mid-term evaluation of the "performance enhancement ... - eeas

AESA Consortium

1

25639

Framework Contract Beneficiaries 2013 Lot 1

Delegation of the European Commission to Zambia

“MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE "PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMME"(10

TH EDF) AND FORMULATION OF THE "ENHANCED

CAPACITY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE FOR BETTER SERVICE DELIVERY TO FARMERS PROJECT" (11

TH EDF)”

Contract N° 2014/345932

MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT

November 2014

This programme is funded by the European Union Programme implemented by

The contents of this publication is the sole responsibility of AESA Consortium and can in no way be taken to reflect the views

of the European Union

AESA Consortium

[email protected]

AESA Consortium

DELEGATION of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION

ZAMBIA

“Mid-Term Evaluation of the "Performance Enhancement Programme"(10th EDF) and Formulation of the "Enhanced Capacity of

the Ministry of Agriculture for Better Service Delivery to Farmers Project" (11th EDF)”

Contract N° 2014/345932

Framework Contract Beneficiaries 2013 – LOT 1

MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT

November 2014

Team Composition: TEAM LEADER: PAUL SIJSSENS

EXPERT 2: DR. SUSAN WERE MAKOKHA EXPERT 3: ELIZABETH VISSER

This report was prepared with financial assistance from the Commission of the European Communities. The views expressed are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent any official view of the Commission or the Government of Zambia.

AESA Consortium

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... 7

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 9

1.1 The purpose of the mid-term evaluation and its scope ............................................... 9 1.2 Evaluation process .................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10

2. CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 12

2.1 The agriculture and livestock policy context in Zambia ............................................ 12 2.2 Poverty in Zambia ................................................................................................... 13 2.3 EU policy context ..................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Other cooperating partners ...................................................................................... 14

3. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Programme implementation ..................................................................................... 15 3.2 Programme Design: Overall Objective and Project Purpose .................................... 18 3.3 Result Area 1: Change management and service delivery improved ....................... 21 3.4 Result Area 2: Sector policy, planning and financial management improved ........... 27 3.5 Result Area 3: Human resource management and ICT improved ............................ 32 3.6 Result Area 4: Monitoring and evaluation improved ................................................. 42 3.7 Cross cutting issues, communication and visibility ................................................... 43

4. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 45

4.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................... 45 4.2 Efficiency ................................................................................................................. 47 4.3 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 49 4.4 Impact ..................................................................................................................... 51 4.5 Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 51

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 54

5.1 Recommendations for the remaining lifetime of PEP ............................................... 54 5.2 Recommendations for the 11th EDF follow-up programme ...................................... 55

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................... 56

Annex 1 Terms of Reference ..................................................................................... 57 Annex 2 Itinerary: people and institutions consulted................................................... 58 Annex 3 Documentation consulted ............................................................................. 63 Annex 4 Key evaluation questions ............................................................................. 64 Annex 5 Reference model of Change Management ................................................... 65

Mid-Term Evaluation of the " Performance Enhancement Programme" (10th EDF) & Formulation of the "Enhanced Capacity of the MAL for Better Service Delivery to Farmers Project" (11th EDF)

Final Mid-Term Evaluation Report – September 2014 Page 3 of 65

Executive summary

i. The "Support to Agriculture Sector Performance Enhancement Programme" (PEP) was

formulated in 2009, to address the observed underperformance of the agricultural sector,

as a major driver of economic growth and poverty alleviation, and the institutional

weaknesses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL).

ii. The programme, with a budget of €8.9M, aims to ensure that "the agricultural sector

contributes to growth and poverty reduction in Zambia" (Overall Objective) by

strengthening the capacity of the now MAL so that the latter is "able to create a

conducive environment and to deliver appropriate services to spur agricultural growth"

(Project Purpose).

iii. The Financing Agreement (FA) for PEP was signed on 1 July 2011 and the programme is

implemented through three programme estimates (PEs) under the 10th

European

Development Fund (EDF) for a period of 54 months, ending on 13 August 2015. The end

date for the entire programme, including the closure phase, is 31 December 2016.

iv. The current document presents the findings of the Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) that was

carried out between Monday 11 August and Wednesday 3 September, with a validation

workshop on Friday 12 September. At the time of the present MTE, the programme had

been operational for three years (with two years of implementation), with only one more

implementation year ahead.

v. With respect to relevance, the MTE is of the opinion that support to the Agricultural

Sector was and is still relevant. Important strategic documents, such as Vision 2030 and

the FNDP, the 9th

and 10th

EDF CSP, all highlight the importance of this sector. The

SNDP (2011-2015), developed during the implementation period of PEP, features the

theme ‘’Sustained economic growth and reduced poverty” and agriculture has been

identified as the main priority sector in achieving both economic growth and reduced

poverty.

vi. The Financing Agreement (FA) and later documents present the following four results:

1. Change Management and Service Delivery Improved

2. Sector Policy, Planning and Financial Management Improved

3. Human Resources Management and ICT Improved

4. Monitoring and Evaluation Improved

vii. The MTE found that the design of the programme was flawed since the start and that this

has not been sufficiently remedied. Each result is composed of two or more separate

results and results contain activities that could be considered results. This non-prioritised

list of results demonstrates the absence of a logical sequence. This had many negative

repercussions on programme implementation.

viii. In absence of a clear implementation strategy and path, the programme was bound to be

activity oriented, without sufficient consideration for the coherence between the different



activities. Combined with the absence of suitable indicators and of baseline data, it is

almost impossible to assess effectiveness and impact of the programme.

ix. According to the FA, a Change Management Team (CMT) was to be set up to implement

PEP on a day-to-day basis. In practice, the CMT appears to be more of a coordination

unit at the headquarters rather than the change champion with sustainable mechanisms to

institutionalise the change across the various levels of MAL through the PACOs,

DACOs, down to block and camp level. Furthermore, much of the day-to-day

management is transferred to the Technical Assistance team.

x. With respect to result area 1: Change management and service delivery improved, it can

be observed that no implementation strategy is available to clarify why these two rather

separate topics are combined in one result. Furthermore, the characteristics or indicators

of the envisaged change have not been articulated. Improved service delivery features

also in the PP.

xi. Activities in result area 1 include the establishment of Change Management Mechanisms,

Strategic Leadership and Management Development and a comprehensive Services

Analysis exercise. To date, a CMT exists at national level; provincial CMTs (PCMTs)

were established in each province and have met once, but have not been actively involved

in implementation. Strategic leadership training was provided for senior level staff.

Anecdotal records are positive, but no monitoring tools to assess changes in knowledge

attitude or practices have been applied. Similarly, the effectiveness of the provided mid-

level management and supervisory skills training cannot be ascertained.

xii. The Services Analysis exercise (focused on districts and stakeholders of the agricultural

sector), as an input for a Functional Review of MAL, was done by MAL as a pre-cursor

to the development of the Strategic Plan, but could not yet be implemented due to the fact

that the Strategic Plan 2014-2016 had not yet been formally endorsed.

xiii. Activities under result area 1 have been expanded to include support to the National

Extension Service Strategy Forum, the Strengthening of Regional Research Stations (to

perform Soil, Seed, Fertiliser and Feed Analysis), the Design and Sourcing of Resource

Packs for Camp Extension Officers and support to the JICA funded RESCAP programme

in order to support harmonisation of extension messages. This demonstrates both the

flexibility of the programme as well as the lack of a proper sense of direction.

xiv. Result Area 2: “Sector policy, planning and financial management improved” includes

topics such as Strengthening Sector Dialogue, Strengthening Policy Analysis Capacity,

Carry Out Public Expenditure Tracking Survey and Enhanced Activity Based Medium

Term Expenditure Framework.

xv. Several activities were undertaken, but most not sufficiently followed through. Sector

Dialogue has concentrated on two coordination meetings at national level (Ag-SAG) but

the PACO, DACO and District Agricultural Committees (DAC) meetings have not yet

taken place. Combined with the non-functioning of the PCMTs, this is an indication of

the challenge of PEP to impact at lower levels of administration.



xvi. A sector policy study was done but this has not (yet) resulted in actual policy

harmonisation. The facilitation of the sector Strategic Plan (SP) was funded under this

component, but, as mentioned above, the plan awaits formal approval by the Minister.

xvii. PEP has been supporting the establishment of a Farmers Register in more than 20

districts. Effectiveness as a preparatory exercise for implementation of the e-voucher

scheme is not evident, as long at the methodology for the e-voucher has not been decided

upon and the requirements of the system to be used (re. necessary data, software used) is

not known1. Effectiveness in improved targeting of farmers by extension or other service

delivery agents is likely, but is not being captured.

xviii. The Public Expenditure Tracking Survey and Quantitative Service Delivery Survey that

were promoted by the World Bank and included during formulation are not implemented.

However, PEP was instrumental in allowing MAL to develop Planning and Budgeting

Guidelines in order to provide a common framework to guide all levels of the sector to

develop Work Plans and Budgets. Next, Resource Allocation Formulas are being

developed to assure equitable resource allocations to PACOs and DACOs. This process is

ongoing and not yet concluded.

xix. Support was provided to roll-out the Integrated Financial Management Information

System (IFMIS). MAL employees were identified and trained. After some initial

resistance to install and use IFMIS, it has now been fully embedded in MAL HQ and is

operational. Reportedly the system still suffers of poor functionality of the ICT systems at

MAL HQ but PEP will address this as well (see below). Again, rolling out to Provinces

and Districts has not been done (yet).

xx. Result Area 3: “Human resource management and ICT improved” includes a variety of topics,

amongst which the reconciliation of the Staff Payroll and the provision of Outstanding

Payments of retirement packages for MAL retirees. The expected link between the

payment of outstanding personal emoluments and the recruitment of new staff was not

found, indeed these two events are unrelated: MAL staff is recruited or not regardless of

outstanding payments. The payment by the project (and GRZ) only affected staff retired

up to 2012. Outstanding payments to staff not yet retired were not included, nor payment

to staff retiring after 2012. Therefore the activity solved the situation partly for the MAL

(ex-)staff, not for all and not for ever. In future the problem will disappear as from now

there will be no terminal allowances paid.

xxi. Result area 3 includes also the development and implementation of the HR Strategy. To

date this HR strategy does not exist. A personnel record system is being developed as

well as the HR database. The existing Payroll Management and Establishment Control

(PMEC) was to be extended to provide other required human resource information. This

process is also still ongoing.

1 TA Team Leader responded that the refined farmer register can be migrated to any other database that might be

adopted



xxii. Other training provided under this component is the induction training, for Camp

Extension Officers (CEO), which was reportedly much appreciated. With respect to

Improve Planning and Management of Agricultural Education and Training Institutions,

PEP support was limited to the provision of a small quantity of equipment, training of FI

and FTC principals & curriculum development.

xxiii. PEP provided support to renovate and upgrade the MAL website, and introduced a

nationwide MAL email system. Internet connectivity has greatly improved and will

proceed further. A large ICT tender was ongoing at the time of the MTE, and will

contribute to enhanced connectivity with field and district staff. It is imperative that the

remaining programme duration is used to ensure that all ICT equipment is sustainably

used to full potential.

xxiv. PEP supported the updating of the MAL's HIV/AIDS Workplace Policy 2011-2015 as

well as printing and distribution. Leadership sensitisation on HIV/AIDS was provided

and trainers trained. Gender mainstreaming guidelines were developed and a check list

was developed to be used as a hand book on gender mainstreaming.

xxv. With respect to M&E, PEP supported the completion of the M&E manual for MAL

(MAL Monitoring and Evaluation System, July 2013). The report was subsequently

edited by Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS; MAL

Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, April 2013) and is ready for use, including tools and

indicators. It is hoped that MAL will indeed adopt the M&E framework throughout the

entire Ministry.

xxvi. In conclusion, it can be observed that many activities are still being implemented which

may all constitute a first step towards a major improvement (e.g. ICT, Agricultural

Strategy, training courses). It is important that the MAL/PEP demonstrate that the

subsequent actions are following through, so that indeed the MAL operations can become

more efficient and transparent. Examples are the Functional Review, the HR policy and

right-sizing of staff, the implementation of the M&E system. If this will be accomplished

during the implementation period of PEP, these can be considered major achievements.



List of acronyms

Ag-SAG Agriculture Sector Advisory Group

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CEO Camp Extension Officer

CP Cooperating Partner

CRIS Common External Relations Information System

CMT Change Management Team

DAC Development Assistance Committee

EDF European Development Fund

EU European Union

EUD European Union Delegation

FA Financing Agreement

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FISP Farmer Input Support Programme

FNDP Fifth National Development Plan

FRA Farmers Reserve Agency

GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome

HRD Human Resource Development

HRIS Human Resource Information System

HRM Human Resource Management

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System

INSET In-Service Training

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

LCMS Living Conditions Monitoring Survey

LFM Logical Framework Matrix

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MAL Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

MTE Mid-Term Evaluation

NAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan

NAP National Agriculture Policy

NAO National Authorising Officer

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NIPA National Institute of Public Administration

OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicators

PCM Project Cycle Management

PE Programme Estimate

PEP Support to Agriculture Sector Performance Enhancement Programme

PMEC Payroll Management and Establishment Control

PPD Policy and Planning Department

PSC Programme Steering Committee

PS Permanent Secretary



PSU Programme Support Unit

RESCAP Rural Extension Service Capacity Enhancement Project

SAPP Smallholder Agribusiness Promotion Programme

SIDA Swedish International Development Agency

SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound

SNDP Sixth National Development Plan

SP Strategic Plan

SUPE Start-Up Programme Estimate

TA Technical Assistance

TAPS Technical and Administrative Provisions

TL Team Leader

ToR Terms of Reference

ZARI Zambia Agricultural Research Institute

ZCA Zambia College of Agriculture

ZMW Zambia Kwacha (per 1 January 1, 2013)

ZNFU Zambia National Farmers Union



1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of the mid-term evaluation and its scope

The mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the 10th

European Development Fund (EDF) Support to

Agriculture Sector Performance Enhancement Programme (PEP) was the first component of a

combined assignment, together with the formulation of the 11th

EDF Enhanced Capacity of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL) for Better Service Delivery to Farmers Project.

The global objective of the assignment reflects the link between the two components that made

up the assignment: “to draw policy-relevant, actionable and evidence-based lessons and

recommendations from a mid-term evaluation of the current PEP to support an effective

implementation as well as the attainment of the expected results by the end of the project and to

ensure that this informs the design of the forthcoming "Enhanced Capacity of the Ministry of

Agriculture for Better Service Delivery to Farmers" project”.

The specific objectives of the mid-term evaluation of PEP were to:

assess whether, and by how far, progress has been made by the project towards fulfilling

the outcomes and objectives, as stipulated in the project log frame and in the description

of actions;

re-assess the strategic objectives and implementation mechanisms proposed during the

design of the project, and the extent to which these have been effective in delivering

results;

provide recommendations for any required change/modification to the project scope

(including objectives, management arrangements, financing, etc.) in order to support

effective implementation and the attainment of the expected results by the end of the

project.

The Terms of Reference of the assignment are given in Annex 1.

1.2 Evaluation process

In August 2014, AESA consortium was awarded the contract to undertake the mid-term

evaluation of PEP and the formulation of a follow-up programme. Although the distinction

between the two components of the assignment cannot always be discerned, this report aims to

limit itself to the evaluation part of the assignment.

The assignment started on 11 August 2014 with five days of home-based preparation. The

mission in Zambia commenced on 18 August 2014. The first days in-country were used for

briefings by the Delegation of the European Union (EUD), National Authorising Officer (NAO)

and the Programme Support Unit (PSU), and meetings at MAL. At the end of this inception

period an inception report was produced. During the inception period it was agreed that a single

inception report would be produced for both elements of the assignment. That same first and

following weeks in-country follow-up meetings were held with MAL staff, EUD and other

programme stakeholders.

From 25-27 August 2014 field work was undertaken in Southern Province. Meetings were held

with MAL staff at Provincial, District and Camp levels, and interviews were held with farmers

and other stakeholders, like private sector agents and Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU).



Preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendation were presented to EUD, MAL and the

PSU during a recapitulation meeting on 2 September 2014. This was followed by a bilateral

meeting with MAL/PSU during which the main findings were thoroughly analysed and

omissions corrected. The revised findings were subsequently presented and discussed at a

validation workshop on 12 September 2014, that was attended by a wide range of stakeholders

(see attendance list in Annex 2) after which the draft mid-term evaluation report was finalised.

Table 1.1 gives a summary of the PEP mid-term evaluation process. Annex 2 provides a detailed

itinerary.

Table 1.1 Summary of the PEP mid-term evaluation process

Date Activity

11-15 August 2014 Home-based desk study

17 August 2014 Mission team arrives in Zambia

18 August 2014 Briefings at EUD, NAO and PSU

19-29 August 2014 Consultation of programme

stakeholders

1-3 September Production of draft mid-term

evaluation report

12 September 2014 Validation workshop

1.3 Methodology

The mid-term evaluation was organised around the responses to evaluation questions which were

systematically covering the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria of the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), namely: relevance,

effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.

The key questions, given in Annex 4, were used to guide the evaluation process. Evaluation is by

nature a dynamic process and the questions were therefore interpreted in a flexible manner.

Therefore the questions are labelled “key questions”, providing a reference framework for the

evaluators to ensure all necessary information is collected; they were not used as a questionnaire.

Throughout the assignment the following methodologies were used:

Quantitative methods whenever possible, e.g. regarding financial management of the

programme, payment of personal emoluments and support to the farmers register;

Qualitative methods using semi-structured interviews with key informants and other

stakeholders and focus group discussions;

Field observation;

Literature review;

Contents analysis of available data.



It may be observed that the mid-term evaluation came at a late stage of programme

implementation. The programme had been running for over three years and has less than one

year left. Because of delays and slow implementation in the first years, EUD decided to have the

MTE well in the second half of the implementation period, so a more meaningful evaluation

could take place. A consequence is that the MTE not only looked at the Start-up Programme

Estimate (SUPE) and PE1, as indicated in the ToR, but also at the implementation so far of PE2.

Another consequence is that there is little time remaining to make adjustments in the remaining

time of PEP. Most of the recommendations will be more useful for the design of the follow-up

programme under the 11th

EDF.

After this first introductory chapter, Chapter 2 describes the sector and policy context in which

PEP is implemented. Chapter 3 presents the findings of the MTE, by result area. This is followed

in Chapter 4 by the conclusions of the MTE, answering the evaluation questions on relevance,

effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The final Chapter 5 gives recommendations.



2. Context

2.1 The agriculture and livestock policy context in Zambia

PEP was formulated in 2009 in the context of Vision 2030, the Fifth National Development Plan

(FNDP), the National Agriculture Policy (NAP) and the Zambia Comprehensive African

Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) Compact. These documents all indicate

agriculture as a priority sector and point at the private sector as vital to reduce the sustained high

level poverty in Zambia. The role of the public sector as defined in the documents above, should

be to provide quality services and effectively implement programmes, as well as policy

formulation, enforcement of legislation and maintaining an environment that is conducive to

agriculture productivity, all underpinned by a sound M&E framework for the sector.

However, although one of the challenges mentioned in the NAP is the limited presence of the

private sector, for instance in marketing and extension, it is not clear what precisely is expected

from the private sector and how an environment is created that will encourage private sector

involvement. The NAP still describes a caring government rather than an enabling government

that allows and creates opportunities and the right incentives for ‘desired’ behaviour.

Since the start of PEP implementation, GRZ has developed its Sixth NDP (SNDP) 2013-2016,

and a revised SNDP, which reemphasise the importance of agriculture in Zambia’s strategy to

address (rural) poverty. The NAP is under revision, a MAL Strategic Plan 2013-2016 was

developed (but not yet approved) and the National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) 2014-

2018 was developed under CAADP.

Based on the revised SNDP, the overall strategic focus for agricultural development is increased

production, productivity and value addition for crops, livestock and fisheries as well as

horticultural products with the aim of improving food security and nutrition for all populations of

Zambia and more importantly to contribute to job creation and poverty reduction. This then

became the underpinning factor for PEP in its endeavour to support MAL.

The NAIP gives some problem analysis, even though it is more descriptive rather than analytical

and some main issues are not really followed through. However, this document does provide

quantitative data and sets specific targets and indicators.

The overview of the current agriculture policy context show a collection of individually

interesting documents, but the relationship to each other, or the hierarchical order, is not clear.

The figure below, from MAL, shows the different current policy documents in a single diagram,

but does not clarify the interrelationships of the policies and strategies. It provides a challenge

for an integrated monitoring of objectives and targets of MAL. It certainly justifies PEP activities

aiming for policy harmonisation, planning and M&E.



Figure 2.1 Overview of agricultural policies and strategies in Zambia (source: MAL)

2.2 Poverty in Zambia

At the time of formulation of PEP it was observed that despite the overall good performance of

the Zambian economy, the GDP growth had not translated into any significant drop in poverty

(Zambia-EC Country Strategy Paper (CSP) and Indicative Plan (NIP) for the period 2008-2013).

The number of people living in absolute poverty remained high in Zambia. According to the

Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) IV of 2004, 68 per cent of the population fell

below the national poverty line. Rural incidence of extreme poverty fell from 71 per cent in 1998

to 65 per cent in 2004. In urban areas, however, the incidence of extreme poverty declined by 5.6

per cent, from 36 per cent to 34 per cent of the total population. That implies that the incomes of

the poor population are on average 64% of the poverty line. Income is very unevenly distributed

in Zambia. According to the LCMS IV, the Gini coefficient for Zambia was 0.55 in 2004, which

is among the highest levels of income disparities in Sub-Saharan Africa.

At the time of evaluation the poverty situation has changed minimally. The national economy

continued to grow (on average 5.7% per year between 2002 and 2012). However, income

Sector Policy Development Level

National Planning Level

Sector Planning Level

Implementation Level

R-SNDP

NAIP

Strategic Plan

This is an overarching Long-term Policy

framework for the agriculture sector

The R-SNDP is the current medium-term national development plan under Vision 2030. The Agriculture Chapter in the R-SNDP is a summary of the NAIP

The NAIP is an investment plan outlining priority investments areas for the sector

The strategic plan is a medium term implementation plan for the Ministry which reflects the core business of the ministry where attention shall be focused and results expected to be seen

NAP-IP

The NAP-IP is an overarching long-term plan to implement the NAP. This implementation plan outlines the roles and functions of various stakeholders in the sector

ATP

The main goal of the Agriculture Transformation Programme (ATP) is to fast track the execution of sector programmes and strategies as identified in the NAP, NAIP and R-SNDP. It is a tool that the Ministry of Finance can use to mobilize extra resources for the agriculture sector



inequality has dramatically increased over the past 10 years and is currently one of the worst in

the world. The Gini index was 57.5 in 20102. The gap between urban and rural poverty continues

to widen3. Figures for 2014 indicate 60.5% of the population living below the poverty line, and

rural poverty at 75%. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty is 42% at national level

and 58% in the rural areas. The agricultural sector has been growing at a volatile rate of as much

as 7% since 2009, but has not been able to contribute to reduce the stagnant high rural poverty

rates.

Nearly half of the country’s rural population has a daily caloric intake of less than 1,750 Kcal per

day, while families spend nearly 80 percent of their incomes on food. Only two percent of all

calories consumed by the average Zambian are from pulses, vegetables, and nuts; highlighting

the dire need for dietary diversity. Shortage of nutrients in diets limits growth, weakens

immunity and increases mortality4. Zambia has one of the highest HIV prevalence in the world

(14.3% of persons aged 15-49 years) and nutrition remains a key component in managing this

condition.

2.3 EU policy context

Under the 10th

EDF CSP-NIP interventions were planned under two focal areas: Regional

Integration/Infrastructure and Transport and Human Development/Health, combined with

Macro-economic support. Non-focal interventions would concentrate on agriculture-food

security, governance, and support to non-state actors. PEP was identified and formulated under

the non-focal programme for food security and agriculture diversification, in particular as

contributing to rural agricultural extension initiatives targeted at realizing production and yield

improvements and stabilisation.

The objective of the non-focal sector “food security and agriculture diversification” was “support

for implementation of the cross-sectoral food security strategy and wider agriculture growth, as

major vehicles for rural poverty reduction under the FNDP 2006-2010”.

2.4 Other cooperating partners

Around ten other Cooperating Partners (CPs) are active in the sector. According to the

formulation document of PEP, the programme was “considered by all agriculture CPs as a

golden opportunity to renew the role of the public sector and give agriculture the core role it

should have in poverty reduction”.

Opportunities for synergy were present with IFAD and JICA. IFAD with funds from SIDA and

the Finnish Embassy supported the M&E system within MAL. JICA implemented the Rural

Extension Services Capacity Advancement Programme (RESCAP), with technical assistance in

the ministry and extension activities in selected provinces and districts.

2 World Bank, Gini index 2014 (Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption

expenditure among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A

Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.) 3 Draft National Indicative Programme, 11

th EDF, for cooperation between the Republic of Zambia and the

European Union, March 2014 4 Zambia National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) 2014-2018, Under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP), Third Draft Final, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, March 2013



3. Findings

3.1 Programme implementation

Programme duration

The Financing Agreement (FA) for PEP was signed on 1 July 2011. The execution period was 66

months, starting from the date of signature of the FA: 42 months for operational implementation

and 24 months for closure of the programme (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Main PEP implementation dates

Action Starting date End date Duration

Signature of FA 1 July 2011

Operational implementation 1 July 2011 31 December 2014 42 months

Programme closure 1 January 2014 31 December 2016 24 months

Total execution period 66 months

Source: PEP Financing Agreement

The programme is being implemented through three consecutive Programme Estimates (PEs):

one Start-up PE, PE1 and PE2. The FA specifies that any contracts and programme estimates

implementing the FA should be signed within the first three years after signature of the FA (d+3

rule). While preparing PE2, a request for extension of the Period of Execution from 66 to 78

months was submitted and granted (second Rider to the FA, received on 6 June 2014), which

allows PE2 to run for 18 months rather that the 10.5 months that would have been the maximum

duration under the terms of the original Financing Agreement. This means that all agreements

have to be signed prior to 01 July 2015. The end date of the PE2 is 13 August 2015, which

effectively means that end of the implementation phase. The end date for the entire programme,

including the closure phase, was not altered and remains 31 December 2016. At the time of the

present MTE, the programme has thus been operational for two years, with only one more

implementation year ahead. Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 summarise key information on the PEs.

Table 3.2 Starting and expiry dates of PEP Programme Estimates

PE Starting date Expiry date Duration

SUPE 31 July 2012 30 January 2013 6 months

PE1 11 February 2013 10 February 2014 12 months

PE2 14 February 2014 13 August 2015 18 months

Total 36 months

Source: EUD, CRIS, 19 August 2014

The SUPE was prepared with the help of a short-term consultant between October 2011 and

April 2012 to assist MAL to prepare a Start-Up Programme Estimate (SUPE) which was signed

on 31 July 2012.



Programme finance

Table 3.3 and 3.4 give an overview of the budgets and utilisation of PEP funds so far.

Table 3.3 Key financial figures of PEP Programme Estimates

PE Funds committed Amount disbursed Balance Percentage

disbursed5 EUR ZMW EUR ZMW EUR ZMW

SUPE 141,073 934,700 123,664 747,760 17,408 186,940 87.7

PE1 2,868,415 20,614,726 1,912,799 13,799,920 955,617 6,814,804 66.7

PE2 3,708,861 27,988,284 1,364,155 10,816,728 2,344,695 17,171,556 36.8

6,718,349 49,537,710 3,400,618 25,364,408 3,317,720 24,173,300

Source: EUD, CRIS, 19 August 2014

Table 3.4 Utilisation of PEP funds

PE Funds committed Amount disbursed Amount spent Percentage

spent6 ZMW ZMW ZMW

SUPE 934,700 747,760 486,517 52.1

PE1 20,614,726 13,799,920 11,459,922 55.6

PE2 27,988,284 10,816,728 3,209,4447 10.5

49,537,710 25,364,408

Source: PEP progress reports

For SUPE an imprest of ZMW 747,760 was released. At the close of SUPE ZMW 486,517 had

been utilised. The underutilisation of 48% of the committed funds were mainly caused by the

delay in procurement of two vehicles (MZW 366,000) and no expenditure on operating costs

(MZW 520,000) as there were no support staff and vehicles yet.

The 44% underutilisation of PE1 funds is mainly caused by a number of activities that did not

take place in PE1 as planned, in particular Support DACO coordination and DDCC Natural

Resources sub-committee meetings (MZW 455,000), Organisational review with MDD (MZW

574,000; pending the signing of the Strategic Plan) and M&E training (MZW 1,076,250; pending

the completion of Training of Trainers through the IFAD SAPP programme).

Programme Steering Committee

According to the FA, a Programme Steering Committee (PSC) was to be set up to oversee and

validate implementation and should meet at least quarterly.

Since the start of PEP, only two PSC meetings have taken place: one on 20 December 2012 and

one on 17 December 2013. The meetings were held to discuss and approve PE1 and PE2

respectively. According to the minutes the views of the PSC are used to review the draft PEs.

5 Due to different exchange rates over time, percentages are different in EUR and MZW. In this table the percentage

is calculated based on EUR. 6 Amount spent on implementation as percentage of committed funds

7 At 31 July 2014, as informed by TA Team Leader. Thirteen months of implementation remain



PEP management

According to the FA, a Change Management Team (CMT) was to be set up to implement PEP on

a day-to-day basis. In addition, an imprest administrator and an imprest accounting officer

should be assigned by MAL to the management and implementation of the programme.

At the start of the programme the Director Policy and Planning was indicated as the Programme

Supervisor and Imprest Administrator and the Chief Accountant as the Imprest Accounting

Officer.

Although the CMT was established during SUPE it didn’t take on the day-to-day management of

PEP. CMT meetings do take place on a quarterly basis, but have more the character of sharing of

information, check on progress of PE activities and authorise all forthcoming activities, including

ToRs. The name of the CMT therefore does not reflect its function. The change that the

programme pursues is not clearly defined. Without a common understanding of the aspired

change, it is impossible to manage it. (See also the remarks in Section 4.1 and the model for

change management in Annex 5).

Even to have regular management meetings of a core PEP management team (consisting of PPD,

HRA, accounts and TA) proved impossible due to the heavy schedule of meetings of MAL staff.

In practice the management of the programme has been handed to the PSU, with the TA team

and Director PPD meeting on a weekly basis. Initial Provincial Change Management Teams

(PCMTs) PCMT meetings were held in all province during PE1, so they were established in

practice, although not yet utilised for provincial and district activities.

There have been frequent changes of the MAL Chief Accountant. So far there have been six

different ones since the start of the programme. Since the Chief Accountant is the PEP Imprest

Accounting Officer this has caused challenges in financial management of the programme.

Following an addendum to the FA the Deputy Imprest Accounting Officer has been changed to

the Programme Accountant in the PSU, although all requisitions for project expenditure are

counter-signed by the Chief Accountant.

For administrative support the FA stipulates that the PEs should include resources for a Change

Management Secretariat (CMS). Contracting a programme accountant and a programme

administrator was planned and budgeted in SUPE, but only started from PE1. The CMS is

housed together with the TA team at the offices of PMTC (Zambia) Limited. The TA team and

the CMS together form the Programme Support Unit (PSU).

The FA also stipulates that the PEs would include resources for a legal expertise team and a

long-term Communication Officer. Neither is in place and they are not foreseen within the

remaining lifetime for the programme. When preparing PEs the need for a legal team or a

Communication Officer was not identified and therefore not included.



Technical Assistance

The FA further provides for technical assistance under a service contract. Contracting of the TA

started with a call for Expressions of Interest in June 2011 and the contract was awarded in July

2012. The TA team, comprising the Team Leader (Institutional Development/Change

Management Expert) and the Human Resources Management Specialist is in place from 1

September 2012.

The mission observed that the TA team is very dedicated and committed to the progress of the

programme. With the CMT not assuming the day-to-day management, some of these tasks are

currently executed by the TA.

3.2 Programme Design: Overall Objective and Project Purpose

Introduction

Programme design is an important factor that strongly affects implementation and success of a

programme, right from the start. In the case of PEP, this appears to have been particularly the

case. The following chapter elaborates therefore, in a rather detailed manner, on the design of the

programme; from the moment it was conceived until its present suitability.

Conception of the programme

In 2009, a comprehensive study was done to assess the capability of the then Ministry of

Agriculture and Co-operatives (MACO) to respond to the changing environment and increased

expectations of the agricultural sector8. The findings of this study were consolidated at a

comprehensive participatory review workshop. Consensus was reached on the major capacity

development needs for the Ministry, in order to assume the leadership role in promoting

agriculture as the engine of Growth and Poverty Alleviation in Zambia. These needs were

subdivided in five key areas:

Inform and strengthen policy analysis and decision-making processes

Review functions, role and capacities for services provision and co-ordination

Build modern budget, planning and financial systems from national to district levels

Modernise human resources management and development

Modernise knowledge management and technology (ICT)

The workshop subsequently proceeded to draft an initial design for the PEP programme9. The

Purpose of the Programme was formulated as follows: “to renew and develop MACO’s

functions, systems and capacities for improved leadership, partnerships and performance in

sector policy and strategy formulation; intra- and inter-Ministry planning; programme

development, co-ordination and implementation; and services provision and co-ordination to

farmers”.

8 Assessment of Current MACO Capacity, Capacity Development Needs and Challenges, Strategy and Roadmap for

a Performance Enhancement Programme in MACO/GRZ; July 2009; Cardno Agrisystems for EU 9 Participatory Review of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (MACO) Performance in assuming its

Leadership role in promoting Agriculture as the engine of Growth and Poverty Alleviation in Zambia; July 2009,

CardnoAgrisystems for EU



The workshop proceeded to identify as many as ten main expected results: 1) Change

Management and Leadership Development; 2) Services Analysis and Functional Review;

3)Policy, Strategic and Sector Planning; 4) Public Sector Budgeting, Planning and Financial

Management; 5) Monitoring, Evaluation and Performance Accountability; 6) Improved

Personnel Management; 7) Improved Planning and Management of MACO Staff Development;

8) Improved Planning and Management of Agricultural Education and Training; 9) Enhanced

Use of ICT in Administration and Service Delivery; 10) Enhanced Response to HIV/AIDS.

This suggests that these two major steps in the identification phase of PEP did not succeed in

analysing the current situation to an appropriate level of detail, and did insufficiently allow the

identification of priorities and cause & effect. The capacity assessment study described the

prevailing situation elaborately, but the perceived needs were still defined in a very general

manner. These shortcomings were not remedied during the stakeholder workshop, where also no

priorities nor a implementation path were identified and where results had merely been defined

as broad areas with room for improvement.

Weaknesses in programme design

The FA and TAPs made an effort to describe the Programme Purpose (PP) in a slightly more

precise manner as follows: “The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Livestock and

Fisheries are able to create a conducive government and deliver appropriate services to spur

growth in agriculture”. Note that this definition does not correspond to the requirements of a

well-defined PP, which should describe the direct benefits for the target group10

.

The Financing Agreement (FA) and later documents present the following four results:

1. Change Management and Service Delivery Improved

2. Sector Policy, Planning and Financial Management Improved

3. Human Resources Management and ICT Improved

4. Monitoring and Evaluation Improved

It is clear that most of the ten broad result areas that had been identified at the Stakeholder

workshop have simply been combined into four results. Furthermore, those results that could not

be fitted within the four FA results have been incorporated as activities. (e.g. Services Analysis

and Functional Review, Improved Planning and Management of Agricultural Education and

Training, Enhanced Response to HIV/AIDS).

Consequently, each result is in fact composed of two or more separate results and contains

activities that may be considered results. This non-prioritised, long list of results, cannot but lead

to difficulties in defining the logical sequence of activities leading to results and results leading

to Programme Purpose. It is therefore not surprising that the LFM is not considered as a useful

management tool by programme management because the logical sequence is lacking. In

absence of a clear implementation strategy and path, the programme is bound to be activity

oriented, without sufficient consideration for the coherence between the different activities. It

10

Project Cycle Management Guidelines, EU, 2004



will be demonstrated elsewhere in this report that this has indeed been the case and that this has

had negative repercussions on programme implementation.

Example

Activity 1.3 in the revised PEP Logical Framework (vs October 2013) is “a comprehensive services

analysis exercise, focused on the districts and the stakeholders of the agricultural sector”. It is also

mentioned that this analysis will serve as an input for the Functional Review of MAL. When the MTE

mission inquired about the status of this exercise, it was reported that the review can only be done upon

approval of the Strategic Plan. This sequence of events (Service Analysis→Strategic Plan→ Functional

Review→….?) is not sufficiently demonstrated in the LFM, nor in the PE. The absence of clear

implementation paths will cause confusion and is likely to result in reduced commitment of the various

stakeholders.

Programme or Project?

The distinction between programme and project can based on many different definitions and the

corresponding discussion will go well beyond the scope of the current report. However, it

should be noted that according to the EU Project Cycle Management Guidelines, a programme is

generally broader and more complex in nature than a project. It is therefore recommended in

these Guidelines that for the design of a programme, interlocking Logical Framework Matrices

(LFM) should be used, whereby a separate LFM is used for each result area.

Project Cycle Management

The SUPE started on 1 August 2012 and the supporting TA contract started one month later, in

September 2012. This means that at the time when the programme became operational, three

years had passed since identification in 2009. It would have been opportune to start

implementation with a planning workshop, not only to reconsider whether previously observed

needs were still valid, (especially considering the reportedly rapidly changing environment), but

also to design an annual work plan in a participatory manner, including key progress indicators.

Revision of the LFM

One exercise to revise the LFM was undertaken in 2012. As a result, the definition of the

Programme Purpose was slightly revised in ’The capacity of MAL is strengthened in an effective

and sustainable way and their operations are improved”. This does not appear to constitute a

major improvement from what it was before (“The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of

Livestock and Fisheries are able to create a conducive government and deliver appropriate

services to spur growth in agriculture”). According to the PCM manual, the definition of the PP

should refer to a higher level achievement rather than to the sum of results- as is the case here. It

also did not explain what is meant with an effective and strengthened capacity of MAL or with

improved operations. Furthermore, as argued above, the shortcomings in design are also evident

in the definition of the results and the absence of logical sequencing of activities and results.



This has not significantly changed, although an effort was made to provide some SMART11

indicators.

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs)

Unfortunately, even the OVIs that are mentioned in the revised LFM display shortcomings.

According to the EU PCM Manual, “Indicators at the level of a result level should not be a

summary of what has been stated at activity level”. This means that OVIs at PP level such as

‘’the number of new policies and legislation & plans approved/promulgated” is not appropriate.

It is not even appropriate at result level, where exactly the same indicator is also provided under

Result 2! This illustrates once more the absence of logical sequencing. It was also noted that still

at the time of the MTE, two years after the revision of the LFM, many of the indicators still had

no baseline or targets and were marked as “to be defined”.

3.3 Result Area 1: Change management and service delivery improved

Table 3.5 summarises the main parameters of Result Area 1.

Table 3.5 Indicators and activities of PEP Result Area 1: Change Management and Service

Delivery improved Indicator Sources of verification Baseline Target

Number of critical units missing

within the MAL structure

Ministry’s organogram TBD 0 units missing

Level of satisfaction of MAL staff

with management performance

Opinion survey TBD Score > 6

% of staff with reviewed job

descriptions

Job descriptions / MAL annual

report

0% 10%

Activities 1.1 Establish Change Management Mechanisms, notably by setting up Change

Management Teams in the Ministry, supported by a long-term adviser and a support unit.

1.2 Promote Strategic Leadership and Management Development, through organisational

development training courses and orientation workshops, study tours and twinning

arrangements in the region.

1.3 Carry out a comprehensive Services Analysis exercise (focused on districts and

stakeholders of the agricultural sector), as an input for a Functional Review within MAL

aimed at renewing roles and streamlining Ministries systems toward improved

organisational efficiency and effectiveness.

Source: Revised PEP Logical Framework (October 2013)

Result Area 1 has been defined as ‘’Change Management and Service Delivery Improved”, but

no implementation strategy is available to clarify why these two rather separate topics are

combined in one result nor how the change management will cause concurrent improvements in

service delivery.

Activity 1.1: Establish Change Management Mechanisms, notably by setting up Change

Management Teams in the Ministry, supported by a long-term adviser and a support unit

11

SMART Indicators: Specific to the objective it is supposed to measure; Measurable (either quantitatively or

qualitatively), Available at acceptable cost, Relevant to the information need of managers, Time-bound



Under this activity management components of the programme are set up and supported. These

are the PSC, CMT, PCMT and Change Management Secretariat (see also Section 3.1 above).

Project Steering Committee

A Programme Steering Committee (PSC) has been set up. The PSC is chaired by the Permanent

Secretary (PS) of MAL and is made up of representatives of MAL, Cabinet Office, the Ministry

of Finance, Agricultural Training Institutions, EU Delegation, National Authorising Officer

(NAO), Non -Governmental Organisations (NGOs), farmers representatives/organisations,

Cooperating Partners (CPs) and the private sector.

So far only two PSC meetings have taken place, one per year. This is contrary to the FA12

, which

stipulates it should meet at least quarterly. With only one yearly meeting it cannot be expected

that the PSC oversees and validates implementation as is specified in the FA. Judging by the

minutes, the PSC meetings are mainly informative meetings where the TA TL reports on

implementation and explains the planning process of the next PE.

Change Management Team and Provincial Change Management Teams

The CMT is chaired by the director of Policy and Planning at MAL, to ensure implementation of

PEP activities on a day-to-day basis. Reporting to the PEP PSC, the CMT has central

responsibility for the implementation of the PEP. It comprises ten MAL Directors and

representatives from the Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet Office. The CMT is the senior

decision making and executive body for the PEP and meets quarterly.

According to its ToR, the CMT (assisted by the Secretariat) is responsible for:

Decision making, including approval of PEP activities and budgets

Ensuring the integration of change management processes into the implementation of the

agreed PEP operational plans

The preparation and implementation of a change management strategy

Ensuring the establishment of improved management systems of acceptable international

standards, including changes in the organisational structures where relevant

Appointing PEP Focal Point Persons (minimum one per Department)

Overseeing implementation of a PEP information and communication plan

Receiving reports and prioritising requests from the Provincial Change Management

Teams (PCMTs) and guiding the operations of the PCMTs

Monitoring the implementation process and ensuring adequate reporting activities and

recording of achieved results

Dissemination of results achieved and lessons learned to relevant partners and

stakeholders.

12

TA Team Leader responded that the PSC arrangements as described in the FA were impractical and had to be

amended. This was agreed early on with the Imprest Administrator. The PSC are led through the draft PE and

comment on it. Their recommendations are incorporated into the draft document



However, the CMT appears to be more of an informative and coordination unit at the

headquarters rather than the change champion with sustainable mechanisms to institutionalise the

change across the various levels of MAL through the PACOs, DACOs, down to block and camp

level. This means that at levels beyond the national office, the real impact of the CMT is hardly

felt. The big question then is how this can affect service delivery at farmer level. Based on the

one-to-one interviews conducted during the MTE, the very concept of CMT is not known outside

the MAL head quarters.

At provincial level, Provincial CMTs (PCMTs) were expected to assume responsibility for the

local implementation of the PEP, particularly in the area of planning and M&E. The ToR for the

PCMT speaks of a “change management process” that will ensure “efficient and prompt

handling of all the identified changes required to effectively implement PEP”. Reportedly,

Provincial CMTs (PCMTs) were already set up in all provinces during SUPE, but thus far, two

years later, they have met once, but have not been actively involved in implementation. None of

the PACOs and DACOs interviewed by the mission were familiar with the CMT or PCMT

concept. The programme design obviously, and rightly, attributed responsibility for change to the

lower levels of administration. It is unfortunate that the change process did not (yet) reach that

level. For effective change management, it is important to understand the change management

model and look at change as a process with various steps that need to be managed (see Annex 5).

Activity 1.2: Promote Strategic Leadership and Management Development, through

organisational development training courses and orientation workshops, study tours and twinning

arrangements in the region

This activity comprises leadership, management and supervisory training. In both PE1 and PE2

study tours were planned, but subsequently removed. Capacity building for HR staff in MAL

was intended to enable HR practitioners in the ministry to establish a work culture that inspires

the employees in order to contribute to the continuous improvement in the service delivery

provided by the MAL to its clients.

Leadership Training

Leadership training was planned for in PE1 and implemented in PE2. The course was conducted

in Livingstone at a cost of MZW 463,200. Forty-six top management staff members attended in

two batches of 23 each. This was done between 18 and 25 June 2014 by MCA Training

International. A training needs assessment (TNA) was done and an evaluation was done at the

end of the workshop. However the effect of this training cannot be confidently measured as yet

since the training happened only two months ago.



All respondents were very appreciative of this meetings and reported that the training contributed

to:

i. An improvement in interpersonal, communication and HR skills

ii. A better understanding on how top management can inspire, coach and have better

interaction with their subordinates

iii. A better understanding of the effectiveness of regular meetings where feedback is

given and information is communicated.

Management Training

With the implementation of the SNDP, the Department of Agriculture has been allocating some

funds for the rehabilitation of infrastructure and equipment that had been neglected for some

time. This is necessary to provide the department and other relevant institutions with a conducive

environment for conducting practical trainings effectively. However it is also critical to have the

necessary human resources with skills and knowledge to effectively manage those training

institutes/centres.

It is against this background that the Department of Agriculture developed a plan to conduct

training of Principals and Farm Managers for all the Farm Institutes and Farmer Training Centres

in order to improve not only business management skills but also their ability to generate income

to contribute to operational expenses. Management guidelines on how to establish demonstration

plots for the priority crops for practical training were also developed.

The Department of Agriculture, with financial and technical support from PEP and the JICA

funded Rural Extension Service Capacity Advancement Project (RESCAP), conducted a

Management workshop for all nine Principals of the Farm Institutes and the Principal of Mpika

Farmer Training Centre from Muchinga Province from 17 to 18 December 2013 at the Masaiti

Farm Institute in the Copperbelt Province. The Principal of the Mpika FTC was included as a

participant in consideration for the future upgrading of the Mpika FTC to the Farm Institute. A

report on the management training workshop for principals (20 principles for 2 days) of farm

institutes is available.

Another training was conducted for middle level managers from across the ten provinces and HQ

between 28 August 2013 and 30 January 2014. A total of 173 members (DACOs and provincial

department heads form all provinces in 8x3-day courses) attended out of a potential 185. The

trainings were conducted in different venues across the country. This was on a budget of MZW

487,293.

During one-on-one interviews, it was reported that the middle level management that had been

promoted from a technical background were empowered on managerial skills.



Supervisory Skills training

This training was planned for MAL district officers. The training was conducted at the ZCA,

Monze between 13 and 22 January 2014 at a budget of MZW 94,345. An estimated number of

over 100 officers were targeted.

Based on the evaluation by the TA HR expert, who was present during the training, it appeared

that, although the scope of topics presented was appropriate, with a few exceptions omitted, the

presentations lacked in certain instances theoretical and practical depth that would have made a

difference on the quality front. For example, the presentation on the roles of leaders, managers

and supervisors could have gone deeper to discern the most critical departure points from one to

the other. The focus on leadership should have been on features and traits required of a leader

and what leading really is (setting missions, visions, strategies, values and initiating change in

organisations). Similarly, the role of managers could have covered what managers actually do

(such as systematic implementation of change programmes and strategic plans to achieve desired

objectives by using instruments such as, planning, organising, controlling, performance

management, review and monitoring, etc). Supervision could have taken a greater proportion of

the presentation time and should have focussed more on what and how supervisors perform their

roles (managing performance and development, coaching, providing and receiving feedback,

etc.). In other words, more focus could have been placed on the specific supervisor tasks,

including role profiling and motivation.

The presentation on motivation could have covered more detail on how employees are motivated

and how supervisors can leverage those motivational factors once identified to improve

performance, including (i) the difference between exceptional performance (doing more than

their agreed work targets) and ordinary employees and (ii) how can supervisors instil a high

performance culture and attitudes in their staff? The end of training comments indicated that the

topics like interpersonal skills and performance management were omitted. The training also

lacked in depth both practically and theoretically.

This then questions the integrity of the content and methodology used in the training.13

Activity 1.3: Carry out a comprehensive Services Analysis exercise (focused on districts and

stakeholders of the agricultural sector), as an input for a Functional Review within MAL aimed

at renewing roles and streamlining Ministries systems toward improved organisational efficiency

and effectiveness.

The comprehensive Services Analysis will focus on the districts and stakeholders of the

agricultural sector and will serve as an input for the Functional Review of MAL. The OVI is the

number of studies that have been performed and of which reports are available, which is not a

suitable indicator at result level because these should rather indicate how the reports were used

13

TA disagreed with this conclusion, stating that the comments were meant to help the training providers change the

scope, content and presentation of the programme after this first programme was conducted, and that indeed the

training providers did review the programme for subsequent courses



In SUPE a Services Enhancement Review was done. The second quarterly report of PE1

explains how the subsequent Services Analysis can only be done upon approval of the Strategic

Plan.

The formulation of the Strategic Plan 2014-2016 was facilitated during the very first quarter of

PEP implementation, under result area 2. However, the Plan has not yet been approved by the

Minister and is only available in draft. The services analysis preceded the formulation of the

Strategic Plan. The next step (following approval of the Strategic Plan) is for MAL (with

facilitation from Cabinet office and PEP) to carry out an organisational review (as per GRZ

procedure).

Expansion of activities in this result area in PE1 and PE2

In PE1 and PE2 the activities under this subcomponent with a focus on Services Analysis and

Functional Review, have been expanded to activities in quite another direction. These include

support to the National Extension Service Strategy Forum, the Strengthening of Regional

Research Stations (to perform Soil, Seed, Fertiliser and Feed Analysis), the Design and Sourcing

of Resource Packs for Camp Extension Officers (800 CEOs will be equipped with a measuring

tape, soil tester, sprayer and protective clothing) and support to the JICA funded RESCAP

programme in order to support harmonisation of extension messages. A tender process for the

procurement, budgeted at MZW 2,054,000, is currently ongoing. It is expected that the

equipment will enhance the level of financial self-sufficiency of the concerned institutions. This

is not evident, as government institutions have recently been instructed to lodge all revenues in

the general GRZ account. As a result, some institutions (even some that were previously solvent)

are currently suffering from budgetary constraints.

This expansion of activities, clearly outside the scope of the indicated result area, demonstrates

that the programme was able to adapt to the changing circumstances and to display flexibility. It

can indeed be assumed that harmonised extension messages provided by well-equipped

extension officers, guided by scientific data on, for instance, soil analysis and the latest findings

in research, will be able to perform better in service delivery. On the other hand, it should also

be noted that the interpretation of this activity is very curious indeed. In the programme logic the

functional review would be a key element to bring the required change to MAL. It is peculiar

that, rather than introducing change processes, PEP mainly invests in equipment under this key

activity.)



3.4 Result Area 2: Sector policy, planning and financial management improved


Table 3.6 Indicators and activities of PEP Result Area 2: Sector Policy, Planning and Financial

Management improved Indicator Sources of verification Baseline Target

Number of policies / legislation

reviewed or developed.

Policy / legislation docs; MAL

annual report

N/A 5

Number of evidence-based policy

advisory notes prepared annually

Policy notes / MAL annual

report

1 2 per year

Number of Policy Dialogue

meetings held annually at

National and Provincial and

District level.

Minutes of dialogue meetings 2 4

Number of SAG meetings per

year

Minutes of SAG meetings 1 to 4 per year 4 per year

MAL budget expenditure as % of

budget released

IFMIS / MAL annual report TBD 10% increase

% of departmental and district /

provincial plans that are

structured in line with the

framework of the Strategic Plan

District and provincial plans N/A 80%

Activities 2.1 Strengthen Sector Dialogue, by strengthening the Agriculture Consultative Forum and

the Agriculture Sector Advisory Group (SAG).

2.2 Strengthen Policy Analysis Capacity, notably by developing data collection,

processing, analysis and dissemination, in coordination with the Central Statistics Office.

2.3 Carry Out Public expenditure tracking Survey and a quantitative Service Delivery

Survey (taking into account recent studies carried out by the WB).

2.4 Enhance Activity Based Medium Term Expenditure Framework and Develop Annual

Budget Processes, by establishing SMART indicators linked to MACO/MLF outcomes

and preparing models for presentation of budgets, in close coordination with the Ministry

of Finance (particularly with PEMFA).

2.5 Enhance Financial Systems and Support the shift to a double entry accounting system

in close partnership with the Finland/ PLARDII programme and in coordination with other

CPs currently operating double entry accounting systems in their programmes with

MACO and line with IFMIS.


Activity 2.1: Strengthen Sector Dialogue, by strengthening the Agriculture Consultative Forum

and the Agriculture Sector Advisory Group (Ag-SAG)

The first of eight activities in SUPE was to facilitate partnership with Stakeholders and CPs via

supporting Ag-SAG, policy and PEP PSC. One Ag-SAG meeting was supported under SUPE. In

PE1 a large stakeholder workshop was supported to review and endorse the NAIP. This was

funded as an extraordinary Ag-SAG meeting and depleted the entire budget for the activity. The

NAIP was successfully launched in April 2013.



Other sub-activities under this activity are support to PACO and DACO meetings, strengthening

DAC and production of policy brief. The PACO, DACO and District Agricultural Committees

(DAC) meetings have not yet taken place. Combined with the non-functioning of the PCMTs,

this is an indication of the challenge of PEP to impact at lower levels of administration.

A policy brief was produced on the proposed changes to the FISP programme: “The Assessment

of Small-scale Farmers’ Perception on the Farmer Input Support Programme Reforms”.

Activity 2.2: Strengthen Policy Analysis Capacity, notably by developing data collection,

processing, analysis and dissemination, in coordination with the Central Statistics Office

This activity is subdivided in (i) policy analysis, evaluation and monitoring, (ii) harmonisation of

polices and plans, (iii) review of the sector strategic plan, (iv) policy impact assessment and (v)

strengthening of the farmers register.

Policy analysis, evaluation and monitoring

In PE1 an analysis of the key policies and plans for the sector was done as a starting point for

policy harmonisation. Also a training needs assessment in policy development, monitoring and

analysis was done.

Harmonisation of polices and plans

As described in the agricultural policy context (Section 2.1 above) there are many strategy and

plans in place, but it is not clear how these documents relate in terms of the hierarchy and key

priorities. A process has started, through a study conducted by the Policy Monitoring and

Research Centre (PMRC), to analyse the various documents and clarify the priority areas and the

relationship between them.

Review of the sector strategic plan

As described under Activity 1.3 PEP funds were used to assist in the production of a sector

strategic plan. The plan has been approved at various levels and awaits formal launch by the

Minister.

In 2014 MAL started the development of an Agricultural Transformation Strategy Policy. The

thrust of the transformation process involves a shift from low-productivity, subsistence farming

to high-productivity agriculture which focuses on agricultural diversification and proposed eight

key strategies. PEP financed two workshops in the process to develop the Transformation

Strategy.

The Strategic Plan (SP) expired in 2010, so a new SP was long overdue. The Ministry, by the

support of PEP, has therefore developed a Strategic Plan for the period 2014 – 2016, taking into

account the dynamics and changes that have taken place in the sector since the last Strategic

Plan. The Ministry Strategic Plan 2014 -2016, aims at increasing the Agricultural GDP growth

from 7 percent to 10 percent. It is expected that the interventions proposed in the Strategic Plan



will not only increase the sector’s GDP growth rate, but also ensure food and nutrition security

for the country, facilitate job creation and ultimately contribute to poverty reduction.

Furthermore, the Strategic Plan once implemented, will revamp and sustain growth of the

agricultural sector and make Zambia the regional food basket.

The core strategic issues for consideration in the 2014 – 2016 Strategic Plan were:

1. Inefficiencies and distortions in agricultural marketing;

2. Skewed allocation of resources towards Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) and

the Food Reserve Agency (FRA);

3. Low agricultural productivity;

. Illegal fishing practices; and

5. Erosion of indigenous livestock and plant genetic resource.

The SP further identifies five main strategic issues. The twelve objectives for the whole MAL are

accompanied with short implementation strategies and several indicators. Its suitability is

demonstrated by the fact that the Strategy is widely used within MAL, for instance during the

ongoing budget preparations. Unfortunately, the SP is only available in draft and has still not

been formally approved

The Human Resource and Administration department has not yet developed its own strategic

plan.

Policy impact assessment

So far only a policy brief on FISP has been produced (see under Activity 2.1 above).

Farmers register

PEP has been supporting the establishment of a Farmers Register in 26 districts, ten in PE1 and

16 in PE2. It is expected to lead to more effective targeting of MAL support. PEP provided

support for every step of the process, such as training of the CEOs, fuel and transportation

allowances, printing of the questionnaires. The paper questionnaires had to be manually inserted

on locally available computers; in some instances CEOs used their personal laptops.

The currently available register is especially used to guide the distribution of the inputs under the

FISP programme, whose targeting issues are known. In theory the register could be used to

monitor whether indeed the smallholders benefit from the FISP and not the larger farmers.

Unfortunately that is not being done at the moment. CEOs also use the register as a record of

their clients but for district planning exercises it is not (yet) being used.

It is estimated that in the concerned districts around 85%-90% of all farmers have been

registered. Farmers are usually eager to register as it will facilitate access to the FISP inputs.



GRZ/MAL has indicated their intention to start using electronic systems such as e-vouchers for

the FISP programme. An FAO implemented, EU funded, pilot programme on e-vouchers did not

yet lead to definite conclusions on the methodology to be used and this requires further study.

PEP initiated conversion to a tabled-based farmer register. The JICA funded RESCAP

programme was involved in the discussions as they are operating within the Department of

Agriculture and gave their views.

In each of the piloted Camps visited by the mission (Malende and Choonga Camps in Kalomo

District) about 1,600 farmers were registered. The farmers register appears to be a useful tool in

terms of the following:

It has fostered easy planning and management of farmers

Distribution based on Farmers Input Support Programme (FISP) became easier since it

was easier to identify real farmers who qualified for the inputs

Small scale farmers can now be identified

This cleaned up the previous village register that had charcoal dealers and other traders

who are not farmers

It is easier to get the exact location of the farmer

Both crops and livestock are included in this register. It is more detailed

Improved record keeping

A key challenge is the accuracy of the information in the farmers register. One camp includes

generally more than 1,000 farmers, so it seems unlikely that the CEO will have the time and

resources to verify all provided data. It was observed that in certain households more than one

family member was registered against the same piece of land, so that the acreage given in the

farmers register is far higher than the actual area of the districts. Noted also were inconsistencies

in the information given by farmers, possibly induced by the eagerness of the farmers to benefit

from FISP inputs. This then challenges the integrity of the farmers register14

.

Effectiveness as a preparatory exercise for implementation of the e-voucher scheme is not

evident, as long at the methodology for the e-voucher has not been decided upon and the

requirements of the system to be used (re. necessary data, software used) is not known15

.

Activity 2.3: Carry Out Public expenditure tracking Survey and a quantitative Service Delivery

Survey (taking into account recent studies carried out by the WB).

The Public Expenditure Tracking Survey and Quantitative Service Delivery Survey that were

promoted by the World Bank and included during formulation are not implemented.

14

TA Team Leader responded that these issues were identified in PE1 and that the revised Farmer Register

questionnaire format under PE2 has overcome these deficiencies. However, this is not what the mission observed in

the field. 15

Although the system being used provides data in a format than be converted into any alternative database format

used in the future



Activity 2.4: Enhance Activity Based Medium Term Expenditure Framework and Develop

Annual Budget Processes, by establishing SMART indicators linked to MACO/MLF outcomes

and preparing models for presentation of budgets, in close coordination with the Ministry of

Finance (particularly with PEMFA).

In PE1 a review of the MAL planning and budgeting process was done in six districts in

Copperbelt and Southern Provinces. The situation analysis described the current planning and

budgeting process as ‘haphazard, without the active participation of key stakeholders’. MAL

then developed Planning and Budgeting Guidelines to provide a common framework to guide all

levels of the sector to develop Work Plans and Budgets. Next, Resource Allocation Formulas are

being developed to assure equitable resource allocations to PACOs and DACOs. This process is

not yet concluded.

Activity 2.5: Enhance Financial Systems and Support the shift to a double entry accounting

system in close partnership with the Finland/ PLARDII programme and in coordination with

other CPs currently operating double entry accounting systems in their programmes with MACO

and line with IFMIS

The activity started in SUPE with support to the roll-out of the Integrated Financial Management

Information System (IFMIS). MAL employees that need to use IFMIS were identified and

trained. According to the final report of SUPE the implementation of the initial training was not

very effective, due to the mode of training being too theoretical and the heavy demands on senior

staff time.

After some initial resistance to install and use IFMIS, it has now been fully embedded in MAL

HQ and is operational. Reportedly the system still suffers of poor functionality of the ICT

systems at MAL HQ.

Again, rolling out to Provinces and Districts has not been done (yet), although the Ministry of

Finance has already instructed all line ministries to use the system. Also to be completed remains

a review of the intended benefits of using IFMIS, such as a reduction in misapplications and

abuses of Public funds outside planned activities.

The planned financial training at provincial and district level has not yet taken place.



3.5 Result Area 3: Human resource management and ICT improved


Table 3.7 Indicators and activities of PEP Result Area 3: Human Resources Management and

ICT improved Indicator Sources of verification Baseline Target

Payroll cleaned up for retired staff Payroll N/A Completed by

2nd year

Outstanding payments of

retirements packages for

MACO/MLF retirees made

Payment records N/A Completed by

2nd year

The number of curricula revised Curricula 0 TBD

% of new staff undergoing

orientation training

MAL annual report TBD 75% of newly

recruited staff

each year

% of existing staff undergoing in-

service training

MAL annual report TBD TBD

HRIS designed HR reports N/A HRIS design

approved

% of staff requiring computer that

have access to a working

computer

PEP reports TBD Baseline +

20%

% of staff requiring internet

access that have working internet

connection

PEP reports TBD Baseline +

20%

Number of departments regularly

updating their website module

Website usage records 0 5 (out of 10)

Activities 3.1 Reconcile Staff Payroll and Make Outstanding Payments of retirement packages for

MAL retirees.

3.2 Develop and Implement HR Strategy by designing and implementing a personnel

records system; reviewing job descriptions; right-sizing staff (in partnership with the WB

right sizing programme); attending to immediate staff development priorities and linking

them to the annual performance appraisal system; developing and Implementing In-service

Training Strategy.

3.3 Enhance Inter-ministerial Collaboration in the area of HR management, in particular

with cabinet Office and MoFNP.

3.4 Improve Planning and Management of Agricultural Education and Training

Institutions.

3.5 Develop and Improve ICT at all levels (including MACO & MLF Web-sites), by

establishing an ICT unit and developing an investment programme.

3.6 Enhance Response to HIV/Aids.




Activity 3.1: Reconcile Staff Payroll and Make Outstanding Payments of retirement packages for

MAL retirees.

During formulation of PEP it was found that there was a large backlog of Repatriation

Allowance, Leave Terminal Bonus and Long Service Bonus (together referred to as outstanding

personal emoluments) of MAL staff. The backlog reduced the budget for agricultural service

activities, prevented some people from vacating their posts and prevented vacation of staff

houses.

Preparation of the payment of outstanding personal emoluments started during SUPE, with a

workshop in October 2012 to review and reconcile PMEC payroll and retirement information in

personal files and audit the outstanding amounts. The workshop and follow-up research resulted

in a list of about 700 persons owing ZMW 17,870,360. The cut-off date was August 2012. A list

of all people on the audited list by province, with amounts adding up to ZMW 17,870,360 was

presented by the PS of MAL in March 2013.

The PEP budget for this activity was Euro 1.12 million, about ZMW 7.7 million in 2013. Since

the PEP activity budget was insufficient to cover the total audited list, and because it was

expected that the total amount of the arrears could rise as other staff might present their files,

GRZ allocated ZMW 52 million in its 2013 budget to pay for outstanding personal emoluments

in MAL. The figure of ZMW 52 million was based on a study during the PEP SUPE aimed at

quantifying all outstanding staff payments (including terminal benefits) at that time.

Before the contribution by GRZ was known, it had been planned to use the PEP funds to give

preference to extension workers and other front-line staff of MAL. Since the combined funds of

GRZ and EU were sufficient to pay for the entire audited list it was decided that PEP funds

would be allocated to Southern Province and part of Eastern Province, with GRZ covering the

remaining provinces and HQ.

By Circular 01 of 2013, dated 22 April 2013, the PS of MAL informed Provincial Agricultural

Coordinators (PACOs) that MZW 12,511,534 had been credited to provincial accounts for

payments according to the audited list. The amounts were as calculated in the audited list except

for MAL headquarters, for which MZW 2,673,228 was reserved against a value of MZW

331,048,638 in the list. The Circular further stated that a total of MZW 7,701,000 was to be paid

by the EU, covering Southern Province and part of Eastern Province.

Further audit and verification of the audited list for Southern and Eastern Provinces resulted in a

final list for PEP payment of MZW 7,032,294 to a total of 274 people (May 2013). According to

the progress report MZW 7,146,197 was paid to a total of 290 people in PE1. In PE2 this was

slightly increased to MZK 7,579,484 to 295 people. Herewith the process is complete and an

audit is on-going.

Information collected in Southern Province showed details of the 185 people who were identified

during the initial exercise of late 2012. A total of 178 people were paid MZW 4,790,855.

Apparently 7 persons did not pass the audit of May 2013. Payment was MZW 567,965 below the

figure in the audited list.



Interviews with stakeholders at different levels give a mixed appreciation of this activity.

Obviously those whose outstanding payments were made are most happy with it. In summary the

following observations can be made on the activity:

The whole process of identifying the outstanding payments was cumbersome. Personal

files had to be collected from all over the country and moved up and down. The

weaknesses of the HR information and management systems became evident

Nevertheless the activity was implemented in a transparent manner and is well

documented

The fact that GRZ allocated ample funds to this activity, surpassing the amount allocated

by the EU, shows that PEP acted as a catalyst to solve this outstanding business

Outstanding personal emoluments has been an ongoing issue, bothering MAL staff at

different levels. The payment of arrears reduced the hassle of MAL managing staff

It was reported that payment of arrears resulted in retired staff vacating staff houses to the

benefit of their successors. This was explicitly reported at ZARI. At Camp level houses

may have been vacated, but often in such poor state that new staff refused to occupy them

There was no link found between the payment outstanding personal emoluments and the

recruitment of new staff. Staff has been recruited regardless of outstanding payments

The payment by the project (and GRZ) only affected staff retired up to 2012. Outstanding

payments to staff not yet retired were not included, nor payment to staff retiring after

2012. Therefore the activity solved the situation for part of the MAL (ex-)staff, not for all

and not for ever. Although as from 2014 the payment of terminal benefits has ceased and

all entitlements are wrapped up in recurrent staff salaries.

Activity 3.2: Develop and Implement HR Strategy by designing and implementing a personnel

records system; reviewing job descriptions; right-sizing staff (in partnership with the WB right

sizing programme); attending to immediate staff development priorities and linking them to the

annual performance appraisal system; developing and Implementing In-service Training Strategy

An HR strategy does not exist, but is expected soon after the approval of the Strategic Plan. The

overall strategic plan for MAL is what is used despite having not been approved by the minister.

A personnel record system does not exist but it is being worked on as discussed under the HR

database. Job review was last done when the organisational review was done in 2003 as

discussed below on recruitment. The immediate staff development priorities that have been

addressed are the leadership, management, supervisory, (Result 1) HRIS and induction trainings.

These were based on Training Needs Assessment and partly on APAS.

Under this activity, various sub-activities were formulated regarding HR database, capacity

building of HR staff, organisational review, in-service training and induction/orientation training.

HR database

The Internet is essentially a summation of millions of computers interlinked together comprising

a massive and elaborate virtual database system. Its power is in its search and query capabilities

enabling end users the ability through search engines to filter out desired information within

fractions of seconds. The value of a methodical and structured way of storing and accessing

information is without a doubt a critical component of performance enhancement in any



organisation. Searching and attempting to piece together fragmented information or shuffling

through manual records can be quite crippling.

MAL has an opportunity to begin to convert manual records into an electronic format. There is a

need to harmonise and consolidate data from various departments and external sources. This will

help enhance strategic initiatives for the agricultural sector. Zambia can be a viable agro based

nation with a strong competitive advantage in the Sub-Saharan region of Africa, and the use of

ICTs will play a pivotal role. The goal of a comprehensive integrated database structure for MAL

is to provide timely, usable, accurate, and relevant data to MAL decision makers and

stakeholders in order to increase effectiveness of both framing and implementing policy.

A feasibility study for the development of a HR database was undertaken during PE1 and the

system was to be installed in PE2. Among the PE2 planned activities was the establishment of

the HRIS in MAL as part of an effort to improve the performance of HRM and ICT in the

Ministry. The existing Payroll Management and Establishment Control (PMEC) was to be

extended to provide other required human resource information. The staff who were already

trained to use PMEC were re-trained under PEP to facilitate this integration. The payroll needed

to be reconciled, e.g. when one staff moved from one station to another, the information would

remain in the previous station. There were no records to indicate who was where, skills level and

what the qualifications were. So far 15 staff have been re-trained on the merging of PMEC and

HRIS at a budget of MZW 92,890 at the Provincial Administration Head Office in Ndola.

Currently PEP is helping in the process of designing a form/questionnaire to collect data of

important information on the current employees and their qualifications within the ministry.

PMEC so far is the only source of HR information but this seems outdated based on the current

need of accurate and precise information on employees16

. The target is to complete the merging

exercise by December 201417

.

Recruitment

This is an ongoing process by the Public Service Commission. Every job has a job description

that was developed once the last organisational structure was developed in 2003. Despite the

changes in the working environment, the job descriptions have not been reviewed since. The

recruitment is based on the establishment and not necessarily on the number of retirees. In some

cases those recruited were more than what the establishment required and in some cases less. The

number recruited was not equivalent to that of those retired. Based on the data collected during

the one-on-one interviews, about 75% of the positions have been filled. Currently there is a

freeze on recruitment, a phenomenon that happens every few years. The benefits of new

employees coming on board is that they came with new levels of energy and new technology.

16

TA Team Leader adds: the point is that the PMEC system currently only includes payroll data and is handled by

Cabinet Office. MAL has no electronic HR database and have no control over the payroll programme, consequently

this does not accurately reflect the actual staffing situation. If MAL can gain access to the HR module of the same

programme, they can update staffing records and link this to automatically update the payroll. 17

Development of HR Data base Training Programme; Activity Report -ActivityNo:3.2



Capacity building of HR staff

The capacity building that was done is what was discussed in Result 1 and the training on HRIS

discussed in the HR data base section.

Organisational review

Despite the ministry having gone through several changes, there had not been an organisational

review since 2003, when an organisational structure was developed. However, a review process

is ongoing and soon a new organisational structure could be rolled out.

The Annual Performance Appraisal System (APAS)

The APAS is meant to appraise employees in order to enhance an individual’s performance

throughout the year. The APAS is implemented in a transparent manner and this helps officers to

comprehend better inadequacies and competencies.

In-service training

The ten farmer institutes are basically for in-service training for extension staff and also for

provision of higher level training to progressive farmers/lead farmers and commodity

demonstrators. The refresher courses disappeared around 1980, and this led to a reduction of the

knowledge level of the extension officers. Training institutions became too academic with

insufficient practical skill training. Under PEP a TNA has been conducted with a view to

upgrading short-course curricula of the ten Agricultural Training Institutes. Currently a TNA is

ongoing to help establish the skills and knowledge gaps. This will serve as an input for

curriculum development. The curriculum has insufficiently been upgraded to meet the current

market demands. The Zambia College of Agriculture (ZCA) Monze reviews its curriculum every

three-four years. The last one was done in 2011.

Induction/orientation training

Since the inception of the National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA) in 1962, it was

mandatory for all newly recruited civil servants to attend induction and orientation programmes

at the Institute. This was aimed at helping employees know and understand the civil service work

culture, values, government policies, procedures, expectations, terms and conditions of

employment and basic general orders needed for one to settle down quickly and begin to perform

duties as expected by the supervisors. Due to budget constraints, this stopped in mid 1990s.

MAL has subsequently realised that the absence of such induction programmes is

counterproductive, thus the decision to have it re-instated was made. Under PE1 MAL conducted

the training using PEP funds in October 2013 and in July 2014 under PE2 in Eastern and

Western provinces. This was done in Western Province, Mongu at a budget of MZW 205,808

where 40 out of 185 (new employees) participants attended. The second training was also held in

Mongu and 81 participants attended at a budget of MZW 355,003. A handbook to be used for

orientation is being developed.



The programme covered the following topics: Mission and Vision of the Ministry; Ministry

information on clients, customers, stakeholders; Responsibilities and overview of the Ministry

and functions of its various Departments; Organisation structure of the Ministry; Structure of

Government; Financial Regulations; Terms and Conditions of Service; Code of Ethics for the

Public Service; Public Service Training and Development Policy; and Human Resource Policies

and Procedures in the Public Service18

.

The purpose of the training was to induct and orient the newly recruited staff into the Public

Service in general and MAL in particular, and prepare them to perform their roles effectively and

to the expectations of the ministry and its clientele and customers. It was reported that this

purpose has indeed been achieved and supervisors expressed their satisfaction with the newly

recruited, and inducted, employees. It seems likely that this activity will be sustained, even after

the completion of PEP.

Activity 3.3: Enhance Inter-ministerial Collaboration in the area of HR management, in

particular with cabinet Office and MoFNP

For performance effectiveness, there is need for ministries concerned with serving various

stakeholders to work in harmony and synergistic modus operandi. From the one-on-one

interviews, it was noted that a level of collaboration exists as explained below:

i. The HR department is working towards integrating PMEC and HRIS with a view to

improving on employee data storage and retrieval. The staff that were trained on IFMIS

have been re-trained on this integration. There has been inter-ministerial collaboration

between the cabinet office and MAL in the sense that currently the cabinet office is

helping MAL in the development of the HRIS.

ii. The department of Food and Nutrition in MAL works in collaboration with the Ministries

of Health and Community Development to address matters on nutrition, malnutrition,

health, balanced diet. The department of Food and Nutrition also works together with

research institutions more particularly on the latest programmes of fortified foods.

iii. There is a positive link between PSMD and the HR secretariat. This is clearly noted

especially during recruitment where HR would recruit lower positions and PSMD recruits

senior positions.

iv. Management Development Division of Cabinet Office facilitated the updating of the

strategic plan and will facilitate the organisational review.

Activity 3.4: Improve Planning and Management of Agricultural Education and Training

Institutions.

MAL has in its mandate training programmes implemented through Agricultural Training

Institutions (ATIs). The overall objective of this intervention is to provide critical mass of

suitably and adequately trained human resource base for both the public and private agricultural

sectors. It is envisaged that such quality human capital will strategically contribute to agricultural

production and productivity in Zambia.

18

Final Programme for Induction Programme for newly recruited employees into the Public service and MAL



There are ten ATIs at which training is offered under the auspices of the MAL. Between

December 2013 and February 2014, a situation analysis was conducted on the ten colleges. This

included an assessment of the status of human, physical and fiscal resources at the disposal of the

institutions in carrying out their mandate; the type and scope of training programmes being

offered need to be assessed for their appropriateness and relevance; and the governance of the

institutes, as it creates an environment for the synergistic interactions among the various

components mentioned above and is important for efficient and effective training much needed

human capital.

The MTE team visited Monze College of Agriculture. It was noted that institutional policy

changes recommended in the past have received little attention and their implications are still

valid to date. The team observed that coordination of agricultural training was through two ATI

Coordinators at MAL, but given the diversity of the disciplines encompassing animal health,

nutrition, horticulture, agricultural marketing to general agriculture, in the college such support

cannot come from one office thus renders the support rather weak.

However the coordination of the ATIs needs to be housed in a special Directorate that would

oversee the entire training function on behalf of the MAL. This would improve the integrity of

training as a process.

It was noted that funding for the ATIs was mainly from government with donors contribution

being minimum. While most of the funds were from government, the disbursement was ‘erratic’,

untimely and always below the budgeted amounts. This has made the college find means of

generating additional funds through income generating activities (IGAs). PEP supported in the

purchase of a computer, a printer and a flip chart holder/white board. PEP also allows the

College to generate income by contracting it for the provision of the Supervisory Skills Training.

PEP also has plans to facilitate in curriculum development.

Activity 3.5: Develop and Improve ICT at all levels (including MACO & MLF Web-sites), by

establishing an ICT unit and developing an investment programme

ICT management and training

The employment of various Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools in any

organisation is critical for information sharing and flows between and among departments. In

sub-Saharan Africa, where agriculture is the main source of livelihood, information sharing on

new agricultural technologies, a crop and rain forecast, among other important aspects of

agriculture is important to achieve improved yields. One of the most effective tools and

platforms to share such information is through a functional website.

MAL engaged the EU’s support for PEP to renovate and upgrade its website. A functional MAL

website would significantly improve access to and visibility of MAL activities, services and

products. Stakeholders such as farmers, seed growers, agricultural research institutes, colleges

and investors can also easily access this information. Further, the website also provides a

platform for MAL research staff to share their findings. For example, this would be useful for

agricultural students conducting research and agricultural institutions formulating agricultural



policy. An upgraded MAL website is essential for achieving an agricultural sector which is

competitive and knowledge based.

The methods and approach employed in the upgrade and renovation of the MAL website

included a review of the MAL website which included, collecting information through

interviews, focus group discussions and surveys across MAL levels (Head Office, Provincial,

District, Block, and Camp). A Web Designer from Golden Greeza Media Consultants was

engaged to re-design the website with the support of key MAL stakeholders. This included

facilitating a Web Content Management training for officers from the National Agriculture

Information Services (NAIS) and developing a MAL Website training manual19

.

The existing ICT infrastructure in MAL was poorly developed, uncoordinated and operating sub-

optimally. At the Ministry there are approximately 250 computers, with around half of these

connected via a local area network to an email and internet server. However the email used to be

frequently down due to overload and there was no net-working. Under PEP, the internet

connectivity was improved and the MAL staff can communicate through internet. The MAL

currently owns a functioning website upon which documents are uploaded albeit with a lot of

difficulty. This was originally developed with support from ADSP, but was not regularly updated

or populated. PEP supported the re-design of the site, training of NAIS staff and is currently re-

locating the web servers from Zamtel to Mulungushi House, so that it can be regularly updated.

Security systems at Zamtel were so rigorous that NAIS staff failed to upload content.

Investment Programme

The agriculture sector is a fundamental part of development in Zambia. If MAL is to contribute

to the overarching goal of moving Zambia to a self-sustaining middle-income country, it needs to

leverage a strong ICT system that will significantly improve its agricultural information flows.

One of the strategic initiatives reflected in the ICT Strategy and Action Plan document (2013-

2015), developed with PEP support during the SUPE, was to assess the ICT needs and

requirements at all the MAL levels of operation, with the view to improve efficiency and

effectiveness of MAL service delivery to clients and stakeholders.

A robust, well maintained ICT infrastructure is a catalyst to transforming internal and external

communication systems. Appropriate ICT tools will equip MAL to have seamless information

flows necessary for responsiveness in addressing agricultural sector needs across the country.

An assessment of current ICT needs and requirements conducted via multiple methods; focus

group discussions, one-on-one interviews and surveys indicated constraints and challenges in the

availability and flow of information at various levels. Subsequently, there is need to invest in

ICT resources including equipment and human capacity at all MAL levels (Head Office,

Provincial, District, Block and Camp). Effective deployment of appropriate ICT technologies

will result in the improvement of the overall performance of the Ministry.

19

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL) Website Upgrade and Training Report, January 2013



Plans are underway to purchase ICT equipment, hardware, software and licenses. Such items will

include but not limited to;

1. ICT and Productivity Training

2. Laptop (Block Supervisor)

3. Basic Computer training (ICT)

4. Portable Solar Panel (for recharging devices)

5. Airtime- internet bundles (per month)

6. Anti-virus software

7. MS Office Software

8. MS Operating System

9. Third Party support services

10. Flash drives

11. External hard drive

However there is no management staff for the ICT.

Activity 3.6: Enhance Response to HIV/Aids

HIV/AIDS

Evidence points to the fact that, despite the down-ward trend in global HIV infections, Sub-

Saharan Africa (SSA) continues to bear the heaviest burden of the global total. At the end of

2009, for instance, SSA had 22.5 million people, or 67.5 per cent, living with the HIV virus

against the global total of 33.3 million (UNAIDS). Again, out of a total of 1.8 million people

who died of AIDS-related illnesses world-wide in 2009, 1.3 million, or 72 per cent, occurred in

SSA. This is in spite of the reduction in the rate of new annual HIV infections from 2.2 million

in 2001 to 1.8 million in 2009.

MAL is committed to realising the vision and goals outlined in its Agricultural Policy. In order

to achieve this, the ministry is analysing how human resources can be preserved from the

distressing impact of HIV and AIDS. Building on the principals and priorities of the National

HIV and AIDS Response Framework, this policy will serve as a guide to define the sector

operational activities and resource allocation towards HIV/AIDS. The policy has been reviewed

through nationwide consultations, informed by best evidence and driven by moral imperative to

achieve, apart from the above, a National access to HIV and AIDS prevention, treatment, care

and support. MAL is committed to leveraging existing partnerships with staff, communities and

National Champions to support the implementation of this policy (HIV and AIDS and Wellness

Workplace Policy for Agriculture Sector Final Draft, Feb 2014).

Under PE1, PEP supported the updating of the MAL's HIV/AIDS Workplace Policy 2011-2015.

This addressed prevention, testing, mitigation of stigmatisation and activities that reduce risks

based on risk assessment and impact assessment. These were printed and distributed to promote

a built -in response to the situation and ensure greater awareness. There was leadership

sensitisation on HIV/AIDS. Trainers were also trained. This programme potentially utilises the

Ministry's countrywide extension networks as a channel for HIV/AIDS sensitisation campaigns



Gender Activities

In the past three decades, gender inequality has been identified as a bottleneck for development

programs as it risks to isolate half of a population, women. It is a root cause for major

programmes to take a course of a blanket approach ignoring the diversified needs and interests of

women and men. This has significantly contributed for women’s disadvantaged position in most

growth indicators. The historical segregation of women roots and intertwines with tradition,

culture, and religion in most parts of the world. This put women compared to men in a

subordinate position and compromises their access to and control over major resources including

opportunities like education which definitely opens door to better life and progress in their future

endeavour (Gender Mainstreaming Guidelines and Checklists for Agricultural Sector (Final

Draft, February 2014 - prepared under PEP).

In Zambia the conventional gender role and socialisation ascribe a lower position for women that

make them subordinate to and dependent on males. This increases the vulnerability of women

and girls. Other factors that have contributed to gender inequality are stereotypes, patriarchal

structures, culture values, scarcity of resources, traditional family roles/responsibilities and low

education and literacy levels.

Addressing vulnerability of women and girls could contribute to improvements for human

development. The government of the Republic of Zambia has made efforts at the national level

to reduce women’s vulnerability. The Government had developed a National Gender Policy and

created an institution to guide the nation on gender and development, using a gender

mainstreaming strategy for making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an

integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and

programs in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit20

.

Gender affects the workforce at both government and farm levels. During the Start Up

Programme estimate (SUPE), a situation analysis was done regarding gender issues in MAL and

a strategy was proposed and an action plan developed1. In PE1 gender mainstreaming guidelines

were developed to promote gender equality, responsiveness, create ownership, alignment

harmonisation, mutual accountability and managing of results to ensure equality and equal

opportunity. Top leadership were sensitised. In PE2 a check list was developed and this is to be

used as a hand book on gender mainstreaming. It was further recommended to raise the profiles

of the cross-cutting themes by establishing high level committees composed of Directors, chaired

by the Permanent Secretary, sub-committees composed of specialists from different departments,

and committees at provincial and district levels and at the training institutions. In addition it was

recommended that Focal Points should be designated at all levels and that their job descriptions

should be formalised and included in the Annual Performance Appraisal System (APAS). At the

moment these arrangements have only been partially implemented.

20

National Gender Policy 2000



Conclusion on Result Area 3

A wide range of activities was implemented in this result area, of which some are a first step

towards a major improvement (e.g. ICT, Agricultural Strategy, trainings). It is imperative that

the MAL/PEP demonstrate that the subsequent actions are also following through, so that indeed

the MAL operations can become more efficient and transparent. Examples are the Functional

Review, the HR policy and right-sizing of staff, the implementation of the M&E system. If these

will be accomplished during the implementation period of PEP, these can be considered major

achievements.

3.6 Result Area 4: Monitoring and evaluation improved


Table 3.8 Indicators and activities of PEP Result Area 4: Monitoring and Evaluation improved Indicator Sources of verification Baseline Target

% of quarterly M&E reports

generated timely i.e. in line with

M&E system

M&E reports 0 75% (3 out of

4 quarters in

the last PEP

year)

M&E database system operational M&E reports N/A M&E database

fully

operational

Activities 4.1 Review and enhance the M&E System in coordination with IFAD/Finland support, notably by establishing a set of indicators for the sector, sub sectors and service delivery units, as well as developing data reporting systems and reporting formats


Under this result area two levels of M&E activities have been reported: support to the M&E

systems of MAL (in accordance with the PEP logical framework, and subdivided in two sub-

activities: M&E training at all levels and supporting the establishment of a Zambia SAKSS) and

the development of an M&E framework for PEP.

PEP M&E framework

The development of the M&E framework for PEP took place in PE1, when a short-term

consultant made some improvements to the programme’s logical framework and derived from it

a separate logical framework for the TA. Main changes compared to the original logical

framework were (i) consistency between the logframe and the text in the FA, (ii) improvements

in some indicators and (iii) the definition of targets.

PEP progress reports mention that the revised logical framework is now being used for planning,

monitoring and evaluating programme performance by programme managers (Imprest

Administrator, Imprest Accounting Officer and TA Team Leader), but there are no indications

that this is actually the case. The latest version shared with the mission was dated October 2013.



The baseline and/or targets of many of the indicators were still labelled “to be defined”. There is

no reporting against the indicators of the logical framework.21

It was also noted that some activities have been developed in the PEs that don’t really fit in the

LFM. It transpired that activities can just be suggested by MAL for funding through PEP,

regardless of the intervention logic of the Financing Agreement. The TA TL in such cases point

out to the flexibility phrase which is also in the FA. MAL obviously appreciates this kind of

flexibility, as it allows the ministry to use PEP funds to fill any funding gap of other

programmes. It makes, however, monitoring of activities and results against indicators in the

LFM, impossible.

M&E training at all levels

In PE1 PEP supported the completion of the M&E manual for MAL (MAL Monitoring and

Evaluation System, July 2013). The report was thereafter edited by Regional Strategic Analysis

and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS; MAL Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, April

2013). The M&E manual is now ready, with its tools and indicators. What remains to be done is

the training of M&E staff at different levels in data collection, entry, analysis and report

generation.

For staff training on M&E, PEP coordinates with IFAD’s (with Finish and Swedish funding)

SAPP (Smallholder Agribusiness Promotion programme). SAPP has scheduled to train

Provincial Planner as Trainers of Trainers (ToTs) in M&E. PEP has made provisions in PE2 to

finance training of District Agribusiness Directors by the Provincial Planners and the rolling out

of M&E systems to all levels as far as Blocks and Camps. The process is held up by the delay in

the recruitment by SAPP to train the ToTs.

Now that a common M&E framework is in place in MAL it remains a challenge to the ministry

to implement it as such. So far different departments and programmes have done their own,

isolated M&E (if at all). Now somebody must take responsibility to implement the

comprehensive system. This responsibility belongs in PPD, but so far there is not a dedicated

position in PPD to concentrate fully on M&E. Also the capacity to collect, analyse, disseminate

and use M&E data is not yet in place.

Establishment of a SAKSS node in MAL

In PE1 PEP supported a workshop by MAL, RESAKSS-SA and the Indaba Agriculture Policy

Research Institute (IAPRI) as part of the process to develop M&E tools. The requirements of the

SAKSS Annual Trends Report (ATR) were also incorporated).

3.7 Cross cutting issues, communication and visibility

HIV/AIDS and gender issues are incorporated in PEP, as described under Activity 3.6 above.

Activities around HIV/AIDS and gender progress slowly. Some consultancies have been done,

e.g. resulting in a gender checklist, but the checklist is not yet printed. Or to have a HIV/AIDS

policy, but the policy is not implemented. The gender focal point is operating rather in isolation. 21

TA Team leader states that the PEP logframe is reported on in each PE Final report



Of the funds budgeted by MAL for gender activities (MZW 567,000), only 25% was released to

date.

A PEP Communication and Visibility Plan was drafted in PE2. Stickers have been designed and

printed for the two project cars, which were delivered at the beginning of PE1, and for smaller

items such as training aids and computer equipment. To the MTE team PEP, or EU, was not

generally visible. The TA team has no office in MAL, so can’t indicate its presence. No

reference to PEP or EU was seen in the offices of PPD, or anywhere in the visited provinces and

districts.



4. Conclusions

4.1 Relevance

Support to the Agricultural Sector was and is still relevant. Important strategic documents, such

as Vision 2030 and the FNDP, the 9th

and 10th

EDF CSP, all highlight the importance of this

sector. The SNDP (2011-2015), developed during the implementation period of PEP, features the

theme ‘’Sustained economic growth and reduced poverty” and agriculture has been identified as

the main priority sector in achieving both economic growth and reduced poverty.

Poverty amongst the rural population is high at 77%, with a stunting prevalence of 45% - of

which 21% severe. Food insecurity stands at 42%, with the average number of months without

food being 3.2 months22. The NAIP 2014-2019 attributes this high levels of poverty and food

insecurity the following factors:

The small size of the holdings (73% of all small-scale households cultivates less than 2

ha of crops), caused by both labour and capital constraints, and, increasingly, limited

availability of land

Low yields, which are significantly below global averages

Inability to take full advantage of government support measures in input supply and

marketing

Programmes funded by the EU in the Agricultural sector prior to 2009 had indicated that MAL

(at that time still MACO) was facing “serious limitations with regard to its ability to fully assume

leadership of the sector as well as to deliver quality extension services to the farmers”23. This

observation formed the basis for the design of the current PEP programme.

The (draft) Strategic Plan 2014-2016 for MAL that was prepared in 2013 identifies the following

weaknesses of MAL: (i) Weak Human Resources Management, (ii) Weak synergies between

departments, (iii) Limited use and application of ICTs and, (iv) Fragmented M&E system. All

four areas are currently addressed by PEP, which illustrates its continued relevance till date.

The environment in which the MAL operates is indeed continuously changing, for instance the

most recent policy documents (NAP, draft Dec 2013; the Strategic Plan, 2013) demonstrate a

strategic move towards a facilitating and regulating government, with an increasing role to play

for the private sector. The recent establishment of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) secretariat in

the office of the Vice-President is a result of the growing realisation that Food and Nutrition

Security (FNS) cannot be attained by increasing productivity alone. This concept still needs to

be fully adopted by MAL, which will include changes in attitudes and practice.

A programme to support MAL into developing into a more flexible and open-minded

organisation is therefore certainly useful. This was also confirmed by the MAL Permanent

Secretary and CMT members.

22

National Agriculture Investment Plan 2014-2018, CAADP, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, GRZ 23

Action Fiche Support to the Agricultural Sector Performance Enhancement Programme, 2009



At the same time, it should be recognised that if a major expected outcome is to reduce poverty

and improve food and nutrition security of rural households, all efforts should concentrate on

creating an enabling environment in which the smallholder can improve productivity and engage

in income generating activities. Improved GRZ extension services may only constitute a small

factor in the smallholders’ decision making process and other factors may be more important

(availability of affordable inputs, access to market, land). Indeed, the MAL budget allocations to

FISP and FRA suggest that these factors are already considered more important by the Zambian

Government.

Shortcomings were encountered in the intervention logic. As described in Section 3.2 this

problem stems already from the problem analysis at the conception stage of the programme. The

Programme Purpose and Results are not well defined. Some of these shortcomings were reported

by two ROM missions prior to the MTE, but were not adequately addressed. As a result PEP

after more than three years of implementation doesn’t have an functional LFM and indicators are

not up to standard, or not measured, to allow monitoring and evaluation. Activities in PEs are not

always planned in the context of the programme logic, resulting in isolated actions, not

contributing to the programme purpose.

Another challenge concerns the overall change process, which is supposed to form the basis of

the programme. Result 1 of PEP serves to support the change process in MAL. For the analysis

of the change process reference is made to Annex 5, which summarises the logical steps in a

typical change process. Looking at the model, steps 1 and 2 were made in PEP: there is

awareness about the need for change (to improve MAL services) and a CMT was set up to

manage the change process. Then various activities are being implemented, but this is step 5 of

the model. Step 3 (development of a vision & short term targets) and step 4 (communicate the

vision/targets) were not made, which results in activities not automatically contributing to the

desired situation.

Cross-cutting issues, like HIV/AIDS and gender are incorporated in PEP in the form of two

specific activities. They are not mainstreamed in all activities of PEP, e.g. in the selection of

beneficiaries.

Conclusions on relevance:

• PEP was and is a relevant programme in the sector and policy context of Zambia

• The design of PEP shows shortcomings in terms of intervention logic and indicators

• There are no suitable indicators to measure achievement outputs and Programme Purpose

• Although poverty alleviation is explicit in GRZ and EU policies, PEP does not

specifically target poorest



4.2 Efficiency

After serious delays in programme implementation, at least in SUPE and PE1, the list of outputs

achieved has been growing in the course of PE2. Main achievements can be listed as follows:

• Leadership, Management and Supervisory Training;

• Strengthening of extension co-ordination; extension harmonisation guidelines completed;

extension strategy almost complete;

• Updating of farmer register updated in 26 districts and piloting of a computerised process;

• New Strategic Plan developed;

• Development of MAL Planning and Budgeting Guidelines;

• IFMIS training facilitated;

• The clearing of personal emoluments for 300 retired staff;

• Human resource management training for Senior/Executive Officers;

• The development of a Human Resource Information System;

• An induction training programme developed and piloted;

• Training needs assessment to identify priority in-service training needs; management

training for all senior agricultural officers; management training for all FTI principals;

• Website up-graded, email system up-grade under way;

• HIV & AIDS Wellness and Workplace Policy developed;

• Gender Mainstreaming Guidelines developed;

• MAL M&E manual completed;

• Support for the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) Annual Trends

Report (ATR)

Generally these activities have been well implemented, to the satisfaction of direct beneficiaries

and within the budget. However, as described in the section above, the poor application of the

LFM makes this a list of largely isolated activities, of which the contribution to the higher level

results and purpose cannot be assessed. It is also observed that some of the activities which

should target the provincial and district levels have not yet been implemented.

The PEs serve as the main planning instrument and these reflect the outcome of multi-day

planning workshops. As the PEs are originally financing instruments, the emphasis is on

activities and budget lines. The multi-day planning workshops were not sufficiently used to

revise progress against the result areas and did not result in the identification of appropriate

progress indicators against the upcoming work plan.

The absence of a logical sequence of activities results in lists of unstructured and often unrelated

activities, illogically combined under one expected result. As a consequence, implementation is

very activity- and not result-oriented. Due to the absence of key milestones or key progress

indicators, assessment of the actual use of the provided resources can therefore not sufficiently

be monitored.

It was observed that the programme did display great flexibility in altering or revising activities

once a new need materialised. A certain amount of flexibility is generally commendable,

however, in the case of PEP it has also led to a loss of identity and is sometimes considered as an



additional pool of funds for MAL and the PEs as a “menu” from which can be picked and

chosen.

The programme has suffered serious delays, especially during the start-up phase, which had to be

remedied by two Riders to the FA.

The PEs are quite long and very descriptive. For instance PE2 contains 13 pages of context and

the budget is extremely detailed, up to the specific DSA for two drivers from a certain district.

This appears to be a not very efficient use of the TAs time. It would be better to limit for instance

the context to the changes in context that have developed since the previous PE. The very

detailed budget suggests a sense of accuracy that does not really exist; for instance, the ICT

equipment as is mentioned in the PE2 does not correspond with what will be procured. This is

not contrary to EU rules and regulations, because these allow flexibility under the main budget

headings.

Payment of Outstanding Personal Emoluments

The payment of outstanding personal emoluments constitutes a large part of the programme

budget. A detailed description of the efficiency of disbursement and the accomplishment of the

desired outputs is provided in Section 3.5 (Activity 3.1). Although the activity was implemented

in an efficient way, given the challenges of MAL’s HRMS, the activity as such is not regarded

appropriate (payment of government staff emoluments) nor efficient (not leading to the expected

result).

Procurement of equipment

Serious delays have occurred with the procurement of equipment, such as the two vehicles for

the TA (more than 16 months). At the time of the present MTE, several tenders were still

outstanding for different lots (extension officer kits, research equipment, computers and laptops).

It is not clear whether the items will arrive sufficiently in time to be able to provide the

accompanying training courses or to monitor the achieved benefits (e.g. from lab equipment).

Extension manuals and guidelines

The JICA funded RESCAP programme supports MAL in the area of extension. The philosophy

behind the programme is that only TA is provided and that all other expenditures will have to be

borne by MAL, in order to create ownership and sustainability. PEP has been working closely

together with RESCAP and has provided funds for the RESCAP organised training activities.

PEP has also provided funding for the printing of the General Operational Guidelines for

Agricultural Service Providers. These Guidelines will be used to harmonise extension messages

by both private and GRZ entities.

Communication between the different actors

It is evident that the TA and the PSU are very diligent and committed to PEP. The efforts of the

TA staff are appreciated by MAL and good working relationships have been established. During

the revision of the LFM, a separate LFM was prepared for the TA, for reporting and monitoring

purposes. This is unusual and demonstrates rather how the TA is not considered as an integral



part of the MAL.24

At the same time, it was observed that the TA performs tasks and duties that

go well beyond that what would normally be expected of Technical Assistance.

The management structure of the programme is not following the prescriptions of the Financing

Agreement. PEP reports repeatedly refer to the heavy workload of MAL senior staff, which

prevents a more regular engagement of CMT and PSC. This affects the efficiency of the

programme and contributes to the delegation of many task to the TA, which should be done by

MAL.

The EC Delegation has been actively monitoring the programme and is closely following its

accomplishments. Whereas the positive attitude and the willingness to contribute to the success

of the programme are commendable, a more detached involvement might have led to a stronger

focus on results and key-progress indicators. Accordingly, more emphasis should have been

placed on the recommendations of the ROM missions.

Conclusions on efficiency:

• After serious delays in SUPE and PE1 the programme has gained more momentum

• A good number of activities are completed with good quality output

• Reporting and financial management are up to standards

• Involvement of MAL senior staff is not as intensive as would be expected

• Implementation is activity- and not result-oriented

• Monitoring of implementation is hampered by poor logical framework and indicators; the

LFM is not used for management

• Activities involving decentralised implementation are delayed

4.3 Effectiveness

According to the 2006 Methodological bases for Evaluation of External Assistance, the

definition of effectiveness is “the extent to which the development intervention's objectives were

achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance”. It was

argued in earlier sections of this report that the weakness of the logical framework, together with

the definition of activities outside the programme logic, resulted in a break of logic between

activities, results and objectives. In conjunction with the absence of SMART indicators, it

becomes impossible to ascertain to what extent the activities will lead to the achievement of the

objectives. Here the effectiveness of some of the larger of the components is described.

Training programmes

Many training programmes and training courses have been provided by the programme at very

different levels of the Ministry. No entry tests were done nor other data collected to determine

the pre-test situation. At the end of a training, a general evaluation was done on the overall

impression of the provided course, but again no actual tests were taken. At result level, no

suitable indicators have been provided to measure to what extent the provided training was

24

TA Team Leader points out that this also reflects the fact that the TA service contract and PEs have separate

reporting arrangements. In the TA reports they are required to demonstrate how they have contributed to programme

implementation.



indeed effective (% of staff trained is not an outcome oriented indicator!). It is unfortunate that

no more efforts were made to capture the changes induced by the training courses because the

anecdotal reports are generally positive.

Farmer Register

As described in Section 3.4 a comprehensive exercise was done to register farmers in 26

districts. CEOs collected information on all farmers in their camp, often as many as 5,000. The

data on paper questionnaires was inserted by the CEO in an Excel database file. The register may

result in enhanced planning of the work by the CEO- but this will depend much on the initiative

of the individual CEO. The register’s main expected benefits are expected to be in the area of the

FISP programme, whose difficulties in targeting the intended smallholders are generally known

and even mentioned in the CAADP NAIP. GRZ/MAL has been intending to implement e-

voucher and other digital schemes, which would allow for much better targeting and monitoring

of input distribution. No decision has yet been made on the most suitable methodology to apply,

but it is certain that a digital, mobile solution will be used.

At that time, the Excel database with the Farmers Register is most likely to be obsolete and a

whole new digital Farmers Register will have to be collected including ID card numbers and/or

fingers prints. Even though it is acknowledged that GRZ has delayed the implementation of the

e-voucher for various reasons, it still seems likely that the money spent on the Farmers Register

by PEP will prove to be a not a very cost-effective investment.

In the meantime, the Excel-based paper register may well have a positive effect on the

identification of the deserving FISP beneficiaries, but PEP has not put any system in place (yet)

to measure this effect.

Strengthening Regional Research Stations and Institutions

During PE2, equipment will be purchased and delivered to several research stations and

institutes: the Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), the Seed Control and Certification

Institute (SCCI) and the Livestock Department. The rationale is described as follows: “In line

with the modern role of MAL in providing an enabling environment for private sector led

agricultural development, the ministry has an important role in providing independent analytical

services to producers, distributors and farmers for seeds, fertilisers, livestock feeds and soils.

These include germination testing, soil analysis, feeds analysis and fertiliser nutrient analysis and

these services need to be made available throughout the country.”

This statement appears rather contradicting; is the equipment needed to allow the government to

improve its role as a regulating and facilitating body? Or is it needed for the government to

provide (indirectly subsidised) services that will compete with and therefore hamper private

sector development?25

Nevertheless, it appears that in any case the equipment will be effective in allowing the

government to assume its regulatory role (e.g. by ensuring the feed or fertiliser is according to

the provided specs).

25

TA Team Leader sees no conflict as independent labs are not generally available in Zambia, so the government

needs to provide impartial services to supplement private sector ones



It seems unlikely that the provision of these services will help the institutions to gain financial

self-sufficiency as all revenues earned have to be lodged on the government account.

Payment of Personal Emoluments

PEP provided the funds for the payment of the outstanding Personal Emoluments for retired or

dismissed staff in Southern and part of Eastern Province up to 2011 (see also Section 3.5,

Activity 3.1). The assumption that the payment of these emoluments would lead to an increase in

recruitment of new staff, proved incorrect. The recruitment procedures are not related to the

payment of the final emoluments, but occur as soon as the position is registered as free (unless

there is a freeze on recruitment as is currently the case, or other budgetary restrictions apply).

The main positive effect of the emolument payments was the fact that the retirees would leave

their government houses, which they were occupying until outstanding dues were paid. This

means that the newly recruited staff could now move to the house corresponding to their

occupation. This positive effect was most prominent at the research stations, where previous

directors were blocking the flow. In other instances even vacating the house did not solve the

problem completely because no money was available to repair the, often dilapidated, house. This

is especially the case for CEOs, whose camp houses generally require significant maintenance

work prior to the arrival of a new tenant. Another (but again anecdotal!) benefit was that the

supervising MAL staff was able to work more efficiently, once they were no longer harassed by

the retirees for their payments.

4.4 Impact

Considering the variety of actions that PEP has provided to MAL, it seems likely that there will

be a small positive impact of PEP on the Overall Objective of The Agriculture sector contributes

to growth and poverty reduction in Zambia”.

It can be assumed (but not ascertained) that indeed the different training courses have imparted at

all levels the relevance of the CAADP process. Whether the poverty agenda has been fully taken

on board seems doubtful, as this was not part of the training programmes. Nevertheless, it can

also be assumed that better equipped and better trained CEOs will provide better extension

services; whether they do indeed include those living in extreme poverty seems less likely.

The third OO indicator of a reduction in FISP and FRA subsidies is curious as this would only be

a very indirect impact of the programme. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that FISP and FRA

are badly executed but these types of programmes are not always harmful (in Malawi, the EU is

a major donor in the subsidy programme).

4.5 Sustainability

On sustainability, one checks whether programme activities will continue to give results after its

phase out. This means there must be mechanisms in place to enhance its continuity.

Sustainability of PEP´s potential effects in the long terms depends on whether there are support

structures and systems to achieve full ownership by MAL and whether this ownership will

cascade to the province, district, block and levels. This also depends on whether the PEP will be

able to provide an effective contribution to the sector development, which is a factor that does

not seem to have been realised, especially due to the slow pace. Sustainability also strongly



depends on the political will. Another key consideration here is also whether MAL will fully

embrace modernisation and 'new ways of doing business'.

Institutional ownership and sustainability

At the PEP's inception there were insufficient group meetings with directors and CMT meetings.

This led to delays in decision making on priority activities for the SUPE. During PE1 and now

PE2 the situation has improved, but it is more of coordination meetings rather than championing

the change. Of paramount importance is to develop mechanisms that will support the change

circle and have it institutionalised across all levels of MAL. These mechanisms are missing more

especially at the province, district, camp and block levels, so a deep sense of ownership is still

elusive.

Financial viability for target group

The programme is expected to help in improving the sector´s financial management and improve

budget execution, with considerable benefits to the overall financial efficiency. This has not been

the case so far. PEP also targeted to improve MAL's managerial acumen which would lead to

more efficient personnel cost administration. Currently, the workforce has been trained on IFMIS

but there is no supporting equipment for operationalising this process. Hence the financial

viability of MAL is still questionable.

Capacity building and networking of partners for sustainability

Capacity building is key to enhance activities that are more related with achieving the OO of

PEP, including but not limited to research and development, food security and nutrition, fishing,

crop and livestock marketing, technology, infrastructure, improved extension services, soil

fertility management and enhancement and irrigation. Donor interventions on agriculture have

tended to focus on building capacity within public sector bodies, while, according to EU studies,

more could be done to strengthen demand for improved policy, and to create opportunities as

mentioned above for interaction between stakeholders in government and the private sector.

Strengthening and capacitating MAL should, therefore, be seen as part of a broader agricultural

sector development process.

Equipment

Large tenders for equipment are currently still outstanding and much equipment will be procured

before the end of the programme. It is imperative that MAL allocates sufficient budget for

maintenance and operation of this equipment. Considering the rather erratic MAL disbursements

in the past, this could constitute a risk that threatens the sustainable use of the hardware.

GRZ contribution

The FA specifies that the GRZ is not expected to contribute any funding. This is usually not

conducive to creation of ownership or the responsible use of funding. In the case of the Farmers’

Register, a considerable amount of funding has been consumed to collect data according to a

methodology of which is already certain that this will not be replicated. The paper questionnaires

had to be manually inserted in locally available ICT equipment. In certain cases, the CEOs felt

obliged to use their own laptops. However, this problem will be resolved soon, once the ICT

tender has been finalised and delivered.



The Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI)

The Seed Control and Certification Institute constitutes a good example of how a government

institution can be contributing to the creation of an enabling environment for private sector

development whilst at the same time providing a regulatory and legislative framework that will

protect the farming community from irregular practices. The Institute is international accredited

and has been creating such a conducive environment that the seed sector is thriving in Zambia,

attracting international seed companies. The institute has always been able to generate a

significant part of its own resources, collected from fees and licences, but since recently, these

revenues all have to be deposited in the General Budget.



5. Recommendations

The specific objective of the MTE according to the ToR was to “provide recommendations for

any required change/modification to project scope (including objectives, management

arrangements, financing, etc.) in order to support effective implementation and the attainment of

the expected results by the end of the project. It should be noted that the MTE came at a rather

late stage of programme implementation, with the programme well in the implementation of its

second and last PE and with less than one year remaining.

The global objective of the assignment also pointed to the follow-up programme, as the MTE

was “to ensure that this informs the design of the forthcoming "Enhanced Capacity of the

Ministry of Agriculture for Better Service Delivery to Farmers" project.”

5.1 Recommendations for the remaining lifetime of PEP

a) It should be recognised that some of the expected results are composed of two separate

results. It is recommended that a separate LFM is drafted for each separate result area,

including an implementation path with key progress indicators. This is expected to assist the

programme in identifying its direction and will also allow better assessment of the

effectiveness of the separate activities.

b) It is further recommended that the CMT of PEP articulates precisely what the desired change

is that the programme aims to entail. It is probably enhanced service delivery (which figures

currently in the results) and the programme should identify suitable indicators to assess how

and whether the activities performed under each component do lead to enhanced service

delivery and how this will contribute to improved productivity and enhanced food and

nutrition security for smallholder producers.

c) It is further recommend the entire CMT team is trained in Project Cycle Management (PCM).

This is the recommended approach for programmes implemented with EU funding.

Furthermore, this MTE has concluded that a better understanding of PCM principles would

have benefitted both implementation as well as capturing effectiveness and impact of the

activities.

d) It is further recommended that the concerned research stations and institutions demonstrate

what benefits will be received from procured items. GRZ/MAL should commit to allowing a

certain degree of independence, allowing the institutions a certain degree of autonomy.

e) It is further recommended that the CMT team demonstrates a more pro-active attitude and

takes full responsibility for the actions that concern their own particular area. The Technical

Assistance team should be allowed to concentrate more on the provision of technical

assistance and less on actual implementation.

f) Several proposed activities and outputs are still in the early stages of implementation (M&E

system, Functional Review, Enhanced planning, ICT operational). It is recommended that

these are critically studied and that an assessment is made of the feasibility that these will



indeed be accomplished before the end of the programme. Possible adjustments or

accompanying measures will have to be defined.

5.2 Recommendations for the 11th EDF follow-up programme

a) The MTE has acknowledged a good number of achievements of PEP, and more are still

expected in the remaining year. It is recommended that the follow-up programme builds on

these achievements where possible and to learn lessons from them where appropriate, for

example:

Build on the leadership, management and supervisory training, but ensure the managers

at different levels develop a common understanding of the overall change process;

Build on the experience of extension harmonisation;

Make use of farmer registers to better target interventions;

Assist in the implementation of the Strategic Plan;

Continue training of staff, but with clear reference to the programme purpose and

objective, and with systems in place to measure effectiveness;

Continue with the rolling out of ICT systems at all levels of the ministry;

Apply the policy and guidelines that were developed in HIV/AIDS and gender, to

genuinely mainstream these cross-cutting issues in the programme;

Support the implementation of the MAL M&E manual that PEP made possible;

b) It is further recommended that the new programme is based on a solid intervention logic,

which is finalised in the earliest stages of implementation, with all major stakeholders

involved. The logical framework is to be used as a tool for M&E of the programme, ensuring

a consistent, well-targeted programme.

c) It is further recommend that SMART indicators are developed as part of the logical

framework, with baseline and target values.

d) It is further recommended that the new programme adopts a strong focus on poverty, actively

targeting poor rural households and measuring impact at household level.

e) It is further recommended that the new programme commits more attention to

implementation at province and district level (inlc. block and camp). For maximum impact it

is recommended to concentrate certain activities in one or two provinces. Lessons from these

provinces can be applied throughout the country.



Annexes



Annex 1 Terms of Reference

To be inserted



Annex 2 Itinerary: people and institutions consulted

Date Activity/Institution Name and designation

Monday 18

August

Briefing at EUD Gilles Hervio, Head of Delegation

Aad Biesebroek, Head of Cooperation

Kirsi Pekuri, Head of Section

James McNulty, Result Adviser

Briefing at NAO Temwani Chihana, EDF Coordinator

Timothy Nyirenda, NAO Programme Officer

Eleonor Phiri Ngwira, Accounting Officer

Kondwani Gondwe, MAL, PPD

Jim Parker, TA Team Leader

Kirsi Pekuri, EUD, Head of Section

James McNulty, EUD, Result Adviser

Briefing at PSU Jim Parker, TA Team Leader


Tuesday 19

August

Meeting at EUD,

Finance and

Contracts

Christian Creusen, Head of Section F&C

Nathalie Dekeyser, Audit Task Manager

Meeting at EUD,

Economics, Private

Sector and Rural

Development


Meeting at PSU Jim Parker, TA Team Leader

Bursch Nketani, Human Resource Adviser

Meeting at MAL Julius Joseph Shawa, Permanent Secretary

Emma Malawo, Director PPD

Derrick Sikombe, Chief Agricultural Economist

Kondwani Gondwe, PPD



Kirsi Pekuri, EUD, Head of Section


Wednesday

20 August

Meetings at PSU Jim Parker, TA Team Leader


Kanyifa Mvula, Programme Accountant

Esther Sikazwe, Administration Officer

Meeting with MAL Julius Joseph Shawa, Permanent Secretary




– CMT Emma Malawo, Director PPD

Moses Mwale, Director ZARI

Catherine Mungoma, Director SCCI

Patrick Ngalande, Director Fisheries

Benson Mwenya, Director Livestock

Joseph Mubanga, Director Veterinary Services

Jane Phiri, Ag. Director HRA

Shadreck Mungalaba, Ag. Director Coops

Kezia Katyamba, Ag. Director ABM

Charles Sondashi, Deputy Director DOA


Kondwani Gondwe, PPD

Chimbala Yo Yo, PPD


Thursday 21

August

Meetings at MAL Emma Malawo, Director PPD

Peter Kunda, PPD

Cosmore Mwaanga, PPD


Lois Mulube, HRA

Remmy Chibiya, HRA

Christine C. Yamba Yamba, Deputy Director

Livestock

Charles Sondashi, Deputy Director, DOA

Joseph Mubanga, Director Veterinary Services

Meeting at EUD Kirsi Pekuri, Head of Section


Andrew Zulu, Administration

Preparation of draft

inception report

Friday 22

August

Meetings at MAL Shadreck Mungalaba, Ag. Director Coops

Kezia Katyamba, Ag. Director ABM


Meeting at SCCI Catherine Mungoma, Director SCCI

Meeting at ZARI Monde Siyandwa Zulu, Deputy Director ZARI

Discussion of draft

inception report

Aad Biesebroek, Head of Cooperation






Meeting with

RESCAP

Masayoshi Ono, Chief Adviser

Hirohiko Asada, Coordinator Training Management

Sunday 24

August

Travel to Choma,

Southern Province

Monday 25

August

Meetings at

Provincial

Agricultural Office

Adreen Nansungwe, PACO

Charles Masoka, PVO

Charity Chabaya, Executive Officer

Brian Musunda, Ag. HRMO

Zandonda Tembo, Ag. Senior Marketing Officer

Jane Nambela, Seed Analyst

George Njobvu, Controller NAIS

Max Choombe, DACO Kalomo

Goliath Chooye, Ag. DACO Choma

Meetings at Choma

District Agricultural

Office

Goliath Chooye, Ag. DACO Choma

Banda Fundi, Senior Agriculture Officer

Gwen Miyoba, Agr. Assistant Siakacheka Camp

Brian Musunda, Ag. HRMO

Seed Co Manager local branch with SCCI officer

Visit maize purchase

point

2 FRA purchase officer, with DACO marketing officer

Members Choma Farmers Coop

Tuesday 26

August

Meeting at Kalomo

District Agricultural

Office

Max Choombe, DACO Kaloma

Moses Mumba, Ag. SAO

Aaron Phiri, Mechanisation Officer

Visit Malindi Camp Roy Chinda, Agr. Assistant Malindi Camp

Ms Sakrina, Ms Jeanette, women farmers

Beauty Hamalambo, woman farmer

Mr & Mrs Boyd Mweemba, farmers

Visit Choonga Camp Mildred Meandasioni, Agr. Assistant Choonga Camp

Mr & Mrs Bernhard Hakalima, farmers

Visit Kaloma

Farmers Training

Centre

Meeting at Zambia

Farmers Union

Hamish Ross, Vice Chairman




Chonga

Wednesday

27 August

Visit Zambia

College of

Agriculture, Monze

Likando Muyatwa, HoD Agro economics and RD

Anna Mwansa, Training Officer

Emily Mwananyau, Accountant

Visit Zambia

Institute of Animal

Health, Mazabuka

Travel to Lusaka

Thursday 28

August

Meetings at MAL Kondwani Gondwe, PPD

Nancy Chela, Chief Nutritionist

Karen Chenda Mukuka, Chief Food and Nutrition

Officer (MAL)

Andrew Mumo, Project Officer, Dept of Agriculture

Meeting at PSU Jim Parker, TA Team Leader

Meeting at Embassy

of Finland

Nachili Kaira, Sector Adviser Agriculture and RD

Friday 29

August

Attend M&E Donor

Coordination

Meeting



No more members showed up so the meeting did not

take place

Meetings at MAL Charles Sondashi, Deputy Director, DOA


Meeting with TA TL Jim Parker, TA Team Leader

Meeting with

RESCAP

Masayoshi Ono, Chief Adviser

Hirohiko Asada, Coordinator Training Management

Goichi Sasaki, Agricultural Extension Adviser

Saturday 30

August

Drafting MTE report

Sunday 31

August

Drafting MTE report

Monday 1

September

Meeting at VP’s

office, MDD

Abdu Sakala, Director Performance Systems

Tuesday 2

September

Drafting MTR &

presentation

Wednesday 3 Recap meeting at Aad Biesebroek, Head of Cooperation




September EUD Kirsi Pekuri, Head of Section

Marion Michaud, Agr. and Rural Development

Advisor


Nicholas Chikwenya, Deputy Director PPD





Annex 3 Documentation consulted

Revised Sixth National Development Plan (R-SNDP) 2013-2016

National Agriculture Policy (NAP) 2004 – 2015 currently under review

Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme - Zambia Compact

National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) 2014-2018

Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, 2013-2016

Project Identification Fiche “Enhanced Capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture for Better

Service Delivery to Farmers Project”, April 2014 and annexes and conclusions of QSG of

22 May 2014

Financing Agreement (FED/2010/022-057), Start Up Programme Estimate and

Programme Estimates no. 1 and 2 and related progress and financial reports

Project deliverables including thematic studies, training materials, policy briefs, etc.

Results-Oriented Monitoring Reports and Background Conclusions Sheets, 2012 and

2013

“Participatory Review of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives Performance

[...]", including an "Assessment of Current MACO Capacity, Capacity Development

Needs and Challenges" and a "Strategy and Roadmap for a Performance Enhancement

Programme in MACO/GRZ", Cardno Agrisystems Ltd, July 2009

General Operational Guidelines for Agricultural Extension Service Providers

MAL Performance Enhancement Programme; Needs Review, January 2012

Report on the Assessment of small-scale farmers’ perception on the farmer input support

programme (FISP) reforms, MAL Policy and Planning Department, May 2014

How can the Zambian Government Improve the targeting of the farmer input support

programme? IAPRI Policy Brief, nr 59, Rhoda Mofya-Mukuka et al

Can the FISP more actively achieve food production and poverty reduction goals?

William Burke et all, Food Security Research Project, Zambia, March 2012



Annex 4 Key evaluation questions

Below are presented key questions that were used to guide the evaluation process.

Relevance

1.1 What is the present level of relevance of the PEP?

1.2 As presently designed, is the intervention logic still valid?

1.3 Is the current design sufficiently supported by all stakeholders?

1.4 Is the current design sufficiently taking cross-cutting issues into account?

Efficiency of implementation

2.1 How well is the availability/usage of means/inputs managed?

2.2 How well is the implementation of activities managed?

2.3 How well are outputs achieved?

2.4 How well is the Partner Contribution/Involvement working?

2.5 What M&E mechanisms are in place? Are M&E results used to improve effective

implementation? Are PCM practices adhered to?

Effectiveness of the programme

3.1 How well is the project achieving its planned results?

3.2 As presently implemented what is the likelihood of the PP to be achieved?

Impact

4.1 What are the direct impact prospects of the project at Overall Objectives level?

4.2 To what extent does/will the project have any indirect positive and/or negative impacts?

Potential Sustainability

5.1 Will MAL be able at the end of the programme to sustain the systems and mechanisms of the

programme from its own resources, or are there other sources of funding available?

5.2 What is the level of ownership of the project by target groups and will it continue after the

end of external support?

5.3 What is the level of policy support provided and the degree of interaction between project

and policy level?

5.4 How well is the project contributing to institutional and management capacity?

Cross-cutting Issues

6.1 Have practical and strategic gender interests been adequately considered in the project

strategy?

6.2 Is the project respecting environmental needs?



Annex 5 Reference model of Change Management

To begin any successful change process, first there is need to start by understanding why the

change must take place , which involves breaking down the existing status quo before you can

build up a new way of operating . "Motivation for change must be generated before change can

occur." Develop a compelling message showing why the existing way of doing things cannot

continue. Change by its very nature require a shift into some better modus operandi.

This is easiest to frame when one can point to insufficient service delivery and low capacity

levels that influence the public image. To prepare the organisation successfully, one needs to

start at its core -there is need to challenge the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviours that

currently define it (culture). When you start cutting down the "way things are done", you put

everyone and everything off balance. Strong reactions in people may be evoked, and that's

exactly what needs to be done for change to happen.

By looking at change as process with distinct stages, one can prepare for what is coming and

make a plan to manage the transition. Suggested below is a ten steps change model for

effectively leading change:

Change Management Model

(1) Create a Need /Urgency for change

(9) Anchor the change

(8) Build on the change

(7)Create short wins

(6) Remove obstacles/ Enhance change enablers

(4)Communicate the vision/targets

(3) Develop a vision& short term targets

(2)Build a Team/ Coalition

(5) Activities that support the vision / targets

Changing /Shifting / Moving from state to another

M&E M&E



Step 1: Create Urgency for change

For change to happen, it helps if the whole organisation really wants it. Develop a sense of

urgency around the need for change. This may help you spark the initial motivation to get things

moving. Open an honest, dynamic and convincing dialogue about what's happening and what

your customers expect so as to get people thinking and talking about change.

Step 2: Form a Powerful Team/Coalition

Through strong leadership and visible support from key people within your organisation,

convince people that change is necessary. Managing change isn't enough – it needs to be led. To

lead change, bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a

variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance (different

departments and stakeholders).

Once formed, your "change coalition" needs to work as a team, continuing to build urgency and

momentum around the need for change. They champion change, they are change agents.

Step 3: Develop a Vision for Change

When you first start thinking about change, there will probably be many great ideas and solutions

floating around. Link these concepts to an overall vision that people can grasp easily and

remember. A clear vision can help everyone understand why you're asking them to do

something. When people see for themselves what you're trying to achieve, then the directives

(short term targets) they're given tend to make more sense.

Step 4: Communicate the Vision

What you do with your vision after you create it will determine your success. You need

to communicate it frequently and powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do. Don't

just call special meetings to communicate your vision. Instead, talk about it every chance you

get. Use the vision daily to make decisions and solve problems. When you keep it fresh on

everyone's minds, they'll remember it and respond to it. "Walk the talk." Demonstrate the kind of

behaviour that you want from others. Lead by example.

Step 5: Actvities that support the Vision

Based on the result areas, carry out activities that are in line with the vision and the short term

targets. Reposition and channel all the actions, energy and efforts towards achieving the vision.

Step 6: Remove Obstacles

Hopefully, your staff wants to get busy and achieve the benefits that you've been promoting. But

is anyone resisting the change? And are there processes or structures that are getting in its way?

Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it. Removing obstacles



can empower the people you need to execute your vision, and it can help the change move

forward.

Step 7: Create Short-Term Wins

Nothing motivates more than success. Give your organisation a taste of victory early in the

change process. Within a short time frame (4months or a year, depending on the type of change),

you'll want to have some "quick wins” that your staff can see. Without this, critics and negative

thinkers might hurt your progress.

Create short-term targets – not just one long-term goal. You want each smaller target to be

achievable, with little room for failure. Your change team may have to work very hard to come

up with these targets, but each "win" that you produce can further motivate the entire staff.

Step 8: Build on the Change

Real change runs deep. Quick wins are only the beginning of what needs to be done to achieve

long-term change. To reach that 10th success, you need to keep looking for improvements. Each

success provides an opportunity to build on what went right and identify what you can improve.

Step 9: Anchor the Changes in Organisational Corporate Culture

Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the core of your organisation. Your

corporate culture often determines what gets done, so the values behind your vision must show in

day-to-day work.

Make continuous efforts to ensure that the change is seen in every aspect of your organisation.

This will help give that change a solid place in your organisation's culture.

It's also important that your company's leaders continue to support the change. This includes

existing staff and new leaders who are brought in. If you lose the support of these people, you

might end up back where you started.

Step 10: Monitoring and Evaluation

For change to happen effectively, there is need to check each of the nine steps in terms of what is

planned for and what happens practically. Due adjustments are key to ensure effectiveness of

each step. At step 5, clear indicators will be used to assess effectiveness and impact.

mid-term evaluation of the "performance enhancement ... - eeas

Documents