Framework Contract Beneficiaries2013 Lot 1

European Union Delegation to Malawi

END-TERM REVIEW “SUPPORT TO IMPROVED NUTRITION STATUS

OF VULNERABLE GROUPS IN MALAWI” - SINSM”

Contract N°2015/366502

DRAFT FINAL REPORT

December 2015

This project is funded by the European Union Project 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 ConsortiumLot1@aesagroup.eu

EUROPEAN UNION DELEGATION TO MALAWI

End-Term Review “Support to Improved Nutrition Status of Vulnerable Groups in Malawi” - SINSM”

Contract N°2015/366502

Framework Contract Beneficiaries2013– LOT 1

DRAFT FINAL REPORT

December 2015

Team Composition:

Team Leader: Aart VAN DER HEIDEKE 2: Cyridion AHIMANA

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 Commis -sion or the Government of this country

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMES................................................................................................................................................. 4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 7

2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 10

3. ANSWERED QUESTIONS/ FINDINGS....................................................................................................13

3.1 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS (RELEVANCE).................................................................................................................133.2 ACHIEVEMENT OF PURPOSE (EFFECTIVENESS)......................................................................................................143.3 SOUND MANAGEMENT AND VALUE FOR MONEY (EFFICIENCY).................................................................................163.4 ACHIEVEMENT OF WIDER EFFECTS (IMPACT)........................................................................................................163.5 LIKELY CONTINUATION OF ACHIEVED RESULTS (SUSTAINABILITY)..............................................................................183.6 MUTUAL REINFORCEMENT (COHERENCE)............................................................................................................193.7 EU VALUE ADDED..........................................................................................................................................19

4. VISIBILITY........................................................................................................................................... 19

5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 21

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................22

6.1 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................................226.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................24

3

ACRONYMES

AAH-UK Action Against Hunger or Action Contre la Faim (ACF)

AIDS acquired immune deficiency syndrome

CADECOM Catholic Development Commission

CSB Corn Soya Blend

CMAM Community Management of Acute Malnutrition

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DADO District Agriculture Development Officer

DCO District Council Office

DDO District Development Officer

DEO District Education Officer

DHO District Health Officer

DEM District Education Manager

DNHA Department of Nutrition, HIV and AIDS

DP Development Partner(s)

DPO District Planning Officer

ECDC Early Childhood Development Centre

EDF European Development Fund

ETR End of Term Review

EU European Union

EUD European Union Delegation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FIS Food Security Index

FISD Foundation for Irrigation and Sustainable Development

FSP Food Security Programme

GAM Global Acute Malnutrition

4

GIZ Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit of Germany

GoM Government of Malawi

INFSSS Integrated Nutrition and Food Security Surveillance System

INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MKz Malawian Kwacha

MoAIWD Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development

MoE Ministry of Education

MoG Ministry of Gender

MoH Ministry of Health

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MUAC Mid Upper Arm Circumference

MVAC Malawi Vulnerability Analysis Committee

MwK Malawian Kwacha

NAO National Authorising Officer

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OPC Office of the President and Cabinet

PE Programme Estimate

PLHIA people living with HIV and AIDS

PMU Programme Management Unit

RA Result Area

ROM Results Oriented Monitoring

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

SINSM Support to Improved Nutrition Status of Vulnerable Groups in Malawi

SNIC Support for Nutrition Improvement Component

SUN Scaling Up Nutrition

5

TL Team Leader

TM Team Member

ToR Terms of References

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children Fund

VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping

WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

WFP World Food Programme

WHH Welhungerhilfe or German Agro-Action

WVI World Vision International

6

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key purpose of the end term review.

In accordance to the Term of Reference (TOR ) , The purpose of this End Term Review (ETR) was to carry out a comprehensive assessment of each of the four contracts (Pro-gramme Estimate 1 and 2 and two grants)in order to establish progress made towards the achievement of the objectives and also the expected results. It was also requested to assess the relevance of the design, the efficiency and effectiveness of the project implementation and the sustainability of their impact and last but not least to draw the lessons learnt. Based on the findings recommendations will be made that will guide the Government of Malawi (GoM) and the European Union (EU) on how to sustain the interventions introduced by the SINSM1. This was detailed again in 2.2 of the Terms of Reference (ToR). It is also requested to award the project and each component (PEs and Grants) a grade between A-Dsimilar to the EU Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) methodology.

The SINSM programme.

The EU Food Security Programme (FSP) for Malawi 2004 – 2006 was launched among oth-ers to support the nutritional status of the most vulnerable groups. The SINSM or the “Sup-port to Improved Nutritional Status of Vulnerable Groups in Malawi” was financed by the FSP budget line for a total amount of € 7,650,000. During 3 years – 2008 until 2011 - the De-partment of Nutrition and HIV/AIDS (DNHA), the National Authorizing Office (NAO) and the European Union Delegation (EUD) negotiated a new PE. Agreement resulted in a new programme with the name “Support to Improved Nutrition Status of Vulnerable Groups in Malawi” that was coordinated by the Department of Nutrition and HIV and AIDS.The SINSM was implemented through 2 Programme Estimates (PEs) (PE1 and PE2) and 2 Grants to the Foundation for Irrigation and Sustainable Development (FISD) and Welthun-gerhilfe (WHH). PE1 was implemented from the 1st of February 2011 – the 30th of September 2012 and PE2 from the 1st of November 2012 – the 31st of October 2014. The 2 Grants for school feeding through the NGO’s were implemented during the year 2014. The programme’s total allocated amount through two (2) MoU was € 7,650,000. Under PE1 + 48% of the total budget was absorbed and under PE2 + 77%. The DNHA used € 4,840,000 and the Grants for school feeding €1,500,000 and an extra Grant for CSB of € 172,000 was allocated. Therefore the expenditure for the whole SINSM (2011-2014) was € 4,840,000 + € 1,500,000 +€ 172,000 = € 6,510,000. This is 85% of the total allocated amount.The SINSM was implemented in ten (10) Districts in Malawi. In each district the SINSM had a food and nutrition focal point, one in the District’s Health Office and one in the District’s Agriculture Development Office. The school feeding programme was implemented by the District’s Education Management (DEM) Office through the School Health and Nutrition Of-ficers.Each PE had five (5) Result Areas (RA): 1) Support to nutritional products distribution to vulnerable groups (PE1) and Support to school meals programme (PE2); 2) Strengthen capa-city in nutrition for the communities and other stakeholders; 3) Nutrition Surveillance System strengthened to enable tracking of malnutrition for timely and rational response; 4) Capacity of health facilities to manage nutritional rehabilitation improved and 5) Project coordination and management activities improved.

1The final audit of the SINSM PEs 1 and 2 were already undertaken in order to establish, among other things, the exact eligible and in-eligible expenditures. The recovery of all ineligible costs has also been done.

7

The main analytical points.

Relevance: Great relevance given the current food and nutrition situation in Malawi where stunting is still high (<40%), wasting low (<5%), the food situation is still insecure and rural communities still vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity, WASH insecurity and poverty.

Effectiveness: 1. RA1: The support to nutritional products distribution to vulnerable groups programmed for

PE1 was not carried out. The school feeding programme proposed to carry out in the PE2 under the RA1 was carried out in 2014 – only one year – through WHH and FISD with rather positive results.

2. RA2: All pilot Districts had nutrition officers in the Ministry of Agriculture District Service (DADO), the Ministry of Health (DHO), the Ministry of Education (MED) and the District Council (DC) etc. They were permanently involved in the strengthening of the capacity in nutrition for communities and other stakeholders. The SINSM programme carried out a number of capacity building programmes for District’s nutrition officers but how these ca-pacity building activities impacted the capacity was not measurable. No professional monit-oring system was set up.

3. RA3: Under PE1 and PE2 a total amount of € 113,000 or MwK 37,383,179 was spent on the INFSSS. Only 3 bulletins were published with incomplete information. The DNHA was supposed to develop a Geographical Information System (GIS) database and website for nutritional data. The INFSSS stopped activities in 2013 according to the final report due to “interruption of funding” but according to the NAO and the EUD funding was not interrup-ted. The project’s expected results - to enable tracking of malnutrition for timely and ra-tional response - were not attained.

4. RA4: Under PE1 an amount of + € 63,800 (Mk 14,659,008) was spent and under PE2 + € 89,000 (Mk 35,482,025). The expected result was improvement of capacity of health facil-ities to manage nutritional rehabilitation. However the DNHA and the MOH realised vari-ous capacities building improvement trainings under various programmes (SUN movement, SNIC, MOH etc.) The specific impact of SINSM was neither monitored nor measured. The low wasting figure – in 2014 only 3.8% - for Malawi is objective evidence that the specific attention for nutrition worked. To what extend SINSM contributed is not demonstrable be-cause it was not monitored in a quantitative way.

5. Under PE2 + € 89,000 (Mk 35,482,025) had been spent. The result area aimed at improve-ment of project coordination and management activities. The SINSM suffered of various external political developments among others the change of a new president belonging to a different political orientation, the move of the DNHA from the OPC to the MOH. Internally the SINSM had 4 different liaison officers. The budgetary amounts for each RA were ob-jectively too limited to guarantee optimal impact. The DNHA mentioned also the strict rules of EU funding inhibited flexible management. The quality of the coordination role of the DNHA was questionable.

Efficiency: The efficiency of the SINSM was very poor except from the school meals grants to WHH and FISD. It must be recognized that the DNHA as coordinating agency was subject to political changes, the shift from the OPC to the MoH, the frequent change of imprest2 officers (for the PE1 and PE2) four (4) imprest officers but also due to the low budgets for the various components. The example of the INFSSS that was budgeted for

2The imprest system is a form of financial accounting system. The base characteristic of an imprest system is that a fixed amount is re-served, which after a certain period of time or when circumstances require, because money was spent, it will be replenished.

8

only € 113,000 for a pilot programme for 4 years was unrealistic. The needed decentral-isation proposed in the PE1 was not carried out.

Impact: except from the school meals component, the overall impact of this pro-gramme is not measurable in an objective way since no professional monitoring system was set up. The two final reports of PE1 and PE2 mention that the programme was a “success” but the success could not be validated by concrete and quantitative results. No progress reports were found by the evaluation team in order to measure the expected im-pact.

Sustainability: The school meals component through the two Grants for WHH and FISD jointly with the MoE had a positive impact not only it supplied school meals to more than 47,000 learners during the year 2014 but also produced new strategies on how to involve the communities in an optimal way. It also worked in a positive way to stimulate school enrolment in general and of girls in particular and the improvement of the nutritional situ-ation of leaners in schools targeted by the two grants.

Coherence: The coherence with other programmes, donor’s strategies and GoM policies was not questionable.

EU added value: The EU member states operate in Malawi mainly through the UN agen-cies UNICEF and WFP, the support to the SUN movement and international NGO’s act-ive in poverty reduction, education, health, WASH etc.

Grades3 awarded to the project and each component (PE’s and Grants)Capacity building nutrition C (=problems)INFSSS D (serious deficiencies)School feeding: B (= good)General coordination and communication: C (= problems)Decentralisation C (= problems)District’s involvement and participation: C (= problems)Monitoring and evaluation: D (= serious deficiencies)Data collection: D (= serious deficiencies)SINSM general C/D (=problems and serious deficiencies)

Main conclusions.

The ETR was carried out one (1) year after termination of the SINSM. The Relevance of the SINSM was generally recognized given a vulnerable food and nutrition security situation in Malawi. The two final reports - Nutrition PE1 and PE2 Report – came to the conclusion that the SINSM was a success but the ETR does not agree with it (see “grades awarder to the pro -ject and each component). The review team is of the opinionthat political changes and shift from Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) to the Ministry of Health (MoH) affected the results of the programme in a negative way. Another reason was that too many different activities or Result Areas were brought together in one programme. The INFSSS was inter-rupted in 2013 and did not perform any results. The available budget of € 113,000 for such a pilot programme was also far too low. The food security element was weakened after the shift from the OPC towards the MoH excluding in this way the MoAIWD. Weak management by the coordinating institution (DNHA) affected the programme also negatively (4 imprest of-ficers in 4 years). A weak and non-professional monitoring system resulted in the impossibil-ity to measure impact. The PE1 intended a strong decentralisation towards the Districts but that was not achieved. The only activity that performed positively were the two Grants for WHH and FISD for the school meal programme jointly with the MoE on national level and

3 Grades are as follows: A = very good, B = good; C = problems and D = serious deficiencies.

9

strong involvement of the DEM on District level. The role of the steering committee was not possible to assess. Minutes of the three (3) meetings of this committee were not fund. In gen-eral terms the SINSM was not very successfully.

Main lessons learnt.

The main lesson learnt is that despite the relevance of the different components of the SINSM a combined programme must not be carried out by a coordinating institution that is part of only one (1) ministry. The capacity building component for the community and for the Dis-tricts health facilities can be carried out by the MoH jointly with the DNHA. The INFSSS – its relevance is generally recognized - must be implemented by a semi-public institution con-trolled by the GoM, preferably the OPC or the cabinet of the prime minister, by independent academic institutions and by donors. It must have at its disposal sufficient funding and highly qualified and competent staff. The school meals programme was implemented in a rather suc-cessful way despite its short implementation period – only in 2014 – and the symbiosis between the MoE, the DEM and the NGO’s was successful.

Specific recommendations.

1. Decentralisation of programmes is necessary for fully involvement of the District Coun-sels.

2. Capacity building in nutrition under the responsibility of the MoH.3. INFSSS implemented by an independent institution controlled by the GoM, independent

academic institutions and donors with enough funding and competent and professional staff receiving acceptable salaries.

4. School meal programmes under the MoE with help of NGO’s.5. Systematize first findings of community involvement in order to diminish the costs.

2. INTRODUCTION.This report contains the outcome and conclusions of the end-term review (ETR) of the Sup-port to Improved Nutrition Statusof Vulnerable Groupsin Malawi (SINSM) carried out from the 26thof October till the 20thof November 2015. The SINSM programme was a pilot pro-gramme implemented by the Department of Nutrition and HIV and AIDS (DNHA) in con-junction with the line Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Wa-ter Development (MAIWD), Ministry of Gender (MOG) and Ministry of Education (MOE) and two NGO’s - “Welthungerhilfe” (WHH) and the Foundation for Irrigation and Sustain-able Development (FISD). The SINSM programme aims to contribute towards the improvement of the nutritional status of all Malawians with special emphasis on vulnerable groups such as pregnant and lactating women, children below the age of 5 years, both school aged and school going children, orphans and people living with HIV and AIDS through improved service delivery systems in 10 selected Districts in Malawi. In each district the SINSM had a food and nutrition focal point: one in the District’s Health Office and one in the District’s Agriculture Development Office. The school feeding programme was implemented by the District’s Education Man-agement (DEM) Office through the DEM education health and nutrition officer.The SINSM programme consisted of two Programme Estimates (PE): PE1 from 01/02/2011 - 30/09/2012 and PE2 from 01/11/2012 - 31/10/2014, each having five Result Areas (RA): Support to nutritional products distribution to vulnerable groups (PE1) and to the school meals programme (PE2);

10

1. Strengthen the capacity in nutrition for the communities and other stakeholders; 2. Nutrition Surveillance System strengthened to enable tracking of malnutrition for

timely and rational response; 3. Capacity of health facilities to manage nutritional rehabilitation improved and 4. Project coordination and management activities improved.

In PE21 two (2) Grants of each € 750,000 (+ € 172,000) were allocated to WHH 4 and FISD5 to implement the school meals programme. The programme’s total allocated budget through two (2) MOU was € 7,650,000. Under PE1 about 48% of the total budget was absorbed and under PE2 about 77%. The DNHA used € 4,840,000 and the Grants for school feeding € 1,500,000 and an extra Grant for CSB of € 172,000 was allocated6. Therefore the expenditure for the whole SINMS (2011-2014) was € 4,840,000 + € 1,500,000 + € 172,000 = € 6,510,000. This is 85% of the total allocated amount.The two main purposes of the SINSM according to the Terms of Reference (TOR in annex 1) were:

1. To make an overall independent assessment of the performance of the SINSM pro-gramme with special attention to the analysis of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, coherence and the EU added value of the programme.

2. To analyse the feasibility of the programme design and the implementation for reach-ing the stated objectives.

Introductory phase.

The ETR was carried out in two main phases including the inception phase, the field work and the validation workshop during which key findings were presented. The first week of the ETR was an inception period (26-30 October 2015). An inception meeting took place on the 2nd of November with the EUD, NAO, DNHA, MOH, MOAFS etc. An official inception re-port with a more detailed work plan and methodology was presented and sent to the EUD.

Field work

During the second and third week of the assignment, i.e. from Monday 2nd of November till Friday 13thof November, nine (9) out of the ten (10) SINSM Districts7 were visited. During the field visits all the implementing partners8were extensively interviewed. Based on the res-ults of the implementation phase, visits to health facilities, schools and involved communities were scheduled as far as feasible given time constraints, distances and availability of the be-neficiaries themselves etc. All questions related to the SINSM service implementation, its Surveillance system and backstopping from the DNHA were intensively assessed. Based on the results of the assessment complementary field visits to health facilities and involved schools were planned. Each visit to a District started with a visit to the District’s Council of-fice to officially inform the District Commissioner and the District Planning Director on the objective of the visit. The ETR-team made a final District’s Assessment Fiche for each Dis-

4Supporting improved nutrition and health and building institutional capacity for sustainable home grown school meal programmes in Malawi' (01/01-31/12/14).5Sustainable School Meals Initiative (SSMI) (01/01-31/12/14).6The expenditure for the two Grants €1,500,000 were under Special Commitment and not included in the PE2 expenditure summary. The School Meals Programme also benefited on a Supply Contract for Corn Soya Blend (CSB) – value €172,000 (source: NAO).

7khatabay, Rhumpi, Dowa, Salima, Mangochi, Phalombe, Chikhwawa, Chiradzulo, Neno, Dedza.8District Agriculture Development Office (DADO), District Nutrition SINSM focal point, District Education or DEM SINSM focal point, District M&E officer.

11

trict in which main findings and results were capitulated. The ETR-team used the District As-sessment Fiches as a basis to write up the general impressions in a concessive way. The over-all findings of the field work can be found in Annex 7.5.

Final Validation Workshop

The fourth week, the 16-20thof November, was used for writing of the aide memoire, debrief-ing and a final validation workshop in which all partners on Central and District’s level parti-cipated. The workshop aimed at presenting the findings of the ETR to the main stakeholders, to check the factual basis of the evaluation and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions and recommendations made by the ETR-team.

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for this ETR detail in part 2.3 the requested services in five different (5) points the so called DAC evaluation criteria (see chapter 3 “answered questions). Each point has a bulleted number of “guidelines” to concentrate on and to be answered based on available information.

This ETR faced the following constraints in conducting the ETR:

According to the TOR, ten (10) of the implicated Districts were to be visited while only nine (9) effective days were only available for conducting the field visits. There-fore, workdays of more than 8 hours were mainly used for long distance travels and interviews. However, most District’s services have an official working hours from 7.30 AM – 4.00 PM. This was also the case for the schools and the health facilities.

In a number of Districts involved staff members of Government services were new and had never been involved in the implementation of the SINSM programme, which ended in October 2014. Given that there had never been a central coordination entity on Districts level no district’s institutional memory was in place either.

According to the TOR, the ETR is to provide the reader with sufficient explanation on the methodology used during the review in order to enable the reader to gauge the credibility of the conclusions and to acknowledge limitations or weaknesses, where relevant. This can only be done once we have analysed the optimal implementation of the programme and on condition that the DNHA supplied optimal support to the Dis-tricts. It also means that if the Districts were in a position to support the sentinel sites in an optimal way and a good working surveillance system, the nutritional status of the vulnerable groups in these sites would have been improved substantially. The ETR-team can only assess this during the visits to the Districts. Only if the Districts and also the DNHA were in a position to provide clear data on the nutritional and the food security status in the concerned Districts, the assessment could point out whether the programme was able to meet its objectives. If this was not or only partially imple-mented by the Districts and DNHA, the ETR has to find out why it was not imple-mented as planned. The programme was, however, to piloting or testing how the pro-posed activities were able to improve the food and nutrition security status of the pro-posed vulnerable groups. If these data are not readily available, it will be difficult for the ETR-team to assess the relevance, the efficiency, the effectiveness, the impact and certainly the sustainability and the coherence in an objective way. In summary it must be pointed out that the lack of produced reports was a real constraint.

The ERT-team would like to point out the results and recommendations made during the 2008 final evaluation of ACF-UK as listed in annex 7.6. It is important to know how the first emergency food and nutrition security surveillance system performed

12

and what the recommendations were on how to implement the surveillance system by the GOM.

Important background documentation for this review included the PE1 and PE2 offi-cial documents and the two (2) final progress reports. A number of documents were not available or difficult to find. This was felt by the ETR team as a really constraint in order to make conclusions based on some written evidences. For example the writ-ten minutes of the steering committee were not available. The PE1 provided the ETR-team with information on the Human Resources that were made available for this pro-gramme and the “ORGANOGRAM” or organisational chart, the role of the steering committee as well as its implementation structure at the District level (see annex 7.7).

3. ANSWERED QUESTIONS/ FINDINGS

The methodology used to answer the evaluation questions and to formulate the main findings is described in annex 3 – detailed assessment method – and also the documents mentioned in annex 5. In annex 6.2 the Implementation Progress Templates of PE1 and PE2 show the res-ults according to the DNHA final reports.

3.1 Problems and needs (Relevance)

To what extent were the objectives of the development intervention of the SINSM programme consistent with the beneficiaries' requirements, the country needs, the global priorities and also the GOM and the EU's policies?

The overall objective of the SINSM was to contribute to the improvement of the nutritional status of all Malawians, with special emphasis on vulnerable groups such as pregnant and lactating women, children below the age of 5 years (under-five children), both school aged and school going children, orphans and people living with HIV and AIDS (PLHA) through im-proved delivery systems. The purpose was to strengthen the institutional and stakeholders ca-pacity at national, district and community levels in the delivery of the nutrition service manage-ment, coordination, implementation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the nutrition pro-grammes, projects and services.

The general food and nutrition security situation in Malawi is according to many sources alarm-ing as official stunting – in 2014 >40% - whereas wasting – 3.8%9 - figures for the whole coun-try give partly the lie this concern. The rather high stunting levels urge systematically interven-tions according to standards. The acceptable and rather low wasting levels (< 5%) indicate the impact of the intensive GOM emphasize on nutrition and especially the introduction and strengthening of Community Based Management of Acute Malnutrition program (CMAM). The vulnerability to poverty but also the poor WASH situation explains partly the high stunting rates. The Food Security Index (FSI) developed by the Action Against Hunger-UK managed INFSS was a useful indicator to predict food insecure situations on district level. The SINSM planned according to the PE1 to use and eventually to improve this indicator.

The school meals initiative component was a pilot programme managed by the MoE on na-tional level and the DEM on District’s level with help of NGO’s WHH and FISD. It aimed at promoting better school enrolment, promoting school attendance especially for girls, promoting better nutrition awareness through learners, their parents and although the whole community using school feeding

9 which is acceptable according to the international WHO standards

13

The DNHA was a department directly under the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC). It came in 2012 under the MOH. Its mandate is to provide visionary guidance and strategic dir-ection for the implementation of the national response to nutrition disorders, HIV and AIDS in the country.

The SINSM proposed a necessary form of decentralisation to the Districts aiming at promot-ing ownership to nutrition and food security interventions on District’s level for development planning with the help of a professional monitoring system through the INFSSS.

The general conclusion is that the SINSM was a good programme consistent with the require-ments of the beneficiaries, the needs of the country, the global priorities and the policies of the GOM and the EU.

3.2 Achievement of purpose (Effectiveness)

To what extent were the project’s results attained, the project’s specific objectives achieved or expected to be achieved?

The SINSM Programme Estimate 1 and 2 expected to yield each five (5) results:

Result Area 1: Support to nutritional products distribution to vulnerable groups (PE1) and sup-port to school meals programme improved (PE2).

Result Area 2: Strengthen capacity in nutrition for communities and other stakeholders (PE 1 & 2).

Result Area 3: Nutrition surveillance system (PE1) and INFSSS (PE2) strengthened to enable tracking of malnutrition for timely and rational response.

Result Area 4: Capacity of health facilities to manage nutritional rehabilitation improved (PE 1 & 2).

Result Area 5: Project coordination and management activities improved (PE 1 & 2).

The Result Area 1 for the PE2School Meal Grant Contract for “Welthungerhilfe” or WHH (in 2014 for an amount of € 750,000) aimed to support improved nutrition and health and building institutional capacity for sustainable home grown school meal programmes in Malawi. The school meal grant contract for the FISD (in 2014 an amount of € 750,000) aimed at improving the nutritional status of 80, 000 pre-schoolers and school going children, Increasing enrolment, attendance and retention in primary schools as well as ECD centres by 40% and building the capacity of community structures to sustainably run school meals pro-gram. N.B An extra grant of € 172,000 was allocated for CBS purchase.

The question is whether the project’s results were attaint and the specific objectives achieved? The answer to this question is as follows:

Result area 1 for PE1 and PE2: The support to nutritional products distribution to vulnerable groups programmed for PE1 was not carried out. The school feeding programme proposed to carry out in the PE2 under the RA1 was carried out in 2014 – only one year – through WHH and FISD with rather positive results.

Result area 2 for PE1 and PE2:All pilot Districts had nutrition officers in the Ministry of Ag-riculture District Service (DADO), the Ministry of Health (DHO), the Ministry of Education (MED) and the District Council (DC) etc. They were permanently involved in the strengthen-ing of the capacity in nutrition for communities and other stakeholders. The SINSM pro-

14

gramme carried out a number of capacity building programmes for District’s nutrition officers but how these capacity building activities impacted the capacity was not measurable. The DNHA and the MoH carried out other capacity building activities with help of the SUN move-ment and now with help of the SNIC programme.

Result area 3 for PE1 and PE2:Under PE1 an amount of +€ 35.000 (Mk 14,018,467) was spent on the INFSSS and under PE2 €58,000 (Mk 23,363,712). Only 3 bulletins were published with incomplete information. The DNHA was supposed to develop a Geographical Information System (GIS) database and website for nutritional data. The INFSSS stopped activities in 2013 according to the final report due to “interruption of funding” but according to the NAO and the EUD funding was not interrupted. The project expected results - to enable tracking of malnutri-tion for timely and rational response - were not attained.

Result area 4 for PE1 and PE2:Under PE1 an amount of + € 63,800 (Mk 14,659,008) was spent and under PE2 + € 89,000 (Mk 35,482,025). The expected result was improvement of ca-pacity of health facilities to manage nutritional rehabilitation. However the DNHA and the MOH realised various capacities building improvement trainings under various programmes (SUN movement, SNIC, MOH etc.) the specific impact of SINSM was neither monitored nor measured. The low wasting figure – in 2014 only 3.8% for Malawi is objective evidence that the specific attention for nutrition worked. To what extend SINSM contributed is not demon-strable because it was not monitored in a quantitative way.

Result area 5 for PE1 and PE2:Under PE2 + € 89,000 (Mk 35,482,025) had been spent. The result area aimed at improvement of project coordination and management activities. The SINSM suffered of various external political developments among others the change of a new president belonging to a different political orientation, the move of the DNHA from the OPC to the MOH. Internally the SINSM had 4 different liaison officers and although continuity and sustainability was not guaranteed. The budgetary amounts for each RA were objectively too limited to guarantee optimal impact. The DNHA mentioned also the strict rules of EU funding inhibited flexible management. The coordination role of the DNHA was questionable.

Results for the school meal contract: This activity under RA1 was only carried out under PE2 in 2014 by two NGO’s – WHH and FISD. The collaboration at district level with the DEM was good. The DEM was fully involved and did all the coordination and planning activities. Both NGO’s analysed jointly with the DEM how school feeding activities could be integrated in a new policy aiming at optimal community involvement. And also ownership for school feeding, the two NGO’s produced each a good final evaluation report in which activities were clearly explained but also the way forwards indicated how community involvement can be stimulated and realized. Both NGO’s also produced a detailed baseline study in which more background information and data were collected. A total number of 47,000 learners got one (1) meal per day during one year. This makes an average cost of € 35 per beneficiary child10. The general impact of school feeding has improved school enrolment in general and particularly of girls. It also improved learner’s performance. The good joint cooperation between the DEM and the two NGO’s also made clear that the maximum community involvement only can cover 30% of the annual food needs. External support will always be necessary.

The expected results were attained. The costs for school feeding are now known. The optimal community involvement has been found out but external support will always be necessary.

10 Total funds used for this activity was € 1,672,000 for 47,000 learners (schools + ECDC pre-schoolers). WHH was operational in 4 Dis-tricts in 20 primary schools and 9 pre-schools. FISD was operational in 5 Districts in 25 primary schools and 25 pre-schools.

15

3.3 Sound management and value for money (Efficiency)

The question is how well did the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended results that sometimes referred to as outputs, in terms of quantity, quality and timeli-ness but also compared against what was planned.

The PE1 describes in its management structure of the SINSM the distribution of tasks between the national and the District’s level a sound structure. However, the management structure on DNHA level is from merely project management view poor: one (1) imprest officer, one (1) ac-countant, one (1) liaison officer. The GOM should assign two (2) staff to coordinate the imple-mentation (deputy directors for nutrition and for planning) plus every time members of staff of various categories when required. At the District level there was very limited staff except from the focal points from the MOH and the MOA. The District Council is officially not involved according to this organogram except from the two focal points of the MOH and the MOAIWD. Involvement of at least the District Planning and Development officer and the M&E officer had been highly necessary in order to guarantee the planned use of data for the District’s develop-ment strategy. This was mentioned in the PE1 and not realized. For the school feeding pro-gramme in 2014 the DEM had also a nutrition officer. These two focal points work together with the District Assembly and the District Council. In the organogram of annex 7 the staff management does not mention the district DNHA coordination presence and the involvement of the District Council and the District Planning Director or the M&E officer.

The poor management on national level was also mentioned in the final PE report as “frequent shift in management11” while the PE proposal mentioned a strong coordination unit on central level. In footnote the names of the imprest officers are mentioned and also the period in charge. The lack of a professional data manager and also a staff especially in charge of training etc. was also a reason that caused the weakness of the programme. The final progress report of PE2 mentions on page 3 that “lack of cooperation by implementing partners and frequent changes in management affected the implementation of some activities due to absence of political will”. This means that the DNHA recognizes the findings of this ETR.

However, the DNHA mentioned also the rigidity of EUD procedures to timely release of money for implementation activities and procurement of materials and equipment which were given almost at the end of the project in 2014. However, the release of funds was delayed due to noncompliance with EU procurement procedures leading to delays in contracting supplies contract. This affected implementation of the programmes.

3.4 Achievement of wider effects (Impact)

The question is what the relationship was between the project’s specific and overall objectives referring to what the SINSM effects or what influence it had.

The overall objective of the SINSM Programme was to contribute to the improvement in the nutritional status of all Malawians, with special emphasis on vulnerable groups such as preg-nant and lactating women, children below the age of 5 years, both school aged and school go-ing children, orphans and people living with HIV and AIDS through improved service deliv-ery systems. The purpose of the project was to strengthen the capacity of households and communities to recognise, manage and prevent malnutrition through strengthening institu-tional and stakeholders’ capacity at national, district and community levels in the delivery of the nutrition service management, coordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the nutrition programmes, projects and services.

11 During the operational period 2011 – 2014 of PE1 and PE2 the SINSM had four (4) different imprest officers: Mary Shawa, Felix Pensu-loPhiri (3 months), Janet Cuita (4 months) and Jean Chilemba (6 months).

16

Impact of a programme that ran for 18 months like PE1 – officially from 1 st of April 2011 till September 2012, cannot produce direct impact. PE2 ran 24 months from the 1 st of November 2012 till 31st of October 2014 therefore “outcomes” should be a better word for PE1. Impact for the PE1 and 2 including the school feeding programme is however not measurable due to various reasons: absence of systematic monitoring system specifically for the SINSM, lack of a professional food and nutrition surveillance system at the district level. There is not a mon-itoring system and surveillance system that compares impact of the involved districts with not involved districts.

However, it must be mentioned that the general wasting figure for 2014 was 3.8%. That is a very low figure and considered by WHO-standards

The surveillance system INFSSS was stopped in 2013. According to the final PE2 report be-cause of “lack of funding” but this was not the real reason. Since funds were already made available through the NAO “lack” cannot be the official reason. According to our findings there was a lack of coordination in the DNHA. The “absence of political will” was mentioned in the final PE2 report confirms our findings but this conclusion needs more analysis in order to make it objectively verifiable. The global reason was lack of real leadership and the pres-ence of an independent professional Programme Management Unit. The various District of-ficers involved were not able to do their work properly. This was mainly due to the fact that the programme had no coordinator in the District and the District Council was not officially involved. In general lack of leadership, lack of coordination and communication were the main reasons that achievements of wider effects (impact) were not measurable and assess-able.

However, in some visited communities, we have met only healthy children who were part of the project area. We also can confirm that most mothers with young children use the services provided by the health facilities. The low figure of 3.8% for wasting was confirmed by evid-ence based observations during the visits. Some of the households were taught how to pro-duce their own seeds like pumpkin seeds, okra. Some of the few fruit trees were told to be given by the project.

It is hardly to say that the many positive impressions are due to the SINSM activities. It is not possible to do a counterfactual analysis because the programme didn’t develop a professional monitoring system. The Districts where SINSM was not implemented should be compared with the Districts where the SINSM was implemented. This needs the existence of a profes-sional data bank. Since the creation of the INFSSS pilot by the DNHA failed and the DNHA does not dispose of a professional experienced data analyst the question cannot be answered. The capacity building support activities mentioned in RA 2 and 4 were part of many other core activities such as the DNHA managed SUN movement programme and now the World Bank funded SNIC programme. The school feeding activity produced however clear impact: learners received 1 meal a day, kitchens were built, ways of improvement of better com-munity involvement were analysed and last but not least the school feeding programme built up a good M&E system.

3.5 Likely continuation of achieved results (Sustainability)

The question is to what extent the positive outcomes of the project and the flow of benefits were likely to continue after external funding ends or non-funding support interventions such as policy dialogue, coordination?

This question will be answered per Result Area and also generally.

17

RA1 Support to nutritional products distribution to vulnerable groups and to the school feeding programme:

The support to nutritional product distribution has never been carried out. The school feeding has implemented a good programme for only one year. The MOE and the DEM have now clear ideas how to implement a feasible school feeding programme. WHH will continue this activity jointly and under the responsibility of the MOE with funds from the German Govern-ment. FISD negotiates new funding.

RA2 Strengthening capacity in nutrition for communities and other stakeholders:

With support of UNICEF, the SUN movement and now the SNIC programme the MOH jointly with its DNHA continue through the District’s Council this activity. To indicate whether SINSM contributed to it and in what extend cannot not be evaluated because all these programmes were support programmes and no professional monitoring system to an-swer these questions was ever setup.

RA3 Strengthening the INFSSS to enable tracking of malnutrition for timely and rational response:

No surveillance system was set up. The pilot failed. Therefore the DNHA did not develop an instrument that aimed at tracking malnutrition for timely and rational response. The need for such a system is still high. The fact the DNHA shifted from the OPC to the MOH caused less attention for the food security component.

RA4 Strengthening capacity of health facilities to manage nutritional rehabilitation:

The health facilities monitor the nutritional status of under-five children in an acceptable way. The low wasting rate of 3.8% on national level is the evidence of it. How far the MOH and the DNHA can guarantee permanent training was not the mandate of this ETR.

RA5 Improvement of project coordination and management of activities:

However the DNHA recognized frankly the need for improvement of coordination and man-agement of activities this activity could not be realized due to external most political prob-lems but also due to the proper identity of the DNHA. Change of government, shift from OPC to MOH, internal organisation of the DNHA, emphasize on efforts how to decentralise activities to the Districts but also incompatibility between the DNHA organisation and the way EDF could support it all contributed to the non-compliance of the SINSM.

School meals programme (RA1): The school feeding despite its one year implementation pro-duced not only positive results but also produced models how to implement simple school feeding programme with full community involvement and external support. The way public and private cooperation – NGO’s worked and produced effective ways to improve nutrition to vulnerable groups.

General: The SINSM must be considered as a complementary programme to support on-go-ing DNHA activities. The pilot INFSSS failed not only because of low funding but in the first place due to the fact food and nutrition security surveillance systems only can be implemen-ted by semi-independent professional entities with enough funding and professional and well paid staff. The needed capacity improvement services both on national, district and com-munity level exist already with tangible results. SINSM was supposed to support this activity.

18

It did it but lack of a professional internal M&E system and specialist to analyse this could al-though not justify any evidence based impact.

3.6 Mutual reinforcement (coherence)

The undertaken activities allow certainly the main stakeholders (proposed action for EU) to achieve its development policy objectives without internal contradiction or without contradic-tion with other EU policies. Since the achieved activities were implemented by the GOM and elaborated in accordance with GOM policies and other Development Partners' (DPs) inter-ventions full coherence exist. Since wasting is low now and stunting still high but lowering the work DNHA does will certainly produce positive results. However, since the direct offi-cial link with the MOAIWD was interrupted – due to the shift from OPC to MOH – the food security component was eliminated. This programme despite its not direct tangible results demonstrated the need for an organisational assessment of the DNHA in order to make it more productive and efficient in policy development but also service providing towards the Districts.

3.7 EU value added

In order to answer the question what the connection was to the interventions of Member States and other Key Development Partners (DPs) it must be clear what EU member states do. A number of member states work in programmes aiming at improving food and nutrition security at household level. Others are involved through support to health delivery systems or general programmes that aim at improvising family incomes or poverty reduction. It must be recognized that member states prefer to work directly with non-profit development organisa-tions both faith or non- faith based. Also UN organisations such as UNICEF and WFP benefit of funds from EU member states. The reason that EU member states prefer to work through nongovernmental or UN channels is based on experiences in the past. The conditions linked to the EDF use of funds influenced in a certain way the member states justification.

4. VISIBILITY.Visibility is the assessment of the proposed project’s strategy and activities in the field of “vis-ibility, information and communication” and also the results that were meant to be obtained and the impact to be achieved with these actions in both Malawi and the European Union countries.

Normally the visibility limits to some posters, T-shirts or stickers with the name of the project. Concerning this the visibility was quite poor. Except from the WHH school feeding sticker and the shirts distributed where the programme had the name “Programme Estimate” no other “vis-ible” testimonies were left. In all the 9 districts visited the name “SINSM” was not known. However, the DNHA was well known through other activities and programmes such as the World Bank funded SNIC programme or the SUN movement that both intend to improve nutri-tional status of the population.

It must be recognized that the overall activities carried out by the DNHA since its creation in the districts was very “visible”. In all governmental districts governmental services a “nutrition officer” was employed to promote good nutrition. This is of great importance because it shows the intention of the GOM to take nutrition seriously into consideration. Main performances of these nutrition officers in the MOH, MOAWAI, MOG, MOE etc. at district’s level is to pro-mote nutrition and nutrition related activities. The impact of the work of this strategy has never been assessed in a systematic was. However, general wasting or GAM figures are now 3.8% in Malawi and that is a clear indicator that the nutrition policy of the government works. On the

19

other hand wasting is still very high - >40% - and that indicates that promoting good nutrition, good WASH and poverty alignment has a high priority.

It must be recognized that the SINSM programme was a complex programme because it was composed out capacity building in nutrition components, the INFSSS component and also the school feeding component. The capacity building in nutrition component was mainly carried out by the DNHA and the MOH and was in a certain way complementary to the SUN move-ment activities and the SNIC activities. The SUN movement activities and the SNIC activities were well known in all districts while the SINSM’s activities not. The INFSSS did not achieve what it pretended to become – creating a strong national and professional nutrition and food security surveillance system – and also as a pilot programme did not produce the impact it intended. The school feeding component despite its short implementation period – only operational in 2014 – was in all districts were it was operational very well known. The involved schools still had their kitchens and stores. The MED’s were optimally involved. New plans were designed. In general terms the school feeding component was very “visible” and the cooperation between the MOE and two NGO’s – WHH and FISD – in general good.

It must be mentioned that in the EU the efforts achieved by the Malawian government in re-ducing wasting figures till under 5% - in fact now 3.8% - with support of donors among which the EU but also UNICEF and the SUN movement is not generally known. The inform-ation circulating in the media in the various member states of the EU is still the high rates of under-nutrition and the high rates of starving people in the rural areas. The ETR field mission to the 9 districts didn’t provide any evidence. The interviewed nutrition officers in the dis-tricts also couldn’t confirm this.

The so called “visibility” to be obtained and to be achieved by the actions of the SINSM in particular and the other programmes is therefore in general quite absent. This should be and become a core activity of the DNHA.

5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

In this chapter all answers to assessment questions are synthesised aiming at articulating all the findings, conclusions and lessons learnt in a way that reflects their importance and articu-lates the key issues of concern to stakeholders, thus optimising the focus and utility of the as -sessment. It must be repeated again that this assessment is also done to provide the GOM and the EU ideas on more effective ways to realize stated objectives.

Synthesis of the answers to the evaluation questions.

20

The findings of this ETR in terms of DAC criteria show us in general the great relevance of the SINSM for Malawi but it was a multi-activity programme of which the different result areas where not always congruent with each other. The logic of the programme is mainly that such a programme should be coordinated by only one entity or stakeholder necessarily on governmental level. In thiscase the DNHA under the OPC was a logic choice. The imple-mentation of the different result areas should not necessarily be achieved by one entity or stakeholder. In the case of the SINSM programme the five (5) RA were all implemented by the DNHA and the school feeding programme was implemented by the MOE jointly with two NGO’s. The grading scores according to the DAC criteria indicate for the general coordina-tion and communication, the decentralisation, the District’s involvement and participation, the monitoring and evaluation and also the highly needed data collection were all “weak to poor” (chapter 6 conclusion 2). However, the school feeding scored “good”.

The reasons for this low scoring have also been clear: political changes in the country shift from the OPC to the MOH, no continuity in management due to the high number of imprest officers etc. and according to the DNHA and other involved line ministries also the “rigorous rules” of EU funding conditions12. The expected effectiveness, efficiency and also the impact within the proposed way of implementation in the PE1 and PE2 and also the not compliance of the needed decentralisation were all reason that the programme did not achieve expected results.

In fact the SINSM had apart from RA5 – project coordination and management activities im-proved – three (3) main activities: 1) capacity strengthening in nutrition for communities, other stakeholders and health facilities (RA 2 and 4), 2) INFSSS and 3) school feeding. It needed effective to bring them all together in one programme. The DNHA main role should have been coordination and the needed organisation. The school feeding activity was in fact “outsourced” to the MOE and two NGO’s with full implementation of the DEM. This should also have been done with the INFSSS. National INFSSS only work effective and efficient if implemented by a professional and independent structure that is controlled by the govern-ment, academic institutions and donors. Experiences in other countries show also that funding should not be a constraint. A good example is the Somalia Food and Nutrition Analysis Unit FSNAU managed by the FAO that receives multi-donor funding13. Another example is the Mozambican SETSAN – a governmental institution comparable with the DNHA – that mon-itors the food and nutrition security situation nationwide and also was responsible for the 2013 national food security baseline study. The FSNAU and also the SETSAN show us that food security monitoring systems must be carried out not by governmental institutions be-cause of lack of flexible structures and the need of highly qualified professionals. The school feeding programme was successful mainly due to a good cooperation between public and non-governmental structures.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.6.1 Conclusions

The programme used + 85% of the allocated funding. The final reports of PE1 and PE2 men-tioned that the two programmes were a success without any justification. These reports also

12 One important stakeholder of a line-ministry participating in the data collection of the INFSSS mentioned the procedures necessary to fulfil the duties; in order to get the data from the field it take a 5 days mission and to get the money needed for that mission it takes 2 months etc. 13 The Somali FSNAU managed by the FAO has a budget of 24 million € for four years while the INFSSS disposed only of € 250,000 for PE1 and PE2 (2011-2014).

21

mention that the programme suffered from “lack of cooperation by implementing partners and frequent changes in management affecting the implementation of some activities due to ab-sence of political will”. However, it does not detail what lack of political will means and how far EU procedures or regulations are concerned.

The conclusions of the ETR are the following:

General

1) The general conclusion regarding the SINSM is that despite its good objectives it resulted in poor impact. The reasons are multiple: 1) too many result areas; 2) too limited budget for five result areas including two grants for a school feeding programme; 3) chances in the political situation in Malawi; 4) shift of the DNHA from the OPC to the MOH; 5) in-compatibility of a multi-purpose programme as SINSM with the organisational structure of the DNHA; 6) lack of a professional unit with high skilled staff and budget to imple-ment such a programme;

2) The overall grading of the PE1 and PE2 is as follows14:General coordination and communication: C (= weak)Decentralisation C (= weak)District’s involvement and participation: C (= weak)Monitoring and evaluation: D (= poor)Data collection: D (= poor)School feeding: B(= good)

Problems and needs (Relevance).

3. Highly appreciated and relevant programme.4. Very coherent with ongoing nutritional situation in Malawi – high stunting >40% and low

wasting <5%.5. Still food insecure situation nationwide.6. Uses existing governmental structures both nationally but also on district level.7. Good cooperation model between governmental structures – MOH, DNHA, MOAIWD,

MOG etc. - on national and district level jointly with NGO’s.

Achievement of purpose (Effectiveness)

8. Too many result areas (for PE1 4 and for PE2 5) in one programme.9. Rather small budget for 5 Result Areas during an implementation period of 4 years.10. Improvement capacity building both for communities and for District services of agricul-

ture and health has been carried out by the DNHA, the MOH and the MOAIWD but im-pact not known due to absence of professional monitoring system.

11. IFNSSS pilot implementation was not achieved mainly due to underestimation of needed institution and also needed budget.

12. DNHA does not have the organisational capacity or the technically qualified staff to build up a professional and independent IFNSSS.

13. The effectiveness of the SINSM due to the lack and therefore the weak decentralisation was poor.

14. The school feeding activity despite its short implementation period – only one year in 2014 – was effective. It cost an average of € 35 or MWK 21,000 per year. It fed + 47,000 learners. It was a good example how public and private non-governmental organisations

14Grading based on OECD DAC criteria.

22

can cooperate in a effective way. It generated also information how to improve com-munity participation and ownership.

Sound management and value for money (Efficiency).

15. The management for the result areas 1 – 5 was questionable. The frequent shift of imprest officers – during the PE1 and PE2 a number of 4 imprest officers were in function - and the short period for them to be in charge - for 3 imprest officers from 3 – 6 months – made the SINSM a poorly managed programme.

16. The school feeding programme was implemented under two separate grants. It was a good managed programme. The cohabitation between the MOE and the DEM one side and the two implementing NGO’s the other side was fruitful and efficiently carried out. This has been a good decentralized programme.

Achievement of wider effects (Impact).

17. Impact of the SINSM activities – RA1 – RA5 – was difficultly measurable mainly due to the fact of absence of a professional monitoring system.

18. Therefore the question whether the SINSM produced any impact cannot be answered in a professional way. Anecdotal evidence exists but is methodologically not representative.

19. The school feeding programme produced a positive impact despite the short implementa-tion period of 1 year. It fed 47,000 learners, it increased school attendance, it increased the enrolment of girls and it produced also evidence based information on models how to implement a low cost school feeding policy with optimal community involvement and participation that also promotes nutrition awareness.

Likely continuation of achieved results (Sustainability)

20. The SINSM, despite its poor implementation and poor impact, produced enough informa-tion on how to implement a programme that aims at giving “Support to Improved Nutri-tion Status of Vulnerable Groups in Malawi” and in particular on how not. Key words are decentralisation of responsibilities and duties to the Districts, independent and profes-sional monitoring, role of central government ministries is coordination, strategy develop-ment, training and capacity building.

21. The lessons learnt through the AAH-UK managed emergency IFNSSS and the tentative effort of the DNHA to create a public managed food and nutrition security surveillance system indicates the creation of a semi-public surveillance system that is professional and independent. It must dispose of highly skilled professionals and a large budget.

Mutual reinforcement (coherence)

22. The need for activities implemented by the SINSM is generally recognized by all devel-opment partners. The implementation and the results generated by the SINSM show the GOM and the development partners how to guarantee optimal results for implementation.

EU value added

23. The lesson learnt for the EU is the way the Support to Improved Nutrition Status of Vul-nerable Groups in Malawi is not optimal through the way it was now implemented.

24. A number of member states operate already mainly through private or church based or-ganisations and also through UN organisations such as UNICEF, WFP or FAO. Support through the SUN movement is also an efficient way to support the GOM.

23

25. The school feeding programme implemented by the MOE and two NGO’s resulted in new programmes funded by Germany’s GIZ.

26. The lesson learnt for the GOM is to stimulate private investments in education, health, poverty reduction through private organisations but under serious control and coordina-tion of the GOM.

6.2 Recommendations

Recommendations will be given per stakeholder or group of stakeholders such as EU, NAO, DNHA, GOM and line ministries.

1. GOM and EU: Programmes such as the SINSM are too complex to be implemented by only one GOM entity such as the DNHA jointly with line ministries. Components like “capacity building in nutrition”, “food and nutrition security surveillance systems”, “school meals” must preferably be implemented by independent entities or PMU within or jointly with ministries and NGO’s.

2. GOM, MOH, DNHA: Capacity building in nutrition for communities and for govern-ment services and other stakeholders has been successful in Malawi – given the low wast-ing rates of 3.8% in 2014 and the presence of nutrition officers in all ministries also at District level– but it must become clear under who’s responsibility this activity this activ-ity resorts – DNHA or MOH – since the DNHA resorts under the MOH.

3. GOM, EU, DNHA: If food and nutrition security or food security and nutrition both on household level is still a priority for the GOM it should be under the responsibility of a special department preferably under the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) jointly with the Ministry of Health (MOH), the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water De-velopment (MOAIWD) and the Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Wel-fare (MOGCDSW). The DNHA was created for this aim under the OPC but shifted to the MOH. It should preferably return under the OPC and putting more emphasize on the component household food security.

4. GOM and EU: The importance of a central INFSSS that enables tracking of malnutrition and also food insecurity for timely and rational response for the GOM and the donors is generally recognized. The experiences gained with AAH-UK and now with the DNHA learnt that such a system must house under a PMU that is independent but controlled by the GOM, independent academic institutions and donors. This PMU needs a team of highly qualified professionals with enough funds. The budget for this activity under the DNHA under PE1 and PE2 was fairly too small to guarantee any impact.

5. GOM, MOE and EU: The school meals component learnt how to include NGO’s in this activity in a way that positive results were obtained. It also learnt how to maximize com-munity involvement in an optimal way in order to improve ownership and decrease its price. It also learnt that external funding is always needed for this activity.

24