Posted on by web desk

Evaluation of Asset Creation and Public Works Activities in Lesotho 2015-2019 (Final) – Decentralized Evaluation Report

Executive Summary

1. This activity evaluation of “Asset Creation and Public Works Activities in Lesotho 2015-2019” was commissioned by the Ministry of Forestry, Range, and Soil Conservation (MFRSC) and the WFP Lesotho Country Office (LCO). The purpose was to assess and report on the impact of Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) activities on environmental, communal and household resilience to shocks and stresses, and to identify lessons learned, successes and challenges.

  1. The evaluation had two complementary objectives: accountability and learning. Accountability involved assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, performance and results of FFA activities and the technical assistance provided by WFP to the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) implemented by MFRSC (“Pilot”). Learning involved presenting evidence-based findings to inform future decision-making regarding Public Works and FFA activities. Another objective was understanding how far FFA activities considered gender and human rights-related issues such as equity and discrimination.
  2. The primary users of the evaluation and project stakeholders are the Government of Lesotho (GoL), particularly MFRSC, WFP and its partners in Lesotho, the WFP regional bureau, the WFP headquarters, the WFP Office of Evaluation, Non-Governmental Organizations, United Nations organizations, and community leaders and targeted households in the FFA/Pilot sites.

Context

  1. Lesotho frequently experiences natural disasters, with erratic rainfall, heavy rains and mid-season dry spells becoming amplified in recent years. Moreover, pervasive land degradation in the form of soil erosion has led to sheet and gully erosion in cultivated fields, resulting in many fields lying fallow and contributing to declining livestock and agricultural production yields.
  2. Lesotho is not food self-sufficient, importing around 70 percent of its food need requirements per year, particularly from South Africa. In 2018/2019, approximately 309,000 out of a population of around 2.2 million rural people were food insecure. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable to poverty. Sixty-four percent of households headed by women in Lesotho are living in poverty compared to 57 percent of households headed by men.

Subject of evaluation

  1. The evaluation focuses on the Pilot and the WFP FFA activities implemented under the Country Programme (CP) 2013-2017, the Single Country Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations (PRRO) June 2016-December 2017 and the Transitional Interim Country Strategic Plan (T-ICSP) January 2018-June 2019. The FFA projects were implemented in Mafeteng, Mohale’s Hoek and Quthing; the Pilot was implemented in Maseru, Berea, and Butha-Buthe districts. FFA activities reached around 17,000 beneficiaries, while the Pilot targeted around 2,400 households. From 2015-2019, FFA activities received more than US$ 4.4 million in funding; the Pilot budget was US$ 150,000 for 2017-2019.

Methodology

  1. The evaluation applied a theory-based, mixed qualitative-quantitative method approach to examine cause-effect questions by exploring the situations before and after the FFA and Pilot interventions. A contribution analysis was conducted to counteract the attribution problem. The following methods were used: environmental assessment, technical appraisal site visits, Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), household survey, desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). These methods were selected to appropriately: (1) Respond to evaluation questions; (2) Counteract data gaps; (3) Include multi-level stakeholders; (4) Address the attribution problem; and (5) Ensure robust findings. The evaluation covered the six districts where the FFA/Pilot interventions were implemented; in these districts, nine sites in total were selected for the fieldwork. Data collection took place from 24th January to 28th February 2022.
  2. The limitations of the study were: (1) Covid-19; (2) Recall bias; (3) Social desirability bias; (4) Biased responses due to confusion between different FFA projects; (5) Staff turnover and limited institutional memory; (6) Limited availability of key informants; (7) Logical framework gaps; and (8) Data gaps. These limitations were mitigated through comprehensive measures.

Source: World Food Programme