Volume I : overview report -- evaluation of PL 480 Title II program in Peru, 1990-1995

The program is being implemented by ADRA/OFASA, the relief and development arm of the Adventist Church; CARE; CARITAS (the relief and development arm of the Catholic Church); and PRISMA, a Peruvian NGO. The Title II program financed the importation of $360 million of commodities, $278 million for direct distribution and $82 million for monetization. CARITAS brought in the largest amount of food for direct distribution (36% of the total), followed by CARE (32%) and ADRA and PRISMA (16% each). USAID and the PVOs carried out this large and complex program effectively despite very difficult political and economic conditions, USAID/W policy changes, and a large number of program audits and evaluations. Additionally, USAID/W is to be commended for approving a significant level of monetization of Title II food for support of the Peru program, and CARE for implementing monetization, the need for which is likely to increase as the PVOs try to serve the more remote areas of the sierra and the selva. All of the PVOs, especially PRISMA and CARITAS, made dedicated efforts to get food and nutritional and health messages to mothers and children, who are the most vulnerable members of society. With Title II food resources diminishing, the messages should be given a much higher priority, along with the training of community promoters and Ministry of Health personnel. This will require better coordination between the agencies and between them and USAID. The comedores have provided an efficient and cost-effective way of distributing food to the needy in urban slum areas and contributed significantly to family nutrition and well-being (and possibly to political stability), especially in the early years of the program, when the Government of Peru (GOP) was unable or unwilling to provide an adequate safety net for the poor. In light of Peru's serious underemployment and unemployment problem, continued support for the comedores may be needed. FFW agricultural and rural development programs have augmented family food supplies in many impoverished sierra communities and have had some success in meeting Title II mandates to increase awareness of soil conservation, the self-help capacity of poor farmers, and awareness of the dietary value of certain foods, especially for children. However, all of the PVOs have some weaknesses in providing technologies appropriate for sierra farmers, a problem exacerbated by the inability of the GOP itself in this regard. This is an area in which USAID (not just the Food for Development office) should assist the GOP and the PVOs. Also, given the high cost of transporting food to, and ensuring the security of food stored in, remote and inaccessible areas such as the Peruvian sierra, fulfillment of the current food security mandate to reach the poorest of the poor in the sierra will require either or both of the following: (1) increased food monetization to support new ways to deal with the problem; (2) the movement of people from the most remote areas to magnet urban centers, as is being planned by the Office of the Presidencia. Several issues are noted regarding the future direction of the Title II program. USAID/W's 1995 Food Aid and Food Security Policy paper, while generally concurring with the geographic and beneficiary priorities of USAID/P's 1994 Food Security Strategy Paper, downplays the latter's stress on using the Title II program to improve access to food by increasing the incomes of the poor. The evaluation team concurs with the Mission's emphasis on access to food through income generation, and feels that it was premature for USAID/W, in the case of Peru, to determine that there was sufficient opportunity from other programs to combat general poverty. Hence, efforts to promote income-generating activities in conjunction with food distribution should be allowed to continue for a year or two longer than planned. The team also concurs with the importance of continuing maternal-child health and nutrition education, particularly that related to adequate diets and breastfeeding up to 2 years, the lack of which may be contributing to the high prevalence of growth stunting among children in Peru, particularly in the sierra. Finally, all of the agencies, following USAID guidance, are shifting the focus of their efforts from the coast to the sierra. This shift brings up questions about the targeting guidelines in regard to both geographic concentration and the types of programs to be given priority. These issues have implications for how the Title II program should be structured as it continues to wind down, and highlights the need for more solid data on which to base operational decisions.