their representation role and lobby Networks have structural relation with policy makers - Major sources of project inefficiency in Policy makers have developed a clear vision on FS, M/car came from inadequacy of policy and local etc.; (with attention to balance between emergency, adaptation context that evidence of lobby actions in FS area and structural development) is already a major step achieved. Change in implementation modalities, commitment, - Different steps/degrees of influence etc. should be recognized Changes in operational coordination of different - Coordination and coherence between sectors and ministries contributing to FS, etc. different sectors and sector policies are still weak Improved coherence between policies of different in M.

EVALUATION QUESTION FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS sectors - Lobby can have influence on food Clear priorities concerning food security or value security, or value chains, not necessarily both chain development are set, visible changes - No indication in documents regarding Structured target group gains influence the role of N/S link by ICCO for lobby Links between local and national level are optimally used N/S links are developed and promoted by ICCO network EQ8: Evaluation of 8.1 Different roles played by Appreciation of partnership relation and systems of - To what extend is role of ICCO the contribution of ICCO ICCO to reach objectives. Shared values and elements of predetermined (fixed roles): to what extend ICCO 8.2 Appreciation of the role partnership to be strengthened (based on judgement of partners determine type of support, to what of ICCO by partners and partners) extend do they find the systems/structure of ICCO partnership relations support Dependency of partners of ICCO adapted, how have values been shared and the objectifs Role of ICCO in the Coalition and future vision reinforce by the partnership 8.3. Possibility to verify and Effectiveness of capacity building and methods - Do concrete results exist of capacity support the efficiency of the used/ adaptation of methods to progress and organizational development? Concrete assessment of program by ICCO priorities organizational priorities are used? Systems to monitor and evaluate impact and their - Based on the monitoring reports, it quality seems as M&E of partners is weak Strategy and level of replication/scaling up, level to - ICCO seems to support the same which ICCO support replication and scaling up partner(s) and approach for quite long time in one Level to which ICCO supports partners to develop a area. How are priorities set based on vision and strategy on inclusion of vulnerable and structuring progress/results, how are results being scaled- target group for claiming capacity up? Harmonisation of intervention mechanisms and - Does ICCO provide enough support to target group/replication and of lessons learnt with other partners to elaborate specific elements of the ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 70/105

EVALUATION QUESTION FOCUS ON JUDGEMENT CRITERIA FOCUS ON INDICATORS REASONS FOR FOCUS DIFFICULTIES WITH INDICATORS agencies and programs ICCO strategy (inclusion, claiming capacity)? - At the one side documents explain that partnerships are important (e.g. agricultural productivity), on the other side, there is no indication whether this works and how and how programs influence each other structurally. Also, ICCO has started coalition next to other existing platforms.

ANNEX 3 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED Madagascar Droy, I and Rasolofo, P., 2001, «Les Approches de la Vulnérabilité Alimentaire dans le Sud de Madagascar» FAO, 2005, «Madagascar, Plan d Action National pour la Sécurité Alimentaire», rapport No. 05/033 TCP -MAG» FAO, 2005, Profil Nutritionnel de Madagascar», Division de l Alimentation et de la Nutrition, FAO, Rome FAO, 2010, «Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation: Response to Recurrent Natural Disasters and Seasonal Food Insecurity in Madagascar FAO et PAM, 2009, «Rapport Spécial : Mission FAO/PAM d'évaluation de la Sécurité Alimentaire à Madagascar», Rome. GIEWS, 2010, «Global information and early warning system on food and agriculture: Country Brief, Madagascar FAO. INSTAT, 2010, «Enquête Démographique et de la Santé, Madagascar» IRD, 2010, «Madagascar, Face au Défi des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement» Madagascar Action Plan 2007-2012 Madagascar, 200?, GTDR Vatovavy-FITOVINANY Rodriguez, F. K., 2003, «Stratégie Nationale de Gestion des Risques et des Catastrophes, Madagascar», Comité National de Secours, UNDP FIANTSO FIANTSO, 2008, «Résultats de diagnostic de l etat initial de la commune rurale d Lalananindro» FIANTSO, 2009, «Appui à la mise en place du couple Centre de Ressources et d Information Foncière et Guichets Fonciers Communaux, dans 28 communes rurales, Région de Vatovavy Fitovinany» FIANTSO, 2009, «Rapport d évaluation finale du projet FNP Manakara» FIANTSO, 2009, «Situation Genre et Foncier Manakara (suivi projet)» FIANTSO, 2010, «Rapport d activités Trimesteriel FIELD, Juillet Sept 2010» FIANTSO, 2010, «Diagnostics Socio Foncier dans 5 communes rurales (dans le cadre FIELD)» FIANTSO, 2008, «Procédure d exécution de la convention de partenariat entre Fiantso et Tiavo» FIANTSO, 2009, «Examples de demande de financement de micro credit par bénéficaires de Fiantso» SAF SAF et ICCO, 2006, «Rapport Final du Programme de Sécurité Alimentaire dans le Sud-Est de Madagascar» SAF, 2006, «Projet de Secutiré Alimentaire dans le Sud-Est de Madagascar, Rapport final 2004-2006» SAF, 2007,» FACOPA, proposition de projet, 2008-2010» SAF, 2010, «FACOPA, Rapport de fin de Projet» SAF, 2010, «PAMOLEA, Rapport de la 3eme Année» SAF, 2010, Single form, project formulation DIPECHO II SAF, 2010, Single form, PATSA SAF, 2010, Single form, Rarivito SAF, 2010, «Plan Stratégique et Opérationnel de SAF, 2010-2014, Version Provisoire» SAF, 2010, «Réforme Organisationnelle de SAF, 2010-2014 et Plan d Actions 2010-2014, Version Provisoire» SAF/ICCO, 2009, Evaluation Finale de Dipecho I TIAVO TIAVO, 2008, «Tiavo Grants Loans for the Storage of Cloves, Access to the international market to improve doof security. TIAVO, 2009, Rapport d Activités, Exercice social 2009 ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 72/105

TIAVO, 2009-2010, «Rapports mensuels dans le cadre de convention de partenariat FIANTSO-TIAVO» TIAVO, 2010, Business Plan du Reseau Tiavo, 2010-2014 TIAVO, 2009, «Synthèse, Enquête sur l Epargne et le Crédit, Commune de Manakara» COLDIS (Hetty Heerink), 2010, «Relance de la Filière des Epices sur la Côte est de Madagascar», Les Premières Expériences de la Coopérative COLDIS» COLDIS, 2010, «Business Plan 2010-2012 Coopérative COLDIS» Autres Caubergs Lisette, 2009, «Rapport d appréciation de l Approche Programme : systématisation de l expérience» CEDII, 2010, «Rapport d activités 2009, l info au service du développement de Fianaratsoa» CMP, 2010, «Plan Stratégique» ANNEX 4 - PROGRAMME OF THE MISSION DATE HEURE RAMY HANNELORE Lundi 1 8h00-19h00 Voyage à Ranomafana Mardi 2 8h30 SAF (Ranomafana) : introduction Mercr. 3 Jeudi 4 9h30- Apm Voyage à Ambohitsara (45 mn) 7h00 8h30 6h30 10h00 Groupe cible Retour à Ranomafana Voyage à Ambohitsara Groupe cible Voyage à Sandrohy (2h) Focus group Retour à Ranomafana Session avec SAF Projets FACOPA, PATSA RARIVATO, Bureau SAF Ranomafana Projet PAMOLEA Voyage à Ambohitsara : réunion Association des usagers d eau et SIIV Voyage à Manakara (3h) : - Visite de SIIV de Bac Mamoroma 11h00 -Dir. Régionale de l Eau et de l assainissement 14h30 Voyage à Manakara -Dir. Régionale Santé (DRSP) - CEDII Manakara 16h Bureau TIAVO Manakara : restitution avec SAF Vendr 5 8h30 Bureau FIANTSO Manakara : intro 9h30- Départ vers Ambila (30 mn) Session avec FIANTSO 14h00 Groupe cible Départ vers Guichet Foncier Ambila : maire et agents guichet foncier 17h00 Retour à Manakara Samedi 6 7h00 Départ vers Ambila, atelier groupe cible Départ vers Mizilo Gara (45mn) : focus group 16h00 Bureau de la cellule régionale PNF 26 - Manakara 26 Programme National Foncier

Fiantso session Dim 7 8h00 FIANTSO : Continuation de session et question spécifique et restitution avec FIANTSO Lundi 8 8h30 Bureau COLDIS Manakara : équipe technique Bureau TIAVO Manakara 1 14h00 Bureau COLDIS Manakara : groupe de femmes mutuelle TIAVO 16h00 trieuses Bureau de projet Prosperer Bureau de DRDR 27 Mardi 9 8h30 Voyage vers Ambila et Marofarihy: focus group COLDIS à Ambila (producteurs girofles COLDIS) Projet Salohi Projet de BVPI-SE 28 12h30 TIAVO Manakara : resitution avec TIAVO 13h30 Retour sur Fianarantsoa (5h) Mercr. 10 8h30-17h Atelier conjoint Fianar (bureau CEDII) Jeudi 11 9h00-17h00 Retour sur Tana (8h) Vendr 12 8h30-10h00 Processing data group discussion GRET Bureau ICCO 9h00-10h00 10h00 AVSF 11h-13h IRD Instat 14h00 Debriefing Peter Egging (ICCO representative Madagascar) Samedi 13 Concertation entre consultants et gestion financière de la mission Dim 14 Voyage consultant international ANNEX 5 - LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED Name Organisation and function Date Peter Egging et Estelle Antilohy ICCO representative Madagascar and program officer ICCO Madagascar 14/10, 1/11, 13/11 (Peter Egging) Ate Kooistra Regional Programme officer ICCO (Malawi, for Africa dn the Middle-East) 2/11 Josée Hoogervorst SAF, Directeur projet PAMOLEO 3/11 3 Membres Comité gestion d eau Ambohitsara 3/11 4 membres (Comité gestion et membres) SIIV Ambohitsara 3/11 5 membres, Trésoirier, Sécretaire, Comité de Controle, Guichetière Tiavo SIVV et Tiavo Bac Mamorona 4/11 Mr. Ada Hrinjaka, Responsable de Base de donnés, Adjoint directeur Direction Régional de l Eau et de L Assainisement 4/11 Mdm Safara, Directeur Direction Régional de Santé 4/11 27 Direction Régionale du Développement Rural 28 Projet de Bassins-Versants et périmètres irrigués Région du Sud-Est ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 74/105

Ranaivosion Simon, Chef du Service des Etudes et du Développement du Partenariat CEDII (Manakara) 4/11 Mr. Ravelonanefitra, Jaonarison, Mr. Rahajari Tsialouinaw, Rajannalsiom Falivnirina Seth, Tisvozahy Bienvera, Andriamitandrina Naivosoc, Ramonjasoa Rufu SAF 4/11 Bebimans Béroline (agent guichet), Ramdianhdry Pierre (agent guichet foncier), Rakotoarison Fréderic (1 adjoint au Maire), Botofilaninana Bertrand (maire) Commune et guichet foncier Ambila 5 /11 Mr. Primo Razafino et Mrs. Stéphanie Brochard PNF Manakara 5/11 Razafindrahasy Amélie, Randriamandimbisoa Fidimalele Fiantso 6/11 et 7/11 Mr. Andrianarizaka Rahariaona, Coordinateur Régional, V7V Prosperer 8/11 Mr. Rakamisilahy Martial, chef de region, Mr. Andrianantenaima Gabriel, Directeur du Développement Régional, Mr. Tata Vinceni de Paul, Directeur de Cabinet DRDR 8/11 Randrianasolo Herizo (directeur), Rakotomamonjisoa Lalaina (responsible technique), Manarivo Faly Roset (Gestionnaire Rayou) COLDIS 8/11 Femmes Trieuses COLDIS 8/11 Mr. Randriannarisoa Haya Guy (chef de projet) Project Salohi 9/11 Mr. Marc Herottay et Edena Andrianaivolala Project BVPI-SE 9/11 R. Yannick François, directeur mutuelle Manakara TIAVO restitution 9/11 Mr. Luc Arnaud, réprésantant GRET à Madagascar GRET 12/11 Mr. Gauthier Ricordeau, coordinateur national AVPS 12/11 Equippe responsable pour l EDS INSTAT 12/11 IRD (institute de recherché pour le développement 12/11 Peter Egging ICCO Madagascar 12/11

ANNEX 6 - LIST OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING Bilateral workshop with partner SAF on 2/11 Name Position Andriamitandrina Naivosoa Directeur Technique SAF/FJKM national Rajanoarison Robert Emmanuel Directeur Projet Rarivato Raharisoa Hajanirian Chef de Projet PATSA Tsivozahy Bienvenu Coordinateur dur Projet Facopa Ramonjasoa Rufiu Responsable Coopératives/FACOPA Rajaunajisvsm Falinirina Seth Organisateur/FACOPA Bilateral workshop with partner FIANTSO on 5/11 Name Position Razafindrahasy Amélie Coordinateur Randriamandimbisoa Fidimalele Chef du Projet FIELD Raharimahala Victoire Rosa Animateur Juriste Salady Achille Responsable d Antenee Animateur Sociologe Bilateral workshop with partner TIAVO on 9/11 Name Position Mr. Heriniaina Halvetius Directeur Général Adjoint R. Miguel Directeur Général R. Yannick François Directeur de mutuelle Manakara Joint workshop with ICCO partners on 10 nov in Fian Name Organisation and function Tiana Andriatbilvoarana Manantora CMP Tandentanala, Directeur Exécutif ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 76/105

Razafindrahasj Amélie Fiantso Madagascar, Coordinateur Raherivelonjara Aimé Michel Coalition Life, Sécrétaire Exécutif Andriamitandrina Naivsoa SAF/FJKM/ directeur Technique Razanamahesa Désirée marie Stella CEDII/ Directeur Executif Rahajary Tsialominarivo SAF/FJKM/ Directeur National Rakotondralambo Holly VARISOA Observatoire/ Coordinateur Exécutif Randriambololonaina Louis Bosco Tiavo, Directeur des mécanismes Financier Spécifiques Session of two days in village and focus group discussions SAF/FJKM et Tiavo, Village 1: AMBOHITSARA Groupe N nom sexe Catégorie G1 1 RAHERINIAINA Rolland H jeune Hommes 2 RANDRIANARY Claude H jeune < 40ans 3 RANDRIAMANDROSO Olivier H jeune 4 FIDELE H jeune 5 RAMIANDRY Pierre H jeune 6 Ranarison Verosoa H jeune 7 Rakotondravao René H jeune 8 RAZAFINDRABARY Phanoël H jeune 9 RANDRIA Justin H jeune G2 10 RAHARISOA Helène F jeune Femmes 11 RAZAFINDRANDALANA Marie Paulette F jeune < 40ans 12 RASOANOMENJANAHARY Herlette F jeune 13 RAISSA Lala F jeune 14 RAVELOMANITRA Jocelyne F jeune 15 RAZAFINDRAVELO Perline F jeune 16 ROMAINE F jeune G3 17 RAMAHAZOSOA Jacquesson H âgée Hommes 18 RAKOTONIAINA Lucien H âgée >40ans 19 RANDRIA François de Paul H âgée 20 RANDRIANTSOA Raymond H âgée 21 TSIMBA Justin H âgée 22 FELIX Arthur H âgée 23 RALAY José H âgée 24 RAKOTOARISOA Voary H âgée 25 RANDRIANTSARA Alfred H âgée 26 LAMBO thomas H âgée

G4 27 ZAFIHITA F âgée Femmes 28 RAZAFY Ernestine F âgée > 40ans 29 RAMANGATIANA Antoinette F âgée 30 RAHELIARISOA Violine F âgée 31 MANATSARA Nirina F âgée 32 BAOMORA F âgée 33 MANODISOA F âgée Village 2, SANDROHY, SAF/FJKM et TIAVO Groupe N nom sexe Catégorie G1 1 RAFARALAHY Davida H jeune Hommes 2 RICHARD H jeune < 40ans 3 GERSON H jeune 4 RAZAKATIANA Roland H jeune 5 HARINAIVO Mamy H jeune 6 RODDY H jeune 7 Lemavingana Maurice H jeune 8 SYLVAIN H jeune G2 9 RAHARISOA Euphrasie F jeune Femmes 10 VORISOA Rosalie F jeune < 40ans 11 ZAFITIANA F jeune 12 SIDONIE F jeune 13 VOLATIANA Denise F jeune 14 RAZAFINDRAVELO Sophie F jeune 15 RAMELINA Ravaoarisoa T.N. F jeune G3 16 RANDRIANATOANDRO Jean Martin H âgé Hommes 17 RATSIMBAZAFY Gervais H âgé >40ans 18 RABOTO Théodore H âgé 19 RAZAFIMAHEFA Mankalaza H âgé 20 RANDRIAMITSARA Pierrot H âgé 21 BIALAHY Victor H âgé 22 ANDRIAMAMONJY Maurille H âgé G3 23 RASOARIZAY Alice F âgée Femmes 24 RASOLOFONDRENIBE E. F âgée > 40ans 25 SANDRINE F âgée 26 RASOA Helène Olga F âgée 27 VOLATIANA Gisèle F âgée 28 SOAVAMARO Zafitiana F âgée 29 RAZANANOVONA Floriane F âgée 30 NORO F âgée 31 RASOANAMBININA Melline F âgée 32 CHARLINE F âgée ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 78/105

Partenaire: FIANTSO ET TIAVO, VILLAGE 3, AMBILA Groupe N nom sexe Catégorie G1 1 LAMPE DE POCHE H âgé Hommes 2 TSABOTO Marcellin H âgé >40ans 3 PIERROT H âgé 4 TSABOTO Ramiteny H âgé 5 MAGNATSARA H âgé 6 MAHATEVIMANA H âgé 7 RAMIARAMANANA Toussain Dominique H âgé 8 RAMAROVELO Eloi H âgé 9 BOTO Lucien H âgé G2 10 ZAFINDRAINY Harison H jeune Hommes 11 VELONA Vincent H jeune < 40ans 12 RANDRIAMANANKATAO Julien H jeune 13 YAMPIZARA H jeune 14 TSIVERY Jaona H jeune 15 RATOVONOELY Jean Chrisostome H jeune 16 RAMAROSON Justin H jeune 17 RANDRIAMATOA H jeune G3 18 HONORINE F âgée Femmes 19 MADELEINE F âgée > 40 ans 20 PIERRETTE F âgée 21 RAVAOFARAVAVY Adeline F âgée 22 MAHAVALISOA F âgée G4 23 SOAMANIRY Vaovao F jeune Femmes 24 DORETTE F jeune < 40 ans 25 SOLANGE F jeune 26 RAZANASOA Thérèse F jeune 27 JEANNE Evelyne F jeune 28 RAZAFIMANJARY Perence F jeune PARTNER FIANTSO, VILLAGE 4: MIZILO GARA Nr Name Sex age profession 1 Razafimandroso H 45 Cultiveur 2 Razafimahepa H 33 Cultiveur 3 Simon Daniel H 45 Cultiveur

4 Vonjy André H 34 Cultiveur 5 IBE Jean Nestor H 58 Cultiveur 6 Rasoamireina Véronique F 42 Cultiveur 7 Albine Norgette F 56 Cultiveur 8 Jeanne Florentine F 40 Cultiveur 9 Jacqueline F 52 Lessiveuse 10 Albertine F 48 Cultivatrice 11 Marcelline F 53 Cultivatrice 12 Rajomalahy André 45 H Cultiveur 13 Rine Angéline 48 F Cultivatrice et tisseuse COLDIS ET TIAVO, VILLAGE 5 MAROFARIHY Groupe N nom sexe G1 1 NARISOA Yvette F Femmes 2 RAZANAMIARANA Perline F 3 AUGUSTA Samba F 4 RAZAIHARISOA Lucienne F 5 RAZANAMAHEFA Jeanne F G2 6 RANDRIANASOLO H Hommes 7 RAMAROVELO Eloi H 8 EUGENE H 9 R. Bernardin H 10 RAKOTONOMENJANAHARY Jean Frédéric H 11 TSABOTOSOA Bernardin Alain H 12 R. TSIRIMBOLA Alphonse H Femmes Trieuses COLDIS, Manakara Groupe N nom sexe Age ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 80/105

Femmes âgées 1 RAZAFINANDRASANA Eudixie F âgée 2 RAZANIATA Nirisoa adeline F âgée 3 VOLOLONIRINA Felicite F âgée 4 FENO F âgée 5 RASOANANTENAINA Sylvie F âgée 6 MARIE Hortance F âgée 7 NOROSOA Marie claire F âgée Femmes jeunes 8 RAVAOARISOA Annita F Jeune 9 RASOANAMBININA Fideline F jeune 10 VAVY Marie jeanne F jeune 11 SOATSARAVAVY Angeline F jeune 12 RASOANANDRASANA F jeune 13 RAZAFIARIVELO Tatiana nadia F jeune 14 ANGELINE F jeune 15 MAHAZOSOA Liliane F Jeune 16 RANDRIAMANANKATAO Claudette F jeune ANNEX 7 - PPT USED FOR DEBRIEFING Available upon request

ANNEX 8 - SHORT INTERNAL REPORT ON THE INDEPTH WORK SESSIONS IN THE VILLAGES (see separate doc in briefing paper) VILLAGE 1 : AMBOHITSARA SAF/FJKM Quels événements ont été très importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire? Lesquels ont été nommés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge spécifiques et pourquoi? Quels ont été les points de discussion importants? Conclusions du consultant sur le module 1 Les évènements les plus importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire SA sont : - Les cyclones dont 2 ont été particulièrement intenses et destructifs : pertes de production, recrudescence des maladies diarrhéiques à cause des inondations du village et eaux stagnantes, - Epidémie chykungunya : incapacité de travailler, toute couche de population affectée, en particulier les groupes d âge vulnérables ; - La crise politique et économique en 2002 : pas d évacuation des produits à cause des barrages des routes, inflation des prix des produits alimentaires et de première nécessité faute de possibilités d approvisionnement en ville ; - Focus du groupe des femmes qui s occupent de l éducation des enfants à la maison : construction de l école primaire et d un préscolaire : hausse du nombre d enfants scolarisés, enfants non utilisés pour les travaux des champs et la garde des bœufs, les femmes peuvent travailler avec plus de temps disponible ; - Création du SIIV : réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, capacité financière d enrôler les enfants à l école, etc. - Adduction d eau potable : réduction des maladies diarrhéiques ; Quels types d'effets se sont manifestés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge? Quelle a été l'origine principale des événements et des événements les plus souvent nommés? Est-ce que des nombreuses influences extérieures ont été mentionnées? Est-ce que des programmes/partenaires de ICCO ont été mentionnés? De quelle manière? Pensez-vous que la stratégie du partenaire et programme de ICCO tiennent compte de ces événements et de ces tendances? Comment? Pourquoi? Y a t-il eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Laquelle? Ce changement est-il considéré comme important? Quelles capacités ont eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Y a t-il eu une influence négative sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce considérée comme importante? Comment la sécurité alimentaire a-t-elle été influencée négativement, à travers quelles - La destruction des cultures de riz et de banane par les cyclones avec conséquence l absence de vivres pour la nourriture et la vente, la dégradation du sol faute d apport d engrais, l inflation des prix des produits alimentaires - Les effets soulignés par femmes sont : les femmes et enfants ont été les grandes victimes de l épidémie de chikungunya. - Les effets soulignés par les hommes âgés : les feux de brousse sont les causes de l infertilité des terre et du climat sec en raison de l érosion du sol et du tarissement des sources d eau ; - Cyclones, maladies épidémiques, crise politique et économique qui sont des influences externes souvent mentionnées Les activités des partenaires de l ICCO sont considérées comme des évènements positifs influençant et marquant la vie des villageois ; plusieurs changements mentionnés au profit des membres de SIIV et au profit de tout le village pour l adduction d eau. Le programme tient compte des évènements cycliques comme les cyclones et les épidémies en s attaquant aux racines des problèmes : sécuriser les récoltes, alléger la période de soudure par le stockage de riz, faciliter l accès à l eau potable Approche très pragmatique sur l initiation des activités de stockage : choisir des activités qui répondent aux besoins cruciaux des villageois Conclusions du consultant sur le module 2 Influences positives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires sont : - réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. La réduction du taux de maladies hydriques et diarrhéiques grâce à l adduction d eau Les capacités qui ont une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaires sont - Infrastructure d irrigation : augmentation des surfaces de rizières irriguées pour augmenter la production ; - Intrants : engrais, semences et bœufs permettent d augmenter la productivité ; vaccins et produits vétérinaires pour améliorer l élevage de volaille et porc, création d un centre d approvisionnement d intrants. - Formation technique pour améliorer la productivité rizicole, initier l apiculture et la pisciculture ; - Crédit : besoin d avoir un choix diversifié de services de microfinance pour créer un taux d intérêt plus concurrentiel et abordable ; - Prix et marché des produits de rente (banane, litchi, café) : baisse des prix et peu d accès au marché car monopole des collecteurs Les influences négatives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires : faible productivité des terres faute d apport d engrais suffisant, peu de terrains cultivables dû au relief accidenté et à m épuisement du sol ; Les capacités qui ont une influence négative sont : - Terre : dégradation de la fertilité du sol, rétrécissement des parcelles de culture en raison du partage des terres entre plusieurs héritiers ; ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 82/105

capacités? - Volonté de s associer : insuffisante au niveau du village, peur du risque de s associer car ils ont besoin de démonstration et d expériences positives avant de s investir eux-mêmes Quels ont été les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Y a-t-il eu une grande différence dans la perception concernant les effets et les changements en matière de sécurité alimentaire entre les sous-groupes? Pourquoi est-ce le cas? Que pouvez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences? Les changements négatifs étaient contrés par les effets positifs? Lesquels? Comment? En prenant en compte les effets positifs, les changements négatifs et les facteurs stables, quel est le degré de durabilité de l'ensemble des changements? Est-ce que des changements négatifs ou des éléments stables mettent l'évolution à risque ou portent-ils éventuellement atteinte à l'évolution positive de la sécurité alimentaire? Les changements sont-ils soutenus par des changements dans les systèmes et les attitudes, les changements sont-ils suffisamment structurels? Peuvent-ils réduire les risques au niveau du ménage? La poursuite des changements nécessite-elle des réinvestissements? Et est-ce réaliste au sein de l'ensemble des changements? Quels sont les groupes les plus vulnérables? Quelles sont leurs principales caractéristiques concernant la sécurité alimentaire, la manière dont ils gèrent la sécurité alimentaire et les capacités humaines et leur participation sociale? Quels étaient les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Les opinions diffèrent beaucoup entre les sous-groupes de l'atelier? Comment? Pourquoi? Que voulez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences / variations? Y a t-il une grande différence de caractéristiques entre les différentes catégories de richesse? Si oui, entre toutes les catégories ou principalement entre des catégories à supérieure ou inférieure? Quel pourcentage de la population du village appartient aux 2 plus faibles catégories? Souhait d avoir un choix de services de microfinance en raison des problèmes déjà rencontrés avec TIAVO : part sociale variable et taux d intérêt élevés. Non. Les effets et changements sont généralisés dans le village et ont persisté depuis des années. La dégradation du sol pourrait être ralentie par l apport et l accès à l engrais. Tant que les avantages économiques et sociaux du système de stockage sont conservés à travers les paramètres suivants, les membres veulent continuer le SIIV, voire attirer d autres villageois dans le système : -taux d intérêt raisonnable, -respect du délai de financement du stockage au moment de la récolte, -bonne gouvernance du SIIV : maintenance du stock, transparence de la gestion, etc. - taux de recouvrement des créances La pérennisation des changements dépend de ces paramètres et de la disponibilité d un fonds de roulement de TIAVO pour le SIIV. Les changements doivent être mis à l échelle du village, les produits stockés et les activités de la coopérative doivent être diversifiés mais supposent un investissement financier important par les services de microfinance comme TIAVO. La motivation des villageois pour emprunter est liée aux possibilités d utiliser le profit issu des activités financées par le crédit pour acquérir des biens d investissement tels que la terre, le bétail, etc. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 3 Groupes vulnérables : agriculture et salariat comme activité principale, ne possèdent pas de bœuf, surface de terrain moins d 1 ha, petit nombre de pieds de litchi, faible production de riz, pas de capacité d épargne car consomme son salaire journalier. Caractéristiques de leur sécurité alimentaire : période de soudure presque toute l année car vit de salaire journalier insuffisant pour nourrir la famille (5 à 8 enfants), régime alimentaire basé uniquement sur le riz et le manioc, faible capacité d emprunt, pas de capacité d utiliser des engrais, accès au centre de santé en période de la récolte, ne participe pas aux actions communautaires et sociales car toujours occupé à des travaux journaliers pour gagner son salaire journalier. Points de discussions : les vulnérables n ont pas assez de production à stocker dans le SIIV donc ne font pas partie des membres ; les membres contestent que même les vulnérables peuvent accéder au SIIV, la gestion du stock familial est une question de sacrifice à moyen terme pour pouvoir disposer d un crédit à investir. - Le nombre de catégories de richesses diffère entre 2 groupes dont l un ne reconnaît pas la distinction de personnes très vulnérables en raison des similitudes des critères de richesses des 2 classes sociales inférieures. - Le pourcentage des vulnérables est très élevé selon le groupe des jeunes femmes qui s identifient aux critères de catégorisation de richesse. - - Il y a une grande différence entre riches et le reste des classes. Entre moyennement riches et moyennement pauvres, certains attributs sont similaires : durée de la période de soudure (6 mois), qualité de l alimentation. - Près de 65% à 95%

Est-ce que des groupes sociaux spécifiques comme les orphelins, les personnes atteintes du VIH, les mères non mariées, etc. sont identifiés sous certaines catégories de richesse? Est-ce que les participants ont indiqué certaines évolutions au fil du temps dans les attributions ou la représentation des différentes catégories de richesse? Quelles évolutions? Pourquoi? Connaissant le profil de pauvreté du village, est-ce que la stratégie des partenaires d ICCO reflète les groupes cibles les plus pauvres, explicitement ou implicitement? Les stratégies des partenaires (i) sont-ils inclusive (en atteignant également les deux catégories les plus pauvres) ou plutôt, (ii) visent-ils spécifiquement les catégories les plus pauvres ou (iii) ils ne les mentionnent pas du tout? Est-ce que les stratégies sont adaptées aux caractéristiques de ces groupes cibles? A quel degrés explicitement? Comment? Pourquoi? Estce que les partenaires utilisent des mécanismes de sélection spécifiques pour les catégories les plus pauvres (pour toutes les activités ou pour certaines activités spécifiques)? Comment? Le groupe se souvient-il des nombreux efforts de développement liés à la sécurité alimentaire ou avec des effets sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce que ces efforts sont concentrés dans des secteurs spécifiques? Est-ce que certains secteurs spécifiques ont reçu plus ou moins d appui au niveau de la sécurité alimentaire? Quels types d'acteurs sont principalement impliqués? Quels sont les projets avec un score très haut ou très bas et pourquoi? Est-ce que des jugements très positifs ou négatifs sont prononcés vis-à-vis de secteurs spécifiques? Pourquoi? - non - Pendant les 10 ans, la catégorie des richesses moyennes a augmenté car beaucoup de gens ont quitté la catégorie des pauvres mais à proportion moindre, des moyennement riches ont rejoint la catégorie des moyennement pauvres en raison de la diminution du pouvoir d achat en général : hausse des prix des produits alimentaires face à une production stable ou croissante mais à bas prix (rente). La stratégie de mise en place du SIIV reflète explicitement les couches moyennes et théoriquement les pauvres car ceux qui ont de longues périodes de soudure s intéressent au stockage du riz. L accès à l eau ne fait pas de distinction de catégories de richesses car tout le monde utilise les bornes fontaines. Le SIIV n inclut pas ceux qui sont très vulnérables car ils n ont pas de production à stocker, n ont pas de capacité d emprunt suffisant (part sociale variable) ; la majorité des membres sont moyennement pauvres et riches. Les membres se plaignent du taux d intérêt et des parts sociales variables élevés de TIAVO mais ont pu négocier le déstockage partiel du riz pour diminuer les intérêts encourus et bénéficier des prix de vente du riz assez élevé. Pas de mécanisme de sélection spécifique des plus pauvres pour le SIIV : la volonté de s associer et la motivation de mettre à côté un peu de stock de riz sont la logique de la création du SIIV. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 4 A part le SIIV (secteur agricole) et TIAVO (micro-crédit), plusieurs projets dans les secteurs eau, assainissement et santé ont été cités : ONG RTM/Union Européenne, Santé Net/USAID, PAMOLEA/UE, et l éducation avec BADEA. Score haut : - SIIV: réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. - PAMOLEA : portée des interventions sur toute la population, diminution de l occurrence des maladies et des mortalités liées à l insalubrité de l eau, apporte du confort et l hygiène dans le ménage ; - BADEA: construction de salles de classe, portée des interventions sur toute la population, effet immédiat sur l augmentation du taux de scolarisation ; - RTM : distribution de médicaments contre la filariose, de moustiquaires, traitement des maladies de peau ; efficacité des traitements contre une maladie qui affecte beaucoup de personnes ; - SANTENET : appui à la santé maternelle et infantile ; réduction de la mortalité infantile grâce au suivi des enfants à bas âge, vaccination, médication. Meilleure planification familiale. Approche basée sur la formation des animateurs villageois qui continuent les sensibilisations des ménages. - TIAVO : accès au crédit pour financer les intrants et main-d œuvre pour la production agricole ; possibilité d étendre les terrains à cultiver ; allègement des dépenses lors de la rentrée scolaire grâce au crédit scolaire. Jugements très négatifs émis sur les projets de courte durée (moins de 2 ans) qui commencent par distribuer des intrants (PSDR) ou compléments d aliments pour les enfants en bas âge (CRS, SEECALINE), et ne donnent pas ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 84/105

Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Lesquelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Lesquelles et pourquoi? Des projets des partenaires d ICCO ont été nommés? Si oui, comment ont-ils été jugés et perçus? Quels étaient les points forts et faibles? Comment comparer le jugement à d'autres projets dans la même, et dans d'autres, secteurs? Est-ce que beaucoup d'autres projets ont contribué dans les mêmes secteurs que ceux d ICCO? Y a t-il des différences entre ces projets en termes d'approche, groupe cible, etc.? En termes de jugement? de suite aux dons. Non Non SAF et TIAVO sont souvent cités positivement. Leurs points forts : - Complémentarité et lien direct entre le stockage et l utilisation de crédit pour d autres activités génératrices de revenus qui créent des possibilités d acquérir des biens d investissement (terrain, bétail, etc.) ; - s attaquer au cœur du problème d insécurité alimentaire : disposer de riz suffisant en période de soudure ; - éviter de recourir à l usurier dont le système appauvrit beaucoup de ménages ; Les projets de santé et d éducation sont très appréciés car ils apportent des changements tangibles et immédiats dans la vie des populations : augmentation du poids des enfants, taux de scolarisation élevé, réduction des maladies, etc. PSDR est un projet de développement agricole intervenant dans le village. L approche de PSDR est basée sur le don d intrants agricoles pour tous les producteurs qui sont regroupés en association. Approche non-durable car la campagne suivante n a pas connu aucune dotation d intrants (engrais) ; l absence de suite de cette approche a été jugée très négative. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 5 Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact positif sur les différentes capacités et comment? Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact sur les différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire, pourquoi et comment? Quels étaient les facteurs de succès et les défis? - SIIV: réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. - PAMOLEA : diminution de l occurrence des maladies et des mortalités liées à l insalubrité de l eau, apporte du confort et l hygiène dans le ménage ; - RTM : distribution de médicaments contre la filariose, de moustiquaires, traitement des maladies de peau ; efficacité des traitements contre une maladie qui affecte beaucoup de personnes ; - SANTENET : appui à la santé maternelle et infantile ; réduction de la mortalité infantile grâce au suivi des enfants à bas âge, vaccination, médication. Meilleure planification familiale. Approche basée sur la formation des animateurs villageois qui continuent les sensibilisations des ménages. - TIAVO : accès au crédit pour financer les intrants et main-d œuvre pour la production agricole ; possibilité d étendre les terrains à cultiver ; allègement des dépenses lors de la rentrée scolaire grâce au crédit scolaire. Facteurs de succès : - SIIV : bonne gouvernance de l association et du système de stockage, existence de surplus de production à stocker ; avoir une vision et des objectifs clairs pour l association ; - TIAVO : diversité des produits financiers répondant aux besoins des membres, existence de fonds de roulement - Santé : efficacité de la stratégie avancée du centre pour faire la sensibilisation, dotation en matériels et médicaments du centre de santé pour que les populations continuent les consultations dans le centre Quelles sont les catégories de richesse qui ont principalement été influencé par quel type d'impact (sécurité alimentaire, capacités)? Pourquoi? Quels sont les projets qui ont influencé les catégories les plus pauvres et pourquoi? A quel degré le type d'impact des différentes activités de développement est-il diversifié? Il y a-t-il une concentration? Des lacunes explicites? Une question similaire pour les catégories de richesse: concentration ou impact? Des lacunes explicites? Des synergies ou complémentarités Catégories : pauvres et moyens car ce sont les couches les plus touchées par la période de soudure. A part les projets de santé, eau et assainissement qui ont touché toute la population, aucun projet influence les plus pauvres ; ceux-ci n ont pas de terrain de culture, pas assez de production pour stocker dans le SIIV, ni de garantie suffisante pour bénéficier du service de TIAVO. Impacts diversifiés car secteurs diversifiés : santé, eau, assainissement et agriculture mais concentration des impacts sociaux sur les mères et enfants en raison des appuis consistants dans le secteur santé et eau/assainissement. Les lacunes : développement des activités agricoles pour une meilleure productivité et rentrées de revenus. Les actions ciblant les plus pauvres se limitent au secteur social/santé qui touchent aussi le reste de la population ; le secteur agricole ne cible pas ce groupe en raison des contraintes de facteurs de production de cette couche sociale (pas de terrain, pas de capacité financière minimale, etc.) En raison du système de crédit basé sur le stockage, TIAVO et SIIV sont complémentaires. SANTENET et PAMOLEA sont également complémentaires dû à l importance de l accès à l eau potable pour réduire les maladies hydriques et

entre les projets ont-ils été nommés? Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Les quelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Les quelles et pourquoi? Est-ce que le projet / programme du partenaire de ICCO a été traité dans cet exercice? Si non, pourquoi pas? Quelles capacités et aspects de la sécurité alimentaire ont été influencés par le partenaire d'icco? Quelles sont les catégories de la richesse? Quelles autres remarques, succès, défis se sont manifestés pendant la discussion? Est-ce que ces conclusions sont cohérentes avec les résultats prévus par le projet du partenaire de ICCO? Ou compatible avec les évaluations du projet? Comment comparer l impact du projet du partenaire de ICCO avec les autres efforts en termes de type d impact sur les capacités, différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire et catégorie de richesse? Quels étaient les aspects les moins et les plus forts et qu est ce que ceux-ci ajoutent spécifiquement à d autres activités de développement? diarrhéiques. Non Non Les projets de SAF, PAMOLEA et TIAVO se situent en bonne place des interventions des partenaires dans le village. Les aspects de sécurité alimentaire influencés : - réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. La réduction du taux de maladies hydriques et diarrhéiques grâce à l adduction d eau Les capacités influencées sont surtout dans le domaine économique et humain avec les aspects relatifs à la santé, la capacité de bonne gouvernance, l accès au crédit, l épargne, et le stockage de production pour la nourriture et la vente. Les catégories de richesses touchées sont surtout les moyennement pauvres. Le SIIV n inclut pas ceux qui sont très vulnérables car ils n ont pas de production à stocker, n ont pas de capacité d emprunt suffisant (part sociale variable) ; la majorité des membres sont moyennement pauvres et riches. Beaucoup de cohérences avec les résultats attendus des partenaires de l ICCO : allègement de la période de soudure, capacités des producteurs plus renforcées, augmentation de revenus, amélioration de la santé de la population, etc. L évaluation s attendait à des stratégies de mise à l échelle des activités SIIV et coopératives avec beaucoup plus de paramètres de durabilité pris en compte dans les démarches et la mise en œuvre du SIIV et des appuis aux coopératives. L approche participative et pragmatique des partenaires sont des atouts par rapport à des projets comme le PSDR dont l approche est basée sur le don d intrants agricoles pour tous les producteurs qui sont regroupés en association. Approche non-durable car la campagne suivante n a pas connu aucune dotation d intrants (engrais) ; l absence de suite de cette approche a été jugée très négative. Les capacités influencées sont parmi les plus critiques pour la sécurisation alimentaire, à savoir la réduction de la période de soudure, la réduction des maladies épidémiques, l augmentation des revenus, etc. Les aspects faibles : insuffisance d orientation de l utilisation des crédits vers des activités génératrices de revenus, manque de clarté de l objet des activités des coopératives, pas d appuis à la production pour mieux rentabiliser les SIIV et s attaquer au problème crucial de faible productivité agricole qui affecte la sécurité alimentaire. VILLAGE 2 : SANDROHY SAF/FJKM (focus group) Quels événements ont été très importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire? Lesquels ont été nommés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge spécifiques et pourquoi? Quels ont été les points de discussion importants? Quels types d'effets se sont manifestés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge? Quelle a été l'origine principale des événements et des événements les plus souvent nommés? Est-ce que des nombreuses influences Conclusions du consultant sur le module 1 Les évènements les plus importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire SA sont : - Les cyclones et grêles dont 2 ont été particulièrement intenses et destructifs : pertes de production et de bétail, ensablement des rizières, destruction des habitations, recrudescence de choléra à cause des inondations du village et eaux stagnantes, - Epidémie de chikungunya : faible capacité de travailler dans les champs (6 mois de convalescence), frappait sans distinction les populations, créait des dépenses de salariat pour travailler les champs ; - Hausse du prix du girofle et café : acquisition de radios, biens d équipement pour le foyer dans la plupart des ménages ; - Création du SIIV : réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières paiement de main-d œuvre, investissement du crédit dans les petits commerces. - Distribution d engrais, de semences et d outils gratuitement par PNUD et Agro Action Allemande ; Points de discussions importants : effets dévastateurs des cyclones sur la production et la période de soudure, ce qui ne permet pas de relever le niveau de vie des populations - La destruction des cultures de riz et de rente par les cyclones avec conséquence l absence de vivres pour la nourriture et la vente, la dégradation du sol faute d apport d engrais - Les effets soulignés par femmes sont : les femmes et enfants ont été les grandes victimes de l épidémie de chikungunya. - Cyclones, maladies épidémiques sont des influences externes souvent mentionnées ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 86/105

extérieures ont été mentionnées? Est-ce que des programmes/partenaires de ICCO ont été mentionnés? De quelle manière? Pensez-vous que la stratégie du partenaire et programme de ICCO tiennent compte de ces événements et de ces tendances? Comment? Pourquoi? Y a t-il eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Laquelle? Ce changement est-il considéré comme important? Quelles capacités ont eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Y a t-il eu une influence négative sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce considérée comme importante? Comment la sécurité alimentaire a-t-elle été influencée négativement, à travers quelles capacités? Les activités de SAF et TIAVO partenaires de l ICCO sont considérées comme des évènements positifs influençant l allègement de la soudure et la disponibilité des crédits pour les villageois ; plusieurs changements mentionnés au profit des membres de SIIV (cf. tableau 2). Le programme tient compte des évènements cycliques comme les cyclones en s attaquant aux racines des problèmes : sécuriser les récoltes, alléger la période de soudure par le stockage de riz. Approche très pragmatique sur l initiation des activités de stockage : choisir des activités qui répondent aux besoins cruciaux alimentaires des villageois, tout en donnant des opportunités de financement d activités génératrices de revenus. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 2 Influences positives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires sont : - réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. possibilité de créer un dépôt de médicaments géré par le SIIV et accessible à tous les villages loins du centre de santé communal ; - disponibilité des engrais pour ralentir la dégradation de la fertilité du sol ; Les capacités qui ont une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaires sont - Infrastructure d irrigation : augmentation des surfaces de rizières irriguées à plus de 60 ha pour l ensemble du village ; - Intrants : engrais, semences améliorées de riz et légumes permettent d augmenter la productivité ; alevins pour améliorer la pisciculture, - Matériels comme sarcleuse et charrues pour pouvoir suivre les techniques améliorées en riziculture. - Prix et marché des produits de rente (banane, litchi, café) : baisse des prix et peu d accès au marché car monopole des collecteurs Les influences négatives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires : faible productivité des terres faute d apport d engrais suffisant, peu de terrains cultivables dû à l ensablement des rizières, l insuffisance de maîtrise d eau et à l épuisement du sol ; Les capacités qui ont une influence négative sont : - Terre : dégradation de la fertilité du sol, rétrécissement des parcelles de culture en raison du partage des terres entre plusieurs héritiers ; - Mauvaise gestion des infrastructures d irrigation : insuffisance de leadership et de mise en vigueur des règlements des associations des usagers de l eau entraînent le manque de maintenance et l inefficacité du réseau d irrigation. Quels ont été les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Y a-t-il eu une grande différence dans la perception concernant les effets et les changements en matière de sécurité alimentaire entre les sous-groupes? Pourquoi est-ce le cas? Que pouvez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences? Les changements négatifs étaient contrés par les effets positifs? Lesquels? Comment? En prenant en compte les effets positifs, les changements négatifs et les facteurs stables, quel est le degré de durabilité de l'ensemble des changements? Est-ce que des changements négatifs ou des éléments stables mettent l'évolution à risque ou portent-ils éventuellement atteinte à l'évolution positive de la sécurité alimentaire? Les changements sont-ils soutenus par des changements dans les systèmes et les attitudes, les Gestion du réseau d irrigation : besoin de changer le président de l association des usagers de l eau car il n a pas de terrain parmi le périmètre irrigué et ne se soucie pas de la bonne gouvernance du réseau. Non. Les effets et changements sont généralisés dans le village et ont persisté depuis des années. La dégradation du sol pourrait être ralentie par l apport et l accès à l engrais. La durabilité des changements positifs apportés par le SIIV dépend de : -bonne gouvernance du SIIV : respect des procédures de vote et de prise de décision, forte sensibilisation des membres par le comité de gestion. A ce jour, aucun membre pénalisé par la non-assistance aux assemblées car les membres sont très motivés par les activités du SIIV ; - respect du délai de déstockage et disponibilité du crédit au moment des périodes difficiles ; Les changements sont soutenus par la dynamique des membres du comité de gestion du SIIV qui a déjà trouvé un fonds pour financer un centre d approvisionnement en intrants à partir de leurs propres initiatives. Cette idée de centre d appro est née des visites d échanges organisées avec d autres sites ayant un centre fonctionnel. D autres villages veulent s associer au SIIV mais vu leur enclavement, les paysans ne peuvent pas transporter la production aux SIIV existants.

changements sont-ils suffisamment structurels? Peuvent-ils réduire les risques au niveau du ménage? La poursuite des changements nécessite-elle des réinvestissements? Et est-ce réaliste au sein de l'ensemble des changements? Quels sont les groupes les plus vulnérables? Quelles sont leurs principales caractéristiques concernant la sécurité alimentaire, la manière dont ils gèrent la sécurité alimentaire et les capacités humaines et leur participation sociale? Quels étaient les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Les opinions diffèrent beaucoup entre les sous-groupes de l'atelier? Comment? Pourquoi? Que voulez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences / variations? Y a t-il une grande différence de caractéristiques entre les différentes catégories de richesse? Si oui, entre toutes les catégories ou principalement entre des catégories à supérieure ou inférieure? Quel pourcentage de la population du village appartient aux 2 plus faibles catégories? Est-ce que des groupes sociaux spécifiques comme les orphelins, les personnes atteintes du VIH, les mères non mariées, etc. sont identifiés sous certaines catégories de richesse? Est-ce que les participants ont indiqué certaines évolutions au fil du temps dans les attributions ou la représentation des différentes catégories de richesse? Quelles évolutions? Pourquoi? Connaissant le profil de pauvreté du village, est-ce que la stratégie des partenaires d ICCO reflète les groupes cibles les plus pauvres, explicitement ou implicitement? Les stratégies des partenaires (i) sont-ils inclusive (en atteignant également les deux catégories les plus pauvres) ou plutôt, (ii) visent-ils spécifiquement les catégories les plus pauvres ou (iii) ils ne les mentionnent pas du tout? Est-ce que les stratégies sont adaptées aux caractéristiques de ces groupes cibles? A quel degrés explicitement? Comment? Pourquoi? Estce que les partenaires utilisent des mécanismes de sélection spécifiques pour Conclusions du consultant sur le module 3 Groupes vulnérables : agriculture et salariat comme activité principale, en majorité des femmes non-mariées, ne possèdent pas de bœuf ni de maison, surface de terrain moins d 1 ha, petit nombre de pieds de café, faible production de riz, pas de capacité d épargne car consomme son salaire journalier. Caractéristiques de leur sécurité alimentaire : période de soudure presque toute l année car vit de salaire journalier insuffisant pour nourrir la famille (5 à 8 enfants), régime alimentaire basé uniquement sur le riz et le manioc, faible capacité d emprunt, pas de capacité d utiliser des engrais, accès au centre de santé car gratuit pour les démunis et subventionnés par la commune, n ont pas d argent pour envoyer les enfants à l école, ne participe pas aux actions communautaires et sociales car ne peuvent pas payer les cotisations. Points de discussions : amélioration du niveau de vie des villageois depuis 10 ans car beaucoup de projets appuient la commune dans l apport d intrants et la formation en techniques de culture améliorées. - Le pourcentage des vulnérables est très élevé selon le groupe des jeunes femmes qui s identifient aux critères de catégorisation de richesse. - Il y a une grande différence entre riches et le reste des classes. Les ménages qui ont des occupations dans le commerce, la collecte et vente des produits de rente et d autres entreprises se distinguent nettement des ménages agriculteurs de par l envergure de leur capital (voiture, maison en dur, nombre de bœufs, surface de terrain de caféiers, etc.) - Près de 95% - Femmes non-mariées ayant des enfants à charge - Pendant les 10 ans, la catégorie des richesses moyennes a amélioré leur niveau de vie mais n a pas quitté cette catégorie en raison de la diminution du pouvoir d achat en général : hausse des prix des produits alimentaires face à une production rizicole stable voire décroissante car partage des terres entre plusieurs générations et baisse de productivité. La stratégie de mise en place du SIIV reflète explicitement les couches moyennes qui ont des périodes de soudure et s intéressent au stockage du riz. Le SIIV n inclut pas ceux qui sont très vulnérables car ils n ont pas de production à stocker, n ont pas de capacité d emprunt suffisante (part sociale variable) ; la majorité des membres sont moyennement pauvres et riches. Pas de mécanisme de sélection spécifique des plus pauvres pour le SIIV : la forte capacité de production et de stockage de riz et la capacité d emprunt sont la logique de la création du SIIV. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 88/105

les catégories les plus pauvres (pour toutes les activités ou pour certaines activités spécifiques)? Comment? Le groupe se souvient-il des nombreux efforts de développement liés à la sécurité alimentaire ou avec des effets sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce que ces efforts sont concentrés dans des secteurs spécifiques? Est-ce que certains secteurs spécifiques ont reçu plus ou moins d appui au niveau de la sécurité alimentaire? Quels types d'acteurs sont principalement impliqués? Quels sont les projets avec un score très haut ou très bas et pourquoi? Est-ce que des jugements très positifs ou négatifs sont prononcés vis-à-vis de secteurs spécifiques? Pourquoi? Conclusions du consultant sur le module 4 A part le SIIV et TIAVO (micro-crédit), plusieurs projets dans les secteurs agricole et santé ont été cités : Agro Action Allemande, SEECALINE/ONN, Santé Net/USAID, INTERAIDE, FAO, PSDR, PNUD, CNCC. Concentration des appuis dans le secteur agricole, notamment la riziculture (distribution de semences, d engrais et d outillage agricole) Score haut : - Agro Action Allemande : formation en cultures maraîchères et formation culinaire, suivi des enfants en bas âge, distribution d intrants et matériels de production. Succès de la culture de légumes. - SIIV: réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. Bonne gestion du budget familial. - SANTENET : appui à la santé maternelle et infantile ; réduction de la mortalité infantile grâce au suivi des enfants à bas âge, vaccination, médication. Meilleure planification familiale. Approche basée sur la formation des animateurs villageois qui continuent les sensibilisations des ménages et sont formés pour certains traitements, dépôt de médicaments accessibles aux villages. - TIAVO : accès au crédit pour financer les intrants et main-d œuvre pour la production agricole ; possibilité d étendre les terrains à cultiver ; taux d intérêt moins cher par rapport à l usure, possibilité d épargner. - CNCC : distribution de jeunes caféiers et girofliers de qualité ; nouvelles sources de revenus de la culture de rente, approche participative qui incite l entretien des plantations ; Jugements très négatifs émis sur RTM et PMPS : distribution de médicaments et de moustiquaires contre le paludisme mais sans système d approvisionnement durable; Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Lesquelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Lesquelles et pourquoi? Des projets des partenaires d ICCO ont été nommés? Si oui, comment ont-ils été jugés et perçus? Quels étaient les points forts et faibles? Comment comparer le jugement à d'autres projets dans la même, et dans d'autres, secteurs? Est-ce que beaucoup d'autres projets ont contribué dans les mêmes secteurs que ceux d ICCO? Y a t-il des différences entre ces projets en termes d'approche, groupe cible, etc.? En termes de jugement? Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact positif sur les différentes capacités et comment? Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact sur les différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire, pourquoi et Inefficacité des formations culinaires qui exigent l achat d ingrédients hors de la portée des ménages et qui améliorent seulement les aliments existants sans apport d innovations qui intéressent les foyers. Non Non SAF et TIAVO sont souvent cités positivement. Leurs points forts : - Complémentarité et lien direct entre le stockage et l utilisation de crédit pour d autres activités génératrices de revenus qui créent des possibilités d acquérir des biens d investissement (terrain, bétail, etc.) ; - s attaquer au cœur du problème d insécurité alimentaire : disposer de riz suffisant en période de soudure ; Les projets de santé l intérieur de la commune. sont également complémentaires car ils couvrent différentes zones géographiques à Beaucoup de projets ont intervenu dans la vulgarisation agricole mais ont souvent adopté une approche basée sur le don d intrants agricoles pour tous les producteurs. Approche non-durable car la campagne suivante n a pas connu aucune dotation d intrants (engrais) ; l absence de suite de cette approche a été jugée très négative. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 5 - Cf. tableau 4 Facteurs de succès : - SIIV : bonne gouvernance des 3 coopératives et du système de stockage, existence de surplus de production à stocker ; - TIAVO : facilités de crédit offertes aux moments difficiles ; taux d intérêt moins cher par rapport à l usure, possibilité d épargner.

comment? Quels étaient les facteurs de succès et les défis? Quelles sont les catégories de richesse qui ont principalement été influencé par quel type d'impact (sécurité alimentaire, capacités)? Pourquoi? Quels sont les projets qui ont influencé les catégories les plus pauvres et pourquoi? A quel degré le type d'impact des différentes activités de développement est-il diversifié? Il y a-t-il une concentration? Des lacunes explicites? Une question similaire pour les catégories de richesse: concentration ou impact? Des lacunes explicites? Des synergies ou complémentarités entre les projets ont-ils été nommés? Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Les quelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Les quelles et pourquoi? Est-ce que le projet / programme du partenaire de ICCO a été traité dans cet exercice? Si non, pourquoi pas? Quelles capacités et aspects de la sécurité alimentaire ont été influencés par le partenaire d'icco? Quelles sont les catégories de la richesse? Quelles autres remarques, succès, défis se sont manifestés pendant la discussion? Est-ce que ces conclusions sont cohérentes avec les résultats prévus par le projet du partenaire de ICCO? Ou compatible avec les évaluations du projet? Comment comparer l impact du projet du partenaire de ICCO avec les autres efforts en termes de type d impact sur les capacités, différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire et catégorie de richesse? Quels étaient les aspects les moins et les plus forts et qu est ce que ceux-ci ajoutent spécifiquement à d autres activités de développement? - Santé : efficacité des animateurs communautaires pour faire la sensibilisation, liaison et synergie des animateurs avec le centre de santé de base communal qui fournit les médicaments ; Catégories : pauvres et moyens car ce sont les couches les plus touchées par la période de soudure. A part les projets de santé qui ont touché toute la population, aucun projet influence les plus pauvres ; ceux-ci n ont pas de terrain de culture, pas assez de production pour stocker dans le SIIV, ni de garantie suffisante pour bénéficier du service de TIAVO. Impacts concentrés sur la santé maternelle et infantile et sur le secteur agricole, notamment rizicole. Les lacunes : développement des autres cultures vivrières et les légumes pour une meilleure productivité et rentrées de revenus, pas d activités d assainissement et d adduction d eau. Les actions ciblant les plus pauvres se limitent au secteur social/santé qui touchent aussi le reste de la population ; le secteur agricole ne cible pas ce groupe en raison des contraintes de facteurs de production de cette couche sociale (pas de terrain, pas de capacité financière minimale, etc.) En raison du système de crédit basé sur le stockage, TIAVO et SIIV sont complémentaires. SANTENET et Agro Action Allemande et SEECALINE sont également complémentaires du point de vue couverture géographique des actions qui sont similaires. Non Non Les projets de SAF et TIAVO se situent en bonne place des interventions des partenaires dans le village. Les aspects de sécurité alimentaire influencés : - réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz, disponibilité de fonds pour améliorer les cultures vivrières : aménagement ou achat de nouveaux terrains, paiement de main-d œuvre, achat de bœufs, etc. Les capacités influencées sont surtout dans le domaine économique et humain avec les aspects relatifs à la santé, la capacité de bonne gouvernance, l accès au crédit, l épargne, et le stockage de production pour la nourriture et la vente. Les catégories de richesses touchées sont surtout les moyennement pauvres et les riches. Le SIIV n inclut pas ceux qui sont très vulnérables car ils n ont pas de production à stocker, n ont pas de capacité d emprunt suffisant (part sociale variable) ; la majorité des membres sont moyennement pauvres et riches. Beaucoup de cohérences avec les résultats attendus des partenaires de l ICCO : allègement de la période de soudure, capacités des producteurs plus renforcées, augmentation de revenus, amélioration de la santé de la population, etc. L évaluation s attendait à des stratégies de mise à l échelle des activités SIIV et coopératives avec beaucoup plus de paramètres de durabilité pris en compte dans les démarches et la mise en œuvre du SIIV et des appuis aux coopératives. L approche participative et pragmatique des partenaires sont des atouts par rapport à des projets ayant une approche est basée sur le don d intrants agricoles. Approche non-durable car la campagne suivante n a pas connu aucune dotation d intrants (engrais) ; l absence de suite de cette approche a été jugée très négative. Les capacités influencées sont parmi les plus critiques pour la sécurisation alimentaire, à savoir la réduction de la période de soudure, la réduction des maladies épidémiques, l augmentation des revenus, etc. Les aspects faibles : insuffisance d orientation de l utilisation des crédits vers des activités génératrices de revenus, manque de clarté de l objet des activités des coopératives, pas d appuis à la production pour mieux rentabiliser les SIIV et s attaquer au problème crucial de faible productivité agricole qui affecte la sécurité alimentaire. VILLAGE 3 : AMBILA FIANTSO ET TIAVO Quels événements ont été très importants pour leur influence sur la Conclusions du consultant sur le module 1, Ambila, Fiantso et Tiavo Les évènements les plus importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire SA sont : - Les cyclones et grêles particulièrement intenses et destructifs : ensablement des rizières, pertes de production, allongement de la période de soudure, pertes de vies humaines, pertes de volaille et de bétail, ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 90/105

sécurité alimentaire? Lesquels ont été nommés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge spécifiques et pourquoi? Quels ont été les points de discussion importants? - Longue période de sécheresse (4 à 6 mois) : pertes de production et de bétail, insuffisance d eau potable; - Focus du groupe des femmes car l évènement affecte directement le foyer : recrudescence des diarrhées, paludisme et choléra qui a entraîné beaucoup de pertes de vies humaines, et recrudescence des charbons affectant le bétail et choléras aviaires car insuffisance des eaux pour le bétail ; - Focus du groupe des jeunes hommes qui sont les principaux producteurs de girofle : hausse des prix du girofle qui a permis d étendre les cultures de girofle, acquisition de bœufs, construction de maisons, amélioration de la soudure ; - Points de discussion positifs : o arrivée des aides d urgence par l Etat : accès aux semences de patates douces et de maïs, engrais et compléments d aliments pour les femmes et enfants moins de 2 ans. La zone ne reçoit d appuis de l Etat en dehors des aides d urgence. o Les projets qui ont doté de semences de riz et d engrais : PSDR, INTERAIDE ont permis d améliorer la productivité rizicole. o Aides d urgences améliorant la soudure par SALOHI: distribution de nourriture et de médicaments, pesée des enfants de bas âge à proximité grâce à l ouverture des pistes rurales. Quels types d'effets se sont manifestés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge? Quelle a été l'origine principale des événements et des événements les plus souvent nommés? Est-ce que des nombreuses influences extérieures ont été mentionnées? Interprétation par le consultant Est-ce que des programmes/partenaires de ICCO ont été mentionnés? De quelle manière? Pensez-vous que la stratégie du partenaire et programme de ICCO tiennent compte de ces événements et de ces tendances? Comment? Pourquoi? - La destruction des cultures de riz et du bétail par les cyclones et sécheresse avec conséquence l absence de vivres pour la nourriture et la vente. L année 2009 a été particulièrement dure pour tout le monde car le cyclone a ravagé la récolte de la première saison de riziculture ; la population a commencé assez tôt la deuxième saison de riziculture pour compenser la perte de récolte de la première saison mais le climat n a pas été favorable à la bonne germination des graines due à l inondation des rizières. - Les effets soulignés par femmes qui sont vulnérables par rapport à ces effets : recrudescence des maladies diarrhéiques et hydriques, distribution de moustiquaires contre le paludisme, vaccination massive pour les enfants moins de 5 ans. - Les effets soulignés par les jeunes hommes : aucun - Cyclones, maladies épidémiques, sécheresse qui sont des influences externes souvent mentionnées Pas de mention des activités des partenaires de l ICCO mais plutôt les aides d urgence et les autres projets de développement (INTERAIDE, PSDR, SALOHI) et de santé (ASOS/SANTENET). Pas de stratégie de sécurisation alimentaire de l ICCO dans la zone : les appuis agricoles, santé et en nutrition sont réalisés par d autres projets ; Conclusions du consultant sur le module 2, Ambila, Fiantso et TIAVO Y a t-il eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Laquelle? Ce changement est-il considéré comme important? Quelles capacités ont eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Y a t-il eu une influence négative sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce considérée comme importante? Comment la sécurité alimentaire a-t-elle été influencée négativement, à travers quelles capacités? Quels ont été les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Influences positives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires sont : - Hausse du prix du girofle qui a permis d étendre les cultures de girofle, acquisition de bœufs, construction de maisons, réduction de la soudure. Les capacités qui ont une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaires sont - Infrastructure d irrigation : augmentation des surfaces de rizières irriguées pour augmenter la production ; - Intrants : engrais et semences pour la riziculture permettant d augmenter la productivité. - Formation technique pour améliorer la productivité rizicole, la culture maraîchère, l élevage de volaille ; - Outillage pour la culture maraîchère pour développer les cultures ; - Crédit : disponibilité à un taux d intérêt plus abordable afin de financer l achat des intrants ; - Artisanat (nattes, chapeaux, etc.) : disponibilité des matières premières pour augmenter la production et la vente des produits artisanaux Les influences négatives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires : faible productivité des terres faute d apport d engrais suffisant, baisse des prix des produits de rente (café, girofle, vanille) qui réduisent les rentrées d argent en période de soudure ; Les capacités qui ont une influence négative sont : - Terre : dégradation de la fertilité du sol, rétrécissement des parcelles de culture en raison du partage des terres entre plusieurs héritiers ; - Feux de brousse qui éliminent les matières premières pour l artisanat TIAVO : part sociale variable et taux d intérêt élevés, coût des formalités d emprunt élevé, retard du délai d octroi du crédit qui n est plus opportun pour financer les travaux des champs ; le crédit est utilisé à

d autres fins pas nécessairement productives, ce qui rend difficile le remboursement des prêts. Y a-t-il eu une grande différence dans la Non. Les effets et changements sont généralisés dans le village et ont persisté depuis des années. perception concernant les effets et les changements en matière de sécurité alimentaire entre les sous-groupes? Pourquoi est-ce le cas? Que pouvezvous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences? Les changements négatifs étaient La dégradation du sol pourrait être ralentie par l apport et l accès à l engrais. contrés par les effets positifs? Lesquels? Comment? En prenant en compte les effets positifs, les La dégradation du sol et le rétrécissement des terrains sont des changements continus qui changements négatifs et les facteurs s aggravent dans le temps sans un changement drastique des modes de production (utilisation stables, quel est le degré de durabilité de l'ensemble des changements? Est-ce que des changements négatifs ou des éléments d engrais approprié, amélioration des outils de production, etc.). L effet cyclique des catastrophes naturelles met en danger annuellement la situation de sécurité alimentaire des villages. stables mettent l'évolution à risque ou portent-ils éventuellement atteinte à L approche de dons des intrants appliquée par les partenaires étatiques et techniques favorise l'évolution positive de la sécurité l utilisation d engrais chimique et crée l habitude de quémander auprès des paysans sans qu un alimentaire? Les changements sont-ils système d approvisionnement d intrants plus durable soit mis en place. Les autres partenaires soutenus par des changements dans les systèmes et les attitudes, les changements sont-ils suffisamment structurels? Peuventils réduire les risques au niveau du ménage? techniques (INTERAIDE, SALOHI, TIAVO) commencent à changer cette approche de dons et exigent un minimum de forme de participation des villageois (ex : paiement partiel des engrais, octroi de crédit pour l achat des intrants, etc.). Ces appuis aux intrants entrent dans une phase de transfert de gestion des centres d appro des intrants vers les producteurs (INTERAIDE et TIAVO). La poursuite des changements nécessiteelle des réinvestissements? Et est-ce Résoudre les problèmes d intrants fera une grande différence pour augmenter la productivité et réaliste au sein de l'ensemble des réduire les risques d insécurité alimentaire. changements? Conclusions du consultant sur le module 3, Ambila, Fiantso et TIAVO Quels sont les groupes les plus vulnérables? Quelles sont leurs principales caractéristiques concernant la sécurité alimentaire, la manière dont ils gèrent la sécurité alimentaire et les capacités humaines et leur participation sociale? Quels étaient les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Les opinions diffèrent beaucoup entre les sous-groupes de l'atelier? Comment? Pourquoi? Que voulez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences / variations? Y a t-il une grande différence de caractéristiques entre les différentes catégories de richesse? Si oui, entre toutes les catégories ou principalement entre des catégories à supérieure ou inférieure? Quel pourcentage de la population du village appartient aux 2 plus faibles catégories? Groupes vulnérables : agriculture et salariat comme activité principale, ne possèdent pas de bœuf, surface de terrain moins d 1 ha, petit nombre de pieds de café et litchi, faible production de riz insuffisante même pour la consommation journalière, pas de capacité d emprunt car ils vivent de leur salaire journalier, niveau d éducation des enfants se limite aux classes primaires. Caractéristiques de leur sécurité alimentaire : période de soudure presque toute l année car vivent de salaire journalier insuffisant pour nourrir la famille (10 à 12 enfants), régime alimentaire basé uniquement sur le riz et le manioc, pas de capacité d utiliser des engrais, pas d accès au centre de santé qui est payant mais utilisent des plantes médicinales ou consultent des guérisseurs traditionnels, ne participe pas aux actions communautaires et sociales car toujours occupé à des travaux journaliers pour gagner son salaire journalier. Points de discussions : le groupe des couches moyennes est le plus intéressé par la certification foncière car ils pensent avoir plus de sécurité des terrains face aux menaces d accaparement par les riches auprès de qui ils s endettent et parfois doivent vendre les terrains à bas prix pour rembourser les dettes. - Le groupe des jeunes hommes ne reconnaît pas que les personnes très vulnérables sont nombreuses par rapport aux couches moyennes : ils s identifient aux jeunes qui sont pris en charge par leurs parents encore dans la catégorie des couches moyennes alors que c est courant dans la société qu ils ont déjà créé des foyers devenus vulnérables car ils ne reconnaissent pas et ne prennent pas en charge les enfants légitimes issus de ces foyers. Dans les mentalités des hommes, il existe une marginalisation et négligence des femmes légitimes ayant plusieurs enfants à charge. - Il y a une grande différence entre riches et le reste des classes. Entre moyennement riches et moyennement pauvres, certains attributs sont similaires : durée de la période de soudure (1 à 3 mois), qualité de l alimentation, nombre d enfants. - Près de 90% ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 92/105

Est-ce que des groupes sociaux spécifiques comme les orphelins, les personnes atteintes du VIH, les mères non mariées, etc sont identifiés sous certaines catégories de richesse? Est-ce que les participants ont indiqué certaines évolutions au fil du temps dans les attributions ou la représentation des différentes catégories de richesse? Quelles évolutions? Pourquoi? Connaissant le profil de pauvreté du village, est-ce que la stratégie des partenaires d ICCO reflète les groupes cibles les plus pauvres, explicitement ou implicitement? Les stratégies des partenaires (i) sont-ils inclusive (en atteignant également les deux catégories les plus pauvres) ou plutôt, (ii) visent-ils spécifiquement les catégories les plus pauvres ou (iii) ils ne les mentionnent pas du tout? Est-ce que les stratégies sont adaptées aux caractéristiques de ces groupes cibles? A quel degrés explicitement? Comment? Pourquoi? Est-ce que les partenaires utilisent des mécanismes de sélection spécifiques pour les catégories les plus pauvres (pour toutes les activités ou pour certaines activités spécifiques)? Comment? - Mères non-mariées - Plusieurs ménages dans la catégorie des richesses moyennes ont régressé vers la catégorie des pauvres en raison des effets des cyclones très intenses en 2009-2010 : 2 saisons rizicoles affectées et qui ont des impacts considérables sur la capacité de relèvement de l économie familiale. FIANTSO : n intervient pas directement dans les appuis à la sécurisation alimentaire mais dispose d un fonds de l ICCO à utiliser pour faciliter les formalités d emprunt auprès de TIAVO ; cet appui devrait être favorable à la promotion du crédit auprès des vulnérables si la sensibilisation sur la culture de crédit est efficace : éviter la propagation de l esprit de «gratuité» des crédits et la faiblesse de remboursement à cause de cette mauvaise compréhension de la culture de crédit. TIAVO : Pas d approche pro-vulnérable car ils n ont pas de production à stocker, n ont pas de capacité d emprunt suffisant (part sociale variable) ; la majorité des membres sont riches. Pas de mécanisme de sélection spécifique des plus pauvres pour TIAVO et FIANTSO : la sélection est en fonction de la demande de crédit ou de certificat foncier. Les femmes restent minoritaires parmi les bénéficiaires de crédit et de certificat foncier mais elles reconnaissent l importance du certificat foncier dans l attribution et la sécurisation des terrains aux femmes qui sont parmi les plus démunies en terme de parcelles de culture. Dans un contexte culturel qui marginalise les femmes pour le partage des terres, FIANTSO à travers l appui au guichet foncier (GF) a révolutionné les coutumes et l appropriation des terres. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 4, Ambila, Fiantso et TIAVO Le groupe se souvient-il des nombreux efforts de développement liés à la sécurité alimentaire ou avec des effets sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce que ces efforts sont concentrés dans des secteurs spécifiques? Est-ce que certains secteurs spécifiques ont reçu plus ou moins d appui au niveau de la sécurité alimentaire? Quels types d'acteurs sont principalement impliqués? Quels sont les projets avec un score très haut ou très bas et pourquoi? Est-ce que des jugements très positifs ou négatifs sont prononcés vis-à-vis de secteurs spécifiques? Pourquoi? Quelques projets (pas de partenaires d ICCO) concentrés dans les secteurs agricole et santé ont été cités : SALOHI, INTERAIDE, PSDR, FID, ASOS, RTM. Le don de la Direction régionale de l agriculture en intrants pour les producteurs a été particulièrement cité car il a été fourni comme aide d urgence après la période cyclonique de 2010. Score haut : - INTERAIDE : suivi technique améliorée en riziculture, don de matériels mais vente d engrais à bas prix, création de centre d appro : amélioration de la productivité, disponibilité continue des intrants, mais portée limitée à quelques villages seulement. - FID : construction d infrastructures agricoles et écoles avec la participation des villageois selon le système HIMO ; bonne qualité et solidité des ouvrages et pertinence réelle des infrastructures par rapport aux problèmes d irrigation et l accès à l éducation ; - ASOS : sensibilisation sur la santé maternelle et infantile, distribution de médicaments et de vaccins, vente de moustiquaires au moment où le prix et la vente de girofle ont augmenté, dynamique des animateurs communautaires motivés par l efficacité des sensibilisations. La commune a été fortement impliquée dans la sensibilisation des populations et a été récompensée à cause de la performance atteinte en taux de vaccination, baisse de mortalité infantile, amélioration de l hygiène, etc. - SALOHI : distribution de vivres, vulgarisation agricole avec quelques associations de producteurs, suivi technique rapproché des paysans, parcelle de démonstration avec un membre de l organisation. Réduction de la période de soudure car existence de stock de riz distribué, amélioration de la productivité rizicole, etc. Score bas : - TIAVO : part sociale variable et taux d intérêt élevés, coût des formalités d emprunt élevé, retard du délai d octroi du crédit qui n est plus opportun pour financer les travaux des

champs ; le crédit est utilisé à d autres fins pas nécessairement productives, ce qui rend difficile le remboursement des prêts, peur du risque d hypothèque des actifs du ménage pour rembourser. - PSDR : approche de don d engrais, semences, de matériels et formation technique : augmentation de la productivité et suivi rapproché mais les paysans reconnaissent que l appro en intrants s est arrêté car non-durable, disparition des matériels attribués, vente des semences par les vulnérables au lieu de les planter faute de terrain ; Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Les quelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Les quelles et pourquoi? Des projets des partenaires d ICCO ont été nommés? Si oui, comment ont-ils été jugés et perçus? Quels étaient les points forts et faibles? Comment comparer le jugement à d'autres projets dans la même, et dans d'autres, secteurs? Les aspects positifs du guichet foncier ont été cités par un seul groupe : Proximité du bureau pour faire les procédures de certification il existe un cas d accaparement d un grand terrain immatriculé par une personne qui a fait appel aux services fonciers sans que le guichet soit informé ; les paysans sont conscients de ces menaces externes et reconnaissent l efficacité des Comités de Reconnaissance Locale qui connaissent les limites et les occupants des terrains et ne créent pas de conflits après la certification. Pas de changement de pratiques culturales après la certification foncière mais plutôt une tranquillité d esprit des bénéficiaires sur la sécurisation foncière contre des potentiels accaparements de terrain, héritage formalisé pour les futures générations. La faiblesse du nombre de certificats fonciers payés est liée à la crise économique en 2010 aggravée par les cyclones successifs. TIAVO : cf. ci-dessus. La culture de crédit très différente de l approche de don à laquelle les paysans sont habitués n est pas encore comprise par les villageois ; insuffisance de sensibilisation de la part de TIAVO également. FIANTSO : cf. ci-dessus ; concernant le fonds mis à la disposition de TIAVO, cf. tableau 3 Est-ce que beaucoup d'autres projets ont Pas d autres projets dans les mêmes secteurs de l ICCO. contribué dans les mêmes secteurs que ceux d ICCO? Y a t-il des différences entre ces projets en termes d'approche, groupe cible, etc.? En termes de jugement? Conclusions du consultant sur le module 5, Ambila, Fiantso et TIAVO Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact positif sur les différentes capacités et comment? Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact sur les différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire, pourquoi et comment? Quels étaient les facteurs de succès et les défis? Quelles sont les catégories de richesse qui ont principalement été influencé par quel type d'impact (sécurité alimentaire, capacités)? Pourquoi? Quels sont les projets qui ont influencé les catégories les plus pauvres et pourquoi? A quel degré le type d'impact des différentes activités de développement est-il diversifié? Il y a-t-il une concentration? Des lacunes explicites? Une question similaire pour les catégories de richesse: concentration ou impact? Des lacunes explicites? Des synergies ou complémentarités entre les projets ont-ils été nommés? Les projets ayant le plus d impact : INTERAIDE et SALOHI : utilisent comme porte d entrée des dons en intrants et distribution de vivres mais initient ensuite une approche plus participative des producteurs à travers les travaux de réhabilitation de pistes rurales, la vente des engrais à bas prix, touchent directement les besoins critiques de capacités : productivité, intrants, infrastructure de desserte, problème de nourriture en période de soudure. Les catégories de richesses les plus touchées sont les moyens et les riches par le crédit (capacité d emprunt élevée) et le certificat foncier (possession de terrain) Impacts : cf. tableau 4 Concentration des impacts sur les couches moyennes et riches et sur les ressources humaines : réduction du paludisme et diarrhées, sur les ressources naturelles : amélioration de la productivité agricole bien que peu suffisante face aux besoins alimentaires. non ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 94/105

Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au Non sein du sous-groupe? Les quelles et pourquoi? Non Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Les quelles et pourquoi? Est-ce que le projet / programme du partenaire de ICCO a été traité dans cet exercice? Si non, pourquoi pas? Quelles capacités et aspects de la sécurité alimentaire ont été influencés par le partenaire d'icco? Quelles sont les catégories de la richesse? Quelles autres remarques, succès, défis se sont manifestés pendant la discussion? Est-ce que ces conclusions sont cohérentes avec les résultats prévus par le projet du partenaire de ICCO? Ou compatible avec les évaluations du projet? Comment comparer l impact du projet du partenaire de ICCO avec les autres efforts en termes de type d impact sur les capacités, différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire et catégorie de richesse? Quels étaient les aspects les moins et les plus forts et qu est ce que ceux-ci ajoutent spécifiquement à d autres activités de développement? TIAVO et FIANTSO : cf. tableau 4 Concentration des impacts sur les couches moyennes et riches et sur les ressources humaines : réduction du paludisme et diarrhées, sur les ressources naturelles : amélioration de la productivité agricole bien que peu suffisante face aux besoins alimentaires. Cf. tableau 4 Partner Fiantso and TIavo VILLAGE 4: Mizilo Gara (short focus group discussion, group of women and a group of men, all above 35 years old. Conclusions by consultant (module 1) Which events have been very important for their influence on food security? Which have been named more? Which have been stressed more by men/women or specific age groups and why? What have been important points of discussion? Which type of effects have occurred more? Which have been stressed more by men/women or age groups? What has been the main origine of the events and of the most named events? Have many external influences been mentioned? Are ICCO programs/partners mentioned? In what way? - (i) Right to inherit and own land (also after divorce), (ii) introduction and promotion of family planning, (iii) detoriation of soil fertility and provision of fertilizer (for free, PSDR) which has directly contributed to income generation and the drop of availability of fertilizer after projects have lefs, (iv) climate changes (recent cyclone and change of agricultural calendar over the long term); - Women have stressed much more access to land, the introduction of family planning and the gratuity of the fertilizer. - The increased consciousnous about access to land has not yet resulted so much in increased certification of land but in improved consciousnous of rights of women in general. This has been framed during the discussion. A high level of illegitimate children occur in the area, many women are abondonned by the father of their children, divorces occur very frequent. The two groups have mainly talked about the ability to produce (by access to land, by having labour available in the household, by having fertilizer to compensate decreasing soil fertility) to be able to sell products. Food crops (rice, manioc) are sold but also many cash crops appear (cloves, litchi) to break through the lean period. Except of the climate change, mainly external effects were named. The detoriation of soil fertility entered the discussion by the external angle: the event of having required access to fertilizer. The fact that fertilizer was provided for free or at subsidized cost has been much appreciated and stressed ( there exist an attitude to get inputs and even food for free). Yes, by women as well as by men the guichet foncier (Fiantso) has been mentioned. Men could not say clearly why they mentioned the guichet and what effects it brought about. The fact that they

understand now that not only officials and people from administration can own land, seemed to be the only concrete effect. Women mainly mentioned their improved position to negotiate (more in general) within their households brought about by their consciousness on having right to access land. TIAVO has not been mentioned by men nor women at this stage of the discussion. Do you find the strategy of ICCO s partner and program takes into The program has taken very well into account the problematic account these events and trends? How? Why? position and weak rights of women in this commune, starting from land rights. The program also touches the fact that traditions and traditional leadership are still very strong in this commune, feeding the distance between the population and the leaders and aoviding that their needs are taken fully into account. The program doesn t take into account sufficiently the effects of cyclone on the social structure and the direct economic importance of agricultural productivity for food security.the program has mainly influenced the social and institutional aspects of citoyen ship, not the economic side of it. Conclusions by consultant (module 2) Has there been a positive influence on food security? Which? Is this The only positive effect that was mentioned was the slightly reduced change considered as important? Via which capabilities has food birth rate (of young women) thanks to improved family planning. security been influenced positively, via which capabilities? Utilisation of food has not improved, despite training and sensibilisation by SECCALINE. The reason mentioned is the fact that women don t have time or budget to invest in new practices, meat, vegetables etc. Has there been a negative influence on food security? Is this considered The food security in this commune has become worse. More as important? How has food security been influenced negatively, via households depend more often on wild fruits and reduce rice intake. which capabilities? Rice is also replaced by cassava. Women explained that most of the food that is consumed in the household is purchased on the market and this is so for most households in the commune. Income generation was stressed a lot in the light of food security. Main income sources are: salary to work (temporarily or permanently) for larger land owners, sale of agricultural products (food and cash crops), small commerce for women. What have been major discussion points within the sub groups? Is there a lot of difference in perception regarding the effects and regarding changes in food security between the subgroups? Why is this so? What can you conclude from the analysis of these differences? Main negative influences are: 1. Increased costs of basic products and food 2. Richer land owners, increasingly taking land from small producers (by compensation for not reimbursed small credits, by assimilating land of poor producers after they have rented it for some years to larger land owners because they didn t have the meant to invest in their own inputs to cultivate the land). 3. Cyclones 4. Decreasing soil fertility Apart from the negative evolution, other factors were stressed which continue to influence food security negatively, but which have not necessarily become worse. - Lack of (access to ) labor for field work - Lack of means to buy agricultural inputs - Bad management of stock and very high analphabetisation rates - High taxes on commercialization by women No, the perception was the same for men and women (= negative evolution). Women stressed more the lack of opportunities for small commerce. Men stressed more the negative tendency in agricultural production. Women also insisted more on the negative effects and vulnerable position to work with larger land owners (against food, or as compensation for reimbursement of credit they took from the land ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 96/105

owner). Have negative changes been countered by positive effects? Which? No, negative effects largely reduced the slight positive effects How? Considering the positive, negative changes and stable factors, how sustainable can the overall changes be? Are some negative changes or stable elements putting the evolution at risk or possibly undermining the The negative evolution has thoroughly changed the social structure already, with important part of population which has dropped into poverty and which is trapped in poverty (lost land, lost income etc.). positive changes for food security? Are the changes supported by The external aid received has not been able to oppose the negative changes in systems and attitudes, are the changes sufficiently structural? Can the changes reduce risks at the household level? Does the continuation of the changes need reinvestments? And how realistic is this within the total set of changes? influence (land rights, family planning). Support to agricultural productivity has mainly existed out of short term support, with little or no follow up and with high degree of gifts. The land certificates have not yet been translated in economic valorization of land for the more vulnerable part of the population (only for richer part). The changed consciousness regarding rights and land rights of women has not yet been translated (or sporadically) into concrete land certificates or purchase of land. (see further impact of projects) Conclusions by consultant (module 3) Which are the most vulnerable groups? What are their main characteristics for food security and for the way they handle food security, for human capabilities and for their social participation? What were major discussion points within the subgroups? The most vulnerable groups don t have any land to cultivate. They lost their land in the past or are women headed households abandoned by their husbands. They have a set of loose and irregular coping mechanisms, like selling wood, and working on others field when opportunity exists. They often have a lot of young children and little labor available in the household. They eat very little or no rice a dy and replace one or two meals by fruits. Above this group, there is a layer of households, which have also lost all their land or which are renting out all their land (because they don t have inputs or labour to cultivate or because they have given their land in use in change of credit) but which work for a regular salary for large land owners. A third layer exists of small producers which exploit 2 to 3 hectares of land, but which also rent out part of their land and also work regularly for large land owners. They still eat 3 meals a day, at least one meal with rice (mostly more), but quantities have reduced lately. They don t eat vegetables, even though they have received sensibilisation and training by Seccaline. They cannot buy vegetables. The fourth group is considered as rich and dominates the poverty dynamics in the village. They exploit 10-20 (sometimes more) hectares and continuously expand this area. The rent or obtain land of other poverty layers and exploit them to work on their fields. Did the opinions differ a lot between the subgroups in the workshop? How? Why? What do you conclude from the analysis of these differences/variation? There was discussion within each subgroups on the vulnerability of the third group, some participants pointing out that they were not so vulnerable (can still eat well, still have some products to sale, coped with the cyclone) while others claimed that their situation has also become very vulnerable and that that layer is also suffering pressure from the large land owners. Possibly the third layer would thus still have to be divided in the two sub layers. Is there a lot of difference in characteristics between the different wealth categories? If yes, between all categories or mainly between categories at the top or bottom end? There is indeed an important difference between each of the categories (there was no doubt on the categorization and characteristics) and very high inequality between the lowest and highest layer, very closely linked to inequal access to land. What percentage of the population of the village belongs to the lowest 2 65% categories? Are specific societal groups like orphans, HIV+, unmarried mothers etc. Single headed households under the lowest category. identified under certain wealth categories?

Have the participants indicated certain evolutions over time in the attributions or representation of different wealth categories? Which evolutions? Why? Yes. More households belong to the two lowest groups; the highest category increases each land surface and wealth and the second category has become more vulnerable. The main reasons are: - Cyclone; - Loss of land due to use of land as informal collateral for informal credits and due to informal sharecropping agreements - Initial inequality and inequal land distribution, leading to dominant position of large land owners - Demography, repartition of land Knowing the poverty profile of the village, does the strategy of ICCO s The strategy of FIANTSO reflects vulnerability in the sense that they partners reflect the poorest target groups explicitly or implicitly? Are the address explicitly women s right to land and that they address indirectly partners strategies (i) inclusive (also reaching out to the 2 poorest inequitable distribution of land. categories) or rather, (ii) specifically targeted to these poorest categories However, directly only households which have already access to land or (iii) not mention them at all? Are strategies adapted to the and which don t have much power locally, pass demands for land characteristics of these target groups? How explicit? How? Why? Does certificates. The lowest categories don t exploit land by themselves. the partner use specific selection mechanisms for the poorest categories Possibly, in future, women from vulnerable households (first two (for all activities or for some specific activities)? How? categories) can claim land via succession or based on their divorce, but this is not taking place yet at this moment. FIANTSO has not yet systematically addressed (at the commune leven), the question to attribute land to households which have lost all their land. Indirectly, via investments of the commune in public infrastructure (small dams, roads, schools etc.), based on their increased capacity to recuperate and manage tax income, vulnerable households might have profited. FIANTSO has done efforts to include vulnerable households for credit by TIAVO. With a convention they have given a fund to TIAVO (2 communes) to cover the additional costs for vulnerable farmers with land certificates (membership and social costs, costs to establish the client file, credit etc.). This funds have not been used much yet, and not many households have received their final certificate neither. Conclusions by consultant (module 4) Can the group recall many development efforts related to food security Automatically they only mention 4 development efforts (PSDR, PAM, or with effects on food security? Are they concentrated in specific Interaid, TIAVO). PAM concerns food for work, PSDR and Interaid sectors? Have specific sectors received more or less development agricultural projects and TIAVO credit ( caisse ). efforts for food security? What type of actors are mainly involved? After insisting the groups came up with other projects: SECALINE, an ONG project which worked for health, and FIANTSO. Which projects have very high or very low scores and why? Are very The scores were not attributed in this village but the projects were positive or negative judgements concentrated in specific sectors? Why? assessed qualitatively. TIAVO was perceived as very negative because of heavy procedures, credits too late compared to agricultural season, not being able to provide biological fertilizer (credit in natura). INteraid, PSDR and PAM were perceived as positive. Have there been important discussions within the subgroups? Which Women considered PAM and PSDR as positive, mainly because they and why? didn t need any contribution except their labor (all was for free). Have there been important differences between subgroups? Which and Women also liked PAM just because richer people in the village didn t why? like the project (PAM used labor which larger producers normally use in the same season). Men rather preferred Interaid, because they provided improved seeds and have set up a local structure to access inputs (which has not been able to continue). Have projects of ICCO s partner(s) been named? If yes, how have they TIAVO was immediately mentioned as negative (see above). The land been judged and perceived? What have been strong and weak points? facilities (guichet foncier) of the communes and certificates were only How does the judgement compare to other projects in the same and in mentioned after insisting to recall all projects. They were judged as other sectors? positive because households with certificates feel more secure, ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 98/105

because land rights for future generations are better guaranteed and for women specifically because they can/ will inherit land now (made already arrangements within their families). The other components of the FIANTSO project, like improved information campaigns have not been mentioned. The land certificates have not been used to get access to credit, except for the most wealthy category. The land certificates have not yet improved investments in land, based on the opinion of this group, because they need better access to inputs (fertilizer and improved seeds) and to irrigation to increase their agricultural productivity Have many other projects contributed in the same sector as ICCO s No, TIAVO Is the only formal way to access credit in this village and partner? Are there differences between these projects in terms of FIANTSO is the only organization working directly on land rights, approach, target group etc? In terms of judgement? decentralization and women rights in this village. Conclusions by consultant (module 5) Which projects have mainly impacted positively the different capabilities In fact only the introduction of family planning is perceived as having and how? Which projects have mainly impacted the different aspects of lasting and considerable impact on food security. food security, why and how? What have been success factors and PAM project has been important, but very temporarily, household drop challenges? back into poverty just after. The two agricultural projects (Interaid and PSDR) have quit. They had direct impact but which was not sustainable after the project left (access to inputs was lost again). The guichet foncier (FIANTSO, partner ICCO) has effects, but these have not yet been translated on the household level (see above). Which wealth categories have mainly been influenced for which type of impact (food security, capabilities)? Why? Which projects have influenced the poorest categories and why? TIAVO only reaches the most wealthy category, and rarely a household of the third cateogory but never of the poorest category. richest. Land certificates mainly concernt the 3 rd category and wealthy category. The poorest category is not interested. The second category, is interested in land certificates but cannot afford them. How diversified is the type of impact between the development efforts? Is there a concentration? Clear gaps? Similar question for wealth categories: concentration of impact? Clear gaps? Have synergies or complementarities been named between projects? Have there been important discussions within the subgroups? Which and why? Have there been important differences between subgroups? Which and why? There is clear gap to access agricultural inputs and to improve agricultural techniques and irrigation. Tiavo has not been able to fill up this gap regarding financing agricultural campaigns (yet). Positive effects of guichet foncier were more stressed by women (inherit land, access to land after divorce). VILLAGE 5 : MAROFARIHY TIAVO ET COLDIS (FOCUS GROUP) Quels événements ont été très importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire? Lesquels ont été nommés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge spécifiques et pourquoi? Quels ont été les points de discussion importants? Conclusions du consultant sur le module 1 Les évènements les plus importants pour leur influence sur la sécurité alimentaire SA sont : - Les cyclones et sécheresses particulièrement intenses et destructifs : ensablement des rizières, pertes de production (cultures de rente et vivrières), non-fructification des pieds de girofle, allongement de la période de soudure car pas de sources de revenu, pertes de vies humaines, pertes de volaille et de bétail, - COLDIS en 2009 : la plupart de la production est vendue, ce qui a amélioré les revenus; - TIAVO en 2002 puis 2008 : possibilité de déposer l épargne et la récolte, possibilité d emprunter ; - SALOHI en 2009 : amélioration des infrastructures d irrigation et de transport (pistes rurales) - Appareils ToughStuff en 2010 : apport en électricité dans les ménages, pas de dépenses en pétrole ni de fumées dans les foyers, Points de discussion positifs : aides d urgences améliorant la soudure par SALOHI: distribution de vivres périodiquement et de nourriture lors des travaux de réhabilitation des pistes rurales.

Quels types d'effets se sont manifestés le plus souvent? Lesquels ont été soulignés davantage par les hommes / femmes ou les groupes d'âge? Quelle a été l'origine principale des événements et des événements les plus souvent nommés? Est-ce que des nombreuses influences extérieures ont été mentionnées? Est-ce que des programmes/partenaires de ICCO ont été mentionnés? De quelle manière? Pensez-vous que la stratégie du partenaire et programme de ICCO tiennent compte de ces événements et de ces tendances? Comment? Pourquoi? Y a t-il eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Laquelle? Ce changement est-il considéré comme important? Quelles capacités ont eu une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaire? Y a t-il eu une influence négative sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce considérée comme importante? Comment la sécurité alimentaire a-t-elle été influencée négativement, à travers quelles capacités? - La destruction des cultures de riz et du bétail par les cyclones et sécheresse avec conséquence l absence de vivres pour la nourriture et la vente. L année 2009-2010 a été particulièrement dure pour tout le monde car le cyclone a ravagé la récolte de la première saison de riziculture. - Cyclones, sécheresse qui sont des influences externes souvent mentionnées TIAVO : changement des modes de gestion financière des ménages grâce au crédit et à l épargne COLDIS : offre une assurance de débouchés du girofle pour les producteurs Pas de stratégie de sécurisation alimentaire de l ICCO dans la zone : les appuis agricoles et en nutrition sont réalisés par d autres projets ; Conclusions du consultant sur le module 2 Influences positives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires sont : - Apport d engrais pour l amélioration des rendements rizicoles mais les paysans associent la fertilisation à l apport d engrais chimique (NPK). Les capacités qui ont une influence positive sur la sécurité alimentaires sont - Infrastructure d irrigation : augmentation des surfaces de rizières irriguées pour augmenter la production ; - Intrants : engrais chimique pour la riziculture permettant d augmenter la productivité ; l utilisation des engrais biologiques alternatifs n est pas concluante car les techniciens ne maîtrisent pas le dosage, les expérimentations ne sont pas concluantes, l effet de productivité de ces engrais bio est à moyen terme compte tenu du changement de la structure du sol sérieusement affecté par l abus de l utilisation d engrais chimique alors que les producteurs veulent augmenter le rendement rizicole à chaque campagne. - Outils de production : sarcleuse, pulvérisateurs, charrue, petit tracteur mais le coût reste hors de la portée des producteurs ; - Semences améliorées : stock insuffisant et prix élevé Les influences négatives importantes sur la sécurité alimentaires : faible productivité des terres faute d apport d engrais suffisant, rétrécissement des parcelles face au nombre de descendants. Insécurité généralisée Les capacités qui ont une influence négative sont : - Terre : dégradation de la fertilité du sol, rétrécissement des parcelles de culture en raison du partage des terres entre plusieurs héritiers ; - Source d irrigation : tarissement des sources à cause de la déforestation en amont des bassins versants, insuffisance d irrigation des périmètres ; - Commercialisation des produits : pas de débouchés à des prix élevé pour certains produits (riz, café, poivre), système de grenier parfois inefficace car détérioration de production dans le magasin faute de maintenance. Quels ont été les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Y a-t-il eu une grande différence dans la perception concernant les effets et les changements en matière de sécurité alimentaire entre les sous-groupes? Pourquoi est-ce le cas? Que pouvez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences? Les changements négatifs étaient contrés TIAVO : les problèmes de remboursement de crédit et le cumul des intérêts proviennent plutôt des facteurs externes tels que cyclones et vols de récolte. TIAVO fait des efforts pour aménager les remboursements à condition que les paysans les informent à temps des problèmes de production rencontrés par les producteurs. TIAVO assiste dans l élaboration du business plan du producteur, vérifie la faisabilité technique de l objet du prêt, fait un suivi de l utilisation des prêts. Non. Les effets et changements sont généralisés dans le village et ont persisté depuis des années. La dégradation du sol pourrait être ralentie par l apport et l accès à l engrais. ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 100/105

par les effets positifs? Lesquels? Comment? En prenant en compte les effets positifs, les changements négatifs et les facteurs stables, quel est le degré de durabilité de l'ensemble des changements? Est-ce que des changements négatifs ou des éléments stables mettent l'évolution à risque ou portent-ils éventuellement atteinte à l'évolution positive de la sécurité alimentaire? Les changements sont-ils soutenus par des changements dans les systèmes et les attitudes, les changements sont-ils suffisamment structurels? Peuventils réduire les risques au niveau du ménage? La poursuite des changements nécessite-elle des réinvestissements? Et est-ce réaliste au sein de l'ensemble des changements? Quels sont les groupes les plus vulnérables? Quelles sont leurs principales caractéristiques concernant la sécurité alimentaire, la manière dont ils gèrent la sécurité alimentaire et les capacités humaines et leur participation sociale? Quels étaient les points de discussion majeurs au sein des sous-groupes? Les opinions diffèrent beaucoup entre les sous-groupes de l'atelier? Comment? Pourquoi? Que voulez-vous conclure de l'analyse de ces différences / variations? Y a t-il une grande différence de caractéristiques entre les différentes catégories de richesse? Si oui, entre toutes les catégories ou principalement entre des catégories à supérieure ou inférieure? Quel pourcentage de la population du village appartient aux 2 plus faibles catégories? Est-ce que des groupes sociaux spécifiques comme les orphelins, les personnes atteintes du VIH, les mères non mariées, etc sont identifiés sous certaines catégories de richesse? Est-ce que les participants ont indiqué certaines évolutions au fil du temps dans les attributions ou la représentation des différentes catégories de richesse? Quelles évolutions? Pourquoi? La dégradation du sol et le rétrécissement des terrains sont des changements continus qui s aggravent dans le temps sans un changement drastique des modes de production (utilisation d engrais approprié, amélioration des outils de production, etc.). L effet cyclique des catastrophes naturelles met en danger annuellement la situation de sécurité alimentaire des villages. L approche de dons des intrants appliquée par les partenaires étatiques et techniques favorise l utilisation d engrais chimique et crée l habitude de quémander auprès des paysans sans qu un système d approvisionnement d intrants plus durable soit mis en place. Les autres partenaires techniques (INTERAIDE, SALOHI, TIAVO) commencent à changer cette approche de dons et exigent un minimum de forme de participation des villageois (ex : paiement partiel des engrais, octroi de crédit pour l achat des intrants, etc.). Ces appuis aux intrants entrent dans une phase de transfert de gestion des centres d appro des intrants vers les producteurs (INTERAIDE et TIAVO). Résoudre les problèmes d intrants fera une grande différence pour augmenter la productivité et réduire les risques d insécurité alimentaire. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 3 Groupes vulnérables : salariat agricole comme activité principale, petits collecteurs de girofle, ne possèdent pas de bœuf, pas de terrain, pas de pieds de girofle, pas de capacité d épargne car consomme son salaire journalier, faible capacité d emprunt, emprunt et endettement périodique auprès des riches/usuriers. Caractéristiques de leur sécurité alimentaire : période de soudure presque toute l année car vit de salaire journalier insuffisant pour nourrir la famille (5 à 8 enfants), régime alimentaire basé uniquement sur le riz et le manioc. Points de discussions : le système de collecte des produits de rente comme le girofle profite à toutes les catégories de richesses y compris les très vulnérables. Ceux qui peuvent améliorer leurs revenus de manière substantielle dans ce système sont surtout les producteurs de girofle (grandes et petites plantations). Les petits collecteurs de girofle sont composés des couches très vulnérables qui empruntent auprès des riches pour préfinancer la collecte. Après la campagne de girofle, ils utilisent les commissions gagnées sur la collecte pour rembourser leurs dettes auprès des riches et ne peuvent pas beaucoup investir ce profit. Non, un seul groupe de discussion assez homogène et de petite taille. Il y a une grande différence entre riches et le reste des classes : possession de bœufs et terrain, capacité financière de faire une épargne ou un emprunt. Près de 65% à 95% Mères non mariées inclues dans les couches très vulnérables Pendant les derniers 10 ans, la catégorie des richesses moyennes a augmenté car beaucoup de gens ont quitté la catégorie des riches, des moyennement pauvres ont rejoint la catégorie des très pauvres en raison de la diminution du pouvoir d achat en général : effets des cyclones sur la production, hausse des prix des produits alimentaires face à une production vivrière stable, voire décroissante. Connaissant le profil de pauvreté du village, La stratégie de collecte de girofle appliquée par COLDIS est implicitement inclusive de par

est-ce que la stratégie des partenaires d ICCO reflète les groupes cibles les plus pauvres, explicitement ou implicitement? Les stratégies des partenaires (i) sont-ils inclusive (en atteignant également les deux catégories les plus pauvres) ou plutôt, (ii) visent-ils spécifiquement les catégories les plus pauvres ou (iii) ils ne les mentionnent pas du tout? Est-ce que les stratégies sont adaptées aux caractéristiques de ces groupes cibles? A quel degrés explicitement? Comment? Pourquoi? Est-ce que les partenaires utilisent des mécanismes de sélection spécifiques pour les catégories les plus pauvres (pour toutes les activités ou pour certaines activités spécifiques)? Comment? Le groupe se souvient-il des nombreux efforts de développement liés à la sécurité alimentaire ou avec des effets sur la sécurité alimentaire? Est-ce que ces efforts sont concentrés dans des secteurs spécifiques? Est-ce que certains secteurs spécifiques ont reçu plus ou moins d appui au niveau de la sécurité alimentaire? Quels types d'acteurs sont principalement impliqués? Quels sont les projets avec un score très haut ou très bas et pourquoi? Est-ce que des jugements très positifs ou négatifs sont prononcés vis-à-vis de secteurs spécifiques? Pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Les quelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Les quelles et pourquoi? Des projets des partenaires d ICCO ont été nommés? Si oui, comment ont-ils été jugés et perçus? Quels étaient les points forts et faibles? Comment comparer le jugement à d'autres projets dans la même, et dans d'autres, secteurs? l organisation locale des filières de rente qui implique toutes les catégories de richesse. COLDIS a exploité la même organisation locale que les autres sociétés de collecte et d export utilisent mais l organisation de COLDIS diffère en incluant les petits producteurs qui peuvent apporter leurs productions directement aux caisses TIAVO qui les stockent. Concernant le triage des girofles, COLDIS ne fait pas une sélection des trieuses vulnérables mais il se trouve que ce travail journalier attire les femmes non-mariées, ayant plusieurs dépendants et dans les couches très vulnérables. TIAVO n inclut pas ceux qui sont très vulnérables car ils n ont pas de production à stocker, n ont pas de capacité d emprunt suffisant (part sociale variable), ils ont peur des formalités des prêts en raison de leur faible niveau d alphabétisation ; la majorité des membres sont moyennement riches et riches. Conclusions du consultant sur le module 4 Non traité faute de temps Non traité faute de temps Non traité faute de temps Non traité faute de temps Est-ce que beaucoup d'autres projets ont Non traité faute de temps contribué dans les mêmes secteurs que ceux d ICCO? Y a t-il des différences entre ces projets en termes d'approche, groupe cible, etc.? En termes de jugement? Conclusions du consultant sur le module 5 Quels projets ont eu le plus grand impact Non traité faute de temps pour les autres projets intervenant dans le village. TIAVO et COLDIS sont positif sur les différentes capacités et bien appréciés par les villageois : octroi de crédit pour financer les travaux de culture et les intrants, comment? Quels projets ont eu le plus amélioration des revenus issus des produits de rente car prix élevé appliqué. grand impact sur les différents aspects ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 102/105

de la sécurité alimentaire, pourquoi et comment? Quels étaient les facteurs de succès et les défis? Facteurs de succès : assurance de débouchés pour le girofle, existence d une concurrence qui provoque une surenchère du prix de marché du girofle, regroupement des producteurs dans les coopératives pour regrouper la production, accès de crédit de stockage continue pour motiver les membres de TIAVO. Quelles sont les catégories de richesse qui ont principalement été influencé par quel type d'impact (sécurité alimentaire, capacités)? Pourquoi? Quels sont les projets qui ont influencé les catégories les plus pauvres et pourquoi? A quel degré le type d'impact des différentes activités de développement est-il diversifié? Il y a-t-il une concentration? Des lacunes explicites? Une question similaire pour les catégories de richesse: concentration ou impact? Des lacunes explicites? Des synergies ou complémentarités entre les projets ont-ils été nommés? Y a t-il eu des discussions importantes au sein du sous-groupe? Les quelles et pourquoi? Y a t-il eu des différences importantes entre les sous-groupes? Les quelles et pourquoi? Est-ce que le projet / programme du partenaire de ICCO a été traité dans cet exercice? Si non, pourquoi pas? Quelles capacités et aspects de la sécurité alimentaire ont été influencés par le partenaire d'icco? Quelles sont les catégories de la richesse? Quelles autres remarques, succès, défis se sont manifestés pendant la discussion? Estce que ces conclusions sont cohérentes avec les résultats prévus par le projet du partenaire de ICCO? Ou compatible avec les évaluations du projet? Défis : améliorer la qualité des produits de rente pour éviter les pertes de production et pouvoir rémunérer les primes de qualité. Voir tableau 3 Non traité faute de temps Non traité faute de temps COLDIS et TIAVO sont les partenaires bien appréciés dans le village. Les aspects de sécurité alimentaire influencés par COLDIS et TIAVO sont surtout au niveau de : La facilitation des moyens de production pour les cultures vivrières, amélioration des revenus issus des produits de rente car prix élevé appliqué. Catégories de richesses concernées : cf. tableau 3 Facteurs de succès : assurance de débouchés pour le girofle, existence d une concurrence qui provoque une surenchère du prix de marché du girofle, regroupement des producteurs dans les coopératives pour regrouper la production, accès de crédit de stockage continue pour motiver les membres de TIAVO. Défis : améliorer la qualité des produits de rente pour éviter les pertes de production et pouvoir rémunérer les primes de qualité. Les capacités influencées sont surtout dans le domaine physique et matériel (intrants) et économique (crédit pour la main d œuvre pour les travaux agricoles) Comment comparer l impact du projet du partenaire de ICCO avec les autres efforts en termes de type d impact sur les capacités, différents aspects de la sécurité alimentaire et catégorie de richesse? Quels étaient les aspects les moins et les plus forts et qu est ce que ceux-ci ajoutent spécifiquement à La comparaison n est pas possible car pas de temps de parler les autres projets.

d autres activités de développement? ACE Europe / ICCO FS evaluation 2007-2010/ Country report Madagascar final pag. 104/105