Assessment of the food security II cooperative agreement

Second interim evaluation covers the period 12/96-12/01. FS II has been successful. It has met its output and deliverable targets, contributed significantly to the achievement of project goals and objectives, and is recognized and appreciated broadly in the field and within USAID/Washington. One of the most important elements of FS II is the expansion and improvement of the knowledge base on FS policy issues. Respondents generally had positive views of FS II's work in this regard, especially its descriptive and survey work. FS II also expanded and improved the knowledge base on cross-country FS issues. While the overwhelming response to FS II's work in these areas was positive, there was some criticism, principally from the academic community. These criticisms should be considered in designing any future project. For FS II to succeed, its findings must be communicated to public, private, and donor policy- and decision makers. The majority of reviews on this topic were positive, virtually all agreeing that the policy synthesis series has been well done and is quite useful. Besides noting the timeliness and effectiveness of country-level policy briefs and policy synthesis papers, respondents valued the participatory forums and the benefits of the project's price information activities, specific market and price publications, and bulletins. Respondents also commented on the usefulness of the project's website. FS II needs to be able to monitor and report on the people-level impact of any given FS strategy. While response to the question on this activity was less universal, a number of examples of this type of work were given. One example was the impact report on the devaluation of the CFA Franc. Others commented on the role FS II had in improving survey design and in managing surveys to improve existing or new monitoring programs. Some respondents also viewed the market price information work as an important monitoring activity. In general, both the respondents and the assessment team itself believe that the project has been successful in capacity building. The project has provided long-term training to scores of participants and short-term training to hundreds more. In addition, the on-the-job interaction with MSU staff has been invaluable. Capacity building, while not perfect, has been an important project output. Respondents were generally positive regarding project efforts to establish and maintain African and U.S. institutional memory, but their responses were a bit less detailed than were their responses to other questions. Many noted the collaboration between African and U.S. researchers as an important element in developing institutional memory. Another point made several times was that senior advisors and managers in the food security activities in Africa, both in the private and public sector, were trained under the FS II project. Yet another point made several times is that the FS II project, through its publications, data bases, and website, is a storehouse of information on FS issues not only for the project, but within Africa as a whole. Finally, a few respondents noted that institutional memory on African FS issues has been supported by the longevity of the program. Participants both in the field and in USAID/Washington believed that the technical teams supporting the project are very good. They are knowledgeable, committed, and respected within both the USAID and the African community. Training at a graduate level, in short-courses and on-the-job was also generally well received. One of the most important project inputs is that MSU has made a long-term institutional commitment to the activities within FS II.