Farmers' Organizations for Africa, Caribbean
and Pacific - FO4ACP
Main Summary Programme Document
2
Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4
1. Rationale ............................................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Regional, sector context and problems analysis .............................................................................. 8
1.2 Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Lessons learned and SFOAP self-assessment .............................................................................. 12
2. Description ........................................................................................................................................ 17
2.1 Strategy and Approach ................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Programme description ............................................................................................................. 18
2.2.1 Target country(ies), direct and indirect target group and geographical coverage ................. 18
2.2.2 Goal and objectives ..................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3 Components and key activities by component ............................................................................ 22
2.3 Cross- cutting Issues ................................................................................................................ 28
2.4 Complementarity actions and Donor coordination .................................................................... 29
2.5 Risks and mitigation measures ................................................................................................. 31
3. Implementation and supervision arrangements ................................................................................ 32
3.1 Implementation procedures and programme management, including implementing partners and
implementation agreements ................................................................................................................. 32
IFAD as the implementing partner ........................................................................................................ 32
Implementation responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 32
Implementation period and workplan .................................................................................................... 36
Supervision arrangements ................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting .............................................................................................. 37
Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Reporting and disbursement modalities ............................................................................................... 37
3.3 Communication and visibility plan .................................................................................................. 38
3.4 Knowledge management, scaling up/uptake and sustainability ...................................................... 39
Knowledge management and learning ................................................................................................. 39
Scaling up/uptake and sustainability of grant results ............................................................................ 40
4. Budget and Workplan ....................................................................................................................... 41
4.1 Costs, Financing and Fiduciary Aspects ........................................................................................ 41
Regional Allocation............................................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Tentative workplan and timing ........................................................................................................ 44
3
4
Executive Summary Farmers’ and rural producers' organizations (FOs) in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP)
have a dual role of promoting the recognition of family farming and smallholder’ interests and rights, and
providing services to their members to engage on better terms with other economic players in agricultural
value chains.
FOs and their member smallholders face many constraints limiting them from fully benefitting from profitable
economic activities. These include price instability, strong competition in the market, limited access to quality
inputs, lack of infrastructure, weak support services and access to technologies, unfavourable policy
environment, climatic and environmental challenges.
The partnership between IFAD and FOs has been particularly accelerating and strengthening the focus on
national FOs and regional FO networks under the aegis of the Farmers’ Forum Process, a bottom-up
process of consultation and dialogue between FOs, IFAD and governments focused on rural development
and poverty reduction.
The design of Farmers’ Organizations for ACP is the result of the joint effort and consultations among all
stakeholders and is based on the experience and results of the Farmers' Africa programme (2013-2018)
and its two components: Farmers’ Fighting Poverty (FFP)/Africa (2013-2015) and the Support to Farmers’
Organizations in Africa (SFOAP) pilot (2009-2013) and main (2013-2018) phases.1
This Action is perfectly placed to support the achievement of the ambitious SDGs of eradicating poverty
(SDG1) and ending hunger and malnutrition, achieving food security and promoting sustainable agriculture
(SDG2).
Programme financing and partners
IFAD supervises and co-finances the FO4ACP. The European Union (EU) provides funding through IFAD.
The total cost of the programme is around EUR 42 million, which includes a contribution from the EU of EUR
40 million.
Priority Areas
The FO4ACP intervention will focus on the following priority areas:
Facilitating the integration of smallholder and FOs in value chains by strengthening the FOs
capacity to effectively provide economic services to their members and improve and access to finance and
de-risking instruments;
Supporting FOs capacity to influence policy dialogue and the governance mechanisms of the value
chains at all levels;
Supporting the institutional development of FOs through capacity building and contributing to the
financing of FOs’ core costs;
Facilitating knowledge sharing between ACP FOs through the promotion of exchanges among
peers for innovation, generation of knowledge products, replication and scaling up in the areas of production,
processing and marketing.
Objectives
The overall objective of the programme is to increase income and to improve livelihood, food and nutrition security and safety of organized smallholder and family farmers in the target areas of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.
With FO4ACP great emphasis is put on the FOs integration into value chains, specific objectives are as follows:
FOs and farmer-led enterprises improve technical and economic services to their members along
1 Hyperlink to the SFOAP Publication on programme results and achievements (IFAD, 2018).
5
the value chains in order to support i) their business ambitions, ii) ensure their profitable engagement in markets and iii) integration into value chains and make FOs competitive players.
FOs influence policies and business environments by influencing policy dialogue and the governance mechanisms of the value chains at all levels for the transformation of family farming and the development of sustainable, adaptive economic initiatives and farmer-led enterprises.
FOs accountable organisations able to effectively perform their institutional functions: i) improve their accountability to their base, ii) have solid governance, and enhance recognition of FOs by governments, value chains stakeholders and donors, for the sustainability of economic activities.
Stakeholders The programme's primary stakeholders and beneficiaries are FOs and their smallholder members in ACP countries.
① African Region - Smallholder and family farmers' member of existing local and national Farmers Organizations of
African countries, in particular the members of those NFOs that are affiliated to the 5 Regional FOs
(RFOs)members of PAFO2 (EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU and UMNAGRI). RFOs are membership
based organizations, they are present in 49 countries and represent over 52 million smallholders (including
farmers, fishermen, breeders, pastoralists, producers), 26 million being women.
- AgriCord is a non-profit development alliance mandated by 35 professional FOs and their
cooperative businesses from countries in Europe, Canada, Africa and Asia. Agri-agencies provide
specialized services, tools and approached developed to answer the needs of different segments of FOs.
The key partners of the programme are thus RFOs, their Apex organization PAFO and AgriCord.
② Pacific Region
- A key partner for the programme for reaching its target groups has been identified in the Pacific
Islands Farmers Organization Network (PIFON). PIFON is s an umbrella organization informally operating
since 2008 and formally registered in 2013 with 13 foundation members from 6 Pacific Island countries,
including national associations, federations and cooperatives.
③ Caribbean Region The FOs of the Caribbean countries have not constituted a single and inclusive regional apex organization. Therefore key partners for the programme have been identified at inception through a competitive call for proposals. The resulting recipients are: AgriCord and the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and Caribbean in coordination with PROCASUR.
Unifying principles throughout the programme - Ownership: FOs define objectives and activities based on their respective strategic plans
- Flexibility: The programme is adaptable to emerging opportunities, the evolution of smallholder priorities and to the international agenda for the agriculture sector
- Subsidiarity: The principle of subsidiarity guides the programme and determines the attribution of responsibilities in the implementation of activities in order to maximize synergies and complementarities between the different levels of intervention
- Coordination with complementary projects: Coordination is ensured to develop synergies between different projects and interventions at national and regional levels and to learn from their experiences
- Peer learning and inclusiveness: Peer-to-peer support and knowledge-sharing from country-level activities are promoted, and the regional and continental networks play a key role to develop linkages and
2 Members of the Pan African Farmers' Organisation (PAFO): Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF), Plateforme Sous-
Régionale des organisations Paysannes d'Afrique Centrale (Sub-Regional Platform of Farmers Organisations in Central Africa) (PROPAC), the Réseau des organisations paysannes et de producteurs de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (Network of Farmers Organisations and Agricultural Producers of West Africa) (ROPPA), the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU)
6
facilitate networking and exchanges at all levels
- Mainstream gender and youth: Focus on women and young people is at the core of the programme and special interventions are developed to promote their participation
Implementation responsibilities Funds go to regional networks, AgriCord and FAO. So that, they are responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of activities within their region and to channel funds to the NFOs, agri-agencies and sub-implementing partners. The NFOs are the co-implementers of the programme and are responsible for the execution of national activities.
7
List of Acronyms
ACP Africa Caribbean and Pacific Secretary
ACODEA Agencia de Cooperación al Desarrollo de la Agricultura
AFDI Agriculteurs Français et Développement International
AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa
ASARECA Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
AU African Union
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CEMAC Economic and Monetary Union of Central African States
CFA Comprehensive Framework for Action
CFS Committee on Food Security
CILSS Comité permanent Inter Etats de Lutte Contre la Sécheresse au Sahel
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
EAFF East African Farmers Federation
EAC East Africa Community
EC European Commission
ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States
ECOWAP Regional Agricultural Policy for West Africa of the ECOWAS
ECOWAS Economic Community Of West African States
ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
FAFO Farmers’ Forum
FANRPAN Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Network
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FARA Forum for African Agriculture Research
FFP Farmers Fighting Poverty
FOSCA Farm Organization Support Centre for Africa
FOs Farmers’ Organizations
KM Knowledge Management
NFOs National Farmers’ Organizations
MDG Millennium Development Goal
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NFO National Farmers’ Organisation
PAFO Pan-African Farmer Organization
PAU Politique Agricole de l’UEMOA
PIFON Pacific Island Farmers Organisation Network
POW Programme of Work
PMI Sustainable Production, Markets and Institutions Division (IFAD)
PROPAC Plateforme Sous-régionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale
RFOs Regional Farmers’ Organizations
ROPPA Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l’Afrique de l’Ouest
SACAU Southern Africa Confederation of Agriculture Unions
SADC Southern African Development Community
SAPs Structural Adjustment Programs
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
TAF Technical Assistance Facility
UEMOA Commission del’Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine
UMAGRI Union Maghrebine des Agriculteurs
UPA DI Union des Producteurs Agricoles – Développement International
WCA West and Central Africa Division (IFAD)
1. Rationale
1.1 Regional, sector context and problems analysis
Poverty is still prominent in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, and is particularly concentrated in Sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA) where 41 percent of the population lived on $1.90 or less a day in 2013. This implies that in
SSA 389 million people remain in extreme poverty—more than in all other regions combined.
ACP countries account for 11 percent of the world’s population. In Africa, population is especially growing fast with
an expected rise from 817 million in 2000 to 2.5 billion by 2050. African population is also young, with 60 percent
under 25 years of age in 2015.
Also, while ACP countries are urbanizing rapidly, large segments of population live in rural areas (65–70 per cent in
the majority of African countries with a share of poor exceeding 80 per cent). Agriculture remains the backbone of
ACP economies. In Africa only, it accounts for a third of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) region-wide and
employs two-thirds of the labor force, with the poorest countries most heavily reliant on this sector.
Africa is dominated by family farming, with 33 million farms of less than 2 hectares, accounting for 80 percent of all
farms. Family farms are the largest private sector group in national economies and contribute about 70 per cent of
the total food supply in Africa, feeding most of the urban populations. It is thus impossible for Africa to end hunger
and reduce poverty unless it significantly increases production and incomes on Africa’s smallholder farms.
African agriculture has enormous potential for growth. This stems from the continent’s abundant natural resources
and the large yield gap that countries can explore to increase food security and reduce poverty. A 1 per cent
increase in agricultural per capita GDP reduced the poverty gap five times more than a 1 percent increase in GDP
per capita in other sectors, mainly among the poorest people.
Farmers’ organizations (FOs) have a dual role in promoting the recognition of family farming and smallholder’
rights, and providing services to their members to profitable engagement within value chains with other economic
players, thus making evident the multidimensional environmental, economic and social added value of family
farming, for example in terms of food security, maintenance of ecosystems and rural landscapes, preservation of
biodiversity and cultural heritage and socio-economic foundation of rural communities.
FOs can indeed be significant economic players, providing a wide range of key economic services to their
members to support profitable engagement in markets, thus contributing to sustained growth processes and
tackling the challenges of reducing rural poverty.
FOs play also a crucial role in lobbying for increased investments in agriculture that can benefit family farming and
smallholders. Improving agriculture government budget allocations along value chains offers opportunities and
added-values for family farming in line with green economy principles. This includes, for example, improvement of
smallholder working conditions and opportunities for accessing new markets.
Family farming and smallholder systems face several structural and functional challenges, among them
environmental degradation and climate change impacts, hindering the goal to achieve food and nutrition security
together with increased incomes and improved livelihoods. ACP small-scale family farmers are expected to be the
worst affected by climate change, with erratic rainfall and increasing temperatures already causing crop failures
when these are not destroyed by the impacts of extreme events (flooding and droughts).
FOs (and extension services) represent a major opportunity to bring social learning on adaptation from the
community-level to the national level, promoting mainstreaming institutional and organizational approaches that
allow key principles of sustainable agriculture and value chains to be part of regional and national policies,
reflecting the challenges of ensuring a sustainable agricultural production for food security and increased incomes
and improved livelihoods. Thus, mainstreaming sustainability principles and adaptation is more than scaling up of
specific ecological and adaptation practices or knowledge, it is about mainstreaming institutional and organizational
approaches that allow this knowledge to be generated.
9
The role of FOs as representatives of the farming community at the national, regional and international levels is
also increasingly recognized today. The United Nations (UN) declared 2012 as the International Year of
Cooperatives and 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming. On 20th December 2017, the UN General
Assembly proclaimed 2019-2028 the UN Decade of Family Farming encouraging all States to “develop, improve
and implement public policies on family farming” and inviting Governments and other relevant stakeholders,
including international and regional organizations, civil society, the private sector and academia, to actively support
the implementation of the Decade. This achievement was the result of a campaign driven mainly by family farming
organizations.
These events acknowledge the invaluable role that FOs play as chain stakeholders to support market integration of
smallholders and in in shaping policies for agriculture and sustainable development, providing services to
smallholders, generating employment and social integration, reducing poverty and enhancing food security.
1.2 Stakeholders
The program's primary stakeholders and beneficiaries are FOs and their smallholder members in ACP countries.
The selection of FOs that will be supported will be made at inception (see more below) or defined in the course of
implementation.
IFAD, a specialized agency of the UN, is selected as implementing partner given its unique expertise, extensive
partnerships and dialogue with FOs and AgriCord, and its role as the leader of an alliance of partners in support of
FOs.
The experience and lessons learnt in the partnership between IFAD and FOs has been particularly accelerating
and strengthening the focus on national apex FOs and regional FO networks under the aegis of the Farmers’
Forum Process, a bottom-up process of consultation and dialogue between FOs, IFAD and governments focused
on rural development and poverty reduction. Launched in 2006 and fully aligned with IFAD's strategic objectives,
the Forum was established as a permanent process with a Global Meeting in conjunction with the IFAD Governing
Council every other year. The Forum process is fully institutionalized within IFAD and is rooted in concrete
partnership and collaboration at the country and regional level (for further information:
http://www.ifad.org/farmer/index.htm). In 2016 the Farmers Forum process was further decentralized with a
regional segment taking place between global meetings at IFAD HQs every four years.
The direct beneficiaries of the programme are the following:
African region
The primary beneficiaries of the programme are the smallholder and family farmers member of existing local and
national Farmers Organizations of African countries.
The key partners of the programme are thus RFOs, its Apex organization PAFO and AgriCord.
RFOs are membership based organizations representing and grouping together 69 national FOs in their respective
regions, including women organizations, federations, commodity associations, cooperatives, unions and advocacy
based organizations.
They are present in 53 countries and represent over 52 million smallholders (including farmers, fishermen,
breeders, pastoralists, producers), 26 million being women.
Since their creation in the 2000s, RFOs recorded substantial growth. They gained sound experience and capacities
in technical and financial management and have built fruitful collaboration with development partners.
In particular the members of those NFOs that are affiliated to the 5 Regional FOs – RFOs - networks (EAFF,
PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU and UMNAGRI) members of PAFO:
10
i. Eastern Africa Farmers Federation:
Eastern Africa Farmers’ Federation is a Regional Farmer Organization (RFO) whose membership comprises
24 apex farmer organizations in 10 countries in Eastern Africa (Burundi, Djibouti, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda, and United Rep. of Tanzania). The Eastern African Farmers
Federation was formed in 2001 and since its creation, EAFF has been playing its role to voice legitimate
concerns and interests of farmers of the region with the aim of enhancing regional cohesiveness and social-
economic status of the farmers.
ii. Plateforme Régionale Des Organisations Paysannes D'Afrique Centrale
Plateforme Sous-Régionale des organisations Paysannes d'Afrique Central (PROPAC) is a regional
organization founded in 2005, bringing together 10 farmers’ organizations in the countries of the Economic
Community of Central African States (ECCAS) region – Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African
Republic, Chad, the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tome
and Principe. The PROPAC has a vision of "family farming being enterprising, sustainable and modernized in
order to ensure the economic, social, cultural and ecological functions for food security and sovereignty." Its
purpose is to harmonize the strategies and actions of Central African NFOs to address their concerns in the
development, implementation and evaluation of policies and strategies for agricultural and rural development
at all levels.
iii. Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et de Producteurs de l'Afrique de l'Ouest
ROPPA is a membership based organization including 13 national farmers' organizations (Benin, Burkina
Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Togo) and associate member farmers' organizations (Cape Verde, Nigeria). Since its creation in June 2000,
ROPPA has been positioning itself as the vehicle for advocating and promoting family farming, which is the
main agro-pastoral production system in West Africa.
iv. Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions
SACAU’s core membership consists of national general interest apex farmers’ organisations. Membership
currently stands at 17 farmer organisations in 12 countries in southern Africa (Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe). The
vision of SACAU is to bring about a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable farming sector that ensures food
security and contributes to economic growth in Southern Africa. Its mission is to be the main voice of farmers
and to promote and ensure strong and effective farmers/producers’ organisations in all countries in Southern
Africa.
v. Union Maghrébine Et Nord-Africaine Des Agriculteurs UMNAGRI
UMNAGRI is the regional professional organization of North Africa established in 1989. Its membership includes seven national FOs in North African countries – Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia. The UMAGRI aims to ingrain team spirit among FOs in the region towards the consolidation of cooperation and coordination of efforts and action programs in light of economic developments at regional and international levels, including those related to agriculture. The UMAGRI must support the intensification of intra-regional cooperation in order to address the challenges facing the agricultural sector in the region.
Thanks to improved institutional capacities, they effectively conducted advocacy initiatives to promote family
farming and developed strategies to influence agricultural policies at all levels. Members of various task forces and
consultative bodies on sector policies, they are championing youth in agriculture, and are key strategic partners of
regional integration institutions such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern
African Development Community (SADC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the
Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa (ACTESA). Further, they collaborate with the
CAADP.
The organizations successfully positioned, regionally and globally, as the main voice of African farmers in the
respective regions.
11
The PAFO is the Apex platform of African FOs and a key partner for the programme. Based on the decision of the
five RFOs, PAFO was created in 2010 with the support of the SFOAP and under the sponsorship of the African
Union. PAFO is Africa’s first continent-wide FO.
In the last years, PAFO strengthened partnership with the AU in the framework of CAADP and with other
international partners including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), IFAD, the EU and the Technical
Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). Today PAFO is recognized as a key player in the policy arena
and will have an important responsibility to ensure farmers’ interests and aspirations continue to be reflected in
Africa’s development initiatives, policies and strategies.
AgriCord. AgriCord is a non-profit development alliance mandated by 35 professional FOs and their cooperative
businesses from countries in Europe, Canada, Africa and Asia.
AgriCord has official development assistance status with the OECD, and operates via its 12 member agri-
agencies3, non-governmental organizations for development cooperation specialized in FOs capacity building and
operational in the field. Agri-agencies provide specialized services, tools and approached developed to answer the
needs of different segments of FOs.
AgriCord and agri-agencies bring experience and know-how from the implementation of Farmers Fighting Poverty,
operating since 2007 and supporting more than 600 FOs per year in more than 50 developing countries.
Pacific Region
The direct beneficiaries of the program in this region are the smallholder and family farmers members of existing
local and national FOs of Pacific countries.
A key partner for the programme for reaching the programme target groups has been identified in Pacific Islands
Farmers Organization Network (PIFON).
PIFON is s an umbrella organization informally operating since 2008 and formally registered in 2013 with 13
foundation members from 6 Pacific Island countries, including national associations, federations and cooperatives.
Since 2013, PIFON is the Regional Implementing Agency for MTCP 2 guiding five of their national members (from
the Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Tonga) in the implementation of the programme.
Caribbean Region
The direct beneficiaries of the program in this region are the smallholder and family farmers members of existing
local and national FOs of Caribbean countries. The FOs of the Caribbean countries have not constituted a single
and inclusive regional apex organization of the region. Therefore key partners and recipient for the programme
have been identified through a competitive call for proposals launched during the inception phase.The resulting
recipients in the region are: AgriCord and FAO Regional Office for Latina America and Caribbean.
The program in the Caribbean region will be implemented by the following partners and key stakeholders:
- AgriCord, the grant recipient, is an alliance of 13 agri-agencies. Four of its member agri-agencies (AA),
Acodea, Afdi, Trias, and Upa Di will implement this action together with their FO partners at the national,
subnational and local levels. AgriCord will operate in collaboration with CLAC, the Latin American and
Caribbean Network of FairTrade Small Producers and Workers (CLAC).
- FAO´s Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean will operate in consortium with Corporación
PROCASUR.
Under a specific governance mechanism to coordinate the implementation of the activities, the program will focus
on strengthen FOs capacities and improve their access to services for their members, special with rural women and
youth, while fostering their institutional development. This will be reached by provinding direct technical assistance
to the FOs, investing on innovative solutions for commercialization and market access, generating information on
3 Acodea (Spain), Aev (Italy), Afdi (france), Agriterra (the Netherlands) , Aha (Germany), Asiadhrra (Asia), Asprodeb (Senegal), Csa (Belgium), Fert (France), FFD (Finalnd), Trias (Belgium), Upa DI (Canada), We Effect (Sweden)
12
family farming in the Caribbean region and key value chains. At the same time, the program will foster cooperation
activities between FOs, in order to exchange experiences and build synergies at national and regional level, in
order to facilitate their political incidence in different decision-making process.
1.3 Lessons learned and SFOAP self-assessment
The design of Farmers’ Organizations for ACP is the result of the joint effort and consultations among all
stakeholders and is based on the experience and results of the Farmers' Africa programme (2013-2018)
implemented with the support of the EU and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and in
particular on the lessons learnt in the implementation of its two components:
Farmers’ Fighting Poverty (FFP)/Africa (2013-2015)4, implemented by AgriCord;
The Support to Farmers’ Organizations in Africa (SFOAP) in its pilot (2009-2013)5 and main (2013-2018)6
phases, implemented by the Pan-Africa Farmers’ Organization (PAFO), the five African regional farmers’
organizations (RFOs)7 and their members at the national level (NFOs).
Also, the design of the programme, integrates the experience gained from the implementation of the Medium-term
Cooperation programme with Farmers' Organizations in Asia-Pacific (MTCP) in its phase 2 (2013-2018), funded by
the EU and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and implemented by IFAD, AgriCord and FOs
from Asia-Pacific countries.
The design, also takes into account the results and recommendations emerging from several assessments and
evaluation conducted since 2009, including the EU led final evaluation of the SFOAP pilot phase8, the 2015
SFOAP and FFP/Africa Mid-Term Reviews (MTR)9, the 2017 FFP/Africa evaluation and the assessment led by
RFOs and conducted by independent consultants in 2018.
Overall, conducted assessments and evaluations underline the relevance of the support to FOs and the need for its
continuation. In particular, the 2018 assessment led by RFOs in 2018 highlights the relevance of the SFOAP and
its effectiveness in supporting FOs evolving into strong organizations able to provide services to their members
(see table 1 below).
4 The programme cost was EUR 20.2 million including a contribution of EUR 11.9 million from the EU 5 Financed by the EU and IFAD with an overall budget of EUR 6.1 million 6 Financed by the EU, IFAD, the Swiss and French Development cooperation agencies with an overall budget of EUR 19.9 million 7 East African Farmers Federation (EAFF), Plateforme Sous-régionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC), Réseau des
Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (ROPPA), Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), Union Maghrébine et Nord-Africaine des Agriculteurs (UMNAGRI)
8 The summary of the evaluation report is available here: http://www.sfoap.net/fileadmin/user_upload/sfoap/KB/docs/EC_brochure_8pages_Summary_evaluation_report_EN_bd.pdf
9 The SFOAP MTR report is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ILmiijGdcAQW9KMmZDdnZNR0k/view?usp=sharing
13
Table 1. 2018 SFOAP assessment (summary) against OECD criteria
OECD evaluation
criteria
Assessment
Relevance The relevance of SFOAP has been very strong. The capacity building of FOs at all levels
enabled them to become key actors involved in the main challenges affecting African
family farming. The leverage effect sought in the promotion of economic activities
involving local and national FOs has resulted in concrete cases of scaling up.
Effectiveness SFOAP enabled an undeniable consolidation of the capacities of FOs, particularly at the
national and regional level, with technical teams able to implement strategic plans
validated by their governance. The exchanges between regional networks (inter and intra)
have further consolidated the sense of belonging within FOs.
Efficiency The cumbersome administrative and financial procedures required for the use of public
funds may have affected implementation. However, the high level of financial
management capacity of the regional networks enabled a good rate of disbursement
reaching up to the level of local organizations, thus complementing funds mobilized locally
(leverage effect). Efficiency is considered relatively good, with an overall good rate and
pace of disbursements over the entire implementation period.
Impact The impact of SFOAP is visible at the regional level where networks have become key
actors able to contribute to policies that are relevant to them, centers of knowledge and
coordinators/managers of projects implemented by their members, able to support them
e.g. in the selection, monitoring and financing of economic pilot projects and initiatives.
Sustainability The maturity level being reached by regional networks that have also acquired a great
capacity for resource mobilization are a signal of FOs sustainability. Farmers leaders are
fully involved in the governance of FOs at different levels and the technical teams have
become increasingly competent with a good capacity to provide services.
A wealth of lessons further emerged both from the implementation of the above mentioned programmes and their
assessments and evaluations, and guided the design and formulation of the Farmers’ Organizations for ACP. The
main lessons learnt embedded in the programme are summarized in the table 2 below.
Table 2. Main lessons learnt
Main lessons learnt Input for design
Three main areas
of support
Farmers’ Africa focused on three main areas of support these being economic services provision,
policy engagement and institutional development. Components contributed to fostering
sustainability by supporting FOs to evolve into well-functioning institutions, able to provide
services to their members, influence policy environments and gain recognition from stakeholders
in the sector.
Programme components remain relevant and valid for a new
programme. Nonetheless, emphasis should be placed on FOs
integration into value chains.
Institutional
support
The programme component on institutional development is the one that brought more value for
money. The financing of core costs, capacity building and communication had multiplier effects
by increasing FOs membership (e.g. about 500,000 new individual members recorded by FOs
supported through SFOAP Main Phase), facilitating FOs involvement in policy processes, and
leveraging additional resource mobilization to the benefit of whole farming communities (e.g. over
USD$12,000,000 raised from donors or financial institutions by SFOAP Main Phase supported
FOs). Evidence can be found in all regions and countries.
A programme supporting FOs should keep financing FOs’ core
functions.
Ownership Financially supporting the existing strategies of FOs enabled the development of a rich diversity
of instruments to improve the capacity of FOs to respond to members’ needs. Farmers’ Africa
success very much relies on FOs’ ownership and ability to decide how best to use resources.
The importance given to each component can vary from region to
region and budget allocations should be at the discretion of FOs.
Programme
steering and
coordination
The coordination and interaction between the programme interventions and stakeholders was not
adequate. Coordination between RFOs and AgriCord happened mainly at the yearly General
Assembly of AgriCord or through AgriCord’s participation in the SFOAP Steering Committee.
Concrete interaction and the development of synergies were also weak. In particular, the two
experiences in which the interaction between RFOs and Agri-agencies was set by design didn’t
succeed (e.g. in Central Africa, where UPA-DI supported PROPAC in the implementation of the
component on economic services provision; or in Northern Africa where the programme followed
a twin approach with Fert and UMNAGRI conducting complementary interventions aiming to
redynamize the network).
Farmers’ Africa should be a unique programme and an
effort made to ensure better coordination and interaction at
various levels. Steering processes should be revised and be: (i)
joint; (ii) open to a large number of FOs and agri-agencies
benefiting from the programme; (iii) strongly oriented to
knowledge management (KM) and strategic guidance. Also, an
emphasis should be placed in developing sharing mechanisms,
KM and lessons learning in order to improve programme
efficiency and effectiveness.
Performance by
implementing
partners
Although results achieved in the implementation of the programme are satisfactory, performance
was not uniform in the different regions. RFOs, PAFO and AgriCord showed different absorption
capacities and needs emerging from the programme were not necessarily the same.
To ensure an efficient use of funds and stronger impact, the
allocation of funds should be based on results/performance and
emerging needs by FOs. Also, the annual allocation of funds
made available for programme implementation (from the EU and
15
IFAD) should be flexible enough to respond to FOs needs,
absorption capacity and pace of development.
Gender Ensuring that women and young farmers can have equal access to services that respond to their
specific requirements was a key concern FOs, reflected in their strategies and interventions.
Nonetheless, weak results were recorded in terms of improved women’s leadership within FOs
and no direct or limited support was provided to women-led initiatives. youth leadership and voice
in policy dialogue.
Gender should be mainstreamed and support provided
to women’s initiatives, including in terms of budget.
Complementarities The distinction between the RFOs and AgriCord operations was the level of intervention (local for
AgriCord and from national to continental for SFOAP). Implementation was consistent with the
approach, though some duplications were observed. Nonetheless, a stronger focus on value
chains requires more emphasis - both from RFOs and AgriCord - at the subnational level, the
most appropriate for economic services delivery.
The distinct operational level should remain but more
efforts should be made to ensure synergies and minimize
overlaps. Further, with the aim of reaching stronger impact, the
programme should avoid rigidity in terms of the levels of
interventions of the two actions and will have a stronger focus on
the national and subnational level.
Knowledge
management
Efforts were undertaken by FOs to share and systematize knowledge within their regions.
Nonetheless this didn’t happen adequately across networks and regions.
Knowledge generation and sharing need to be more systematic
and should not rely solely on events but should be more
interactive. More opportunities for exchange should be sought
including with the promotion of peer learning and exchange
initiatives and opportunities. This approach is considered key for
institutional development and should become a central
mechanism to accelerate the learning process by peers
Monitorin
g and Evaluation
(M&E)
Notwithstanding significant advancements by RFOs, M&E was affected by: (i) the lack
of a baseline to appreciate changes; (ii) a too complex logframe including too many indicators
which were often difficult to measure. Collecting sex-disaggregated data was patchy.
M&E should be improved and funds earmarked for the
development of a baseline survey.
IFAD as
implementing
partner
IFAD was selected as implementing partner for both actions given its expertise, partnership and
dialogue with African FOs and partnership developed with AgriCord in support of FOs. During the
programme, IFAD conducted over 55 support and supervision missions in more than 32
countries. This direct support focused on assessing results, addressing issues, providing
implementation support and ensuring proper financial management by partners. Nonetheless, the
possibility for IFAD to provide tailored and programmatic support was hindered by the limited
human and financial resources available.
IFAD plays a key role in ensuring coordination and support to
FOs. Based on the above, it was confirmed as implementing
partner. Additional resources should be earmarked to enable
IFAD to effectively play its role.
16
Flow of funds More flexible and light rules for reporting and disbursement adopted for the SFOAP main phase
compared to the pilot phase (based on the pilot phase evaluation findings) proved to be effective.
This approach should be kept.
As was the case for the SFOAP main phase, requests of payment
from IFAD to the EU will be based on IFAD reporting and planning
(based on supervision missions' reports) completed a few months
later by the full annual technical reporting and planning.
Synergies with
other interventions
There were very limited synergies between FOs and IFAD-supported and EU-financed projects
and initiatives. Also, in the absence of a baseline, improvements were difficult to measure.
Concrete initiatives to ensure synergies should be considered
during inception. The baseline survey to be conducted at
programme inception should take into account also this aspect.
Sustainability Institutional support, long-term partnerships and a strategic dialogue between main stakeholders
and the FOs vision, on their pathway to autonomy and regarding their priorities, are seen crucial
for the sustainability of the results achieved.
The new phase reinforces these points.
2. Description
2.1 Strategy and Approach
The identification of detailed activities to be carried out at the continental level and in each of the regions is entrusted to PAFO, RFOs and their NFOs members, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office and it is based on different approaches in the regions. However a number of common strategic orientations will guide programme implementation at all levels. Ensure ownership: as was the case for the SFOAP programme, all programmed activities, systems or strategies that will benefit from FO4ACP resources will be based on PAFO, RFO/NFO and AgriCord strategic plans. However, the programming exercise also preserves flexibility in the course of implementation with a view to adapt detailed programming to results achieved in the course of the programme, but also to emerging opportunities, to the evolution of smallholder priorities or to the international agenda for the agriculture sector. There will be no parallel structures, mechanisms or activities specific to FO4ACP implementation. Rather, programme activities and systems will be embedded in existing structures, which will contribute to enhanced ownership and stronger impact. A corollary of this orientation is that administrative and financial procedures used in implementing FO4ACP resources will be harmonised as much as possible with general procedures applicable to all of the activities of recipient organisations (provided they respect commonly admitted standards). In parallel, the strengthening of RFOs and AGriCord capacities in terms of reporting and the development of an effective M&E system will be considered key to enable participating FOs to report on results achieved through the support of the Programme. Subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity will guide programme implementation and determine the attribution of responsibilities in the implementation of activities under programme components in order to maximise synergies and complementarities between the different levels of intervention. For this to be possible, subsidiary levels should be clear. Information on programme implementation at local, national, regional and continental levels will be shared and considered as mutually supportive. Coordination and consultation between national, regional and continental levels will be maintained through programme implementation to develop synergies, generate stronger impact and to ensure overall coherence. Build for the future: FO4ACP resources target activities that contribute to structuring recipient organisations by setting up major building blocks required to support their institutional development: strategies, procedures, accounting and M&E systems. This will strengthen them as professional organisations able to provide economic services to members, increase their effectiveness and sustainability, and also facilitate further mobilisation of resources with other development partners. Coordinate with complementary projects: Coordination will be ensured during FO4ACP implementation also with a view to develop synergies between different projects and to learn from their various experiences. All National and Regional Farmers Organizations supported by this program have an established linkage with IFAD through the Farmers Forum process, at national, regional and global levels. In Africa and in Asia-Pacific this process is now decentralised and delivered concrete national Action Plans that will further strengthen partnerships and collaborations within IFAD country programs. In most countries, national FOs are closely associated with IFAD COSOP formulations and project designs. This programme is also complementary to: (i) the ASEAN FOs Support Programme, a sister programme implemented by Asian FOs and AgriCord with support from IFAD and the EU in ASEAN countries ; and (ii) the ABC Fund (SIF) which IFAD is planning to establish to invest in smallholder organizations and rural agricultural businesses. Open –amongst others - to all ACP countries, the ABC fund aims to generate positive and measurable social impact for actors in agricultural value chains together with financial return for investors; (iii) the CAADP and the National Agriculture Investments Plans; (iv) the Agreement between AgriCord and FAO "Developing smallholders’ capacities to tackle climate change and improve livelihoods", FO-MAPP interactive online database providing geo-referenced information on local smallholders', family farmers' and
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
18
producers' organizations in Africa, Asia and Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean. This is an IFAD –WRF joint initiative and it is a work in progress. Peer learning and inclusiveness. The development of peer-to-peer support and knowledge sharing from country- level activities to the continental and across – regions (ACP regions) will be considered key for FOs institutional development, Kwnoledge generation and dissemination. RFOs, AgriCord and FAO will play a key role to develop linkages and facilitate networking and exchanges at all levels. Inclusiveness will be promoted, supported and encouraged.
2.2 Programme description
2.2.1 Target country(ies), direct and indirect target group and geographical coverage
FO4ACP target groups consist of:
- Small holder and family farmers affiliated with the five African RFOs and their national
members in 53 countries, which represent about 52 million small farmers, of which more
than 26 million are women (see table 3 below). They will all benefit from FOs increased
capacities and professionalism to influence investments and policies in their favor. 69 NFOs
in 53 countries would financially benefit from the FO4ACP while all members of the five
RFOs would benefit from regional and continental level activities. The NFOs that will directly
benefit from the Programme may vary in the course of implementation on the basis of
indications coming from RFOs, supervision mission and the Mid-term review.
- Smallholder and family farmers affiliated with the member and partners of the Pacific
Islands Farmers Organization Network (PIFON) in 11 countries in the pacific area
- The smallholder and family farmers member of the national and local FOs supported
AgriCord, non-profit development alliance and 9 member agri-agencies whose interventions
with local farmers' organisations also strengthen NFOs in most cases (Africa and
Caribbean);
- In the Caribbean, this project will implement activities in Belize, Cuba10, Dominican
Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, and Saint Lucia and will emphasize on working
with Family Farmers organizations and cooperatives from these countries. Family farmers in
general will benefit from the activities as FOs strengthen their capacity to access and
provide rural services. Special attention will be given to Rural Youth and Women, in order to
empower them and allow their socio-economic authonomy. The project will also have a
regional component that will emphasize on generating policy dialogue spaces in regional
integration organizations such as CARICOM. This will create an enabling environment for
developing the planned activities andosteri the exchange of experiences between
organizations and the development of a common policy framework in those spaces.
10The activities involving Cuba are funded by IFAD resources since Cuba is member of the ACP Group, but it is not
signatory of the Cotonou Agreement. Therefore, Intra-ACP Funds are not entitled to finance action in Cuba. The funds allocation is subject to the internal IFAD approval process.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
19
Tab 3. FO4ACP target and geographical coverage
Continental
platform
Regional Farmers
organisations (RFOs)
70 National Farmers Organisations
(NFOs in the countries)
Local Farmers
organisations
(LFO)*
African Region
Pan African
Farmers
Organisation
(PAFO)
Eastern Africa : EAFF
(Eastern African Farmers
Federation)
21 within 10 countries (Burundi,
Djibouti, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan,
Tanzania, Uganda),
LFOs from 14
NFOs
Central Africa : PROPAC
(Plateforme régional des
organisations paysannes
d’Afrique Centrale)
10 within 10 countries (Angola,
Burundi, Cameroun, Congo, Gabon,
Guinée Equatoriale, RCA, RDC, Sao
Tome e Principe, Tchad)
LFOs from 5
NFOs
Western Africa : ROPPA
(Réseau des Organisations
Paysannes et des
Producteurs Agricoles
d’Afrique de l’Ouest)
14 within 14 countries (Bénin, Burkina
Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambie, Ghana,
Guinée, Guinée Bissau, Libéria, Mali,
Niger, Nigéria, Sénégal, Sierra Leone,
Togo)
LFOs from 14
NFOs
Southern Africa : SACAU
(Southern African
Confederation of Agricultural
Unions)
17 within 12 countries (Botswana,
Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mozambique, Namibie,
Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzanie,
Zambie, Zimbabwe,
LFOs from 7
NFOs
Northern Africa :
UMNAGRI (Union
Maghrébine et Nord-Africaine
des Agriculteurs)
7 within 7 countries (Algérie, Egypte,
Lybie, Maroc, Mauritanie, Soudan
Tunisie)
LFOs from 5
NFOs
AgriCORD 1 agri-agency at multi-country
level in Western Africa in link
with ROPPA
9 Agri-agencies working in 11
countries (Benin, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Guinée, Kenya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Senegal,
Tanzania, Uganda) in linkage with 8
NFOs
150 LFOs from
11 countries
Pacific Region
PIFON 22 within 11 countries (Cook Islands,
Fiji, New Caledonia, Papua New
Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands,
Timor L’Este, Tonga, Vanuatu,
Kiribati, Marshall Islands)
TBD
* LFO identified to directly benefit from the Project
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
20
Figure 1. FO4ACP – Recipient and geographical coverage in the African Region
EAFF
PROPAC
ROPPA (Nigerian NFO in the process of becoming member)
SACAU
UMNAGRI
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
21
Regional
Recipients Partners
70 National Farmers Organisations
(NFOs in the countries)
Local Farmers
organisations
(LFO)*
Caribbean Region
AgriCord Acodea, Afdi, Trias, and Upa
Di
6 FOs in 2 countries (Dominican
Republic and Haiti)
TBD
FAO PROCASUR FOs in 8 countries (in Belize, Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Grenada,
Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, and Saint
Lucia) (identified after the mapping
exercise)
TBC
Figure 2. Map of FO4ACP countries in the Caribbean region
2.2.2 Goal and objectives
The overall objective of the programme is to increase income and to improve livelihood, food and
nutrition security and safety of organized smallholder and family farmers in the target areas of African
countries .
The programme’s specific objectives are:
SO # 1: FOs and farmer-led enterprises improve technical and economic services to their
members along the value chains;
SO # 2: FOs influence policies and business environments for the transformation of family
farming and the development of sustainable, adaptive economic initiatives and farmer-led
enterprises;
SO # 3: FOs are accountable organisations able to effectively perform their institutional
functions.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
22
2.2.3 Components and key activities by component
The Programme comprises five major components around which activities will be organized.
Component 1: Delivery of economic services along priority value chains
Component 2: Enabling the business environment
Component 3: Institutional development of FOs
Component 4: Communication and Visibility
Component 5: IFAD Programme Coordination and M&E
Knowledge management will be featured in all the components.
Each component is subdivided into 3 subcomponents related to the RFOs core functions to support
their NFOs members.
The Programme has been co-designed with FOs and their direct technical partners, the AgriCORD
network and FAO regional office. It recognises that FOs, from local level to national (generally
through national platforms), regional levels (through the regional platforms who constitutes the
recipient of the large grants) and for Africa a continental level (through the Pan-African platform of
farmers organizations constituted by RFOs), are the main implementing partners and beneficiaries of
the Programme.
As horizontal peer platforms11, RFOs mandate regarding their respective NFOs members is
threefolded and basically aims at i) upgrading NFOs capacities (allowing them to do better what they
usually do); ii) upstreaming NFOs perspectives (allowing them to do differently what they usually do);
iii) upscaling NFOs outreach (allowing them to do bigger than their usual impact area).
Such understanding is also supported by the way through which RFOs interacted with NFOs
members during SFOAP implementation when they used to differentiate, i) direct funding to NFOs for
them to better implement their national activities, ii) direct RFOs backstopping to NFOs for them to
improve their performance through cross pollination amongst peers and iii) direct dunding to RFOs
for them to implement regional activities that allows NFOs to reach out this level.
RFOs agreed that programme activities are to benefit to NFOs for them to develop needed services
identified by producers either through direct implementation (described in sub component 1 for each
of the 4 component) or through specific backstopping activities provided by RFOs (described in
subcomponent 2 for each of the 4 component), or lastly regional activities will implemented by RFOs
(as described in subcomponent 3 for each of the 4 component) as shown in the following
recapitulative table.
Most programme activities (at least 70%) will directly benefit NFOs and their members in their
respective countries either through a direct NFO implementation or through RFO managed activities
when it comes to backstopping. In respect with of the principle of subsidiarity, at regional level RFOs
implement regional activities comprising the management of the programme.
The structure of programme activities around the four components is constant in the three regions
(Africa, Caribbean and Pacific).
11 Adapted from Cees Leeuwis, Reconceptualising Participation for Sustainable Rural Development: Towards a Negotiation
Approach, Development and Change Vol. 31 (2000), 931±959. # Institute of Social Studies 2000. Published by Blackwell
Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
23
Likewise, also with regard to non-regional FOs recipients (AgriCord and FAO in the Caribbean) the
main focus is maintained, this implies that the activities per component have the objective to support
the national and subnational FOs identified in the countries. The structure of the components
assumes consequently an organization based on the regional, national and local level in line with the
nature of the activities and level of implementation.
Tab.4. Components and sub-components.
Component / core functions
(i) Upgrading NFOs capacities: direct funding to NFOs
(ii) Upstreaming NFOs perspectives: RFOs backstopping to NFOs
(iii) Upsclaling NFOs outreach: direct dunding to RFOs
Component 1: Delivery of economic services along priority value chains
Subcomponent 1.1 Subcomponent 1.2 Subcomponent 1.3
Component 2: Enabling the business environment
Subcomponent 2.1 Subcomponent 2.2 Subcomponent 2.3
Component 3: Institutional development of FOs
Subcomponent 3.1 Subcomponent 3.2 Subcomponent 3.3
Component 4: Communication and Visibility
Subcomponent 4.1 Subcomponent 3.2 Subcomponent 4.3
Component 1: Delivery of economic services along priority value chains
Component 1 will support FOs to improve their capacity to provide economic and technical services
to their female and male members in order to support their business ambitions, ensure their
profitable engagement in markets and integration into value chains based on the social and
environmental sustainability and resilience of the method of production and transformation. It is
expected that about 625,000 family farmers will benefit from their FOs having developed economic
services.
These services will enable smallholders to foster partnerships with larger market actors, access and
mobilize financing from the private sector, increase productivity, reduce risk, manage their produce,
create employment and increase incomes. Collective action through FOs will provide economies of
scale and thus reduce costs and promote innovation. It will also improve their bargaining power and
access to market information, and help to overcome inequalities faced by young and women farmers.
It is expected that 1,000 FOs will provide on a viable basis at least 2 economic services to the family
farming community (members and beyond). It is foreseen that, all value chains included, 620 000
tons of agricultural products will be marketed by family farmers as FOs members for an estimated
value of EUR 7,1 million. This will definitely contribute on the one hand to increase the flows of
agricultural products to demanding urban areas and on the other hand to better spread monetization
of rural areas craving for more decent livehoods.
This will be achieved by a large range of activities based on FOs needs, priorities and opportunities12
and including the following:
Facilitating market access through: the development of market information
systems/studies/analyses; capacity building for collection sales/purchase and contracts
negotiation; B2B; the organization of/participation to fora/events; value chains analysis;
12 identified through regional workshop during the inception period
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
24
training/advisory services; peer learning events/exchanges; green and circular economy
approaches and principles of eco-entrepreneurship; promotion of agro tourism and south-
south exchanges between FOs far accelerating adoption of sound business approaches
Facilitating access to finance through: training; the development of business plans; the
facilitation of linkages with banks/investors; the mobilization of expertise FO-FO; de-risking;
value chains based financing; contracts negotiation; It is expected that EUR 11,3 million will
be mobilized through other financial partners by leverage effect. As shown during SFOAP,
the RFO backstopping of NFO economical activities proved to be very valuable especially
through market intelligence development and specific accompaniment to local FOs to
negotiate the financing of partly funded developed business plans.
Facilitating sustainable increase of production and value addition through: the facilitation of
linkages with research/academia; technical digital/on situ training and demonstrations; the
establishment of sustainable extension networks on agroecology and sustainable
techniques focusing on family farming and smallholder; facilitating the adoption of/raising
awareness on the use of environmentally sensitive/climate smart technology and
techniques; the establishment of systems to facilitate access to inputs; the facilitation of
peer/twinning exchanges and learning; support standardization, certification and labelling of
agriculture/agro-food products; the facilitation of collective purchase of inputs/services,
support to improve food safety, post-harvest handling, storage and processing.
Component 2: Enabling the business environment
Component 2 will help to draw the attention of sector stakeholders, including civil society, private
sector, governments and donors, onto smallholder needs, especially in areas that are key to ensuring
a conducive business environment for women and men smallholder. These include support of
agriculture policies that favor smallholder farming, creation of new green jobs, issues surrounding
land tenure (taking into account the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure)
and agricultural credit for smallholders, trade policies promoting the access of smallholders products
to markets, focusing development programmes on investments in family farming (taking into account
the Principles for Responsible Investments in Agriculture and Food Safety) and through FOs,
influencing value chains governance mechanisms, and lobbying for the implementation of the
Maputo declaration of investing 10 per cent of the annual national budgets in agriculture. This can
have positive and sustainable impact on the orientation of policy decisions and regulatory
frameworks relevant for family farming. It is expected that 210 different policies and processes will be
influenced by FOs. Around 160 position papers across value chains and countries will influence the
business context to become more conducive for family farmers and their organizations. FOs will
proactively integrate or create around 815 multistakeholders platforms to influence decision makers.
FOs will also take pro-active role in doubling women and youth members (+100%) to be chosen as
FOs delegates in these platforms to introduce more inclusive perspectives. More specifically related
to value chains, FOs will be strengthened to stand in 415 interprofessional organizations to improve
their say and their share of added value in the main targeted value chains mostly at local and
national levels.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
25
The main activities supported under this component include the following:
Conducting of studies and analysis;
Development of policy positions;
Participation to policy consultations/fora/events;
Policy consultations among FOs;
Participation in value chains governance mechanisms; promoting principles provided by the
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure through multi-stakeholders’
platforms in order to contribute in land policy processes;
Advocacy and lobbying including the production of lobbying and advocacy
products/supports.
Organization of exchange meetings, backstopping missions, peer to peer support and
consultations among FOs. A particular emphasis will made to foster inclusivity (gender, youth…) and
peer exchanges will mostly focus on women and youth for them to fully integrate the farmers'
movement.
Component 3: Institutional development of FOs
Under Component 3, resources will target activities that contribute to structuring organizations by
setting up major building blocks required for their institutional development (strategies, tools, M&E).
This will strengthen them as qualified organizations, and increase their effectiveness in serving their
members while expecting from their members a citizen engagement in their movement to promote a
vivid organized rural civil society. Since the programme is focused on strengthening FOs capacity to
deliver economic oriented services, most of the selected FOs to benefit from the project are already
in existence and it is not expected to rocket up membership. The quality of services will attract new
memberships rather that externally motivated increased membership. It is therefore expected that
from the current 1, 4 million members, FOs reach 2,2 million members equivalent to a more than
40% increase. A particular monitoring of female and youth membership will be done as well as the
position of female and youth in leadership positions. Although such decisions rely upon members
'vote during the election of their leaders, FOs will proactively prepare women and youth to stand for it
with an objective to multiply by 3 this number, from 50 to 150 leaders.
With this understanding, institutional support through capacity-building, including in financial
management, will enable organizations to improve their accountability to their base, have solid
governance, and enhance recognition of FOs by governments, value chains stakeholders (public and
private buyers) and donors, all of which are necessary conditions for the sustainability of economic
activities. Institutional strengthening is thus closely linked and instrumental to the good functioning of
economic services as it enables FOs to efficiently implement their activities and make them effective
economic partners and players in the market. It is expected that around the double of FOs, from 155
to 285 will be in a position to produce audited annual accounts at all levels with a focus on national
levels. During the project, RFOs, whose financial management capacities tremendously increased
during the previous SFOAP, will play crucial roles to backstop NFOs and LFOs. It is also expected
that thrice more FOs, from 180 to 560, will develop and update their institutional strategic documents
(strategic plan, performance oriented and annual report, manual of procedures).
The main activities supported under component 3 include the following
Organization of statutory meetings; training for staff and leaders;
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
26
Development of FOs organizational, strategic and financial tools/plans;
Contributions to FOs equipment, staffing costs, operating costs (office rent, utilities,
stationary etc.) on the basis of a simplified allocation method, provided the allocation method is
compliant with the specific and general conditions of the Grant Agreements between IFAD and the
recipients of the Action;
M&E and KM related activities; these activities will be given a high importance in the
programme. Even if all levels are encouraged to document their progress and lessons learnt
to share it with peers, specific efforts will focus on regional and continental level (for Africa).
It is expected that PAFO, in close collaboration with AgriCORD, become the continental
resource centre for FOs and belonging to FOs that it aspires to be. It is expected that 335
good practices and lessons learnt will be documented and disseminated though electronic
and physical means. Peer to peer apprenticeship always constituted a basis in the farmers'
movement. It is expected that more 440 such exchanges will be supported by FOs within
FO4ACP. In the Caribbean, it is expected that FAO in collaboration with PROCASUR and
AgriCord will support knowledge generation, sharing and dissemination at regional level,
through peer visits, learning routes and round tables. Moreover, to ensure regional
dynamics in terms of knowledge sharing, learning from experiences and best practices
dissemination IFAD will provide a small grant to Cuban FOs to support their involvement in
the inter-regional learning processes.13
project coordination and management; organization of annual audits.
Component 4: Communication and Visibility
Under Component 4, resources will be allocated for activities related to the Communication and
Visibility of FO4ACP to improve the overall programme communication of positive results of the
partnership and the impact of the action’s results.
FOs and AgriCord at all levels will ensure that adequate visibility is acknowledged to the EC and
IFAD as co-financers, in line with the programme Communication and Visibility Manual.
This will be done e.g. through press releases, FO4ACP website, participation and presentations in
the relevant international meetings and events, brochures, newsletters, other media supports.
Visibility of the Programme and of the donors will be also effectively promoted by FOs, AgriCord and
FAO Regional Office mainly during the implementation of the activities. Throughout the workshops
and events organized the support provided by the FO4ACP donors will be further acknowledged and
effectively communicated.
The component Communication and Visibility is completely funded by the European Commission.
Component 5: IFAD Programme Coordination and M&E
Under Component 5 IFAD will ensure the overall coordination, monitoring, and day to day
management of the programme including the flow of funding to RFOs, PAFO, AgriCord and FAO
Regional Office. For this purpose, IFAD will establish grant agreements with direct beneficiaries and
channel funds to them.
IFAD will supervise the programme through annual supervision missions in all regions and provide
technical support to address implementation issues and ensure an effective implementation of the
13 The activities involving Cuba are funded by IFAD resources. The IFAD funds allocation is subject to the
internal IFAD approval process. Tentatively, the small grant for activities in Cuba will amount to USD 70 000.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
27
programme and transparent management of resources. The Mid-Term Review led by IFAD will be
key to assess programme performance and make the necessary adjustments to ensure better
impact.
Also, IFAD role will be relevant to ensure programme visibility and communication and to facilitate
KM process through - amongst other - the organization of learning routes, workshops and events for
cross learning and replication purposes.
The coordination of the Programme will be provided through a unit within IFAD Sustainable
Production, Markets and Institutions Division (PMI) of the Strategy and Knowledge Department
(SKD) and will be ensured by a PMI Lead Technical Specialist (part time) that would be assisted by a
Programme Assistant (part time) for the duration of the programme14.
The budget for this component will cover the costs for Knowledge Management activities, Visibility,
M&E responsibilities, Annual Supervision and Implementation support missions in the three regions
(Africa, Caribbean and Pacific), for the five years of the programme also with the support of experts
and consultants for backstopping activities to RFOs.
Resources for programme coordination and supervision will also be used by IFAD to: (i) establish
Grant Agreements with the identified Recipients for effective, efficient and accountable use of
resources channelled; (ii) channel funds to the RFOs, AgriCord, FAO and other implementing
partners and ensure that the use of such funds is planned and implemented in accordance with the
grant agreements; (iii) ensure the quality of narrative and financial progress reports and annual work
plans for the overall programme to be submitted to donors; (iv) ensure effective supervision during
the implementation of the Programme through annual supervision missions and implementation
support missions including the participation to the Programme Steering Committees; (v) undertake a
mid-term review to assess programme progress in the different regions and consider possible
readjustments; (vi) set up of a result-oriented monitoring framework in cooperation with all partners;
(vii) ensure visibility of the programme and of the donors contributions.
The Technical Coordination and day-to-day Programme Management require the recruitment of two
fully dedicated Project Staff (one at P3 and one at P2 level) for the entire duration of the programme.
Overall, this complementary support through the five components will enable FOs to evolve into
professional and credible institutions that are able to provide services to their members, influence
policies and gain recognition from stakeholders in the agricultural sector. It will have a leverage
effect, better positioning FOs to negotiate contracts, enter into partnership with value chains
stakeholders and leverage additional financing for the benefit of the farming community. This is
expected to contribute to FOs sustainability, sustained growth and to tackling the challenge of
reducing rural poverty.
Expected outputs and outcomes, utility for the target group
The expected outputs are:
O1: Improved capacity of FOs to deliver technical and economic services and connect their members
to markets;
O2: Improved access of FOs to financial services;
O3: Improved business environment and smallholder competitiveness;
O4: Strengthened institutional capacities and professionalism of FOs;
14 Not included in the direct costs of the component 4 of the Programme.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
28
O5: Enhanced knowledge and dissemination among peers for replication and scaling-up.
Innovations promoted
Although many local technical innovations will be supported by the programme through pilot micro
projects, three main innovations characterize the programme:
i) The promotion of LFOs economic initiatives is entirely left in the hand of a farmer movement
through an in-built RFOs support set-up. Supporting NFOs to be in a position to capacitate their local
FOs through high level business development services already proved to be a way to explore. The
Project will provide a new opportunity to explore this crucial area and better measure what are the
impact on the volume and value of the agricultural product on the one hand in contributing to feed the
urban areas and on the other hand in bringing incomes the rural areas that remain cruelly under
monetarized. This shall constitute the first innovative pole of the programme.
ii) NFOs are at the centre of national dynamics to influence changes of the national business context
with a legitimacy rooted in their constituency made of small-scale holders and their credibility rooted
in their involvement in local pilot economic activities. This position is key to influence change of
national business context. The project will support RFOs to backstop NFOs on specific issues
peculiar to each country. Backstopping goes beyond traditional capacity building through training and
consists in a long term accompaniment by RFOs. This will be considered as the second innovative
pole of the programme.
iii) RFOs as founding members of PAFO wish to rely on it as a continental resource centre for
knowledge in market oriented family farming and farmer leaded enterprises. The emergence of this
resource centre in collaboration with continental and international stakeholders (FARA, CTA, FAO)
will constitute the third innovative pole of the programme.
Iv) In the Caribbean Region, the program will focus on creating synergies for a cooperation agenda
among the FOs in the region, with the objective of sharing practives and create an agenda for
political incidence in national and regional level. The link with regional integration spaces will be key
to positionate the family farming sector in the centre of the development agendas that are led by
these actors. Also, through specifc activities, the program aims to engage rural youth in FOs by
generating the conditions for their empowerment in the decision making process and promote their
economic inclusion.
2.3 Cross- cutting Issues Four major cross-cutting issues are considered of relevance by stakeholders and will be promoted
during the overall programme implementation.
Gender. Women producers and their membership of women-only or organizations mixed
organizations account for a significant proportion of FOs’ membership. Participation of women in the
programme activities will be prioritized and women- led initiatives will be supported as well as
activities that target or benefit women.
Gender considerations will be mainstreamed into programme activities to ensure that FOs promote
gender equality and the economic empowerment of women in: (i) the selection of key value chains
and provision of services that address the different needs and opportunities of their female and male
members to increase competitiveness, value addition and market engagement; (ii) influencing
policies and business environments for transforming family farming and developing farmer-led
enterprises which are gender-inclusive; and (iii) women’s representation in FO membership and
leadership to better represent and serve their members. Further, gender disaggregated data will be
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
29
collected and disaggregated indicators included in the logframe. The above approaches will help
ensuring that rural women and men have equal access to economic benefits of the Programme and
to longer-term FO activities.
Youth. The design and the implementation of the program takes cognizance of the important role
also youth could play in the agriculture sector and in strengthening the role of FOs in particular.
Youth are in fact an important pillar for agricultural development and the youth-focused initiatives
currently supported in Farmers Africa in the Central and Southern Africa regions will continue.
FOs will be further supported to develop targeted interventions that promote the participation of
youth, and encouraged to disaggregate data and impacts by both sex and age. Attention will also be
paid to the specific needs of, and creating opportunities for, young rural women. Youth engagement
will also inform the choice of key value chains.
Environmental sustainability and climate change. Through FOs policy engagement this action will
contribute to the development of sustainable environmental and climate change policies responsive
to farmers’ concerns. Also, the action will strengthen FOs’ capacities to provide services related to
climate risk management in relation to inter alia drought, and flooding, also through the promotion of
environmental sustainable approaches like agroecology, low impact agriculture, green economy and
compliance with environmental and food safety regulations.
During the last years, FOs have developed clear positions regarding family farming and climate
change. The programme will support FOs in mainstream these policy positions in their operative
activities and continue lobbying in favor of family farming and smallholder. The focus will be in the
recognition that mainstreaming adaptation in agriculture needs to go beyond ‘climate-proofing’
agricultural development, should focus to the access to value chains and towards tackling the
underlying drivers of poverty that exacerbate vulnerability and constrain adaptation.
The programme will support FOs in spreading key principles of green economy for family farming
and smallholder in its two first components. Green economy promotes the concept of decent jobs,
aligning with the goals of the FOs, looking for the recognition of the rights of farmers and peasants.
Principles of eco-entrepreneurships for family farming and smallholders in the value chains are key
for providing new sustainable solutions, like low-carbon impact and circular economy, creating added
value to agricultural productions and improving the skills of the producers and cooperatives involved.
Nutrition: Nutrition is an emerging concern amongst Farmers Organizations that become more and
more conscious of the importance of both feeding urban population with good quality products and
also to improve the diet of the rural population. This transpires in some of the RFOs regional strategic
plans where nutrition is discussed both from the quality of the products perspectives and fro the
processing of agricultural products perspectives adding value to agricultural raw products. Pilot
initiatives will be documented within the project particularly within the RFOs Women and youth
regional branches.
2.4 Complementarity actions and Donor coordination All National and Regional Farmers Organizations supported by this program have an established
linkage with IFAD through the Farmers Forum process, at national, regional and global levels. In
Africa and in Asia-Pacific this process is now decentralized and delivered concrete national Action
Plans that will further strengthen partnerships and collaborations within IFAD country programs. In
most countries, national FOs are closely associated with IFAD COSOP formulations and project
designs. The purpose is to directly involve all NFOs (or their local members) as implementing
partners in most IFAD investment projects across the regions (in particular all agricultural and value
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
30
chain development projects), which in turn will benefit from the enhanced institutional capacities of
the FOs as well as from their capacity to provide economic services and link with the private sector.
The FOs, thanks to the support received from the SFOAP and now reinforced with the FO4ACP, will
be further empowered to influence and improve agricultural policies, agricultural research agendas
and partnership with value chains actors, all key objectives of IFAD country programmes. In most
cases the NFOs (almost 100%) are already involved in COSOP design process, on the other hand, a
still challenging point is for FOs to have a more central role in their implementation. FO4ACP will
support NFOs in terms of institutional strengthening and economic services. A particular linkage will
be strengthened with all projects and initiatives promoting the inclusion of rural youth in agriculture
and value chains, an objective which is at the top of African FOs agenda.
In each country, interaction will be sought by NFOs with the Ministry hosting IFAD co-funded
investment projects with the aim to influence these investments from design to supervision and
evaluation through informed participation in joint missions, project steering committees and COSOP
formulation processes. NFOs will inform RFOs and PAFO when it is thought that they can provide a
specific thematic support to national investment projects. Once a year, IFAD country directors will
also be systematically invited to attend an NFO event when the Project activities in the country will be
presented. Finally, during IFAD supervision missions, a debriefing session with the IFAD relevant
authority (CPO, Country Director, and Chief of regional Hub) will take place.
Synergies and complementaries can be created with other IFAD initiatives operating in the region:
- FO4ACP will have strong linkage with the ABC fund co-funded by the same donors
(generating pipeline from NFOs and from Agri-agencies, contributing to due diligence and
advisory services to investees).
- FO-MAPP interactive online database providing geo-referenced information on local
smallholders', family farmers' and producers' organizations in Africa, Asia and Pacific, Latin
America and Caribbean. This is an IFAD –WRF joint initiative and it is a work in progress.
- The Platform for Agricultural Risk Management PARM, a multi-donor partnership led by
IFAD, focusing on risk management tools.
Farmers’ Organizations for ACP is also complementary to a number of EU-funded projects and
initiatives including the CTA such as the following:
- MTCP phase 2 (2013-2018), and notably the implementation through the PIFON and the
five NFOs directly involved in the MTCP2 project for the Pacific;
- The Fit for Market programme (2016-2021) which promotes access for FOs in ACP
countries to international and domestic fruit and vegetable markets;
- The Intra-ACP Commodities programme, an interagency initiative aiming to improve the
competitiveness of small producers cultivating cocoa beans, coconuts and roots/tubers
through greater regional integration of relevant markets and intensification of production;
- The European Investment Plan (EIP), that will encourage investments in Africa and promote
inclusive growth, job creation and sustainable development and so tackle some of the root
causes of irregular migration. The EIP has a specific window on sustainable agriculture,
rural entrepreneurs and agribusiness;
Further, clear linkages and complementarity can be established between Farmers’ Organizations for
ACP and many national and regional EU-funded actions in the three regions in the framework of the
National and Regional Indicative Programmes as well the interaction with the Jobs and Growth
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
31
Compacts developed by the EU Delegations. Complementarities and synergies will be also sought
with other programmes funded by EU Members States, the International Financial Institutions, and
UN agencies.
2.5 Risks and mitigation measures A number of risks that can affect programme implementation where identified together with mitigating measures. These are summarized in the table 5 below.
Table 5. Programme risks, assumptions and mitigation measures.
Risk level (H/M/L)
Mitigating measures
Unwillingness of national governments to establish a constructive dialogue with representatives of smallholder farmers / Not conducive policy environments for supporting smallholder farmers.
Medium Smallholders’ organization in national and regional FOs enables them to agree on key messages to governments. Supporting their institutional development will improve their credibility and capacity to advocate for the needs of their members. The UN Decade of family farming (2019-2028) further provides the momentum for FOs to effectively engage in the policy arena.
Unwillingness of other value chains stakeholders to develop their business through partnership with FOs
Medium The support of the programme in terms of institutional development and capacity building will enable FOs to generate mutual trust and become effective and reliable partners for value chains stakeholders
Socio-political conflicts in some countries Medium The monitoring and evaluation process and the phased planning approach that will be implemented will allow for regular adjustments to activities and areas of intervention. Increasingly, the measures implemented by the various countries and regions affected by the conflicts and sanitary crises bear fruit and allow the development of economic activities.
Internal governance issues / cases of corruption within FOs.
Low The SFOAP experience demonstrated that these risks can be mitigated. Good governance is an integral part of the programme. Institutional development is expected to generate increased FOs’ accountability to members and ability to transparently implement their mandates. Mechanisms to guarantee organizations are well-governed and accountable in managing financing are also in place.
Weak participation of and benefit for women and youth in programme initiatives.
Medium Gender and youth will be mainstreamed in all programme related activities. Also, specific initiatives in support of women and youth will be supported and budget allocated for this.
Inadequate human and technical resources for the coordination and supervision of a complex programme involving many stakeholders.
Low Sufficient resources have been earmarked for programme coordination and implementation from the direct and indirect costs under EC funding.
Procedures for disbursement of funds are too restrictive
Medium Based on the practice experienced in the previous phase, a smooth and light system for reporting and flow of funding will be set up.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
32
3. Implementation and supervision arrangements
3.1 Implementation procedures and programme management, including implementing partners and implementation agreements
IFAD as the implementing partner
IFAD is the implementing partner of the programme because of its unique expertise, extensive
partnership and dialogue with FOs. The experience and lessons learnt in the partnership between
IFAD and FOs has been particularly accelerating and strengthening the focus on national apex FOs
and regional FO networks under the aegis of the Farmers’ Forum (FAFO) Process, a bottom-up
process of consultation and dialogue between small farmers and rural producers' organizations, IFAD
and governments, focused on rural development and poverty reduction. Launched in 2006 and fully
aligned with IFAD's strategic objectives, the FAFO was established as a permanent feature of the
IFAD Governing Council (GC) and operationalized through IFAD-funded investment projects and
grant programmes. The FAFO process is fully institutionalised within IFAD and is rooted in concrete
partnership and collaboration at the country and regional level.
Since 2016 the FAFO process has been regionalized and now global meetings alternate in
conjunction with IFAD Governing Council, with Regional meetings in each of the five IFAD regions of
operation. The FAFO brings together national and international FOs leaders and IFAD staff and
management to share views of evolving challenges in agriculture and rural development and in IFAD
development effectiveness. Each global meeting of the FAFO triggers a new set of initiatives and
collaborations on the ground. FO4ACP that can be considered a ‘component’ of IFAD’s strategy
unfolded with the FAFO to increase direct partnership between IFAD and FOs (for further
information: http://www.ifad.org/farmer/index.htm ).
IFAD is also engaged in the development of knowledge management tools and instruments to foster
partnership with FOs. One of these is the Farmers’ and Rural Producers Organizations Mapping (FO-
MAPP), an initiative born within the context of the FAFO and the IYFF (www.fo-mapp.com) and
implemented in partnership with the WRF.
FO-MAPP is an interactive online database that provides geo-referenced information on local
smallholders', family farmers' and other rural producers’ organizations in Africa, Asia and the Pacific,
Latin America and the Caribbean. It was designed based on the need expressed by FOs participating
in the FAFO to support their efforts to improve their visibility and engage in markets and sustainable
development partnerships. Fed by FOs themselves, FO-MAPP contains information about FOs
status, membership, geographical outreach, services provided and agricultural products. The
database is currently being finalized and it is expected to be fully operational in 2019.
Implementation responsibilities
The programme will be coordinated and supervised by IFAD in its capacity of implementing partner.
For this purpose, IFAD will enter into grant agreements with the regional networks of Farmers'
Organizations member of PAFO, PAFO itself, the regional network of FOs in the Pacific region
(PIFON), AgriCord and FAO Regional Office fro Latina America and Caribbean to implement the
programme.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
33
Programme level
An overarching Programme Steering Committee (PSC)15 will be established and composed of ACP Secretariat and EU as Members, while IFAD, PAFO, RFOs, AgriCord, and selected coordinators from the Caribbean and Pacific will be observers. The Committee will be responsible for (i) Providing advice and strategic guidance on the execution and implementation Programme; (ii) Overseeing and monitoring programme implementation (iii) ensuring programme activities are in line with stated objectives and (iv) approve the global allocation of ACP/EU Financial resources to the ACP Regions.
Programme steering will be articulated taking into account that there are three distinct sub-
programmes, the one for Africa and two sub-programmes for Caribbean and Pacific regions.
Therefore, the steering of the three sub-programmes will be respecting regional differences and will
consist of an African Steering Committee and bilateral steering between IFAD and FOs for both
Pacific and Caribbean regions.
A. African Region
The programme activities will be implemented at different levels as follows:
Regional level. RFOs at the regional level are responsible for the coordination of activities
within their region and for the implementation of regional activities, in accordance with the
Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB) and within the specifications of the agreement
signed with IFAD. Complementary to the work at regional level, PAFO will be responsible
for the implementation of Pan-African activities. Given that, currently there are not the legal
and fiduciary conditions for signing a grant agreement with PAFO, during the inception
phase it will be identified one of the RFO that will sign the grant agreement with IFAD for the
implementation of Pan-African activities.
National and subnational levels. For the Africa region national FOs are key partners and
co-implementers of the programme and are responsible for the implementation of national
and sub-national level activities, based on sub-contract to be signed with RFOs. PAFO,
RFOs and national FOs will implement the programme following a programmatic approach
based on their strategic plans.
AgriCord will focus the support on FOs at local, district, provincial and national levels in
Africa, (cooperatives, cooperative unions and national FO platforms of organizations
specialized in the production of specific agricultural commodities), in some case in a cross-
border context. The identification of AgriCord support will be demand driven and based on
FOs strategic plans while the overall management of the Project Cycle16 in Africa will be
the responsibility of AgriCord, following existing and established procedures (internet-based:
www.agro-info.net) and governance mechanisms (General Assembly and Advisory
Committee). A Project Committee17 ensures the quality of the proposals, coherence with
programme criteria and the relevance and quality of the proposed advisory services.
15 There will not be any reporting to the PSC other than those already planned for the regional steering committees and to the EU. 16 AgriCord Project cycle. Farmers’ organisations can submit their project proposals to AgriCord via one of the member agencies (the
supporting agri-agency). The overall project cycle is as follows: (i) project Idea (led by an FO); (ii) project Identification (led jointly by (FO & supporting Agri-agency); (iii) eligibility for funding (AgriCord programme manager); (iv) submission of application (FOs and supporting Agri-agency); (v) detailed project definition (FO & supporting Agri-agency); (vi) project eligibility within FFP programme and relevance of advisory services (AgriCord Project Committee); (vii) approval (AgriCord Board / Project Committee Chair); (viii) contracting (Farmers’ organisation, agri-agency, AgriCord secretariat); (ix) Implementation, reporting & monitoring (FO & supporting Agri-agency); (x) Evaluation (internal – external). Following assessment of proposals by the Project Committee, the Board of AgriCord decides on allocation of funding, taking into account the specific requirements of each donor government or technical/financial partner involved, such as geographical focus, thematic priorities, duration of the funding agreement, timing. 17 AgriCord’s Project Committee reviews the proposals of farmers’ organisations for their coherence with the principles of Farmers Fighting
Poverty. Since each agri-agency is represented by a senior staff member, all information on new proposals is transparently available within the alliance, allowing for exchanges on related experiences and approaches. The Project Committee is an electronic platform, but also
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
34
RFOs and AgriCord will set-up knowledge and coordination committees at all levels to ensure
coordination, synergies, complementarities and regular exchange of information among all
stakeholders in the spirit of subsidiarity. For this purpose, collaboration committees will be
established at both the regional and national levels bringing together agri-agencies and RFOs and
NFOs respectively. A facilitation mechanism to support the efficient functioning of these committees
and a regular information flow between the committees will be jointly decided by AgriCord and the
FO’s at regional and national level. Specifically, for the Africa region two sets of ‘collaboration
committees’ will be set up:
- Regional collaboration committees. Regional collaboration committees will be mandated
to: (i) facilitate collaboration between RFOs and agri-agencies; (ii) share information and
exchange of experiences between agri-agencies operating in the region and members of
RFOs; (iii) capitalize experiences and project achievements; (iv) generate and coordinate
spaces for sharing programme results with the participation of other stakeholders (e.g.
regional institutions, research institutions, other FOs and CSOs networks in the region).
Each regional collaboration committee will be chaired by the concerned RFO.
- National collaboration committees. National collaboration committees will be set up
initially in countries where the collaboration and dialogue between FOs and agri-agencies
are already structured/advanced. During implementation and based on lessons learnt,
additional collaboration committees might be established in other countries. National
committees will be mandated to ensure the sharing of information and experiences at the
national level between the national FOs, agri-agencies, FOs implementing programme
actions and other stakeholders (e.g. public institutions, sector national authorities, other FOs
and CSOs). Each national collaboration committee will be chaired by the NFO member of
the relevant RFO in the concerned country.
The set-up of such frameworks for collaboration between AgriCord and RFOs will be progressive,
based upon the potential for articulating win-win partnerships that will eventually benefit the primary
stakeholders of the programme, i.e. smallholder farmers. Hence it won’t be neither a pre-requisite for
operating in given countries but it would rather unfold where there are promising conditions for such
collaboration to be developed. A facilitation mechanism will be jointly decided by AgriCord, its agri-
agencies and the FOs at regional and national level.
An African Steering Committee (SC) will be established to define the strategic orientations of the
programme and facilitate KM and lessons learning. It will meet once and year and will be composed
of RFOs, PAFO, AgriCord and donors (including IFAD, EU and the ACP Secretariat). Also, the SC
will be open to a large number of FOs and agri-agencies benefiting from Farmers’ Organizations for
ACP.
Taking into account the distinct modus operandi of AgriCord, PAFO and RFOs, the Steering
Committee will be responsible for the following:
• Overseeing and validating the overall strategic direction of the programme;
• Establishing mechanisms for more in depth KM and lessons learning;
• Approving the Programme of Work following programme inception (2019) and MTR findings
(end of 2021)
meets in-person twice a year. Based upon its weekly screening of incoming proposals, the Project Committee formulates recommandations to the Board of AgriCord. The Project Committee thus focuses on (a) the quality of the proposal and its coherence with Farmers Fighting Poverty; (b) the relevance of the proposed advisory services (farmer-to-farmer exchanges and advisory services proposed by the supporting agri-agency). Within the network of agri-agencies, procedures for planning, monitoring and evaluation are operational. Information flows are transparent (Agro-info.net). Over the past years, the Agro-info.net internet platform has proven to be a powerful and
dynamic tool for project planning, monitoring and evaluation, and a reliable international networking environment.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
35
Figure 2. Implementation and legal arrangements – African Region.
B. Pacific Region
Regional level. The Programme involves transnational intervention. As such, PIFON – the umbrella
organisation for farmers' organisations in the Pacific Region has the responsibility for the
implementation of the programme in the region and the coordination with the national partners.
PIFON will ensure the timely establishment of agreements with the Implementing Partners, detailing
respective duties and responsibilities with respect to the FO4ACP in line with the grant agreement
signed with IFAD.
National level. The main Implementing Partners, with whom PIFON will establish formal agreements
and who will develop individual AWPBs for the Programme activities they will undertake, to be
included in the consolidated Programme AWPB, will be:
Farmers Organizations in each country, which will lead and assist farmer groups and
individual farmers in the promotion, preparation and implementation of initiatives under the
components of the Programme.
The National Implementing Agencies (NIA) that will be responsible for coordinating the
activities of the Farmers Organisations in each country, be the Focal Point for the
Programme in each country and be the link with PIFON. The NIAs will be the conduit for
organizing farmers and disseminating technical and market information, facilitating services,
and training farmers in the business aspects of the value chain.
Pacific Regional programme steering committee (RPSC). The overall programme management
will be guided by the leadership of a regional steering committee, which is responsible for the
following: (i) overall guidance on regional, and national platforms/forums’ operations where
applicable, (ii) coordination between national platforms/forums, and with other stakeholders involved
in programme implementation, (iii) endorse regional AWPBs at inception and MTR and review annual
progress reports, and (iv) coordination of joint actions such as strategic consultations, lobbying and
representation and avoiding overlapping and duplications, and (iv) guiding the programme
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
36
implementation in policy and strategy matters. It will be composed of PIFON, national members and
partners and donors (including IFAD, EU and the ACP Secretariat).
Given the role already played by PIFON for Pacific Islands, it will explored with the players of the
regional programme for Asia and the Pacific regions, AFOSP and MTCP, mechanisms to associate
the steering of the Pacific sub-programme with the existing steering of MTCP and AFOSP, with the
aim of reinforcing existing integration processes at regional level.
C. Caribbean region
Regional level. AgriCord and FAO Regional Office for Latin America and Caribbean are responsible
at regional level for the coordination of activities within their region (in the countries of their
competence) and for the implementation of regional activities, in accordance with the Annual Work
Plan and Budget (AWPB) and within the specifications of the agreements signed with IFAD.
The Caribbean Regional Steering Committee will be established to define the strategic
orientations of the programme and facilitate complementarities, coordination and KM and lessons
learning. It will meet once and year. It will be composed of FAO, AgriCord (and agri-agencies),
PROCASUR, CLAC with the participation of involved FOs and EC, ACP Secretariat and IFAD and
other important stakeholders in the Caribbean region will be constituted at the beginning of the
project. This is key for ensuring coordination among different activities and projects from other
partners in the region, but also to create an institutionalized space for dialogue and exchange of
experiences and practices.
Regional collaboration committees. FAO Regional Office and AgriCord will set-up a coordination
committee at regional level to ensure coordination, synergies, complementarities and regular
exchange of information among all stakeholders in the spirit of subsidiarity. For this purpose, the
collaboration committee will be established at regional level bringing together FAO, AgriCord and the
implementing agri-agencies, CLAC, PROCASUR and all FOs involved. A facilitation mechanism to
support the efficient functioning of this committee and a regular flow of information will be jointly
decided by FAO Regional Office and AgriCord.
Regional collaboration committees will be mandated to: (i) facilitate collaboration between FAO,
PROCASUR and agri-agencies; (ii) share information and exchange of experiences between agri-
agencies operating in the region, FAO, PROCASUR and FOs in the region; (iii) capitalize
experiences and project achievements; (iv) generate and coordinate spaces for sharing programme
results with the participation of other stakeholders.
Implementation period and workplan
The implementation period of the Action is aligned with the EU Delegation Agreement: years 2019-
2023 up to max 60 months (completion date in November 2023).
Supervision arrangements
IFAD will ensure the overall coordination, monitoring, and day to day management of the programme
including the flow of funding to RFOs, PAFO, Agricord and FAO Regional Office. For this purpose,
IFAD will establish grant agreements with direct beneficiaries and channel funds to them.
Annual supervision. IFAD will supervise the programme through annual supervision
missions in all regions to assess the progress in terms of implementation and allignement
with the approved work plan and budget and the identified objectives. Moreover, IFAD will
provide technical support to RFOs, PAFO, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office to address
implementation issues and ensure an effective implementation of the programme and
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
37
transparent management of resources. IFAD will provide specific recommendations to the
Recipients, if needed, the implementation of which will be monitored during the subsequent
months. In addition, IFAD will monitor progress of implementation at both national and
regional levels. This will be done in liaison with the main Recipients.
Mid-term review. A mid-term review of the programme will be undertaken by IFAD at the
end of 2021. It will aim at assessing programme implementation and the M&E framework
and will contribute to adapt the programme if needed.
Final evaluation. A final independent evaluation of the programme may be carried out. The
final evaluation may be carried out and financed by the European Union and possibly other
donors.
3.2 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
Monitoring
A result-oriented M&E system is articulated at programme inception to define impact indicators of
programme outputs and outcomes (logical framework attached).
The monitoring system will be set up with a view to: (i) measure the extent to which implemented
activities concur to the achievement of programme objectives; (ii) improve project effectiveness and
relevance by providing information on the results and outcomes of activities.
The system will be organized as follows:
• At programme level, IFAD will be responsible for ensuring the overall monitoring of project
implementation, based on the consolidated logical framework. To this effect, it will undertake
regular supervision missions and will prepare annual progress reports;
• At the regional level, M&E will be addressed carefully by the RFOs, AgriCord and FAO
Regional Office. Together with their members, they will set up programme M&E systems and they
will prepare annual progress reports.
Reporting and disbursement modalities
Flow of funds from IFAD to RFOs, PAFO, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office.18 Flow of funds
between IFAD and Recipients will be established in the grant agreements. However, the overall
approach will be of keeping the flow of fund from IFAD to the Recipients approved by the Programme
Steering Committee for each of the two programme phases only (at inception and MTR level) and
then managed between IFAD and each recipient based on annual work plan and budgets, on
absorption capacity and achievements of physical and financial triggers. Such approach would de-
link the work of strategic orientation of the Steering Committee from the flow of funding that will be in
turn managed bilaterally by IFAD on one side and RFOs and AgriCord on the other side.
Reporting and planning RFOs, PAFO, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office to IFAD. Each RFO,
PAFO, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office will submit an AWPB for year n+1 and annual technical
and financial report on year n to IFAD. In addition, the Recipients can be asked to submit a 6-months
report or/and a report on the implementation of the supervision missions recommendations.
18 As per deliberation of the Overarching Programme Steering Committee (March 2019), the large grant agreements with
the programme recipients will include the 80% of EU funding at the start of the implementation per each recipient. The remaining 20% of EU funding will be made available and disbursable after MTR based on performances. This deliberation doesn't affect the IFAD funding which will be fully allocated per each grant agreement and made available and disbursable for all recipients upon signature of the agreement.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
38
IFAD reviews and ensures quality of regional AWPBs and technical reports and disburses funds in
accordance with the conditions established for each grant agreement.
Table 6. Reporting and planning
1. Reporting and planning IFAD – EC and request of payment for year n+1
- Every year IFAD will submit a request of payment to the EC, that will be accompanied by the following documents:
Year 1 : - Progress report (9-months Jan – Sept) - A financial report on legal commitments as well as costs incurred by
IFAD for the period. Following years: - Annual report (12-months Oct /Sept) of activities based on IFAD
supervision mission reports and recipients reports. - A financial report on legal commitments as well as costs incurred by
IFAD for the period. - A tentative simplified annual work plan and budget for year n+1, based
on IFAD annual Supervision Mission reports.
2. Reporting and planning RFOs to IFAD
- Each RFO, PAFO, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office submits an AWPB for year n+1 and annual technical and financial report on year n to IFAD
- IFAD reviews and ensures quality of regional AWPBs and technical reports and disburses funds in accordance with the conditions established for each grant agreement.
3. Reporting and planning of the regional Steering Committees mechanisms
- IFAD will receive yearly reports that each RFO, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office will submit at the end of each year of programme implementation. The reports will be reviewed and then finalized with the RFOs, AgriCord and FAO Regional Office and consolidated in the programme report for the entire programme, structured in three sections: for Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific regions.
- The consolidated programme report will be then shared within each regional Steering mechanisms for overall guidance on progress achieved.
3.3 Communication and visibility plan
IFAD role will be relevant to ensure programme visibility and communication and to facilitate KM
process through - amongst other - the organization of learning routes, workshops and events for
cross learning and replication purposes.
Visibility of the programme and of the donors will be also effectively promoted by the Recipients
during the implementation of the activities related to policy dialogue. Throughout the workshops
organized, the support provided by the programme donors will be further acknowledged and
effectively communicated.
A Communication and visibility Plan (covering the visibility issues for all donors) has been already
elaborated as annex of the Delegation Agreement with the EU.
The Communication and Visibility Plan (CVP) has be developed in line with the EC Communication
and Visibility Manual for the FO4ACP to improve overall programme communication of positive
results of the partnership and the impact of the action’s results and set guidelines to ensure the
visibility of programme donors.
In particular, the main objectives of the CVP are:
- To provide visibility of the IFAD – EU to the programme activities through strategic
communications and the utilisation of context specific and locally adapted tools
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
39
- To present programme achievements and impacts of the implemented activities
- To ensure the visibility of implementing partners and donors
- To highlight opportunities available to stakeholders
- To allow FO4ACP actors to be able to better communicate achievements and results to
peers (NFOs/RFOs), Agri-Agencies and Asian FOs involved in other similar initiatives such
as FO4ALA (FOs for Asia and Latin America) and to IFAD Country offices and EU
delegations and be integrated in the Farmers’ Forum process.
The CVP outlines a set of main communication activities and tools to ensure the visibility of the
programme, build up awareness among stakeholders on the carried out activities and their results,
support the involvement of partners and stakeholders into the project implementation and carry out
proper information dissemination.
A specific programme component has been dedicated to the activities related to "Communication and
Visibiliy" at recipient level completely funded by the European Commission funding.
3.4 Knowledge management, scaling up/uptake and sustainability
Knowledge management and learning
KM and peer learning are a central feature of the programme for the development of good practices,
replication and scaling up. One of the programme priority area is in fact: "Facilitating knowledge
sharing between ACP FOs through the promotion of exchanges among peers for innovation,
generation of knowledge products, replication and scaling up in the areas of production, processing
and marketing".
Resources can otherwise be lost in developing solutions in isolation from good practice and lessons
learned elsewhere. The development of peer-to-peer support and knowledge sharing from country-
level activities will be considered key for FOs institutional development and RFOs will play a key role
to develop linkages and facilitate networking and exchanges at all levels. KM will be promoted
through several tools and strategies including the documenting and sharing of experiences and
practices, the organization of learning visits, south-south (with a focus on intra ACP exchanges) and
north-south exchanges, learning routes as well as continental KM events including all RFOs and
national members. Inclusiveness will be promoted, supported and encouraged.
The SFOAP programme enabled FOs to develop peer-to-peer support and to share knowledge and
experience generated from country-level activities. This approach will be kept and expanded as a key
strategic approach for FOs institutional development.
RFOs will play a critical role in technical backstopping and the programme will allocate adequate
resources at regional level to enable RFOs’ technical staff to travel and advise NFOs on regular
basis. Specifically, RFOs will engage the NFOs based on demand from them and will provide
technical support based on the needs expressed by them. This exchange system between all FOs
levels should become a central mechanism to accelerate the learning process by peers.
Consulting mechanisms from the national up to the continental level, whether they are part of FOs’
regular governance systems (annual general assemblies and executive boards) or whether they are
specific to the Programme (programme SC, collaboration committees and peer supervisions) will
offer venues where programme achievements and good practices will be shared so that positive
experiences do not remain within one single region but are communicated throughout the networks.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
40
In particular, the annual SC and the collaboration/coordination committees will enable stakeholders
to review performance, discuss possible deficiencies, decide on mutual assistance measures,
facilitate coordination, support exchange of information and experience between all stakeholders and
develop linkages, synergies and complementarities between the various regions.
KM products will be developed and disseminated at different levels: case studies, good practices or
successful examples under the three components will be jointly elaborated by the Regional and
national FOs.
In order to improve the visibility of FOs participating in FO4ACP and foster knowledge generation
and sharing on and among FOs, synergies with FO-MAPP (see more – paragraph 3.1) will be
promoted. In particular, RFOs (and PAFO) are expected to engage in the promotion of FO-MAPP
and facilitate the involvement/participation of FOs by inviting their members to register in the
database. Similarly, NFOs are expected to promote the database among their affiliates at the
subnational level. The participation of RFOs in the initiative in terms of FO-MAPP contents quality
review might be explored in the future. IFAD annual supervision missions might also serve as a
venue to promote the initiative among FOs. These activities will complement the efforts by IFAD and
WRF to facilitate the outreach and dissemination of the database for its wide use in the coming years
Scaling up/uptake and sustainability of grant results
The scale of the program in terms of outreach is potentially enormous considering that its institutional
set up is anchored in the local-to-regional –to- continental structures of FOs (the individual members
of the PanAfrican Farmer Organization are estimated at 52 millions). FO4ACP has remarkable
scaling-up potential related to the following areas: (i) stronger organizational structures and
enhanced professionalism of FOs at all levels; (ii) stronger partnerships that lead to enhanced
participation of FOs in value chains and enhanced access to policy design and policy influence that
have impacts on all farmers’ environment. Furthermore FO4ACP has a particular focus on its
component 1 - economic services for members, with strategic visions on inclusion of smallholder in
value chains. FO4ACP will build on the results and good practices of SFOAP for scaling-up, in
particular through levering of private and public finance (banks, VC finance, donors etc.)
4. Budget and Workplan
4.1 Costs, Financing and Fiduciary Aspects
The total cost of the Action is estimated at EUR 42.5 million and includes a European Commission's
contribution of EUR 40 million and co-financing by IFAD of US$ 3 million (approximately EUR 2.5
million19). As per the agreement with the co-founding partner (EU), FO4ACP is a multi-donor action and
the contributions will be not earmarked.
The IFAD grant will have duration of 4.5 years and will be distributed by project components
accordingly.
The programme costs are in line with the allocation as per Annex III of the Delegation Agreement
between IFAD and EC. The Programme comprises five major components around which activities will
be organized:
Component 1: Delivery of economic services along priority value chains
Component 2: Enabling the business environment
Component 3: Institutional development of FOs
Component 4: Communication and Visibility (funded only by EC)
Component 5: IFAD programme management and coordination
Tab 7. Total Costs of the Action by component and financier Tentative budget allocation as per Annex III of the Delegation Agreement. (EUR)
Components IFAD* EU Total
1. Delivery of economic services along priority value chains 1 250 000 20 160 000 21 410 000
2. Enabling the business environment 500 000 5 760 000 6 260 000
3. Institutional development of FOs 750 000 8 580 000 9 330 000
4. Communication and Visibility 1 500 000 1 500 000
Total Grants- related Direct Cost 2 500 000 36 000 000 38 500 000
5. IFAD programme management and coordination 1 383 000 1 383 000
Total Direct Costs 2 500 000 37 383 000 39 883 000
Indirect Costs 2 617 000 2 617 000
Grand Total 2 500 000 40 000 000 42 500 000
* IFAD contribution is equal to USD 3 000 000, at the moment of the elaboration of the Delegation Agreement, the IFAD contribution was converted approximately in EUR 2 500 000. The formal exchange rate will be defined at the date of the president report approval and this will be applied for the grant agreements with the recipients. The recipients of the IFAD contribution will be exclusively the Regional FOs in Africa.
19 The exchange rate officially applied will be that one of the effective date of the grant agreements.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
42
Regional Allocation The Overarching Programme Steering Committee met at the inception phase to deliberate about the
allocation of resources by regions (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific).
The method to be applied for defining the allocation has been defined as follows:
80% of EU/ACP total resources will be allocated at the design phase;
The remaining 20% of EU/ACP resources will be allocated after the MTR based on performance
assessment.
Given that the 10% share managed by IFAD (IFAD coordination and management and indirect costs for
legal and financial services): EUR 28.8 million will be allocated at start-up, EUR 7.2 million swills be
allocated at MTR.
The PSC decided to allocate the 80% of EU/ACP resources available at start up on the basis of 2/3 for
Africa and 1/3 for the Caribbean and Pacific regions on equal share:
Africa EUR 19.2 million
Pacific EUR 4.8 million
Caribbean EUR 4.8 million
IFAD will contribute with an amount of US$ 3 million (approximately EUR 2.6 million20) entirely allocated to
African RFOs (EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU, UMNAGRI) and PAFO. The IFAD contribution will be
100% available to be allocated at inception phase.
The initial amount of the large grant agreements with the recipients will include the 80% of EU/ACP
resources and IFAD resources as indicated above. This amount will potentially be amended at MTR on the
basis of performances to include some top up from the 20% remaining from EU/ACP funding.
However, the design work has been carried out considering the entire implementation period 4.5 years so
on the basis of the amount of the large grant agreements at start-up (including 80% of EU resources) and
the potential top up from the 20% of EU/ACP funding remaining (design with gap, using as working
assumption the same relative share or less).
Following the PSC decision, and after in-depth considerations, the resources allocation by regions and by
recipient will be as explained below.
AFRICA
Tab 8. Resources allocation in the African region at start-up.
AFRICAN REGION / EU-ACP Resources Allocation- EUR
Recipients
Agricord 40% RFOS and PAFO 60% Total
80% start-up
7 680 000.00 11 520 000.00 19 200 000.00
The EU –ACP resources allocated to African region are further apportioned to RFOs and AgriCord
according to the following percentages:
- Agricord 40% of EU/ACP resources allocated for the African region corresponding to
approximately EUR 7.6 million
- Sub-Saharan RFOs and PAFO will receive 60% of EU/ACP resources allocated to Africa,
corresponding to approximately EUR 11.5 million.
20 The exchange rate will be defined the day of the agreement signature.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
43
Tab 9 Resource allocation by recipient for design, at start-up and potentially at MTR (tentative). Recipients African Region
IFAD EUR EU/ACP EUR 80% Grant Agreement at start-up
Remaining 20% of EU funding
TOTAL Grants 100%
EAFF 442 500
2 605 000 3 047 500
651 250
3 698 750
PROPAC 442 500
2 605 000 3 047 500
651 250
3 698 750
ROPPA 442 500
2 605 000 3 047 500
651 250
3 698 750
SACAU 442 500
2 605 000 3 047 500
651 250
3 698 750
PAFO 100 000
1 100 000 1 200 000
275 000
1 475 000
UMNAGRI 800 000
- 800 000
800 000
AgriCord 7 680 000 7 680 000
1 920 000
9 600 000
TOTAL 2 670 000 19 200 000 21 870 000 4 800 000 26 670 000
Tab. 11 African Region Design – Tentative Costs allocations by recipient (to be confirmed at MTR).
Costs allocation by Programme Components Total EUR
EAFF
C1. Economic Services 2 044 669
C2. Enabling Environment 622 130
C3. Institutional Development 830 989
C3 - Inception Phase small grants 90 000
C4. Communication and Visibility 110 963
Total 3 698 750
PROPAC
C1. Economic Services 2 044 669
C2. Enabling Environment 622 130
C3. Institutional Development 830 989
C3 - Inception Phase small grants 90 000
C4. Communication and Visibility 110 963
Total 3 698 750
ROPPA
C1. Economic Services 2 044 669
C2. Enabling Environment 622 130
C3. Institutional Development 830 989
C3 - Inception Phase ROPPA-PAFO small grants 210 000
C4. Communication and Visibility 110 963
Total 3 818 750
SACAU
C1. Economic Services 2 044 669
C2. Enabling Environment 622 130
C3. Institutional Development 830 989
C3 - Inception Phase small grants 90 000
C4. Communication and Visibility 110 963
Total 3 698 750
UMNAGRI
C1. Economic Services 442 240
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
44
C2. Enabling Environment 134 560
C3. Institutional Development 223 200
C4. Communication and Visibility
Total 800 000
PAFO
C2. Enabling Environment 693 250
C3. Institutional Development 565 875
C4. Communication and Visibility 95 875
Total 1 355 000
AgriCord
C1. Delivery of economic service 6 240 000
C2. Enabling Business Environment 960 000
C3. Institutional Development 1 920 000
C4. Communication and Visibility 480 000
Total 9 600 000
PACIFIC
Following the same approach the 80% of resources available at the start-up of the programme, the
amount allocated for the Pacific region is equal to EUR 4.8 million.
PIFON is at its first direct grant from IFAD. Consequently IFAD put in place some measures to mitigate
potential risk in line with IFAD standards. As prudential procedures a step-by-step programming
approach will be adopted:
- PIFON first Grant Agreement will be for 24 to 30 months and include an amount of EUR 2 400 000. At MTR and subject to demonstrated absorption capacity and performance the second tranche of same amount (or more or less according to performance) will be object of a second grant with possible adjustment of the program duration.
Tab 10. Tentative budget allocation first Grant PIFON. COMPONENTS THE PACIFIC REGION (EUR)
EUR %
Component 1: Delivery of economic service 1 200 310 50
Component 2: Enabling Business Environment 479 883 20
Component 3: Institutional Development 635 921 26
Component 4: Communication and Visibility 84 216 4
Total Programme: Phase 1 2 400 329 100
CARIBBEAN
The amount allocated to the Caribbean region is EUR 4.8 million ( 80% of EU-ACP) resources that will be assigned by means of a grant agreements to the Recipients succeeded in the selection process, as presented in the table below. IFAD will provide a small grant for the activities involving Cuban FOs to support their participation in the inter-regional learning processes to ensure regional dynamics in terms of knowledge sharing, learning from experiences and best practices dissemination. The activities involving Cuba will be funded by IFAD resources21. Tentatively, the small grant for activities in Cuba will amount to USD 70 000. Table 11. Tentative Budget Allocation Grants FAO Regional Offcie and AgriCord.
The Caribbean region (EUR)
Programme Component AGRICORD FAO TOTAL
Component 1: Delivery of economic service 683 948 1 969 492 2 653 440
Component 2: Enabling Business Environment 123 178 684 182 807 360
Component 3: Institutional Development 292 874 854 326 1 147 200
Component 4: Communication and Visibility 192 000 192 000
Total 1 100 000 3 700 000 4 800 000
21 The IFAD funds allocation is subject to the internal IFAD approval process.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
45
4.2 Tentative workplan and timing The FO4ACP will have an overall duration of 4.5 years. The implementation of activities at the regional level will start in the last trimester of 2019 according to regional programmes of works and AWPBs. The workplan covers:
- Signature of the Contribution Agreements with donors (4 January 2019) - Signature of the Grant Agreements between IFAD and FO4ACP recipients for the Programme Inception
Phase (April 2019) - Design activities during the inception phase (May – July 2019) - Organisation of the programme start-up workshop (year 1 – July 2019) - Signature of the Large Grant Agreements with the FO4ACP Recipients (July – August 2019) - Organisation of yearly Overarching Steering Committees regional Steering committees and KM events
– also in video conference if needed. - Implementation (2019-2021). Based on the full formulation the financing agreements signed with IFAD
and the regional programmes of work RFOs and AgriCord will implement the programme - Annual Supervision missions (April – July every year). - Reporting from IFAD to back donors will be made on the basis of 9 months narrative and financial report
for the first year (January – September 2019) and for the following years on the basis of 12 months (October - September). The report will be based on the annual supervision mission reports and RFOs/AgriCord annual reports including a financial report on legal commitments as well as costs incurred and a tentative/ simplified work plan and budget for the next implementation period.
- Mid-term review (second semester 2021) - Implementation 2022-2023. Based on the MTR PAFO RFOs and AgriCord will implement and complete
the programme - Final evaluation - Final reporting (2023)
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
46
Annex 1: Results-based Logical Framework22
Results Hierarchy
Hiérachie des résultats
Indicators / Indicateurs Means of Verification / Moyen de
vérification Hypothèses/Risq
ues
Assumptions/
Risks
Name
Description
Baseline
Référence
YR[X]
An
MTR
RMP
End
Target
final
Source
Source
Frequen
cy
Fréquen
ce
Resp.
Overall Objective / Development Objective: Objectif de développement To increase income and to improve livelihood, food and nutrition security and safety of the ACP family farming in the target areas of the project
OO 1. # and % of smallholder rural producers (M/F/Y)
in participating countries with improved income, food
security and livelihoods
TBD 2019 NA +30% survey Twice at
inception
and final
IFAD No major
environmental or
political crisis
Outcome 1: Effet 1 SO # 1: FOs and farmer-led enterprises improve technical and economic services along the value chains
SO.1: # of individual producers benefiting from
FOs/FLEs economic initiatives (M/F/Y) (per value
chain)
170,000
2018 NA 625,000 Reports
RFOs
/LFOs
Annual IFAD
PAFO
RFOs
Legal context
provide safe
environment for
FOs to operate
Outputs: Résultats 1.1 Improved capacity of FOs to deliver economic services
1.1: # of FOs/FLEs providing at least 2 economic
services to their members (N, L)
330 2018 580 1,000
Reports
RFOs
/LFOs
Annual
RFOs /
LFOs
PAFO
No major
economic crisis
Availability of
affordable agric
inputs at national
level
including # of supported economically matured
FOs/FLEs having increased business volume in a
viable way
60 2018 180 360
# of emerging FOs/FLEs having activated approved
business plans
270 2018 400 640
1.2 Improved capacity of FOs to connect their members to markets
1.2: volume of marketed products (all value chains)
by FOs/FLEs members (in tons)
475,000 2018 530,000 620,000
LFOs
books Annual
LFOs
NLOs
Governments
guarantee fair
access to agric.
markets
value of marketed products (all value chains) by
FOs/FLEs members (in million EUR)
3,50 2018 5,20 7,10
1.3 FOs/FLEs improved access to supplementary financial sources (leverage effect) (improvement access to financial services)
1.3: Amount of private sector/other sources
investments mobilised through bankable business
plans (total amount) (in million EUR)
3,10 2018 6,60 11,30 LFOs
books
annual LFOs
NFOs
RFOs
Financial partners
are willing to
engage with FOs
Outcome 2: Effet 2 SO # 2: FOs influence policies and business environments for the transformation of family farming and the development of sustainable, inclusive economic initiatives and farmer-led enterprises;
SO2: # of sector policies and programmes
influenced by FOs
84 2018 NA 210
Base line
and final
reports
Twice at
start and
at the
end
IFAD
PAFO
RFOs
Governments and
business partners
are willing to
devlop inclusive
policies
Outputs: Résultats 2.1. Improved participation of FOs in shaping business environment and smallholder competitiveness in the
2.1: # of policy consultation frameworks /
committees / task forces / processes in which FOs
are participating
300 2018 500 815 List of
attendanc
e
annual
NFOs
RFOs
PAFO
Agric. business
stakeholders are
willing to co-
22 Some baseline data as well as targets will be updated by FAO Regional Office after the finalization of baseline and mapping exercise.
FO4ACP – Main Summary Design Document
47
Results Hierarchy
Hiérachie des résultats
Indicators / Indicateurs Means of Verification / Moyen de
vérification Hypothèses/Risq
ues
Assumptions/
Risks
Name
Description
Baseline
Référence
YR[X]
An
MTR
RMP
End
Target
final
Source
Source
Frequen
cy
Fréquen
ce
Resp.
agriculture sector # women/youth delegates 100 2018 200 200 manage markets
2.2 FOs contribute to the strengthening of interprofession / consultation platforms
2.2: # value chains coordination platforms and inter-
professions involving members FOs (all value
chains)
50 2018 220 415 National
register annual NFOs
RFOs
All stakeholders
respect adopted
rules
2.3 FOs produce common stands integrating value chains development with cross cutting issues
2.3 # position paper related to value chains
including focus on W/Y contribution (launched at
MTR and disseminated at final)
3 2018 80 160 List of
position
paper
MTR
and final
NFOs
RFOs
PAFO
Expertise is
available to
support FOs
Outcome 3: Effet 3 SO # 3: FOs are accountable organisations able to effectively perform their institutional functions. professionalism of FOs
SO3: FOs membership increase (M/F/Y) 1,400,000 2018 NA 2,200,000 Register
books
Referen
ce and
final
NFOs
RFOs
PAFO
Adhesion to FOs
is free and
voluntary
Outputs: Résultat 3.1 Strengthened governance capacities and representativity
3.1: # farmers/ members attending statutory
meetings
1,600 2018 3,200 7,800 Attendanc
e list
annual LFOs,
NFOs,
RFOS,
PAFO
FOs call statutory
meetings on time
Election are held
in due time
# women 400 2018 900 2,600
# youth 100 2018 500 1,800
# of Women and Youth in leadership positions 50 2018 90 150 List of
elected
3.2 FOs improve their staturory financial accountability 3.2: # of FOs audited annually 150 2018 200 285 Audited
books
annual NFOs
RFOs
PAFO
Auditing capacities
exist
3.3 FOs develop appropriate management tools 3.3: # developed tools (Strategic Plan, performance
oriented annual report, Manuel of procedures) by
FOs (at all levels)
180 2018 320 560 Strategic
doc
Specific expertise
support exists to
assist
3.4. Enhanced knowledge and dissemination among peers for replication and scaling-up
3.4.1: # of good practices, lessons learnt and
experiences documented and shared
30 2018 150 335 List of doc Annual
3.4.2: # peer-to-peer visits/exchanges/events
(region, global)
- 2018 200 440 List of
particip.
Annual RFOs
PAFO
Resources are
available
Outcome 4: Effet 4 OS Enhanced visibility of FO4ACP in the national and regional context including FOs presence on social media (multimedia) (pic, post, videos…)
4.1: # public references quoting the programme/FOs
(press release, articles, social media)
- 2018 200 415 Public /
social
media
At MTR
and at
end
All Public media are
interested in the
sector