annual action programme 2013 part 2 for food security list...

Annual Action Programme 2013 Part 2 for Food Security List of Annexes

Strategic Priority 2: Strengthened governance approaches for food security

Annex 1. Support to Land Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa in the scope of the Voluntary Guidelines

EUR 32,723,603

Strategic Priority 3: Addressing food security for the poor and vulnerable in fragile situations

Annex 2. Addressing food security for the poor and vulnerable in fragile situations – Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan

EUR 20,000,000

Annex 3. Improving Food Security in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - DPRK

EUR 13,000,000

1

ANNEX 1

of the Commission Implementing Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2013 (part 2) for Food Security

STRATEGIC PRIORITY AREA 2: STRENGTHEN GOVERNANCE APPROACHES FOR FOOD SECURITY

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Support to Land Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa in the scope of the Voluntary Guidelines CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-828 CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-919 CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-920 CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-921 CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-922

Total cost Total cost EUR 33,357,603 EU contribution EUR 32,723,603 Joint co-financing by GIZ (Ethiopia) EUR 300,000 Grantees’ contribution EUR 334,000

Aid method / Method of implementation

Project Approach: - Direct centralised management (grants direct award: Angola, procurement of services: South Sudan) - Indirect centralised management with GIZ (Burundi, Ethiopia) - Joint management with FAO (Kenya, Somalia, transversal support) - Partially decentralised management with Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, Niger, Swaziland

DAC-code 31130 Sector Agricultural Land Resources

2. RATIONALE AND CONTEXT

2.1. Summary of the action and its objectives

The European Union committed to support the application at country level of the Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the context of National Food Security (VGGT), in the framework of the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa with a minimum budget of EUR 25,000,000. The present programme complements the on-going portfolio of the European Union on land governance and related issues of EUR 120,000,000 at global, regional and country levels. The 10 in-country projects (Angola, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan and Swaziland) forming this programme address the main chapters of the VGGT: legal recognition and allocation of tenure rights and duties, transfers & other changes to tenure rights and duties, administration of tenure, responses to emergencies, promotion, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, with focuses dependent on the countries requirements. They foster human rights based approaches, pro-poor land tenure and the respect of customary and traditional rights. They cover a wide and balanced geographical scope in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

All countries selected have proposed food security and agriculture as a focal sector for the 11th EDF and recognize land governance as a critical aspect to be addressed for the

2

implementation of their new programme. The resulting actions will be devolved to the Delegations, and fully managed at country level. The coordination and monitoring arrangements will ensure the capitalization of experience, sharing of information and tools for the partners of this programme and for other initiatives.


2.2.1. Sector context: policies and challenges

Land governance is a critical governance challenge in a number of countries, and has become a key issue, implying securing rights of smallholders, ensuring adequate recognition to communal or pastoral area, protecting land resources from speculative transactions whilst ensuring a transparent and secure environment for agricultural investments. The increasing importance of land issue is to be understood in a context of a world population expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Against this background, food security will depend on the efficient use of limited natural resources. The food prices crises and the wave of large scale agricultural investments are also symptomatic of future challenges on food and agricultural production and on land management. At global level, international deals for large scale land acquisitions since 2000 extends to 32 million hectares in 755 transactions, as reported by the International Land Coalition (ILC) and partners’ Land Matrix.

Many countries continue to be constrained by the lack of a transparent and effective land tenure system. Frequently, resource tenure challenges result from competition over scarce or valuable natural resources in contexts where there is no public domain land registration, property rights are unclear or contested, policies and institutions are unable to cope with swiftly moving social, economic and political transformations, and do not adequately address the need of poor rural populations, donors and host governments make incorrect assumptions about how people gain access to and control land and productive assets and then make investments that solidify these assumptions, even though these may not reflect reality or the true needs of the target populations.

Issues and constraints regarding land governance and policy reforms vary from region to region, and they will continue to evolve over time. A number of countries targeted for this initiative are considered to be volatile, either in conflict or post-conflict situations (Somalia, South Sudan, Angola, Burundi), and those that are often in the greatest need of land reforms are fragile states. Setting a framework, legislation and instruments for land registration and governance appears critical in this context.

2.2.2. Regional context

2.2.2.1. Economic and social situation and poverty analysis

Access to secure land rights is a critical component of economic development and social stability. Inappropriate rights and land reform policies and institutional structures that are not synchronised with economic, political, and environmental realities can undermine growth, erode natural resource bases, and catalyse violent conflict. Insecure and non-negotiable land rights are some of the critical factors limiting economic growth and democratic governance throughout the developing world. Conversely, systems viewed as legitimate, transparent and transferable can lead to increase in-farm investment and productivity, social and political stability, and better resource management.

The way access to land is organised therefore strongly influences the pattern and pace of agricultural development, as well as progress in achieving food security. Moreover,

3

equitable tenure rights form a prerequisite for stability. Unequal distribution of resources and their illegitimate appropriation in a context of scarcity is often the origin of tensions and severe civil conflicts. Addressing resource tenure is therefore one of the key steps towards consolidating peace in post-conflict societies. Finally, security of tenure represents a pre-condition for the sustainable management of natural resources. Experience has shown that security of tenure leads to more long-term and sustainable land management. Linkage of resources, such as between land and water or between urban and rural land, requires coordination and cooperation among authorities.

Furthermore, large scale land acquisition and long-term leases of land strongly impact on food security and poverty reduction in countries and regions where they evict rural population from access to land. Their social and economic desirability and their sustainability should be investigated on a case by case basis, and validated by affected populations through free and prior informed consent. In this regard, best practices and principles for responsible investments in agricultural land will need to be integrated into national legislations and negotiations of investment contracts. They will also need to be integrated in relevant international and national policy frameworks as well as in standards and codes of conduct for foreign direct investment.

The matter has become even more critical in the context of worsening scarcity of agricultural land, land degradation, population growth, increasing demand for agricultural products, competition between food and bio-fuel production, importance of preserving forest basins, climate change, food and nutrition security, etc.

2.2.2.2. Thematic policy framework

The adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the context of National Food Security (VGGT) in the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in May 2012 has been major step taken by the international community for improving land governance at global level. This was the conclusion of a process where Governments, International Organisations, civil society and the private sector worked together for more than two years in a spirit of collaboration, respect and common understanding.

VGGT address sensitive issues such as land tenure of smallholders, indigenous people and other communities with customary tenure rights, land markets, expropriation and compensation, and responsible investments with transactions in tenure rights. They underline the necessity to recognize existing legitimate tenure rights, including for those with informal tenure rights, based on sound principles including human rights, equity, gender equality, rule of law, transparency and accountability. They acknowledge that responsible public and private investments are essential to improve food security while stressing that these should do no harm, respect human rights and safeguard against dispossession of legitimate tenure right holders and environmental damage. The Guidelines recognize that States should define specific safeguards when investments involving large-scale transactions of tenure rights are being considered.

The practical implementation of the VGGT is now a challenge for national governments and all stakeholders. At the 18-19 May 2012 G8 meeting, the European Commission committed to finance the development and implementation of appropriate in-country policy frameworks in Africa, based on the recently adopted VGGT and the Framework and Guidelines issued by the Land Policy Initiative from the African Union, with a minimum amount of 25 million

4

Euro. An appropriate legal framework supported by robust land policies is essential, together with proper tools for their implementation.

At the African continental level, the African Union (AU) adopted a Declaration on Land Issues and Challenges in 2009, and developed the African Framework and Guidelines (AF&G) on land policy through the African Land Policy Initiative (LPI), a joint programme of the AU, ECA and AfDB. The AF&G recognise that tenure interventions must build on local conditions and include a thorough understanding of local practices and customary tenure systems. The land reform agenda must be driven and owned at the individual country level and, whilst lessons of good practice can be shared across countries, simple one-size-fit-all solutions are unlikely to help.

The African Union reports back to the African Heads of State and Government on the effective implementation of their Declaration. Under the AU overall leadership, LPI has been mandated to use this Framework in support of national and regional processes, and assist AU member states in developing, reviewing, implementing or evaluating their land policies. LPI works closely with FAO – who is one of the partner institutions to the programme. The AU Declaration on Land and its AF&G are consistent with and support the VGGT. The land governance agenda is also supported by NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency (NPCA) and CAADP (Sustaining the Momentum).

The EU places a high emphasis on the VGGT as a tool which can help national governments and other stakeholders to strengthen the governance of land tenure. It actively supported the negotiations and subsequently the global promotion activities facilitating their implementation with publication, dissemination, training and advocacy by the FAO VGGT support system. The EU also promotes consensual land policy processes and supports collaboration between state, civil society, private sector, bilateral and multilateral organisations, with the ultimate objective of pro-poor land governance. These principles and values are embodied in the 2004 EU Land Policy Guidelines (LPG) that provides conceptual and methodological support to land policy development and land reform programmes. The EU policy framework for food security (2010) and its implementation plan recognise land governance as fundamental to foster food security and agricultural development. The recent Council conclusions on Food Security and Nutrition (28 May 2013) emphasise the need to apply a rights-based approach and encourages countries to apply the VGGT.

2.3. Lessons learnt

The Commission commissioned a review of EU support to land issues and policy reforms, which was completed in November 2011. The review concluded that access to land and tenure and food security challenges are present in every country where the EU has financed programmes/projects. In many countries, these problems are so grave that they create political instability, violence, population displacement, famine and environmental destruction, which could significantly undermine or prevent successful implementation of many EU programmes/projects.

Secure access to and control of land and land-based resources is critical to supporting many of the EU strategic objectives, including: women’s economic empowerment, secure economic investments, food and energy security, nutrition, democracy and governance, conflict mitigation, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, global health and natural resource management. The lack of secure land rights has been shown to be one of the most limiting factors in achieving economic growth and democratic governance throughout the countries where the EU has financed programmes/projects in support of land issues.

5

Capitalization at global level, with donors, specialised agencies, government representatives and CSOs, such as the meetings on the implementation of the VG hosted by FAO (October 2012), the Land and Poverty WB conference (April 2013) and the World Land Forum (ILC, April 2013) highlight the critical importance of the application of the VG at country level, building on and coordinating with on-going processes, and the involvement of multi-stakeholders platform in the definition and the implementation of the activities.

2.4. Complementary actions

The present programme complements the on-going portfolio of the EU on land governance and related issues of 20 projects at global, regional and country levels, amounting to EUR 120,000,000. It builds in particular on global and African regional activities:

- the Global Food Security Governance contract with the FAO that financed the third round of negotiation of the VGGT (EUR 400,000) and the support activities for its implementation (EUR 1,200,000) in the scope of the global FAO “Support Programme for the Application of the VGGT” and its work plan 2012-2015.

- the African Land Policy Initiative (LPI), that receives substantial funding from the Commission from its inception (EUR 8,800,000 for 2010-2015, from the Intra-ACP envelope)

- the International Land Coalition (ILC), global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organisations that promotes secure and equitable access to and control over land, influences land governance through advocacy, dialogue, knowledge sharing and capacity building. ILC fosters the definition of National Engagement Strategies (NES) with local stakeholder in 20 countries, including Niger, Benin, Kenya and Malawi, and soon, South Sudan. The EC is a Strategic Partner of ILC and is supporting ILC since 2006, having just signed a new agreement for 2013-2015 (EUR 4,000,000).

At country level, they complement a present portfolio of EUR 19,000,000 in SSA countries, and prepare the ground for the implementation of the 11th EDF, for which all selected countries have proposed food security and agriculture as a focal sector.

2.5. Donor coordination

Against the backdrop of the food prices crisis of 2008, the EU Heads of Agriculture and Rural Development (HARDs) decided early 2009 to reactivate the EU Land Working Group previously responsible for developing the EU land policy guidelines and also allowing, inter alia, exchanging information on external assistance from EU countries to land issues and land policy reform. It is chaired by the Commission.

Coordination with the Member States on this initiative has been ensured at global level through presentations at the EU Land Working Group, while coordination at country level is ensured by the Delegations. The mapping of EU and other donors' projects also facilitates complementarities and mapping of activities in the region.

A number of bilateral donors are engaged on land governance issues around the world, for example Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Norway and USA and some have important support programmes. Among the multilaterals, aside FAO and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Bank allocates major resources and has developed a valuable tool, the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF).

6

The increasing number of initiatives in this field calls for a strengthened coordination between donors and agencies. Building on the success of the EU Land Working Group, a global donor working group is being created. It will deliver a mapping of EU supported projects, to which USAID, Canada, Japan and WB also associate. This mapping might be used at local level for donor coordination, and after endorsement, with Governments and specialised agencies.

3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

3.1. Objectives

The overall objective of the EU support is to enhance secure tenure of land, fisheries and forest and other natural resources for smallholders, vulnerable people and communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, to achieve food security and contribute to the eradication of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The specific objective is to improve land governance in line with the VGGT and the African Frameworks and Guidelines (AF&G) through a set of actions in 10 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.

3.2. Expected results and main activities

Expected results and main activities of the 10 projects can be structured around three different types of support: i) the strengthening of legal and administrative framework for land governance, ii) the support to the creation, use and maintenance of land administration tools to ensure land tenure governance and security, and iii) the reinforcement of capacities and understanding on land issues at governmental, administrative and NSA levels. Importance given to each one of these types of support will be depending on the country specific context and on the main problems identified.

The 10 in-country projects forming this programme address the main chapters on the VGGT: legal recognition and allocation of tenure rights and duties, transfers & other changes to tenure rights and duties, administration of tenure, responses emergencies, promotion, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, with focuses dependent on the countries requirements. They cover a wide and balanced geographical scope in Sub-Saharan Africa.

R1) Legal, institutional and administrative framework for responsible land governance implemented at different levels.

Activities foreseen include:

A1a. Analysis, revision and harmonisation of the legal and policy framework in line with the VGGT and the AF&G, including recognition of legitimacy of individual/collective customary tenure rights.

A1b. Integration of safeguards for rural communities and individuals into legislation investment contracts to regulate large and medium scale land acquisitions; development of obligatory standards and regulations for investors; assessment of the effects of investments on resident populations.

A1c. Support the development or establishment of land conflict resolution systems at central and community level.

7

R2) Land administration systems and tools are developed and used effectively for both the formal and customary land structures.

Activities will include:

A2a. Development of tools for land administration for both the modern and customary structures of governance: inventory of types of land tenure (i.e.: communal areas, public domain etc.), participatory land mapping, land registration system, cadaster, digital land registry, land rights formalisation process, development and use of geographical information systems (GIS), GIS monitoring tools, for example including the use of remote sensing technologies including satellite and aerial imagery.

A2b. Design and delivery of training activities and provision of necessary equipment to strengthen the technical capacity of central and decentralised governments’ institutions in the use of digital land registry, cadastre management, participatory mapping such as Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development approach (PNTD) and Participatory Land Delimitation (PLD) methodologies, as well as GIS and basic use of remote sensing technologies where appropriate.

A2c. Support the formalisation of land rights to legitimate land users (individual titles or certificates, collective land delimitations, etc.), title deeds delivery and related documentation to recognise and secure tenure rights.

The specific approach taken will be dependent on the country situation and preliminary/pilot experiences.

R3) CSOs have a better understanding of land governance mechanisms and are able to advocate their rights.


A3a. Awareness-raising campaigns and effective rural communication strategies to disseminate and promote the VGGT and AF&G among non-state actors, civil society organisations, farmers associations, agricultural professional organisations including representatives of agri-business enterprises and corporations in the extractive industry.

A3b. Creation, stimulation and/or mobilization of multi-stakeholder platforms and workshops to discuss and validate land strategies and mainstream VGGT and AF&G at all levels.

A3c. Capacity building to support local organisations, CSOs and NGOs in their advocacy for smallholder farmers, in particular women and youth, to have increased land rights due to responsible land governance, to influence local level policy and decision makers and monitor the implementation of the land laws.

R4) Public Administration’s legal, administrative and technical capacities are strengthened to implement land governance policies and to meet the demand for land rights formalization.


A4a. Identification of country level capacity gaps in the governance of land issues and the application of the Voluntary Guidelines and reinforcement of operational capacities.

8

A4b. Design and delivery of training programs consistent with the VGGT and AF&G principles to personnel at central, provincial and local government level.

A4c. Design ad-hoc guidelines and manuals for local authorities and communities in implementing land rights formalization processes.

R5) Lessons learned from the projects are capitalized and shared with all relevant land governance stakeholders.


A5a. Transversal support to the programme: preparation of general technical guides and training documents on VGGT/AF&G, exchanges of approaches, experience, tools, lessons learned and best practices.

A5b. Capitalization on the programme experience, support to the programme communication strategy and exchanges with African and global land governance stakeholders.

3.3. Risks and assumptions

Though having received a strong international support, in particular from all countries members of the CFS and having been formally endorsed by this Committee, the VGGT remain non-legally binding (soft law) and its in-country application is voluntary. The willingness of Governments to apply these principles extensively is the major assumption of this programme, and entails risks at country level, as vested interests in non-smallholders land acquisitions are significant.

Dealing with land governance is often politically sensitive and, if not carefully prepared, may not address the issues adequately, demand more time, intensive supervision and implementation support and/or corrective action. Indeed, decisions regarding use of and control over land are extremely delicate and of highly political nature as different societal groups have differing views and interest in it. Therefore all forms of cooperation in land governance entails risks, and require therefore a deep understanding of issues and interest at stake, conflict dynamics as well as an inclusive approach.

Continuous Governments’ commitment towards improved land governance and land reform will also be essential for the success of the programme. Commitment of Niger and South Sudan to the Land Transparency Initiative launched by the G8 in June 2013 was also an additional sign of political willingness. The priority put by Governments towards land reform was a crucial factor assessed for the selection of the projects for financing, confirmed by the preparatory work carried out by the Delegations. Though embedded in policy documents, they might be threatened in case of Government change or major social/political events. Should the political willingness of the Governments be affected, the programme might recentralised activities programmed in decentralised management, revert policy support to field/pilot activities, focus its support to civil society or in the end, transfer controversial allocations to other projects.

3.4. Cross-cutting issues

Good governance and securing/improving human rights with regards to their essential livelihoods is the main aim of the programme.

9

The land tenure situation has become more exacerbated as a consequence of climate change, increasing scarcity of agricultural land, land degradation, population growth, increasing demand for agricultural products (for food, feed fuel), rising importance of preserving forest basins, food security and nutrition issues, etc., together with the backdrop of the food prices crisis of 2008 and its impact on food security and nutrition levels. Securing land tenure is indeed a fundamental prerequisite to allow sustainability of rural livelihoods, securing households productive investments and paving ground for long term investment in erosion control, fertility management, agro-forestry development and preservation of natural resources such as forests and water from large scale and displaced smallholders exploitation. The project impact should be beneficial with regards to land degradation and combat against desertification.

Gender and generations inequalities toward land tenure are recognised as an impediment to socially inclusive and economically sustainable agricultural development. The programme will take into consideration gender issues as they relate to land tenure and rights to land, focusing particularity on women-headed households. It is specifically addressed as a specific objective of the programme, and is either identified for specific activities (Malawi, Angola) or mainstreamed in countries projects.

3.5. Stakeholders

The stakeholders of the projects in the country will be a combination of:

- Governments central services, Ministries in charge of land and related issues, specialised public agencies such as Land Agencies,

- Decentralised administrative structures impacting land tenure management locally,

- Civil society organisation, including farmers' representation, professional organisations,

- Traditional land governance actors, such as chiefs and elders,

- Research Centres, Universities,

- Judicial system, Parliament, professional bodies (notaries, surveyors), when adequate,

- Private sector,

- International organisations and donors community.

The programme will rely on consultation mechanisms between all actors involved in land issues through multi-stakeholders platforms, as provided by the VGGT (Art 26.2), and using inclusive, participatory, gender sensitive, implementable, cost effective and sustainable processes.

Steering committees will be organised at country level with the most involved stakeholders to guide project progress.

4. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

4.1. Financing agreement

In order to implement this action, it is foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with the partners countries Ivory Coast, Malawi, Niger and Swaziland, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation.

10

4.2. Indicative operational implementation period

The indicative operational implementation period of this action, during which the activities described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is 60 months, subject to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer in the relevant agreements.

4.3. Implementation components and modules

The programme is formed by 10 projects at country level, in Ivory Coast, Somalia, Burundi, Angola, Malawi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger, Swaziland and South Sudan.

4.3.1. Grant: direct award (direct centralised management) (Angola)

(a) Objectives of the grant, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and expected results

The objective of the grant will be to improve land governance using the VGGT as a framework to develop more appropriate policies responding to local practices; stronger local government institutions; more community participation; and the testing of alternative approaches to tenure security. The project will be implemented in Huambo and Bie which are the Central Highland provinces most affected by the previous conflict.

(b) Justification of a direct grant

Under the responsibility of the authorising officer by delegation, the grant may be awarded without a call for proposals to the NGO partnership formed by World Vision and Development Workshop.

Under the responsibility of the authorising officer by delegation, the recourse to an award of a grant without a call for proposals is justified because of the specialisation and experience of these organisations in land governance in the central highlands regions of Angola (action with specific characteristics requiring a specific type of beneficiary for its technical competence, and specialisation). The action will scale-up the action “Promoting the Rights to Land in Angola” (contract 259-824) under finalization, acknowledging its positive results and the ROM (Results Oriented Monitoring) recommendation for its sustainability.

(c) Essential award criteria

The beneficiary and his proposal will be assessed against selection and award criteria best communicated to him upon invitation to submit a proposal. The essential award criteria are the relevance of the proposed action to the objectives of the action; design, effectiveness, feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the action.

(d) Maximum rate of co-financing

The maximum possible rate of co-financing for this grant is 90% of the eligible costs of the action. The limited own financial resources and weak capacity to raise funding in Angola requires this increased ratio of co-financing to ensure the possibility to implement the action.

(e) Indicative trimester to contact the potential direct grant beneficiary

Formal request to the potential grant beneficiary will be made last trimester 2013, as soon as the decision is adopted.

11

4.3.2. Procurement (direct centralised management) (South Sudan and global)

Subject in generic terms Type Indicative number of contracts

Indicative trimester of

launch of the procedure

TA to the Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning (MOHPP) to support land governance reform, South Sudan

Services 1 (EUR 2,000,000)

First semester 2014

Mid-term and final evaluations Services 1 (EUR 500,000)

First semester 2014

4.3.3. Indirect centralised management with a Member State agency (GIZ) (Ethiopia and Burundi).

A part of this action with the objective of supporting land governance in Ethiopia and in Burundi will be implemented in indirect centralised management with GIZ (Germany) in accordance with Article 54(2)(c) of Financial Regulation 1605/2002. This implementation is justified because of the key experience of GIZ in land governance reforms, and its successful project implementation in Ethiopia and Burundi, on which the present support will build on.

The agency (GIZ) will implement the “Support to Responsible large-scale Agricultural Investments Project" in Ethiopia with the Ministry of Agriculture and the "Improve the Management and Land Governance of Public Land Project" in Burundi with the Ministry of Water, Environment, Land Use Planning and Urban Development. The projects will associate the Ministries relevant directorates, selected regional and local administrations, land register services (Cadastre National et Bureau de Centralisation Géomatique in Burundi), international and local investors and regional and national research institutions, technical services and local communities involved in the project implementation.

The change of method of implementation constitutes a substantial change except where the Commission "re-centralises" or reduces the level of budget-implementation tasks previously entrusted to the agency.

4.3.4. Joint management with an international organisation: FAO (Somalia, Kenya and transversal support)

The projects in Somalia and in Kenya will be implemented in joint management with the FAO. This implementation is justified because of the prominent role of FAO in the promotion and support to the application of the VGGT in country. Specifically, FAO is the most (if not only) suitable option for Somalia. For Kenya, it will lead a partnership associating IFAD, UN Habitat and GLTN, that will provide a strong expertise and toolkits for the Government for mapping land use and rights and the corresponding capacity building. Joint management with this international organisation in accordance with Article 53d of Financial Regulation 1605/2002 is possible because the organisation is bound by a long-term framework agreement (FAFA).

For the implementation of the project “Rebuilding confidence on land issues in Somalia”, the international organisation will carry out an in-depth assessment on territorial rights and conflict dynamics for the formulation of effective strategies towards sustainable natural

12

resource management, and enhance institutional and community capacities to engage in land management/governance and related strategic dialogue). It will engage line Ministries, local authorities, customary representatives, private sector, NGOs and CSOs for effective collaboration and for strengthening national ownership of the development process. The project will be implemented with the involvement of partners already working on land issues (International Development Law Organisation – IDLO and Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa – PENHA) and other stakeholders operational in the project areas. These partnerships will be managed according to FAO’s rules.

In Kenya, the project “Support for land governance and the application of the VGGT” will be implemented by FAO, with whom a standard Contribution Agreement will be signed. The project will be carried out in partnership with IFAD and UN Habitat and its other local stakeholders, namely government institutions, civil society, farmers’ organisations, private sector, academia and experts from local communities. UN Habitat has chaired the Development Partner Group on Land (DPGL) in Kenya for the last ten years and supplies the Secretariat to the DPGL. IFAD has been one of the core partners from the outset in the development of the VGGT and supports several programmes that could scale up and benefit from the application of the guidelines at country and local level.

The change of method of implementation constitutes a substantial change except where the Commission "re-centralises" or reduces the level of budget-implementation tasks previously entrusted to the international organisation.

Aside the implementation of these two country projects, FAO will provide a transversal support to this programme. It will cover awareness rising and promotion of the VGGT and AF&G jointly, capacity development with training and diffusion of technical guides, exchanges of experience and best practices, capitalization, monitoring and evaluation. These activities are components of the on-going FAO “Support Programme for the Application of the VGGT”, to which the Commission contributed in 2012-2013 (see 2.4). The present support will focus on its implementation in the 10 countries of the FSTP programme and continental specificities. Ad-hoc technical guides and training documents referring to both the VGGT and the African F&G will be elaborated, fitting the specific requirements in the African continent. Collaboration with the LPI will be promoted in line with the LPI road map, especially with regards to a common methodology and tools for monitoring and evaluation.

FAO will organise exchanges between the Delegations of the 10 countries and their main projects implementers, capitalise on their approaches, experiences, tools, lessons learned and best practices and further provide guidance and recommendations for the projects’ successful implementation. Exchanges will be organised through periodic capitalization meetings (indicatively yearly). A web forum is also envisaged for permanent exchanges between the projects and with headquarters. FAO will consolidate programme achievements and results in a yearly report that will be distributed to African and global land governance stakeholders.

The FAO will also prepare inputs and contribute to the communication of the programme and to the feed-back to other parties, in particular the AU and LPI, the Regional Economic Communities, the CFS and the thematic working groups.

13

4.3.5. Partially decentralised management with the partner country (Ivory Coast, Malawi, Niger, Swaziland)

A part of this action with the objective of supporting land governance in Ivory Coast, Malawi, Niger, Swaziland will be implemented in partially decentralised management in accordance with Article 53c and 56 of Financial Regulation 1605/2002 according to the following modalities:

The partner country will act as the contracting authority for the procurement and grant procedures. The Commission will control ex ante all the procurement procedures except in cases where programme estimates are applied, under which the Commission applies ex ante control for procurement contracts > EUR 50,000 and may apply ex post for procurement contracts ≤ EUR 50,000. The Commission will control ex ante the contracting procedures for all grant contracts.

Payments are executed by the Commission except in cases where programmes estimates are applied, under which payments are executed by the partner country for operating costs and contracts up to the ceilings indicated in the table below.

Works Supplies Services Grants

< 300,000 EUR < 300,000 EUR < 300,000 EUR ≤ 100,000 EUR

The financial contribution partially covers the ordinary operating costs deriving from the programme estimates.

The change of method of implementation constitutes a substantial change except where the Commission "re-centralises" or reduces the level of budget-implementation tasks previously entrusted to the beneficiary partner country.

In accordance with Article 262(3) of the Rules of Application, the partner third country shall apply for procurement rules of Chapter 3 of Title IV of Part Two of the Financial Regulation. These rules as well as rules on grant procedures in accordance with Article 193 of the Financial Regulation will be laid down in the financing agreement concluded with the partner country.

The project implementation arrangements for each of the four countries are the following:

- In Ivory Coast, the “Public-Private Partnership for the acceleration of the application of the Rural Land Tenure Law” project will support the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Interior, through a programme estimate. A local call for proposals will be launched for field activities with two lots: lot 1 to support inter-professional organisations, associations and cooperatives supporting not more than two value chains geographically concentrated, lot 2 for the setting)-up of an independent observatory of rural land tenure. Evaluation/capitalisation will be provided through a service contract.

- In Malawi, the “Promoting Responsible Land Governance for Sustainable Agriculture” project will provide technical assistance under a decentralised approach to support the Ministry of Land and the Ministry of Agriculture, in line with the EC backbone strategy for technical cooperation. The result to increase smallholder farmers’ (in particular women) land rights with responsible land governance at local level will be procured through a centralised call for proposals, to ensure independence of the CSO in implementing relevant activities.

14

- In Niger, the “Securing Pastoral Tenure Systems through the Strengthening of Land Governance” project will include a TA service contract supporting the Permanent Secretariat of the Rural Code and the Land Commission with the participation of farmers and pastoralist associations under the supervision of the National Comity of the Rural Code which is directed by the Ministry of Agriculture.

- In Swaziland, a Financing Agreement to “Enhance capacity for Sustainable Land Administration and Management at National, Regional and Chiefdom Level” will be signed with the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (MEPD) (also NAO of the EDF). Technical and institutional support and capacity building will be provided to the MEPD through programme estimates and service contracts. Part of the sensitisation and training works might be contracted through a grant to a specialised organisation or following a call for proposals. Necessary equipment (GPS, GIS) will be provided through a supplies contract.

4.4. Scope of geographical eligibility for procurement in direct centralised and decentralised management

Subject to the following, the geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for participating in procurement procedures and in terms of origin of supplies and materials purchased as established in the basic act shall apply.

4.5. Indicative budget Module Amount in

EUR Third party contribution (indicative,

where known)

4.3.2. – Direct grant Angola (direct centralised) 3,000,000 334,000

4.3.3. – Procurement (direct centralised) (S. Sudan)

2,000,000 -

4.3.4. – Indirect centralised management with GIZ (Burundi)

5,500,000 0

4.3.4. – Indirect centralised management with GIZ (Ethiopia)

3,000,000 300,000

4.3.5. – Joint management with the FAO (Somalia)

2,269,000 0

4.3.5. – Joint management with the FAO (Kenya) 2,500,000 0

4.3.5. – Joint management with the FAO (Transversal support to the programme)

1,554,603 0

4.3.6. – Decentralised management with Ivory Coast

4,600,000 0

4.3.6. – Decentralised management with Malawi 3,000,000 0

4.3.6. – Decentralised management with Niger 3,000,000 0

15

Module Amount in EUR

Third party contribution (indicative,

where known)

4.3.6. – Decentralised management with Swaziland

1,800,000 0

4.7 - Evaluations 500,000 0

Totals 32,723,603 634,000

4.6. Performance monitoring

A start-up assistance might be provided for the in-depth definition of the in-country projects, through contracts financed by the FSTP, such as the global FSTP technical support facility.

After detailed definition of in-country projects and corresponding logical frameworks (LFW) has been elaborated, the programme global LFW will be reviewed and updated, consolidating country interventions, in particular for Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs). This will support a harmonization of reporting procedures across the programme along common indicators. The choice of indicators will also rely on the current works of FAO, the LPI and the Donors Groups in the definition of a common set of indicators on land governance.

Enhancing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in support to land policy formulation and implementation in Africa is a core objective of the Land Policy Initiative (Objective 8 of the LPI Strategic Plan and Roadmap 2012-2016). Expected outputs under this result for LPI work plan are: a framework for M&E (benchmarks, indicators and mechanism for tracking progress) developed and implemented; pilot M&E in countries implemented. The programme will design its monitoring system building on the LPI and the FAO VGGT frameworks and monitoring systems.

The projects in country will submit quarterly and annual reports that will allow an internal monitoring by the Delegations and Headquarters. They will also provide a synthetic annual fact sheet on their main achievements and lessons learned that will be used for communication purposes.

The monitoring, evaluations and capitalisation exercises will allow providing a feed-back to the Commission global and African partners, such as the working groups on land, the G8, the CFS, specialised agencies and institutions, and feed institutional dialogues with AU and NEPAD agencies.

4.7. Evaluation and audit

A mid-term and a final evaluation of the programme will be carried out for the programme as a whole. It will be commissioned in centralised direct management mode by the European Commission. It will cover a documental analysis in headquarters and on-site visits of all in-country projects. Aside the evaluation of individual in-country achievements and impact, it will be designed to ensure capitalisation on lessons learned from the initiative that will inform future activities on land governance in Sub-Saharan Africa and world-wide. The evaluation debriefing will be shared with interested parties from the Delegations and partners implementing the projects.

16

Audits will be contracted and carried out locally by the Delegations, depending on the implementation modality of the project in-country.

4.8. Communication and visibility

The programme global communication activities will be supported centrally under the FAO transversal support and by Commission Headquarters. FAO will prepare annual reports consolidating programme experience and lessons learned, for distribution to all programme stakeholders, international partners and specialised agencies.

Proper communication and visibility of the action will be ensured via dissemination of project achievements and results in line with the Communication and Visibility Manual for European Union External Actions and, where applicable, in line with Joint Visibility Guidelines for EU-UN Actions in the Field. The African Union Commission and the LPI will be associated to the communication strategy, to maximize synergies between the VGGT and the AU processes. To enhance the visibility of this action, the Jacques Diouf prize awarded to the European Union by FAO in 2013 will benefit a local NGO, for land governance grassroots activities in one of the selected countries.

The programme would also benefit from general communication tools and networks used by DEVCO, such as Capacity4Dev.

1

ANNEX 2


STRATEGIC PRIORITY 3: ADDRESSING FOOD SECURITY FOR THE POOR AND VULNERABLE IN FRAGILE SITUATION

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Addressing food security for the poor and vulnerable in fragile situations CRIS: DCI-FOOD/2013/024-823

Total cost Total cost EUR 20,000,000 EU contribution EUR 20,000,000


Project Approach/ direct centralised management Call for Proposals

DAC-code 52010 Sector Food security



This action aims to improve food security among conflict-affected population groups and build resilience to stresses and shocks in the Central African Republic (CAR), South Sudan and Sudan. It forms part of the FSTP MIP strategic priority to addresses food insecurity in exceptional situations, where EU geographical instruments cannot operate sufficiently in the field of food security and nutrition.

Implementation will be through grants awarded to non-governmental organisations, following Calls for Proposals. Projects will enhance the link between relief, rehabilitation and development, ensuring coordination with, continuation of and/or complementarity to EU humanitarian interventions.

2.2. Context

All three countries are characterised by recurrent conflict situations causing significant population movements, by poverty and by high levels of food insecurity, repeatedly aggravated by conditions of drought.

A prolonged conflict led to the separation of South Sudan from Sudan in 2011. Since then, tensions and conflict situations have continued, including around border demarcation and the future of the three Transitional Areas of Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile and Abyei. Moreover, internally the security situation remains volatile as well, notably in Jonglei, Unity, Warrap and Lakes States of South Sudan, as a result of clashes between different tribes over natural resources, and in Darfur in Sudan. The latter has resulted in a displacement of over 300,000 people in the first 5 months of 2013 alone. While CAR has been unstable for decades, armed conflict erupted again in January 2013 which led to a serious degradation of the security situation. With the take-over of power by the SELEKA coalition in March 2013, the country has been plunged in a humanitarian, political and security crisis with highly uncertain prospects. In June 2013, about five per cent of the population of 4.6 million was labelled as refugee or IDP.

2

The three countries are among the poorest and least developed in the world. Sudan ranks 171 and CAR 180 on the 2012 Human Development Index (out of 187 listed countries)1. On the Global Hunger Index Sudan ranks 61 and CAR 73 (out of 79), both with index scores that are described as ‘alarming’ (21.5 and 27.3 respectively). In South Sudan, some 4.1 million people are estimated to be at risk of food insecurity, with some 10 per cent of the population (about 1 million) being severely food insecure, who find it difficult to meet the daily food needs especially during the lean season. A further 30 per cent of the population (3.1 million) are moderately food insecure. In CAR, about 30% of the population has been estimated as food insecure, with 7.5 per cent living in severe food insecurity. In Sudan, about 4.7 million people (18% of the population) were estimated to be food insecure in 2012.

In addition, malnutrition is chronic. In South Sudan, nutrition surveys from 2012 shows a poor situation in nearly all parts of the country, with global acute malnutrition rates ranging from 17.5 percent to 30.2 percent, well above the WHO emergency threshold of 15 per cent According to the 2010 Sudan Household Survey, 16.4 per cent of children in Sudan suffer from global acute malnutrition (GAM). This is a chronically high percentage, also above the international emergency threshold of 15 per cent. Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) rates are also high at 5.3 per cent. A 2012 survey in CAR showed a national level of chronic malnutrition of 39.9 per cent, while GAM rates among children were recorded at 7.8 per cent. The actions covered in the three countries will contribute towards the European Union’s pledge to support partner countries in reducing the number of stunted children by 7 million by 2025.

Finally, the causes of food insecurity are broadly comparable in the three countries and include low agricultural productivity, exposure to climate variability, increasing pressures on natural resources, fluctuating food prices, poor government services, conflict and insecurity.

2.3. Lessons learnt

A range of interventions in the three countries, as well as in comparable situations of food insecurity in conditions of prolonged conflict and fragility, have provided valuable lessons:

• Projects in fragile situations need the capacity to adapt to quickly changing circumstances, often require a sufficiently long presence, and need to combine recovery activities with long-term institution building (e.g. by strengthening women’s or farmers organisations, improve marketing structures);

• Where populations are faced with recurrent natural shocks and stresses their resilience needs to be enhanced, implying due attention to adapted production techniques and natural resource management methods, improved service delivery, and (drought/disaster) preparedness plans;

• A conflict-sensitive approach (around prevention and resolution) needs to be integrated into project activities, particularly where population movements have increased the pressure on and competition for the use of natural resources;

1 South Sudan is not (yet) separately ranked in the HDI; neither in the GHI,.

3

• Working with international NGOs, particularly those that cover the entire spectrum from emergency to development, has proven an efficient and cost-effective method of implementation.

2.4. Complementary actions

South Sudan : Two large EDF-funded rural development projects (SORUDEV and ZEAT-BEAD), with an allocation of EUR 42 million and EUR 80 million respectively, will be implemented in the next years. These projects concentrate on the north-west part of the country (the States of Lakes, Western Bahr el Ghazal, Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Warrab). They will: (i) improve productivity of small scale farmers by improving input supply, technology, extension and value addition; (ii) further develop the feeder road programme to link rural production to markets; (iii) improve agricultural and food security governance (capacities, regulations, information management). The FSTP funded project will be complementary to these interventions by concentrating on the integration of returnees and IDPs in the rural host communities.

Sudan: The Sudan Food Security Programme has started recently in Eastern Sudan and Blue Nile for the period 2013-2016, with a budget of EUR 12.3 million. The project is to be implemented by NGOs supported by Technical Assistance. The aim is to increase productivity and income of vulnerable rural smallholders by promoting the use of improved farming practices, including better access to appropriate packages, technologies and services. In addition, another project has recently started: the Food Security Policy and Strategy Capacity Building Programme (2013-2016), implemented by FAO with a budget of EUR 8.6 million. This project targets the three Eastern states and Blue Nile, and is intended to make state-level food security decisions more inclusive, better integrated, informed, implemented and monitored. In addition, several NGO projects are being implemented in Eastern Sudan and Darfur. The focus is on improving food security of vulnerable rural smallholders, including basic animal health support. Most of these projects end in 2014. The current proposal allows taking further some of the valuable NGO initiatives, particularly in conflict-prone areas (Eastern Sudan, Darfur).

In CAR, several NGO-implemented food security projects for a value of about EUR 10 million were ongoing when the recent conflict flared up, particularly in the north-west, west and central parts of the country. The proposed FSTP funded activities will focus on the areas affected by the recent conflict and where appropriate build on and/or expand successful NGO-activities of the recent past.

In all three countries the Commission's Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) provides emergency and recovery assistance. The European Commission’s humanitarian aid budget for Sudan and South Sudan was EUR 140 million in 2011 (of which about half was spent on Sudan and half on South Sudan). In 2012, EUR 157 million was allocated (approximately EUR 47 million for Sudan and EUR 110 million for South Sudan). In 2013, ECHO has allocated an initial EUR 80 million. The European Commission is intervening in several sectors including health and nutrition, water and sanitation, food security and livelihoods as well as catering for the needs of the conflict affected. In CAR, EUR 12 million has been allocated in 2013 to support the internally displaced people affected by the recent emergency, as well as to help the CAR returnees to resume their lives. ECHO intervenes in several sectors including protection, provision of basic household items, access to healthcare, provision of clean drinking water, sanitation

4

services, nutritional and food assistance interventions, as well as catering for the needs of the conflict affected.

2.5. Donor coordination

Donor coordination in all three countries is faced with difficulties. Efforts to coordinate aid in South Sudan are at an initial stage. Main donors and relevant UN organisations meet at a Natural Resources and Rural Development (NRRD) Donor Group to share information and coordinate activities. Within the humanitarian sector there are regular UN-led coordination meetings (‘cluster’ meeting) that are primarily attended by NGOs and UN Agencies.

Donor coordination in Sudan is weak, mostly because donors do not normally engage in policy dialogue with the government; neither do they provide direct support to state structures. As a result, many of the supported projects are implemented using parallel implementation systems.

Before the latest conflict, donor coordination in CAR was regular through monthly food security meetings involving Government, NGO and private sector stakeholders. However, this structure has not been operational for over half a year.


3.1. Objectives

The overall objective of the project will be to improve the food security situation of vulnerable population groups in conflict affected areas of Sudan, South Sudan and CAR. The specific objective will be to enhance the capacities of vulnerable groups to sustainably produce and access food.

3.2. Expected results and main activities

The main result achieved by this project will be a decrease in the percentage of people vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity in the targeted areas. This will include an increased capacity to sustainably produce food among the target groups

The approach taken will strengthen synergies between humanitarian and development interventions and will treat nutrition considerations as a central concern. Activities will be country-specific and may include:

• Support to the integration of returnees and IDPs in host communities

• Introduction and/or expansion of adapted agricultural production methods

• Agricultural input provision

• Construction and management of food storage facilities

• Strengthening of producer groups

• Provision of basic services (notably WASH, animal health)

5

• Activities aiming at increasing access and availability of high-nutrient content food

• Improving nutrition knowledge to enhance dietary diversity

• Expansion of non-agricultural income generating opportunities

3.3. Risks and assumptions

Main risks related to the projects are related to insecurity and external shocks. The security risks are mainly internal to the countries, while an escalation of tensions between Sudan and South Sudan may also affect project implementation. Security risks could have a direct impact on the opportunity to work for NGOs and on the movement of target population groups, while it can have an important indirect effect through adverse effects on the economy. While much of the risk is outside the sphere of influence of the project, a minor part may be mitigated by applying a conflict-sensitive approach in the interventions.

Drought risk is recurrent in most of the target areas. A focus on adapted production methods will assist in mitigating part of this risk.

3.4. Cross-cutting issues

Many of the targeted vulnerable households will be female-headed. Gender considerations will also play a role in the design of specific project interventions, notably in agriculture and around nutrition.

Project activities are set in fragile ecosystems that face increasing population pressure, particularly where additional population inflows occur. Adapted, sustainable production methods will need to be promoted and well-managed, equitable access to natural resources should be fostered.

3.5. Stakeholders

While specific stakeholders will be country specific, they include the humanitarian actors, NGOs, local authorities, local traditional leaders, host communities, IDPs, returnees and service providers (Government and/or private).


4.1. Financing agreement

In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with the partner countries, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation.

4.2. Indicative operational implementation period

The indicative operational implementation period of this action, during which the activities described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is 48 months, subject to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer in the relevant agreements.

6


4.3.1. Grants: call for proposal Addressing food security for the poor and vulnerable in fragile situations (direct centralised management)

(a) Objectives of the grants, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and expected results

The legal basis is Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation.

The implementation of the programme will be carried out through national and international NGOs. The selection of projects is done through Calls for proposals; the EU Delegation will involve ECHO in the elaboration of the Calls. Results framework with clear targets and milestones will be prepared for each action which will serve as the basis for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the interventions. This includes also the preparation of baseline studies at the start of the interventions.

The following specific priorities apply:

South Sudan: Priority will be given to consolidation and continuation of current EU-funded projects; particularly with respect to recovery of livelihood and income generating activities. The geographical cluster approach focuses on the North East and the region of Greater Bahr.

Sudan: Actions will complement on-going agricultural support activities, and aim at increasing rural smallholder production and access to food. The geographic scope covers in particular Darfur and East Sudan

CAR : actions of NGOs in the north-east of the country will be prioritised, as well as possibly in other areas affected by the recent conflict. Priority actions will be related to the rehabilitation of agricultural production systems (crops, livestock) and a strengthening of organisational and operational capacities of producers.

(b) Eligibility conditions

All entities eligible under the DCI Regulation could be, in principle, eligible. Nevertheless EU Delegations, managing each Call for Proposals, may limit such eligibility considering the particular Call objectives and specificities of each targeted country.

(c) Essential selection and award criteria

The essential selection criteria are financial and operational capacity of the applicant. The essential award criteria are relevance of the proposed action to the objectives of the call; design, effectiveness, feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the action.

(d) Maximum rate of co-financing

The maximum possible rate of co-financing for grants under this call is 90%. The maximum possible rate of co-financing may be up to 100% in accordance with Articles 192 of the Financial Regulation and 109 of the Financial Regulation of the 10th EDF if full funding is

7

essential for the action to be carried out. The essentiality of full funding will be justified by the responsible authorising officer in the award decision, in respect of the principles of equal treatment and sound financial management.

(a) Indicative trimester to launch the call

The launching of calls for proposals is tentatively scheduled for the second half of 2013. Delegations are responsible for the preparation and launching of their respective call.

4.4. Scope of geographical eligibility for procurement in direct centralised and decentralised management

Subject to the following, the geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for participating in procurement procedures and in terms of origin of supplies and materials purchased as established in the basic act shall apply.

The responsible authorising officer may extend the geographical eligibility in accordance with Article 31(8) of the DCI on the basis of the unavailability of products and services in the markets of the countries concerned, for reasons of extreme urgency, or if the eligibility rules would make the realisation of this action impossible or exceedingly difficult.

4.5. Indicative budget

The total indicative amount for the calls for proposals to be launched by the EU Delegations is EUR 20,000,000 subject to the approval by the budgetary authority. The indicative amounts per country are listed below.

The source of funding is the food security budget line 21 02 01.

Module Amount in EUR thousands

Grants: call for proposals South Sudan 5,000

Grants: call for proposals Sudan 10,000

Grants: call for proposals Central African Republic

5,000

Total 20,000

4.6. Performance monitoring

The performance of the implementation of activities will be measured on the bases of indicators developed by the EU Delegation managing the call for proposals for each country. Where feasible, nutrition indicators will be included.

4.7. Evaluation and audit

Evaluation and audits activities will be covered by the budget under the grant contracts to be awarded under the calls.

8

4.8. Communication and visibility

All communication and visibility activities will comply with Communication and Visibility Manual for EU External Actions and will be covered by the budget under the grant contracts to be awarded under the calls.

1

ANNEX 3


STRATEGIC PRIORITY 3: ADDRESSING FOOD SECURITY FOR THE POOR AND VULNERABLE IN FRAGILE SITUATION

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number

Improving Food Security in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-751 CRIS: DCI-FOOD 2013/024-912

Total cost

Total cost EU contribution Grantees’ contribution

EUR 13 550 000EUR 13 000 000EUR 550 000


Project approach

Direct centralised management − Grants – call for proposal − Procurement of services − Procurement of supplies

Joint management

DAC-code 52010 Sector Food aid – Food security programmes


2.1. Summary of the action and its objectives Within the Commission's current limited mandate for intervention in the DPRK1, EU assistance is provided under the Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP), and implemented in an LRRD (Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development) approach. The proposed assistance would consist of the continuation of EU’s DPRK-based Food Security Office (FSO), the implementation of community-based and partnership projects, the provision of supplies, and the establishment of an Information System on Food Security. These were discussed with DPRK authorities during 2 missions carried out in 2012 by Commission staff, and are building on FSTP assistance implemented since 2007.

Various assessments of, or information on, the current Food Security situation in DPRK have contributed to the identification of the proposed activities. These assessments are made of information gathered by EU FSO’s technical assistants, the Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM) reports carried out in 2011, the FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM – November 2012), Food & Nutrition Missions I and II carried out by external experts under the FSO as well as the Commission's humanitarian experts' feedback.

1 Council conclusions of 19th November 2002 limiting EC intervention to Humanitarian Aid and Food

Security

2

However, while this data is taken into account, it must be carefully interpreted: it is acknowledged by the international community at large that there is not only little country and sectorial data available as well as only marginal information about the country’s socio-economic and humanitarian context, but also existing data is hardly verifiable and reliable.

Since 2007 and the adoption of the LLRD approach, the EU’s assistance has aimed at introducing DPRK counterpart involved in food security in the country, to alternative and innovative techniques and approaches. This assistance has gradually addressed issues under the 4 pillars of food security (availability, access, use, and stability). Assistance is delivered through pilot interventions which once deemed successful by the DPRK beneficiaries and line ministries, have been integrated into national policy guidelines, and replicated within cooperative farms through the country.

The main objective of our assistance is to contribute to stabilising food production and availability, but, more importantly in recent years, to improving access to food, and enhancing people's nutritional status. In line with above, EU assistance is implemented at community level (cooperative farms or small towns). Support aims at introducing these communities to alternative sustainable and environment-friendly agricultural practices; building therefore these communities resilience to food hazards. The direct beneficiaries are the most vulnerable groups.

2.2. Context

The aim of the Call for Proposals foreseen by this action is to select applicants (according to eligibility criteria published in the guidelines) with the capacity of implementing projects in the field of food security in the DPRK. The main objective of these projects is to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable groups, covering all relevant areas of food security.

2.2.1. National context 2.2.1.1. Economic and social situation and poverty analysis

In the period of 2006 – 2011, three out of six years experienced a negative growth, the overall cumulative real gross domestic product (GDP) rose by about 3% in six years, implying an annual compound growth rate of about 0.4%. After considerable turbulence in last several years, DPRK’s GDP increased by 0.7% in 2010 and further strengthened in 2011, expanding by 1.9%. In general, the recent economic recovery has been due to the relatively good performance of the agriculture sector, significant expansion of the construction sector, exports of natural resources such as iron, coal, fish and timber, as well as remittance inflows into the country from North Korean workers sent to China and Russia.

In 2011, DPRK’s agriculture, fishery and forestry industries expanded by 5.3%, from a 2.1% contraction in 2010. Volatility in agricultural production remains a major challenge in maintaining a stable economy and improving living standards of the population. Similarly, the volume of construction output rose, as a result of increased housing in Pyongyang, as well as other factory constructions. Meanwhile, manufacturing (which includes heavy industry and chemicals production) and utilities output has softened compared to the last year.

Economic trade of DPRK is limited to a very few countries, with China and the Republic of Korea (ROK) being the most important trading partners, accounting for almost 90% of

3

international trade in 2010. Based on available statistics, the total trade deficit increased by almost 50% in five years, rising from USD 983 million in 2003 to an estimated record high of USD 1.52 billion in 2008. Although imports increased, annual trade deficit decreased to USD 974 million in 2010 as a consequence of an increase in exports mainly to China. Trade with China increased from about 36% of the total in 2009 to 57% in 2010. China is currently the only foreign investor, mainly investing in mining, roads, railways and other infrastructure. The trend of exports to China is expected to continue.

2.2.1.2. National development policy

Although the country has emerged from the prolonged humanitarian crisis which started in the mid-1990s, the economic and social situation in the DPRK remains extremely fragile and beset with difficulties. The DPRK authorities did not embark on a transparent national development policy, shared with the donors’ community.

2.2.2. Sector context: policies and challenges Even food insecurity in the DPRK is not addressed by the authorities in an integrative way: though the Government is aware of the situation and has recently initiated some minor agricultural reforms, no clear strategy has been elaborated to improve the situation. Technical Ministries acknowledge the need to cooperate on interrelated issues and do so at decentralised level. At central level however, where the real impetus for change could be given nationwide, cooperation is more difficult (this is partly due to the fact that since there is also no multi-annual policy plan or budgets, ministries cannot plan ahead and are competing for resources). Many food security-related issues, such as availability, access, use, and stability of food, are not considered as important by the government. The main focus lies on staple food production.

Despite continuing social needs, it is increasingly difficult to argue that the situation in DPRK constitutes a short-term crisis or emergency of the kind falling under the core mandate of the Commission's Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO). Rather, the underlying challenges facing DPRK are structural in nature, namely − The limited area of arable land led to an over cultivation of the yields, − Continuous cropping has led to soil degradation, − Constant application of wrong fertilizer has contributed to a reduction in yields. Over the last few years, the nature of the food security shifted from a problem of food availability to one of food access. The EU's longer-term development cooperation instruments provide a more suitable response mechanism.

At the same time, however, as a result of political concerns (in particular, missing progress on denuclearisation in the Six-Party Talks with neighbouring countries and the US) and the Council conclusions, the EU intervention is limited to Food Security. Under the Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP) (2007-2013) a budget of EUR 35 million has been allocated to the period 2007-2010, and 20M€ for the period 2011-2013, out of which 13M€ are still to be committed.

2.3. Lessons learnt Various assessments and information on the current food security and nutrition situation in DPRK have contributed to the identification of the proposed activities: − [i] the result oriented monitoring of EU projects carried out in 2011,

4

− [ii] the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) carried out in 2009 by the Central Bureau of Statistics in collaboration with UNICEF, − [iii] the National Nutrition Survey 2012 by UNICEF, WFP, WHO − [iv] the FAO/WFP Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM - 2012), − [v] the EU Food Security Office Food and Nutrition Surveys (EU FSO) (2011 and 2012), − [vi] ECHO’s feedback. According to the MICS, almost 20% of children under age five in DPR Korea are moderately underweight with 4% severely underweight. About 32% of children are moderately stunted (too short) for their age; this worsens with age, with 47% of children (48-59 months) moderately stunted. 5% are moderately wasted (too thin) for their height. There are striking differences among provinces and by urban-rural regions. The malnutrition is highest in Ryanggang province, followed by Chagang, North Hamgyong and South Hamgyong. According to the CFSAM report, these 4 provinces are also the most vulnerable regions in terms of food insecurity (see below).45% of children living in rural areas are too short for their age compared to 23% in urban areas.

As regards the Food Security Situation in the DPRK, the 2012 CFSAM Mission estimated a cereal import requirement of 507 000 tonnes for the 2012/13 marketing year (November/October) leading to a food deficit of 207 000 tonnes (assuming the official target of 300 000 tonnes of food imports). There are some indications of an on-going government-internal debate about the size of the private household plots: if the size of private plots would indeed be reduced from 30 to 10 Pyong (this information still needs to be confirmed), this would have a serious impact on the amount of food produced and available from private plots and would directly affect the Food Security situation at household level and overall. The report stated that 3 million vulnerable people, mainly living in the five most food-insecure provinces of Ryanggang, Chagang, North Hamgyong, South Hamgyong and Kangwon, are in urgent need of improvement of their food security situation, due to an inadequate food production and commercial imports.

According to the 2 EU Food Security Office Food and Nutrition Surveys, more than one in four women of reproductive age are undernourished and maternal malnutrition is associated with low birth weight children. Micronutrient deficiencies feature serious public health problems. Iron deficiency anaemia is a frequent problem in pregnancy. Iodine deficiency is widely prevalent, especially in the mountainous areas of the north and east of the country. Dietary diversity is limited for many people. Cereal starch predominates. Intakes of animal foods, fish and higher quality vegetables and fruits are generally low and limited to special occasions (festivities in DPRK).

As regards projects’ implementation, two recent improvements should be taken into account for the new program. The extension of the projects ‘inception phase (from 3 to 6 months) made implementation more efficient as projects often face difficulties in collaborating with the Government authorities and points agreed on during the project design phase are changed at short notice. Also the project duration in general has been increased from a max of 48 months to 60 months, to give projects the time to implement activities despite challenges faced (high turnover of national staff, scarce access to the field – every two weeks only, inefficient communication with Korean counterparts due to their restriction of e-mail accounts and direct phone lines).

5

2.4. Complementary actions In addition to EU-funded food security projects, a series of agricultural projects have been supported by bilateral donors from Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and International Organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme.

Aside from Food Security, the EU also occasionally funds projects under other thematic programmes under which the DPRK is eligible (mainly NSA-LA programmes). The DPRK budget allocation under the Non-State Actors and Local Authorities Thematic Programme is of 0.5meuro per year. The DPRK is also eligible under regional programmes such Erasmus Mundus and SWITCH.

In 2008, as the DPRK was showing signs of returning to the 6PT negotiation table, a 3M€ Special Measure was adopted under Article 23 of the DCI-Asia for Health and Water & Sanitation projects. In total, 8 projects have been funded and came to an end in 2011. Though no new set of special measures has been launched since then, aspects of these fields of intervention (Health and Hygiene Education as well as Water and Sanitation) are covered by the themes of EU Call for Proposals, as this is complementary to the topics of the FSTP.

ECHO, together with its partner organisations, is providing humanitarian assistance when an immediate response is needed, such as during and following flooding, drought or food crises. In the period of 1995 until 2012, 130 projects have been implemented (EUR 135 million). In 2012, ECHO provided EUR 200,000 through IFRC to assist after flooding in two provinces as well as EUR 125,000 through Save the Children to assist after flooding in South Hamgyong province.

In addition to the above mentioned complementary actions, projects in the field of health & nutrition, education, reforestation, sloping land management, agricultural & horticultural production, livestock, drugs manufacturing, basic health care/first aid and Water & Sanitation have been implemented by various stakeholders.

2.5. Donor coordination EU Member States locally represented, Switzerland, UN agencies and the International Federation of Red Cross meet on a regular basis under the auspices of UNDP with a view to coordinate their support and exchange information.

In addition to EU-funded food security projects, a series of agricultural projects have been supported by bilateral donors from Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and International Organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme. FAO implements, on behalf of UNDP, a project on Food Security & Rural Development (reduction of post-harvest losses) and one project which builds the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) in agricultural information systems. WFP distributes food to pregnant and nursing women through the public distribution centres and directly to child institutions (nurseries, kindergartens and primary schools). WHO is engaged in policy/planning and capacity-building. Due to the DPRK health service being so seriously under-resourced, WHO exceptionally gives considerable infrastructure support through capacity building, health care service delivery strengthening, involving physically rehabilitating laboratories and upgrading diagnostic facilities. UNICEF’s mandate consists in supporting pregnant, nursing women and under 5 children, although this extends to under 18 children, where adolescents are considered.

6

From the North Korean side, the Korean European Cooperation Coordination Agency (KECCA- Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is responsible for coordinating the implementation of EU (and Swiss) aid in liaison with the technical ministries and institutions. The UN agencies have a specific counterpart called the National Coordination Committee (NCC).


3.1. Objectives The overall objective is to improve the living conditions of the social groups which continue to suffer most from the deterioration of the national socio-economic conditions.

The specific objective is to contribute to stabilising food production and availability, to improving access to food, and to enhancing people's nutritional status by further building and strengthening the resilience of cooperative farms, communities and households, the diversification of production, the balanced diet, and the promotion of behavioural change in nutrition.

As the specific objective of the programme consists in improving Koreans’ nutritional status, chronic and acute malnutrition indicators will be used (resp. stunting and wasting). The indicators should be broken down amongst targeted population (under 2 years old children, under 5 years’ old children, pregnant women, lactating women, disabled).

3.2. Expected results and main activities The expected results are the contribution to the medium and long term capacity of the DPRK to increase the production of its own food and leading therefore to more food availability and access of more nutrient food as well as the development of the information system on the food security situation in the DPRK. According to the latest UNICEF survey, Jagang, South Hamgyong and Ryanggang are the provinces with the highest Global Chronic Malnutrition or Stunting prevalence. Therefore, this action will focus on these regions, which are most in need. It aims at contributing to overcome persistent technical and organisational deficiencies and deficits which cause unstable production, availability, distribution and use of food by these target groups.

Bearing in mind that the DPRK is the closest country in the world, that engagement with authorities is a long procedure which needs time to be established step by step and were changes need to be gradually introduced, that there is an explicit mandate from the Council to keep engagement with the DPRK as well as with the few NGO’s present in the country and considering that we need to adapt the means of our cooperation to the constraints of the country context as well as the available capacity, 5 components are proposed.

Component 1 - Community based projects: Through the implementation of community-based projects, it is expected that cooperative farms will be supported in the fields of food availability, access, use, and stability. The main priority fields of intervention for the proposed activities comprise capacity-building for cooperative farms as well as benefiting organisations in the fields of nutrition, reduction of post-harvest losses and disaster prevention mitigation.

Component 2 - Partnership projects: It is expected that cooperative and representatives of line ministries are trained in the field of relevant technics and are sensitised to food security and nutrition related issues.

7

Component 3 – Supplies: Under the Food Security Office supervision, components 1 and 2 will help identifying the needs as regards supplies and related training (rational utilisation of supplies).

Component 4 – FSO: The Food Security Office is responsible for the general coordination in the absence of an EU Delegation. It monitors NGOs implementing the 2 first components. It prepares technical/ preparatory dialogue for component 5.

Component 5 - Information System: A technical dialogue should be developed amongst DPRK authorities (Kecca, MoA, MoLEP, Universities, Statistical office, Planning Department, development partners) in the field of Food Security and nutrition information systems. It should enlighten supports to nutrition and food security, it will also create opportunity for a technical dialogue on these issues with relevant stakeholders.

3.3. Risks and assumptions The main risk is the deterioration of the political situation and worsening of operational/aid implementation conditions for the EU, NGO’s and other EU implementing organisations in the DPRK (possibly because of side effects of the EU sanctions against DPRK).

The assumptions are that the DPRK authorities will cooperate actively to ensure the proper implementation of EU-funded programmes and that they will commit to concretely or further address the sustainability of EU aid.

From a technical point of view, the risk is that North Korean authorities could further restrain the secondment of technical staff as well as the access to project sites. As staff is often rotating between the same pool of EU organisations, the KECCA’s staff experience with, and knowledge about, our working methods and programmes tends to remain within the KECCA/MFA. A high turnover within the MFA/KECCA can hamper our trying to build an efficient and trustful working relationship between the KECCA and the European aid community. Additional to the before mentioned point, the structural lack of technical expertise is hampering projects and also the FSO to implement activities in a more efficient way. Constructive dialogue with technical staff is the best way to achieve good results, as, culturally, a change of mentality and change of before used methods is best to be achieved if technical knowledge exists.

3.4. Cross-cutting issues Projects implemented by NGO’s take into account various cross-cutting issues in the proposed activities, such as environmental issues (e.g. by promoting recycling of plastic materials), gender issues (e.g. by assessing the implication for women and men when planning actions and responding the needs of both groups), disaster prevention and mitigation (disaster preparedness measures that aim to protect agricultural lands and home gardens - for instance flood embankments and drainage systems) and inclusion of people with disabilities.

Also, by addressing under-nutrition in children and women they will contribute significantly to reducing rates of maternal deaths and improving nutritional status and children physical and psychological growth.

8

3.5. Stakeholders The final beneficiaries would comprise (i) children in kindergartens and nurseries (iv) pregnant and lactating women (ii) primary and middle school students (iii) hospital patients (v) elderly and disabled and (vi) vulnerable people from cooperative farms, communities and households in rural and urban areas. Community based projects and partnership (component 1 and 2) projects will be able to address these final beneficiaries as they work in the field with cooperatives. The 5th component will try to capture these final beneficiaries while building the architecture of the food security and nutrition information system.

The main national partner is the Korean European Cooperation Coordinating Agency (KECCA - North Korean Ministry). In 2006, further to declaring, in 2005, that the country no longer needed humanitarian aid, the DPRK authorities created the KECCA and the European Union Project Support (EUPS) structure. The role of KECCA is to coordinate the implementation of EU (and Swiss) aid in liaison with the DPRK technical ministries and institutions and to facilitate project implementation and contacts between applicants and their local technical partners and associates. The UN agencies have a counterpart called the National Coordination Committee (NCC).

The number of national partners has considerably increased throughout the years, by involving now the Ministries of Land and Environment Protection (MoLEP), the Ministry of City Management (MoCM), the Ministry of Food Processing and Daily Necessities (MoFPDN), Ministry of Public Health as well as non-agricultural institutions, such as the National Academy of Science, the Institute for Child Nutrition, the Pyongyang Agricultural University and agencies/associations dealing with handicapped and elder people. Contacts with these ministries should be preserved on a regular basis. This would partly fall under the responsibility of the FSO.

In addition to EU-funded food security projects (implemented by EUPS), a series of agricultural projects have been supported by bilateral donors from Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy and International Organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme.

EU countries with embassies in the DPRK are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the UK. International Organisations who have an office in the DPRK are the WFP (Food aid), the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Children's Fund (health & nutrition and some education projects), Food and Agriculture Organization (reforestation, sloping land management, agricultural & horticultural production, livestock), United Nations Population Fund (health & nutrition, census 2008), World Health Organisation and the International Federation of Red Cross (drugs manufacturing, basic health care/first aid, water and sanitation).


4.1. Financing agreement In order to implement this action, it is foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with the partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation for the components 3 and 4 (respectively Supplies and Food Security Office).

9

4.2. Indicative operational implementation period The indicative operational implementation period of this action, during which the activities described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is 60 months, subject to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer in the relevant agreements.


4.3.1. Component 1 and 2: Grants: call for proposal DPRK- food security thematic programme (LRRD component) (a) Objectives of the grants, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and expected results: The global objective of the call for proposals is to improve the living conditions of the social groups which continue to suffer most from the deterioration of the national socio-economic conditions. Fields of intervention will cover all relevant areas of food security: availability, access, use, and stability, the main focus for this year’s intervention laying on nutrition.

(b) Eligibility conditions: In order to be eligible for a grant, applicants must:

• be legal persons; and

• be non-profit making; and

• be specific types of organisations such as: non-governmental organisations, research and/or vocational training institutions, universities and academies, public sector operators, local authorities, international (inter-governmental) organisations as defined by Article 43 of the Implementing Rules to the EC Financial Regulation (International organisations are international public-sector organisations set up by intergovernmental agreements as well as specialised agencies set up by them; the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies)

• be nationals of a Member State of the European Union or countries listed in Annex I of the DCI Regulation "Eligible countries" (this obligation does not apply to international organisations); and

• be directly responsible for the preparation and management of the action with their partners, not acting as an intermediary;

(c) Essential selection and award criteria: The essential selection criteria are financial and operational capacity of the applicant. The essential award criteria are relevance of the proposed action to the objectives of the call; design, effectiveness, feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the action.

(d) Maximum rate of co-financing: Due to difficulties NGO’s face to find donors willing to co-finance activities in the DPRK, the maximum possible rate of co-financing for grants under this call is 90% for community based projects and 95% for the partnership projects of the total accepted costs of the Action.

The maximum possible rate of co-financing may be up to 100 % in accordance with Articles 192 of the Financial Regulation if full funding is essential for the action to be carried out. The essentiality of full funding will be justified by the responsible authorising officer in the award decision, in respect of the principles of equal treatment and sound financial management.

(e) Indicative trimester to launch the call: 1st trimester of 2014

(f) Exception to the non-retroactivity of costs: NA

10

4.3.2. Component 3 and 4: Procurement (direct centralised management)

Type Indicative number of contracts

Indicative timeline

Supplies Supplies 1 3rd Trimester 2015

Food Security Office Services 1 1st Trimester 2015

4.3.3. Component 5: Joint management with an international organisation

This component will be implemented in joint management with UNDP. The international organisation will be responsible for developing an information system for nutrition and food security with the objective to enlighten supports to these areas.

This implementation will offer the opportunity to expand EU interlocutors in order to acquire an in-depth knowledge of transversal problems related to food security/nutrition, as energy, water, transportation and planning problems. UNDP’s experience goes back to 1985, with programmes focusing on maternal and new born health, family planning, capacity building for population and data collection and analysis. The latter one would perfectly fit under the proposed activity.

Joint management with this international organisation in accordance with Article 53d of Financial Regulation 1605/2002 is possible because the organisation is bound by a long-term framework agreement (FAFA).

If negotiations with the above-mentioned international organisation fail, this action may be implemented through Joint management with another relevant international UN organisation, or through a service contract or a grant.

The change of method of implementation constitutes a substantial change except where the Commission "re-centralises" or reduces the level of budget-implementation tasks previously entrusted to the international organisation.

4.4. Scope of geographical eligibility for procurement in direct centralised and decentralised management Subject to the following, the geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for participating in procurement procedures and in terms of origin of supplies and materials purchased as established in the basic act shall apply.

11

4.5. Indicative budget

Intervention Objectives Amount (€)

Third party

contribution

Components 1 and 2 Direct centralised management - grants Call for Proposals

FSTP community-based projects implemented by EU NGOs residing in the DPRK. They aim at improving the most vulnerable groups' food and nutrition situation. FSTP Partnership projects aim at exposing North Korean technical institutions by linking them with foreign counterparts under capacity-building projects.

6 750 000 550 000

Component 3 Direct centralised management - Supplies Procurement of supplies

Supplies of agricultural or agro-forestry equipment and machinery , related basic training and possibly nutrients

3 000 000 0

Component 4 Direct centralised management - Services Procurement of services

The FSO, based in Pyongyang, aims at supporting the implementation of this programme.

2 750 000 0

Component 5 Joint management

Development of an information system on nutrition and food security. 500 000 0

Total 13 000 000 550 000

4.6. Performance monitoring Monitoring arrangements will include a combination of close follow-up by the FSO, ROM and Commission missions.

Process indicators will be used during the implementation to steer the contribution of each component (see [5] below).

Outcomes indicators will be measured through the completion of ad hoc surveys (see for example the 3 surveys mentioned above in [2.3]).

The FSO (Component 4) will be responsible to monitor accordingly components 1, 2, 3 and 5.

It is expected that, during the course of the proposed project, the component 5 (Information system) develops M&E capacities as well as available information.

12

4.7. Evaluation and audit A final evaluation will be carried out after completion of the activities here supported.

A budget of EUR 100 000 will be earmarked in the component 4 of the project in order to carry out monitoring and evaluation activities.

4.8. Communication and visibility Communication and visibility will be ensured with the Communication and Visibility Manual for EU External Actions and funded through components 1 to 3 activities.

13

5. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Component 1 Community based projects.

Expected results

Cooperatives are supported for reducing post-harvest losses for a given food production. The promotion of technics aiming at improving quality of staple products is supported too.

Indicators − The number of cooperatives supported as well as their size. − The number of benefiting organisations (e.g. schools, health centres …).

Component 2 Partnership projects. Expected results

Cooperatives and representatives of line ministries are trained in the field of relevant technics and are sensitised to food security and nutrition related issues.

Indicators

− Number of cooperatives and line ministries trained (broken down by Central/Local and districts). − Number of trainees (broken down by Central/Local and districts). − Number of training tools (manuals, posters, brochures …) produced.

Component 3 Supplies Expected results

Under the FSO supervision (component 4), components 1 and 2 will help identifying the needs as regards supplies.

Indicators − Supplies are delivered accordingly to these prescriptions. − Related trainings (rational utilisation of supplies) are organised.

Component 4 Food Security Office

Expected results

The Food Security Office is responsible for the general coordination in the absence of an EU Delegation. It monitors NGOs implementing the 2 first components. It prepares technical/ preparatory dialogue for component 5

Indicators

− FSO monitors the EU project as well as the food security and nutrition developments. It reports on a bi-annual basis to the Commission − FSO prepares the tender dossier for supplies. − FSO organises local coordination (with DPRK authorities, development partners and EUPS). It reports on an annual basis to the Commission. − FSO organises HQs visits in DPRK. − FSO prepares technical dialogue for Component 5.

Component 5 Information System

Expected results

A technical dialogue is developed amongst DPRK authorities (Kecca, MoA, MoLEP, Universities, Statistical office, Planning Department, development partners) in the field of Food Security and nutrition information systems.

Indicators

− An analysis of existing sources of information is completed. − A dialogue with relevant stakeholders is organised in order to reach a consensus on a minimum information system platform. − A project aiming at developing an information system is set up.

annual action programme 2013 part 2 for food security list...

Documents