http://www.spring-nutrition.org/nglee-africa

N-GLEE Landscape Analysis

Preliminary Findings from 12 African FTF Focus Countries

Background of Landscape Analysis

• Part of Nutrition Global Learning and Evidence Exchange (N-GLEE)

• Task: to review USAID-supported FTF programs and map current interventions and pathways linking agriculture and nutrition

• This presentation: – Methodology – Findings from Phase one – Deliverables

2

Methodology

• Desk review of FTF multi-year strategy and project documents

• Key informant interviews with FTF Point of Contact • Data collection and review tools • Pathways and Principles to guide analysis of

current programs and organize findings

3

Timeline

Technical consultations Document Collection LA team formed First country profile

Draft

Mission Interview

Initial Revision

12 African Country profiles

Aug 21 , Sep 6 Sep 5 , Sep 27 Sep 17

Sep 28

Oct 9

Oct 15

Dec 3 – Dec 4

4

         

 

Data Collection

Countries No. documents consulted No. people interviewed

Ethiopia 12 4

Ghana 5 1

Kenya 13 1

Liberia 10 5

Malawi 5 1

Mali 3 5

Mozambique 9 2

Rwanda 4 2

Senegal 11 1

Tanzania 7 1

Uganda 12 4

Zambia 7 2

TOTAL 98 23

5

          

   

   

   

 

   

 

  

 

       

 

Current Status of Key FTF Ag-Nutr Projects

Countries To be awarded <1yr implementation >1yr implementation

Ethiopia X X

Ghana X X

Kenya X X

Liberia X

Malawi X X

Mali X X

Mozambique X X

Rwanda X

Senegal X

Tanzania X

Uganda X X X

Zambia X X

6

 

   

 

    

   

 

 

    

 

     

 

Implementation Strategy Countries Flagship Co‐location Retro‐fitting

Ethiopia X X

Ghana X X?

Kenya X X X

Liberia X X

Malawi X

Mali X?

Mozambique X X

Rwanda X

Senegal X X

Tanzania X

Uganda X X

Zambia X

7

Implementation Strategy Summary

• 8 countries designed/awarded integrated projects. • 9 have co-location design

– Ethiopia has complete overlap b/w nutrition & value chain projects

– Kenya, Liberia, Senegal, Uganda have partial geographic overlap

– 3 projects in Tanzania have complete overlap in 3 districts

– Zambia has one province that all projects work

– Mozambique potentially has complete overlap

– Mali is unclear

• 2 countries retro-fitted pre-existing projects into FTF program

8

             

      

 

Size of FTF Program

Countries Main project ($ million) Total portfolio ($ million)

Ethiopia 50.2 360

Ghana 60

Kenya 35‐40 141.5‐155.5

Liberia 75‐80 197‐217

Malawi 24.6

Mali

Mozambique

Rwanda 13.4 13.4

Senegal 40 80

Tanzania 50 (value chain), 30 (nutrition)

Uganda 23 140

Zambia 24 141

9

10

     

           

   

       

     

     

     

   

      

     

     

             

       

FTF Value Chains

Countries Staple/ Roots

Horticulture Legume/ nuts

Animal source

Cash crop

(Bio‐) fortification

Indigenous/ local

Ethiopia X X X X X X

Ghana X X X

Kenya X X X X X (X)

Liberia X (X) X X X

Malawi X X X

Mali X X X

Mozambique X X

Rwanda X X X X

Senegal X (X) (X) X (X)

Tanzania X (X) X X

Uganda X (X) X (X) X (X)

Zambia X X X X

11

FTF Value Chains

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Staple / Roots

Horticulture Animal Source

Legume / Nuts

Cash Crop (Bio-) Fortification

Indigenous / Local

12

               

       

   

   

       

     

       

       

       

   

       

         

   

Factors in FTF Value Chain Selection

Countries Food security

Income Potential

Nutrition impact

Number of farmers

Gender Gov’t/ donor

Vulnerable population

Ethiopia X X X X

Ghana X X X X

Kenya X X (X)

Liberia X X X X

Malawi X X X

Mali (X) X X X

Mozambique X X X X

Rwanda X (X) X (X) X

Senegal X X (X) X

Tanzania X (X) X X

Uganda X X X X X

Zambia X X X

13

   

Factors in FTF Value Chain Selection

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nutrition Income Gender Govt / Food Number of Vulnerable Impact Potenial Donor Security Farmers Population

14

Agriculture-Nutrition Pathways

• Own production food consumption • Income food purchase • Income healthcare purchase • Food prices food purchase • Women’s time use care capacity • Women’s workload maternal energy use • Women’s control of income resource allocation

Ref: Stuart Gillespie, Jody Harris, and Suneetha Kadiyala, The Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India, What Do We Know? IFPRI Discussion Paper 01187, June 2012

15

       

       

 

     

       

     

    

     

      

      

     

           

   

Explicit/Implicit Pathways

Countries Production‐ Income Income Price Women’s Women’s Women’s consumption ‐food ‐health ‐food time workload income

Ethiopia X X X X X X

Ghana X X (X)

Kenya X (X) (X) X X

Liberia X (X) X (X)

Malawi X (X) (X)

Mali X (X)

Mozambique X X (X)

Rwanda X X (X)

Senegal X (X) (X)

Tanzania (X) X (X)

Uganda X (X) (X) X X X

Zambia X X

16

Explicit/Implicit Pathways

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Prod. -Consum.

Income -Food

Women's Income

Price -Food

Women's Time

Women's Workload

Income -Health

17

Key Principles

Strengths

• Explicit nutrition objectives/Indicators

• Context assessment

• Targeting • Access to productive resources and markets • Improved post-harvest storage and processing

• Increase Household income

• Nutrition education – BCC • Gender • Stakeholder coordination

19

Challenges • Value chains – diversity and nutrient density

• Availability and Accessibility of diverse and high quality in local markets

• Intermediate steps

• Disconnect in targeting beneficiaries – Vulnerability – Gender – Geographic locations

• Women’s constraints/do not harm • BCC linkage to pathways or value chains • Purchase and consumption activities and decisions

20

Pr ationepar 

p g 

Behavior Change in FTF

Nutrition

Consumption

Preparation

Intra‐household Allocation

BCC

Storage/ processing

Production Market

Income

Purchase/ demand

21

Field-Identified Challenges

• Resources and capacities – staff, time, skills, data, information

• Unequal funding

• Coordination and communication – partners, projects, within the Mission

• Complex situation

22

Considerations

• More diverse and nutrient-dense value chains selected and implemented at scale

• Ensure better beneficiary overlap between value chains and direct nutrition activities

• Involving the most vulnerable in value chain activities

• Consumption and access barrier analysis

• BCC should be tied to the pathways and value chains

23

Considerations (cont’d)

• Indicators that measure intermediate steps need to be in place

• Gender interventions should consider time use, work load and women’s control of resources

• Guidelines and incentives for projects and Missions to coordinate

• Close collaboration with direct health and nutrition activities is a must! – Food safety and WASH/Hygiene

24

                                                                                                                                                         

                                                       

                   

                   

FTF Nutrition Indicators: Benefits of Integration

Output No. of people trained in child health and nutrition by US‐support programs No. of children under 5 reached by USG Nutrition Programs

No. of children under 5 received Vitamin A from US‐support programs

Feed the Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets Updated April 4, 201225

% of wasted children under 5 years of age *

Impact % of stunted children under 5 years of age *

% of underweight women *

% of underweight children under 5 years of age *

% of households with moderate or severe hunger *

Outcome % of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 mo *

% of anemia among women of reproductive age *

No. of health facilities capable of managing acute undernutrition

% of anemia among children 6‐59 mo *

% of children 6‐23 mo receiving a MAD *

Women’s dietary diversity *

% of national budget allocated to nutrition

% of stunted children under 5 years of age *% of wasted children under 5 years of age *% of underweight women ? % of underweight children under 5 years of age% of households with moderate or severe hunger  *%  of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 mo *% of anemia among women of reproductive age *No. of health facilities to manage acute undernutrition% of anemia among children 6‐59 mo *% of children 6‐23 receiving a MAD  *Women’s dietary diversity *%  of national budget allocated to nutritionNo. of people trained in child health and nutrition No. of children under 5 reached by USG‐Nutrition Programs

No. of children under 5 received Vitamin A 

                   

FTF Nutrition Indicators: Benefits of Integration

Impact

Outcome

Output

Feed the Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets Updated April 4, 201226

                   

 

                             

                  

 

                                                                               

 

                                                                                  

FTF Nutrition Indicators: Benefits of Integration

Agriculture (4)

% of households with moderate or severe hunger *

% of children 6‐23 receiving a MAD *

Women’s dietary diversity *

% of national budget allocated to nutrition

Nutrition (5)

% of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 mo *

No. of health facilities to manage acute undernutrition

No. of people trained in child health and nutrition

No. of children under 5 received Vitamin A

No. of children under 5 reached by USG‐nutrition programs

Integration (6)

% of stunted children under 5 years of age*

% of wasted children under 5 years of age*

% of underweight women *

% of underweight children under 5 years of age *

% of anemia among women of reproductive age *

% of anemia among children 6‐59 mo *

Feed the Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets Updated April 4, 2012 27

     

Strategy Nutrition Indicators

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Stunting Child MAD Maternal Hunger Child Anemia Women's Diet Anemia Diversity

28

Landscape Analysis Constraints

• Access to documents • Incomplete and out of date documents • Little information on actual implementation

• Definition of FTF ag-nutr program • Mission staff turn-over

29

Deliverables and Next Steps

• Country profiles and your feedback • Presentations – cross country findings

– Dec 10 – 12 African focus countries – Feb 4 – 7 Asian and LAC countries

• Final report combining findings from two phases of review and analysis on 19 FTF countries

• Best practice briefs – Senegal – African countries – Nepal(?) – Asian and LAC countries

30

Landscape Analysis Team

Document Review and Analysis Lidan Du Aaron Buchsbaum Alyssa Klein Jody Harris

Technical advisors Anna Herforth Anu Narayan Marie Ruel

31

Thank you !

32

Additional Slides

33

       

                     

     

                                      

                   

             

     

       

                 

                     

           

               

       

Value Chain Details – Full List Countries Staple

/roots Horticulture Legume

/nuts Animal source

Cash crop

(Bio‐) fortification

Indigenous Context ‐specific

Ethiopia Maize, wheat, vegetable, pulses, sesame/chickpea, meat and live animal, dairy, honey, coffee

Ghana Maize, rice, soy, fish

Kenya Maize, cassava, millet/sorghum, sweet/Irish potato, vegetable, banana, mango, passion fruit, beans, legume, cowpea, groundnuts, green grams, pigeon peas, dairy, livestock, flowers

Liberia Rice, cassava, other roots and tubers, vegetables, horticulture, poultry, goats, cocoa

Malawi Rice, beans, groundnuts, pigeon peas, soy, fish, dairy

Mali Sorghum/millet, rice, vegetable, livestock/dairy

Mozambique Fresh fruits, pulses, oilseeds, cashew

Rwanda Maize, beans, livestock (potentially pineapple, cassava, rice, coffee, pyrethrum, dairy)

Senegal Maize, millet/sorghum, rice (some horticulture, native food and iron‐rich seeds; maybe livestock)

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

Uganda Maize, bean, coffee, & sub‐district‐specific plants and livestock

Zambia Maize, horticulture, groundnut, soy, sunflower

34

Value Chains Summary

• Staple/roots are selected in all but one country (Mozambique): – maize (8), rice (6), millet/sorghum (3), cassava (2),

roots/tuber/sweet potato (2), wheat (1) • Horticulture including fruits and vegetables: (6+3)

• Legume/nuts/seeds: (8)

• Fish, dairy, meat: (7+2)

• Cash crops - flower, spices, vegetable, coffee/cocoa: (6)

• Fortification of staple flour and bio-fortification: (3)

• Native and local foods for home consumption and smaller scale value chains: (4)

35

Indicators

Required: o Prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age o Prevalence of stunted children under 5 years of age o Prevalence of wasted children under 5 years of age o Prevalence of underweight women

Required-If-Applicable: o Prevalence of households with moderate to severe hunger o Women’s dietary diversity o Percent of children 6 to 23 months old that received a minimum acceptable diet o Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months o Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age

REF: http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_monitoringevalfaqs_feb2012.pdf

36

37

38