Presentation made by Julien De Meyer, Agriculture Research Officer in FAO and Lead Technical officer of the Swaziland Agriculture Development Programme (SADP) on the results of the mid-term evaluation. SADP was established in 2009 to revitalize agriculture and contribute to the creation of a vibrant commercial agricultural sector in Swaziland. The presentation is based on a research master thesis and addresses SADP main issues and challenges, actions taken, results from a stakeholders survey and lessons learnt. The SADP is a 5-years programme with funding from the European Union (EU) and FAO. It is implemented by the Government of Swaziland and FAO with a focus on improving smallholder crop and livestock production, research and extension service delivery and smallholder market-oriented agro-business development, the SADP fosters sustainable food security for rural households and contributes to increased equitable economic growth and development.

1. Response to Mid-Term Evaluation
Swaziland Agricultural Development Programme
(SADP)
Julien de Meyer, Agricultural Research Officer (OEKR)
Based on the research for an M. Sc thesis by Shen Yueming

2. Outline
1. Background
2. What are SADP issues and challenges? What
actions have been taken?
3. Results from a stakeholders survey
4. Lessons learnt

3. Background
• The 14 Million Euro Swaziland Agriculture Development
Programme (SADP) is funded by the EU and FAO
• Implementation period of 5 years: Jan. 2009 (signature) – Dec.
2013 (Effectively, activities on the ground only started when
the full team was mobilized in October 2009)
• Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) in June 2011.
• MTE noted issues in the design and implementation of SADP
and made 16 recommendations for improvement.

4. What are SADP issues and
challenges?
What actions have been taken?
General Design
Management &
Operation
Delivery

5. EU-funding
FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government
PS—PSC
FAOR Mozambique – MOA – implementing
budget holding PS—PTC
TAT Other
CTA NPD MOA
MOA ministries,
Heads NGOs and
of Dept.
stake-
holders
Technical advisors Focal Points
Production Research & Service Marketing

6. Issues – General Design
1. Rapid design: Resulted in issues of buy-in & and lack of shared
vision between MOA and SADP
2. Ambitious: Large program with very diverse activities – Policy,
Institutions strengthening, Individual capacities and
infrastructure.
3. Wrong assumptions: Nationally executed project
overestimated institutional capacity and execution capability
in MOA
4. Institutional arrangement: Lack of clear definition of
leadership, responsibilities and lines of reporting and
communication (lead to Management issues)

7. Issues – Management & Operation
• Tri-partite leadership
FAOR Mozambique – MOA – implementing
• SADP compete with priorities in daily PS—PTC
budget holding
work of MOA staff
• Focal points report to Heads of
Departments not involved in SADP
TAT
• Misunderstanding of FAO advisory
roles and performance issues.
CTA NPD MOA
• Institutional issues exacerbated by Heads
practical shortcomings: of
Dept.
- Leadership issues
- Inadequate team building
- Lack of experience in FAO
operation procedures Technical advisors Focal Points
- Technical support service need
underestimated
- Capacity constraints within MOA

8. Issues - Delivery
• Significantly delayed, just over 30% of SADP funds have been spent
and capital intensive activities (Dams, Investment Fund) are in final
planning stage
• Low delivery rate is a consequence of inception delay and worsened
by management and operation issues.
• Difficult to accelerate delivery due to original design issues –
governance, focus and coherence
• The MTE indicated a tray of pending areas which needed urgent
catching-up and advised criteria for prioritization
• Quality of service providers

9. Actions - General Design
• Prioritisation: 2011-2013 Operational Plan & 2011-2012 Fast Track Plan
and development of Procurement Plan
• Optimise Institutional Set-up : The SADP institutional arrangement
rationalized, new institutional set up designed and approved by the
Steering Committee
– Development of a National Implementation Team (NIT)
– Position of NPD redefined and creation of a "two-legged system"
– Establishment of an Operations Officer (P3) position
– HODs roles in SADP redefined
– Redefine and simplify indicators for program activities
• No full redesign: All elements of redesign implemented

10. EU-funding
FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing
Government
PS—PSC
FAOR Zimbabwe (SFS) – MOA – implementing
budget holding PS—PTC
TAT NIT
FAO Technical Task
Other ministries,
NGOs and stake-
CTA NPD
Heads
holders
Force
Operation of Dept.
Officer
Technical advisors Focal Points
Production Research & Service Marketing

11. Actions - Management & Operation
• SADP support and leadership structure: Change of leadership and role of
advisers redefined and enhanced
• Operations: Standard Operating Procedures, Specific training on FAO
operations, delegation of authority to the CTA and Operations and Budgeting
monitoring system adopted
• FAO technical backstopping: Frequent missions with reporting and
recommendations provided in country at the end of each mission, regular
meeting of the Task force
• Programme staff Performance: Revised ToRs for most positions, allowance
provided for field activities, Team building and brainstorming workshops
• Change Perception: Communication and Visibility Plan developed and
implemented; changing negative perception about the project

12. Actions - Delivery
• Prioritizing process finalized with 35 priority outputs for SADP rationalized according
to three categories: (i) Service deliveryinstitution, (ii) Nutrition, production and
marketing and (iii) Infrastructure
• Accelerated progress on pending activities not limited on those highlighted in MTE and
in the movie, the CTA will present further on this issue:
– Partners contracted;
– Demonstration plots, Food and Nutrition Gardens;
– Policies and Strategies developed in Research, Extension and Farmers
Organization;
– Infrastructure work

13. Stakeholders perceptions

14. Results from surveys show stakeholders generally think the actions are good, but
not yet good enough
In general, most people feel SADP somewhat back onto the right track.
12 • Acknowledged noticeable
10 improvements in certain areas,
including:
8 - Technical backstopping by FAO
6 (66% very/extremely well );
- Coordination/collaboration
4 between FAO’s TAT and MOA’s
2 NIT;
- Working efficiency within the
0 SADP team;
On right track?
Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all

15. Current challenges and areas for future improvement
EU-funding
Lengthy Shared Vision
FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government
administrative PS—PSC
processes
FAOR Mozambique – MOA – implementing
budget holding PS—PTC
Operation TAT NIT
Efficiency of
Othe
support CTA ASP
r
minis implementation
Heads tries,
of NGO
Operatio Dept. s and
n Officer
stake
Teamwork hold
ers Motivation and
Teambuilding Technical advisors Focal Points Commitment
Quality of local
supplies
Production Research & Service Marketing
Capacity

16. What did we learn?

17. • Corrective actions are most efficient if they are part of a self-motivated
learning process, not only as a response to an evaluation.
• Simple organizational structure and concrete implementation pathways
are better than over engineered design and complex organizational
setups.
• Correctional actions are short-term in nature , but they need to
contribute to develop capacity for a Comprehensive Agricultural
Development Program in Swaziland as set up in CAADP pillar IV.

18. Lessons from the programme…
• Allow enough time and funding for the design process to ensure common
understanding
• Include flexibility in implementation
• When policy reform is planned then proven commitment by government
prior to inception is essential
• Strike the right balance between capacity development and delivery
• Build a program with logical linkage across different components – avoid
wish list of mini projects.
• Simple institutional arrangement respecting existing hierarchy
• Key position filled by people with institutional experience
• Priorities...

19. Thank you!