Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia (EREL) Program ...pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MNK7.pdf ·...

Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia AID-FFP-G-15-00006 Final Report 1

Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia (EREL) Program

Funded by USAID/ Food for Peace (FFP) Final Program Report (9 January 2015-31 December 2016)

Submission Date: March 31, 2017

EREL Beneficiary Rice Field in Koon’s Town, Montserrado County, Liberia

Awardee Name and Host Country Mercy Corps, Liberia Award Number AID-FFP-G-15-00006 Project Name Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia

(EREL) Submission Date March 31, 2017 Reporting Period 9 January 2105- 31 December 2016 Awardee HQ Contact Name Awardee HQ Contact Address Awardee HQ Contact Telephone Number Awardee HQ Contact Email Address Host Country Office Contact Name Host Country Office Contact Telephone # Host Country Office Contact Email


TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………..3

II. Program Overview ………………………………………………………………………...…..5

III. Program Start-up …………………………………………………………………………..….. 5

IV. Program Activities ……………………………………………………………….……………..8

V. Program Performance…………………….………………..…………………………………...14

VI. Cross-Cutting Elements… …………………………………………………………………… 24

VII. Appropriateness of Distribution Modalities……………………………………………………26

VIII. Key Successes, Challenges, and Lessons Learned………………….……………..………….27

List of Acronyms CBT Community-Based Targeting CTWG Cash Technical Working Group EFSP Emergency Food Security Program EREL Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia EVD Ebola Virus Disease FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FED Food and Enterprise Development FFP Food for Peace FTF Feed the Future HDD Household Dietary Diversity HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score HHS Household Hunger Scale ICT Information Communications and Technology INGO International Nongovernmental Organization IPC Integrated Phase Classification LCL Lutheran Church in Liberia MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MOA Ministry of Agriculture MoGCSP Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection NCE No Cost Extension PDM Post Distribution Monitoring TOT Training of Trainers UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development VOSIEDA Volunteers to Support International Efforts in Developing Africa WFP World Food Programme YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From January 2015 to December 2016, Mercy Corps Liberia implemented the United States Agency for International Development Food for Peace (USAID/FFP)-funded Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia (EREL) program. Aiming to improve the food security of populations affected by the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), EREL targeted 30,000 households (150,000 individuals) in ten districts in Margibi, Montserrado, and Lofa counties with a combination of cash transfers and agricultural inputs vouchers. The EREL program was designed with two specific objectives: (1) that the populations in Montserrado, Margibi and Lofa most affected by EVD have access to enough food; and (2) that farmers in Montserrado, Margibi and Lofa most affected by EVD are able to maintain their production with improved inputs. Objective 1 of the EREL program was implemented through two main modalities: direct cash delivery, and a pilot of mobile money cash transfers in the Township of West Point in Monrovia. Overall, the number of beneficiaries reached by the program exceeded the original target of 30,000 households, bringing cash transfers to 30,077 households (estimated at 179,980 individuals). Of these, 602 (3,602 individuals) received cash through the mobile money cash transfers modality, while the remaining 29,475 households (176,378 individuals) received direct cash. The total value of cash spent by the program under Objective 1 was USD $7,263,564. Under Objective 2, the program targeted 10,000 farming households with agricultural inputs vouchers, complemented by basic agronomic training and follow-up support, to help families resume and maintain production in the wake of the epidemic. By the end of the program, EREL had distributed vouchers to 9,931 farming households (49,655 individuals). A total of 59,468 vouchers (99% of the goal) were distributed during the lifespan of the EREL program, with a value of US$ 594,680 out of the target of US$600,000. The results of Mercy Corps’ monitoring showed that the two-pronged intervention strategy improved food security, reduced vulnerability, and facilitated households’ economic recovery. In the final months of the program, no households were experiencing severe hunger (compared to 4% at baseline), and the percentage of households experiencing moderate hunger had decreased from 54% in the first quarter of 2016 to 8 % in December 2016. An increase in the diversity of household diets was also noted over the course of program implementation, with the average dietary diversity score improving from 4.7 (medium dietary diversity) during the baseline survey conducted among newly registered beneficiaries in March of 2016 to 8.6 (high dietary diversity) during the endline survey conducted in November 2016. Furthermore, while beneficiaries spent most of the cash received on the purchase of food, some households also used it to cover health, education, savings, investment in businesses and debt repayment. To improve agricultural production outcomes and complement input vouchers, EREL provided training of trainers (TOT) sessions on improved agricultural techniques for 353 lead farmers who then rolled out their learning and skills to all farmers receiving input vouchers through the use of demonstration sites. Post-harvest losses are high in Liberia and affect the food security of households. Therefore, the introduction of techniques aimed at reducing post-harvest losses was an integral part of the skills targeted by farmers under the lead farmers’ approach. Findings from the assessment showed that farmers harvested 1.5 to 2 metric tons of seed rice per hectare. Farmers indicated that the 2016 harvest was double that of previous years, and attributed the


increase to the training received through the lead farmers’ approach and the quality of seeds they received through the agricultural inputs vouchers. Throughout implementation, the program benefitted from the full the participation of relevant national and local authorities. Government partners included the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; local government officials at county and district levels; the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Protection; and the Ministry of Agriculture. In the civil society sector, EREL engaged local and international non-governmental organizations through the Food Security Cluster and the Cash Technical Working Group (CTWG). It also worked with beneficiary communities to set up a total of 1,024 community committees that assisted with the identification and verification of beneficiaries based on the program’s selection criteria and supported the implementation of the program. The program enjoyed overwhelming support from community leaders and local authorities, who were instrumental in setting up community committees, settling conflicts among beneficiaries, and providing resources ranging from meeting spaces to events support. The program was successfully implemented with the help of three local NGO partners, each responsible for one county. The Lutheran Church in Liberia (LCL) implemented the program in Margibi County; Volunteers to Support International Efforts in Developing Africa (VOSIEDA) implemented the program in Lofa County; and the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) implemented the program in Montserrado County. Each implementing partner hired program leads, monitoring and evaluation officers, agronomists, and community mobilizers to oversee and carry out program activities. EREL was originally designed as a short-term, emergency response program to address the devastating economic consequences of the Ebola crisis in three hard-hit counties. A request for a three month No-Cost Extension (NCE) of the program was approved on September 8, 2015 which extended the implementation through December 2015. In June 2015, Mercy Corps submitted a modification proposal that was approved in November 2015, with a pre-modification letter issued on December 31, 2015 and the agreement in February 2016. The modification increased the total amount of funds to be distributed from $8,970,000 to $ 13,638,089 and extended the program implementation period through December 2016. The program successfully finished its activities on time and on budget, and met its goals of improving the food security of rural Liberian households in the 3 target counties who had been directly and severely affected by the EVD crisis.


II. PROGRAM OVERVIEW The Ebola epidemic that hit three West African states starting in December 2013 took the lives of at least 11,310 people and affected thousands more who contracted the disease or lost loved ones. Of the three countries primarily hit by the epidemic, Liberia suffered the highest loss of life. It also felt the economic impact of the disease, including the shock of measures taken by the government to halt its spread such as quarantines, the closure of schools, borders and markets. In October of 2014, Mercy Corps, which has been working in Liberia continuously since 2002, carried out a market assessment to understand the economic hardship faced by Liberian households. This assessment found that vulnerable people had begun reducing the amount of food consumed at each meal, purchasing lower quality or less expensive food, eating fewer meals, and borrowing money from friends and consuming rice seeds meant for the next year’s planting season to cope with the epidemic’s economic impacts. In response to the findings of its assessment, Mercy Corps designed the Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia (EREL) program. This program was funded by USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (USAID/FFP) and was designed to assist 30,000 households (150,000 individuals) economically affected by the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in Liberia. The EREL program was implemented in the county through which Ebola first entered Liberia from Guinea, Lofa, as well as two counties that had the most severe and recurrent outbreaks, Montserrado and Margibi. The program assisted vulnerable populations in these counties to fill minimum food basket gaps, reestablish or maintain normal agricultural production, protect vulnerable households’ assets from depletion through sales and minimize the negative impacts on child nutrition. The program consisted of two main components: 1) direct cash transfers to the most vulnerable households; and 2) agricultural input vouchers targeting vulnerable households that contain smallholder farmers. Each beneficiary household was to receive six monthly tranches of US$42, an amount calculated to meet 50% of the food basket cost for a family of five. Among the 30,000 households, 10,000 smallholder farming households were to benefit from agricultural inputs valued at US$ 60. Direct cash transfers to beneficiaries were unconditional while the receipt of agricultural inputs was conditional on participating in basic agronomic training.

III. PROGRAM START-UP 3.1 Office Setup and Resource Mobilization Mercy Corps, which has operated continuously in Liberia since 2002, had existing programs in place at the time of the EVD outbreak in West Africa in late 2013. In response to the growing crisis, initial assessments and proposal development were conducted from the main office in Monrovia and program start up activities began in January 2015. In February 2015, a field office was identified and opened in Voinjama, to facilitate program implementation and operations in Lofa County. The establishment of the Voinjama office allowed EREL staff to work in the same geographic location as our key partners, including county officials, local NGOs and of course, beneficiary communities. Program activities in Montserrado and Margibi Counties were supervised directly from the main office in Monrovia due to their relative proximity. Voinjama, by comparison, is a full-day’s drive away in good conditions, and longer in the rainy season.


3.2 Staff Recruitment During the EREL implementation, a total of 27 direct program staff were recruited including a program manager, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) manager, senior project officer, senior agronomist, project officers, training officers, M&E officers, and project assistants. A number of other finance and operations staff were recruited to support the program at varying levels of effort. 3.3 Determination of Program Districts To ensure coordination and avoid duplication of activities, Mercy Corps and the World Food Program, which was also implementing an FFP-funded project in the same counties, met and agreed to work in separate districts in the three counties. As a result of this coordination and of consultations with government officials, EREL chose to implement its activities in the following districts:

• Montserrado County: Careysburg, Todee, St. Paul, Monrovia (West Point and

Paynesville) • Margibi County: Kakata, Gibi • Lofa County: Voinjama, Kolahun, Quardi Gbondi, Foya

Figure 1: Map of Liberia including target counties of Margibi, Montserrado and Lofa

3.4 Selection of Local Partners To benefit from the knowledge and connections of local organizations, and in an effort to strengthen the experience and capacity of Liberian civil society, Mercy Corps chose to implement EREL with the help of three local partners. To select partner organizations, Mercy Corps issued a Request for Applications in February of 2015, which was posted in Liberian media and on the internet. More than 50 organizations responded to this opportunity. Following the review of the applications, three finalists were selected for each county. By the end of February, a Mercy Corps team had performed


a capacity assessment with each, looking at procurement processes, human resources, risk management systems, program quality assurance/control systems, financial systems and reporting structures. Following this process, three organizations were selected: YMCA in Montserrado, LCL in Margibi and VOSEIDA in Lofa. Sub-award agreements were signed between Mercy Corps and the implementing partners in April of 2015 and later extended until the end of November 2016 when the program received its cost modification. 3.5 Beneficiary criteria In keeping with criteria outlined in the proposal, and following consultation with the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Protection, (MoGCSP) and other cash transfer and food security actors, EREL applied the following criteria for beneficiary selection:

Primary criteria: Directly affected by EVD as orphans, survivors, or quarantined. Poorer households unable to access health care as a result of the collapse of health sector.

Secondary criteria: Market dependent households, poor households with no/ very limited assets (for example, land, livestock, farm).

Priorities among households meeting all criteria: At risk of food insecurity (general), child-headed households, widows, female headed households, households with 2-3 children under 5, pregnant/lactating mothers, chronically ill, elderly, people living with disabilities, and households hosting EVD orphans.

The selection criteria were shared with all key stakeholders and utilized by community committees for the initial identification and verification of program beneficiaries. 3.6 Program Kickoff/Inception Meetings Following the internal MC kick-off meeting in January 2015, inception meetings were held with key stakeholders including the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) and the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning. The program was introduced to other key stakeholders through coordination forums including the local Food Security Cluster, Cash Technical Working Group, and the Early Recovery Cluster. Attendees of these forums include stakeholders such as the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Protection (MoGCSP), UN agencies (World Food Program (WFP), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), etc.), and other international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). Kickoff meetings were also held with the government and civic leadership in Lofa, Montserrado, and Margibi counties. At the community level, kickoff meetings were conducted with community members and their leaders, during which the program and its objectives were presented. Topics included the two main components of the projects—cash distributions and agricultural supports-- selection criteria, and the entitlements, rights, and responsibilities of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. As part of community rights and responsibilities, the communities were encouraged to report any complaints, concerns, or make inquiries regarding the project through the report/feed-back mechanism established by Mercy Corps and its partners. 3.7 Cash Transfer Risk Analysis A risk analysis was conducted in April 2015 with the participation of key senior staff at Mercy Corps. Through this analysis, Mercy Corps developed appropriate response or mitigation strategies


for each forecasted situation. The risk response plan was updated regularly to incorporate other possible situations. Staff members were oriented on the response plan for action in case any such situation arose during cash distribution or agricultural inputs trade fairs. 3.8 Development of Cash Transfer SOP A cash transfer standard operating procedure (SOP) was developed to guide the implementation of the cash transfer component of EREL. The guide, which was in line with conventional cash transfer management recommendations, was tailored to the EREL program design and beneficiaries.

IV. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES Objective 1: The populations in Montserrado, Margibi and Lofa most affected by EVD have access to enough food.

4.1.1 Identify, Sensitize and Organize Target Beneficiaries EREL adopted a community-based targeting approach to identify program participants who met eligibility criteria. The first step of this approach, detailed in the previous sections, entailed conducting awareness and sensitization sessions about the program among key stakeholders at national and local levels, so that primary stakeholders could have a detailed understanding of the program objectives, activities, selection criteria and beneficiaries’ rights and entitlements. The second step was to work with the target communities and our local implementation partners to establish our roster of 30,000 of the most vulnerable and effected households in the 10 district areas of our 3 target counties.

Mercy Corps’ local partners began setting up committees in targeted communities immediately after project kick-off meetings were conducted. Each community was encouraged to set up two committees: one for the identification of beneficiaries using the selection criteria, and the other for verification of selected beneficiaries. The committee members were selected by community members through a participatory process with gender-conscious participation reflected throughout, as a key message during the kick-off meeting was the inclusion of women on the community committees. By the end of the project 1,024 community committees (512 beneficiary identification committees and 512 beneficiary verification committees, 5,210 volunteer members) had actively supported this aspect of EREL implementation. Throughout the implementation of the EREL program, this process proved to be a successful, equitable, empowering and effective way of identifying beneficiaries and their needs. The committees also helped arrange venues for cash distributions and monitored cash distributions as they occurred. 4.1.2 Summary of Cash Distribution Process Detailed cash distribution plans for each county were developed a month in advance by Mercy Corps and shared with implementing partners in each county. Local implementing partners shared the plan with the target communities, and beneficiaries’ names from the distribution plan were posted in the community one week prior to the day of distribution to enable community members to validate their participation and plan their schedule. Several days prior to a distribution event, Mercy Corps paymasters and security would withdraw the cash in Liberian dollars from our bank for distribution. At Mercy Corps offices, the amounts were verified and then bundled into packets valued at $42 USD. The amount in LRD equal to $42 USD


varied depending on the USD-LRD exchange rate. The exchange rate was monitored and the LRD equivalent adjusted quarterly. On the day of the distribution, Mercy Corps paymasters, program staff and security would transport the prepared cash bundles to the distribution sites for a two to six hour event, depending on the number of beneficiaries. Before the first distributions, program participants who had been identified and verified by their community committees were issued EREL ID cards with their photo, name and unique bar code identifier. At each distribution event, these cards were presented by the beneficiary and verified by Mercy Corps staff using a database on computer tablets which matched program records, including their photograph, with the cardholder. (For more information on the data system, see “Beneficiary Data Tracking” below.) During program implementation, distributions were conducted simultaneously in the three counties with three Mercy Corps teams in coordination with the local partner teams. On the day of distribution, three separate desks/tables were set up at each distribution center to administer the cash distribution. Beneficiaries queued patiently with the assistance of MC security and community members. The first desk/table (the reception desk) was manned by one member each from the implementing partner and the community committee. The two representatives at this desk utilized the beneficiary payment list to verify that each beneficiary was a resident of the community. Once the verification was completed, the beneficiary proceeded to the second desk, where two MC staff members inspected the beneficiary’s ID card, utilizing the electronic device to confirm that the beneficiary existed in the MC database. Once confirmed, the beneficiary proceeded to the payment desk to receive the cash payment. Each beneficiary was required to sign against their name to confirm receipt of the cash and to provide a thumbprint on the distribution record. There was also a complaint desk within the distribution center where beneficiaries filed their grievances and received redress. At the close of the distribution, the payrolls were signed by a representative of the community, one local leader, a representative of the implementing partner, and a representative of Mercy Corps. 4.1.3 Financial Institution and ICT Solution Partners The EREL program partnered with several private sector partners for financial and data services to accomplish the cash distribution goals of the program. Banking: Mercy Corps and Ecobank, a trans-African banking institution with a Liberian division and the only banking business with a regional office in Voinjama, Lofa County, signed an

EREL participants at a cash distribution event in Margibi County.


agreement in May 2015 for the execution of cash distribution. Ecobank was to be responsible for the management of cash from bank vault to beneficiary hands. Mercy Corps and local partners were to provide accurate distribution lists, organize the distribution events, monitor distribution SOP and the complaint hotlines. The initial contract continued through July 2015 when Mercy Corps discontinued the contract due to the high service charges, poor customer relations, and other issues including late arrivals to and early departures from distribution sites by bank staff. Program leadership decided that EcoBank’s participation was negatively affecting our relationship with beneficiaries, was less than cost-efficient, and was jeopardizing timely achievement of program deliverables. Instead of relying on a banking partner to conduct the cash management activities, Mercy Corps began to directly implement cash distribution activities with program staff by hiring cash paymasters responsible to the MC Finance team to maintain segregation of duties. This proved to be much more effective, but it significantly increased operational and logistic demands. The program continued to experience challenges in working with Ecobank, who remained our primary financial institution for the program. There were consistent issues with lack of available cash—physical Liberian dollars-- for distribution in the communities, especially in Lofa County. Senior country and program leadership met several times with Ecobank management to resolve recurring issues, but success was limited. By the last quarter of the program, and with the help of the local USAID mission, EREL established a partnership with Afriland First Bank to supply needed cash to Lofa County. While not located in Voinjama, Afriland did have two branches in other Lofa districts. As the road was impassible due to the rainy season, Mercy Corps also contracted with Mission Aviation Fellowship, an INGO operating in Liberia, to airlift money to Lofa in September and October 2016. Beneficiary Data Tracking: In June 2015 Mercy Corps contracted Noble House/ Red Rose, based in Turkey and the United Kingdom, as the ICT solution provider for the EREL program. Red Rose provided support to Mercy Corps to upgrade both hardware and software components of our cash transfer and agricultural voucher system. The Red Rose One system supported beneficiary registration, data collection and analysis, printing of beneficiary identification cards which incorporate photos and barcodes for distribution-site scanning verification and data entry, and tracking of payment to beneficiaries via cash and vouchers. Red Rose’s technical support continued throughout the duration of the EREL program. The system allows EREL key staff an online access to the portal to access all transaction details, generate programmatic, monitoring and financial reports including a customized dashboard. The system allowed the regular generation of the following reports:

1) Vendor reports (details of transactions by vendor, including daily totals per vendors) 2) Beneficiary reports (details of transactions per beneficiary) 3) Value remaining in the system (issued to beneficiaries but not yet redeemed). Red Rose has dedicated focal persons that remotely assist in troubleshooting throughout the day.

Though the EREL program faced a number of challenges with the Red Rose system when it was initially installed, the system improved tremendously during implementation of the program. As part of the agreement, Noble House/Red Rose printed and shipped 60,400 paper vouchers for


agricultural inputs and supplied bar codes scanners, an ID card printer, ribbons, and plastic cards that were used for beneficiary screening and processing of beneficiary ID cards.

Mobile Money Distribution: As part of it original program design, Mercy Corps had an initial target of reaching 10-15 percent of beneficiaries through mobile money. This proved impractical due to a number of challenges including the following:

1. Limited network coverage and erratic connectivity. Network coverage across the country is generally poor, especially during the rainy season. Even localities that have network coverage find it so erratic that mobile money transfers do not get to recipients in a timely manner and some cases they do not reach the recipient altogether. Save the Children reported they had similar experiences during their mobile money transfer program in Margibi County.

2. Beneficiaries’ perception of mobile money. Initial engagements with beneficiaries in communities outside Monrovia proved that beneficiaries were very negative about mobile money and were unwilling to receive their cash through that means. Beneficiaries generally did not trust mobile money agents because they believe the agents will not deliver to them their full cash amount. In July 2015, LoneStar MTN was invited to conduct registration of beneficiaries for mobile money, but the beneficiaries did not show any interest and refused to register. Mercy Corps decided to abandon this modality for the time being, and continued physical cash distribution in the communities.

Despite these challenges, and in an effort to introduce the benefits of mobile money to Liberians in target communities, EREL launched a second mobile money pilot in the West Point neighborhood of Monrovia in mid-2016. In June 2016, Mercy Corps entered into a contract agreement with two GSM companies to conduct cash transfers through mobile money. In August 2016, both Lone Star MTN and Cellcom, the two biggest wireless communications companies in Liberia, began the transfer of cash through mobile money to beneficiaries in West Point, Monrovia. As West Point is located in the capital city, connectivity is much better than in other EREL communities, and most beneficiaries had phones. An assessment found that 25% of the population had used or was familiar with mobile money, a far higher percentage than Mercy Corps found in outlying and rural communities. Both mobile money operators had agents in West Point which provided many points at which people could access their money. And because West Point was close to the Mercy Corps office, the team was able to provide consistent support in set-up and monitoring of transactions. The pilot reached 600 households successfully, demonstrating that this approach can indeed work in Liberia given basic preconditions.

Objective 2: Most affected farmers in Montserrado, Margibi and Lofa are able to maintain their production with improved inputs. The primary activities of the program under Objective 2 were agricultural training and the provision of material support through agricultural input vouchers totaling $60 each for 10,000 smallholder farmers, a subset of the 30,000 beneficiary households. The inputs were distributed to the farmers through a series of agricultural fairs, conducted in the communities, where local agricultural supply vendors brought their goods for sale. Vouchers were distributed by the program staff using the same methodology as the cash distributions, and participants then used their vouchers to purchase the goods and equipment they needed most.


4.2.1 Recruit & Establish Contracts with Suppliers for Agricultural Inputs and Tools In early March and April 2015, the program conducted planning and research in preparation for the agricultural fair and voucher distribution activities in Objective 2. These included:

• Identification of the key agricultural inputs, especially seeds and tools, commonly in demand by smallholder farmers in the three counties

• Review and analysis of supply chains of key agricultural inputs required by smallholder farmers including suppliers’ sources, trade routes, and level of access to smallholder farmers, in addition to the current prices of key agricultural tools used by small holder farmers in Liberia

• Establishing seasonal calendars for key agricultural inputs required by smallholder farmers • Connecting with vendors of agricultural inputs and suppliers at the county and national

levels to determine whether existing suppliers would have the capacity to provide required agricultural inputs for 10,000 smallholders without impacting the normal market dynamics

• Identifying the opportunities and challenges in the agricultural inputs market chain. The assessment was instrumental in the identification, evaluation processes and selection of the agricultural inputs and vendors for the program. As a result of the assessment, Mercy Corps contracted eight agricultural inputs suppliers through a competitive process in June 2015. The eight vendors participated in the first rounds of voucher distribution that took place in June and July 2015. However, three of the vendors ceased participating in the fairs because they did not favor competing with other vendors and did not find it profitable enough to merit their time and effort. The five remaining vendors continued to work with the program as they met our technical standards and found that serving agricultural input fairs fit their business interests. Mercy Corps ensured that at least two vendors were present at each fair to enable beneficiaries to exercise choice. Quality testing, such as germination tests, was conducted with all inputs provided and monitoring later confirmed that inputs provided value to beneficiaries and helped boost production. Contracts with the five vendors were renewed after the EREL program modification was signed in February 2016.

4.2.2 Organize input voucher direct distribution After contracts were established with vendors, Mercy Corps arranged for voucher distribution and participation of beneficiaries in agriculture fairs. Agricultural inputs fairs were arranged in accordance with the agricultural calendar for the different categories of crops: vegetables (peppers, butterballs, etc.); cereal crops (rice, maize, etc.), legumes (beans, peanuts, etc.); and roots and tubers (cassava, eddoes/dasheen, etc.). The first fairs were held in June of 2015. At each fair, beneficiaries’ identities were confirmed, vouchers were distributed, and shortly thereafter beneficiaries were able to brows the goods on display and make their choices, redeeming the vouchers with the contracted vendors. Agricultural input fairs were organized regularly and the schedule was shared in advance with vendors to allow them acquire inputs in good time. Popular inputs that were chosen by the participants included:

• Seeds: upland rice, lowland rice, vegetable seeds (peppers, okra, cabbage, butterballs, etc.) • Tools: Machetes, rain boots, hoes, shovels, rope


4.2.3 Organize Agricultural Training Mercy Corps adopted the ‘lead farmers’ training approach for the implementation of the agricultural support component of the program. The program coordinated closely with the USAID/FTF-funded Food and Enterprise Development (FED) program, which was using the lead farmer approach in nearby areas. The 10,000 participating small holder farmers—a subset of the 30,000 beneficiary households—were divided into groups of 25-50 farmers, depending on the density of participants in that geographic area. About 69% of targeted farmers were women. Each group of beneficiary farmers selected two representatives to serve as their lead farmers. Out of 353 lead farmers, 95 (27%) were women. While the program encouraged women to serve as lead farmers, men were more likely to volunteer and were more likely to be literate. Women also had more household tasks, which prevented them from taking this role. When women did serve as lead farmers, they were successful in the role, gaining the trust and respect of participants.

During the program implementation period, the program conducted the first training-of-trainers (TOT) sessions in November and December 2015 for the 353 lead farmers. A 3-day TOT session was held in each of the 10 districts of the 3 counties. Each 3-day training session was focused on site selection, construction of nursery and nursing of seeds, transplanting - using rows, planting on mounds and ridges (for roots and tubers) and weeding. These trainings were followed by on-site monitoring and mentoring by program agriculture officers to ensure that best practices were applied and to support the training activities of the lead farmers. The second set of TOT sessions held in August and September 2016 focused on harvest and post-harvest techniques. In total, 20 3-day TOT sessions were conducted. The newly-trained lead farmers, under the supervision of EREL and partner agronomists, stepped their training down to the local groups through the creation of demonstration farms. The lead farmers then worked with participating farmers in their area to form groups of 25-30 members. Each farming group selected a specific spot with along with specific target crops for learning and demonstration purposes.

Lead and participating farmers decided together which crops to focus on, depending upon agricultural conditions, local farmers’ experience and preferences. To enable participating smallholder farmers to make the best selection and utilization of inputs, Mercy Corps’ agricultural support and training was designed to be context specific and tailored to the crops grown in different regions of the country. Mercy Corps agricultural specialist and implementing partner agronomists created a basic curriculum targeting three major crops - rice, vegetables and cassava, depending upon the livelihoods pursued by beneficiary households before the Ebola outbreak


Above: One of several Lowland paddy fields used as demonstration site for project beneficiaries (Margibi County)

Following the trainings from lead farmers, the student farmers along with the lead farmer then worked together on demonstration plots so that the new techniques taught with “hands on” approach. Training topics included the following:

• Site selection • Land preparation • Seed testing • Transplanting and planting techniques • Timely weeding • Composting • Reducing post-harvest losses

The overriding emphasis of all training was to ensure that inputs distributed through the program were used effectively to boost production so that participating households received maximum benefits from the agricultural activities. Such trainings improved farmer yields and also motivated them to buy quality inputs from vendors after program conclusion, evidenced by the fact that farmers were seen purchasing inputs from vendors with their personal cash.

V. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Results from program monitoring indicate that the EREL program positively impacted the lives of beneficiaries and their communities alike. The program enabled beneficiaries to meet their food requirements and other basic needs through providing cash distributions, and improving agricultural skills which addressed immediate hunger needs and decreases future vulnerability. In addition to regular tracking of cash transfers and agricultural inputs vouchers distributed to beneficiaries, the program utilized four main monitoring tools to assess immediate program outcomes. These included: (a) Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM); (b) the Household Hunger Scale (HSS); (c)


Beneficiaries at Jacob’s Town, Montserrado County counterchecking their cash before leaving the center

Household Dietary Diversity (HDDS); and Minimally Acceptable Diet (MAD). This section describes the overall outputs and outcomes of the program, as measured by Mercy Corps over the course of program implementation. 5.1.1 Outputs: Cash Transfers By the end of the grant in December 2016, the EREL program had verified, registered and transferred cash to 30,077 households (100.2% of target) through the 1024 community committees. Mercy Corps exceeded its total of actual beneficiary number of 150,000 by almost 20% (179,980 direct beneficiaries). The program based its individual beneficiary targets on the fact that the average family size in Liberia is five (5 x 30,000 households = 150,000 individual beneficiaries). In fact, the community committees often chose larger families for inclusion in the program – those caring for children, the disabled and the elderly. This resulted in an average household size of 6, a 20% increase above the target.

The total value of cash transfers to beneficiaries provided by EREL was USD $7,263,564, 96% of the US$ 7,560,000 intended for direct cash distribution. Several factors contributed to the 4% of undistributed USD. First, 2,368 of 30,077 households were delisted and received less than six tranches (92.1% of beneficiaries overall). These households were delisted for the following reasons:

(a) Some households returned to pre-Ebola economic/ employment activities or income earning activities. For example, schools were re-opened and teachers were once again gainfully employed.

(b) Community members alerted local partners that households did not meet vulnerability criteria, which was confirmed by later monitoring.

(c) Households with a single member who died. (d) Households that migrated to other counties where the program was not operating. (e) Six hundred and two (602) of the households who received only five tranches were pilot

mobile money beneficiaries from West Point. Registration commenced in West Point in August and cash transfers commenced in September of 2016.

Another contributing factor was the currency valuations which changed during the 19 month distribution period, with the Liberian dollar (LRD) steadily losing value to the USD. Since distributions were conducted in LRD, the total individual amount of LRD equivalent to $42 USD rose steadily. This exchange rate was adjusted quarterly, but the steady devaluation of the LRD in the periods between currency adjustments did affect the total value of USD distributed. Of the beneficiaries reached with cash transfers, approximately 70.5% were living in women-headed households, the result of Mercy Corps’ efforts to address gender gaps and of the high levels of vulnerability faced by these households in the target communities.


Table 1: Total cash recipients, percent receiving all tranches, and percent female headed

5.1.2: Outputs: Agriculture Vouchers and Training During the implementation of the EREL program, a total of 9,931 farming households (99.31% of total target) received agricultural input vouchers worth US$ 594,680 out of planned US$ 600,000, as detailed in the table below. Sixty-nine percent of agricultural inputs recipients were women-headed households. Following assessments, Mercy Corps found that there were a greater number of agricultural communities and qualified smallholder farmer households in Margibi than in Montserrado County, so targets were adjusted between those two counties. Most participants received six $10 vouchers that were exchanged for goods offered at fairs. To give one example, a total of 121.08 tons of rice seed were purchased with vouchers in the three counties during the fairs, demonstrating the great interest in the production of Liberia’s staple food. A few households received less than six vouchers as they had migrated, or had been removed from the list after receiving two or four vouchers as their conditions had changed sufficiently that they no longer met vulnerability criteria. Table 2: Cumulative agricultural voucher recipients

5.2 Post Distribution Monitoring The EREL program conducted quarterly post-distribution monitoring (PDM) among cash recipients to understand how they used the assistance received, with PDMs across quarters found that the vast majority of the cash received was spent on food, 70% overall. After that, the main priorities for beneficiaries were health related expenses (9%), livelihoods, including agricultural inputs (8%), education (7%), and other areas such as savings, debt, gifts (6%).

County Target Total cash recipients

% of target

% receiving all 6 tranches

% female headed

Montserrado 12,000 11,428 95.2 90.6 73 Margibi 10,000 10,181 101.8 99.2 72 Lofa 8,000 8,468 105.8 85.7 65.5

Total 30,000 30,077 100.2 92.1 70.5

County Original target

Revised target

Total vouchers recipients % of target Undistributed

Montserrado 2,500 1,962 1,910 97 % 52 Margibi 2,500 3,038 3,038 100% 0 Lofa 5,000 5,000 4,983 99.6 % 17

Total 10,000 10,000 9,931 99.31% 69


Figure 2: Usage of cash transfers over the life of the program, PDM results

In addition to conducting post-distribution monitoring of cash transfers, Mercy Corps also surveyed beneficiaries about what purchases were made with the agricultural inputs vouchers distributed to certain households. The results of this monitoring found that overall, the most common item purchased was seed rice. An agricultural PDM carried out in Lofa County in October and November of 2016, for instance, found that 75% of households purchased seeds. Agronomists from local partners and Mercy Corps also visited participating farmers’ households to see whether techniques taught during agricultural trainings had been adopted. During these visits, they observed the adoption of numerous techniques, including:

• Planting vegetables/ cassava in rows or on mounds, • Transplanting lowland rice plants, • Using ashes for pest control, • Placing harvested rice in bags rather than tying it in bundles, to reduce losses and make

transport to market easier.

Overall, the program found that 84% of participating farmers adopted at least one new agricultural technique, with many utilizing several other techniques.

70%

9%

8%

7% 6%

Cash transfers usage - life of program

Food

Health

Livelihoods

Education

Savings, debt, other


5.3 Level of Hunger Among Beneficiaries The level of hunger among Ebola-affected households is of particular concern when tracking the success of the EREL program. To understand the situation on the ground, Mercy Corps conducted an initial survey on the level of hunger of Liberians in Ebola-affected communities in October of 2014, prior to the start of the EREL intervention, which informed the program design. This assessment found that 19.7% of children and 21% of adults in Lofa, Nimba, and in Monrovia were only consuming one meal each day, and more than two-thirds of children (68%) and of adults (69%) were consuming two meals a day. Due to the short-term nature of the EREL intervention (less than 12 months), Mercy Corps was not initially required to conduct a baseline survey among its beneficiaries. However, after the signature of the cost modification in February of 2016, Mercy Corps planned and carried out a baseline survey among beneficiary households that had not yet received any assistance, and subsequently carried out three more surveys in June, September and December of 2016 to track changes in the level of hunger.


Table 3: Level of hunger among Ebola-affected households, October 2014-December 2016

While the initial assessment carried out by Mercy Corps tracked the number of meals consumed per day, the surveys carried out among EREL beneficiaries beginning in March of 2016 employed the Household Hunger Score (HHS). The HHS is a household food deprivation scale. Its approach is based on the idea that the experience of household food deprivation causes predictable reactions that can be captured through a survey and summarized in a numerical scale. It is derived from research that adapted a standardized United States household food security survey tool for use in a developing country context. HHS uses a scale of (a) 0-1, little or no hunger; (b) 2-3, moderate hunger; and (c) 4-6, severe hunger to quantify the prevalence of hunger in a household or study unit. From March to December of 2016, a gradual increase in the percentage of households experiencing little or no hunger was observed among EREL beneficiaries, as demonstrated in the graphic below. Most of the change reflected a shift in households experiencing moderate hunger at the beginning of the period (54.4% overall) to the category of little or no hunger (92.3%) at the end of the period. Overall, 3.6% of households were experiencing severe hunger at the beginning of the period; this percentage had decreased to 0% at the end of the program.


Figure 3: Percentage of households experiencing little or no hunger (HHS rating of 0-1), by county, over the course of four HHS surveys from March-November 2016

5.4 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) In addition to tracking the level of hunger among beneficiaries, Mercy Corps also collected information on their dietary diversity. The EREL program may have had an impact on this measure in two main ways: by facilitating access to food through increased income, and through the nutrition sensitization carried out periodically during cash transfer distribution. To do this, Mercy Corps chose to employ the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). The HDDS is a FFP strategic objective-level indicator that measures household food access. It describes the number of different food groups consumed over a given reference period. As noted in the FFP guide, it is an attractive proxy indicator for the following reasons: (a) a more diversified diet is an important outcome in and of itself; (b) a more diversified diet is associated with a number of improved outcomes in areas such as birth weight, child anthropometric status, and improved hemoglobin concentrations; and (c) a more diversified diet is highly correlated with such factors as caloric and protein adequacy, percentage of protein from animal sources (high quality protein), and household income. Mercy Corps first collected information on HDDS among program beneficiaries during a very limited baseline survey carried out in May of 2015 among 61 households registered to benefit from early cash distribution in Montserrado and Margibi counties. This initial assessment found that 23% of households ate only 0-3 food groups in the 24 hours before being interviewed, indicating low dietary diversity, while 53% ate 4-6 food groups (medium dietary diversity) and 24% ate 7-12 food groups (high dietary diversity). A similar pattern was observed among households that were interviewed as a part of the more expansive baseline survey that took place in March of 2016 following the program’s modification.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Montserrado

Margibi

Lofa


Table 4: Dietary diversity among EREL households, June 2015-December 2016

The percentage of households with low dietary diversity gradually decreased over the course of the program. The graph below tracks the percentage of households experiencing high dietary diversity beginning with the March 2016 baseline. In all three counties, this indicator saw an initial increase, which was steeper in Montserrado but continuous across the following quarters in Margibi and Lofa. In Montserrado, the percentage of households surveyed with high dietary diversity decreased in contrast to surveys carried out in June and September 2016. The reasons for the decline were not investigated as the findings were based on an analysis of quantitative data collected from the field and time was insufficient to return to beneficiaries to conduct follow up investigation. Figure 4: Percentage of households with high dietary diversity (7-12 food groups), by county, over the course of four HHS surveys from March-November 2016

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Montserrado

Margibi

Lofa


5.5 Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) for Children

To better understand the nutritional status among children under two in target populations, Mercy Corps collected information on the Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) for children. This measure focuses two key principles: (a) that children 6-23 months should be fed with 4 or more groups of food daily in addition to breast milk (dietary diversity); and (b) that breastfed infants 6–8 months old need 2–3 meals per day. Breastfed children 9–23 months need 3–4 meals per day, with 1–2 additional snacks as desired (amount of food consumed). In addition to tracking these two components of a minimally acceptable diet, the team included other elements of Infant and Young Children Feeding (IYCF) practices in their monitoring of the nutritional status of children, including early initiation of breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding until month six.

The EREL team conducted the MAD survey using a knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) methodology, with a mix of opened and closed ended questions. The data collection for the survey was conducted in all the implementing districts of the three counties. The baseline survey was conducted in August 2016 among 215 potential beneficiaries, mainly female, while the end line survey was conducted in November 2016 and targeted 234 beneficiaries, mainly female. Results were as follows:

Independent Final Evaluation

A final evaluation was conducted in December 2016, which involved 11 key informant interviews and 866 beneficiaries in 48 focus group discussions. The evaluation looked at Mercy Corps’ performance and measured the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of EREL interventions, as well as considering direct and indirect effects upon communities. Findings were as follows:

Relevance The evaluation found that EREL had been relevant to the food security needs of households affected by the Ebola outbreak, and was in keeping with GOL and USAID strategies.

Effectiveness EREL was found to be effective, with the program reaching 100.25% of its target for cash transfer beneficiaries and 99.31% of its target for agricultural voucher recipients. In addition, the program measurably reduced incidence of hunger, as shown by the Household Hunger Score, and increased dietary diversity.

Efficiency The evaluation found that, with 68% of resources going to beneficiaries and direct program activities, EREL was efficient.

Sustainability Livelihood activities that connected farmers into networks, introduced them to improved practices and strengthened market chains to quality inputs offer opportunities for sustainability. In addition, agricultural vendors were financially stronger after participating in the program.

Direct and indirect effects Direct effects upon beneficiaries were found to be positive, with the majority of cash received used to purchase food and reduce hunger. Indirectly, beneficiaries were able to afford other household priorities once food purchase needs were met. While evidence is largely anecdotal, some respondents also credited the program with stimulating the food and agricultural markets, resulting in positive outcomes for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike.

The evaluation has been submitted to FFP along with this report.


1. Early initiation of breastfeeding The survey findings showed an increase in the number of respondents confirming that early initiation of breastfeeding is very important. Nearly all (99.1%) respondents interviewed during the end line survey agreed that early initiation of breastfeeding is important for new born infants, compared to 93.5% during the baseline survey. In general, there was great awareness among beneficiaries of the importance of early initiation of breastfeeding in the three counties.

2. Exclusive breastfeeding Respondents who were aware that exclusive breastfeeding should continue up until six months, a figure that increased from 3.4% at baseline to 92% at end line, marking a vast improvement.

3. Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods (complementary feeding) The end line survey results revealed that more (100%) respondents at end line were aware that complementary feeding is important than at baseline, when 78.7% agreed that the introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods was important, 8.3% were in disagreement, and 13.0% said they had no opinion.

In reference to the frequency of meals at which infants received complementary feeding in addition to breast milk, 88% of end line respondents say children should be given three or more meals daily along with breast milk. At the same time, 9% of respondents said two meals per day were sufficient, while 3% said it was important to provide four meals per day. The result showed significant improvement in beneficiaries’ understanding of complementary feeding compared to the baseline period, when 59% believed three meals be provided per day, 36% said two times daily were sufficient, 4% stated that four or more meals, and 1% were not sure.

4. Minimum meal frequency Regarding the frequency of meals where infant/young children aged 9-23 months are receiving complementary feeding with breast milk, 88% of end line respondents said children should be given three or more meals daily along with breast milk. At the same time, 9% of respondents said two meals per day was sufficient; while 3% said it was important to provide four meals per day. The result showed significant improvement in beneficiaries’ understanding of complementary feeding compared to the baseline period when 59% believed three meals be provided per day, 36% said two times daily were sufficient, 4% stated that four or more meals, and 1% were not sure.

5. Minimum dietary diversity of children During the baseline, the team also assessed potential beneficiaries’ understanding of and practices around children’s dietary diversity. The baseline findings showed that the potential beneficiaries were unaware of the standard requirement that children 6-23 months should consume food from 4 or more groups of food daily as part of the complementary feeding. At end line, all respondents confirmed that they fed children in this age range with meals comprised of four or more groups of food in addition to breast milk. Cereal, vegetables, and roots and tubers were the most common foods fed to children.

Conclusion The end line results clearly indicate beneficiaries in the three counties have increased knowledge of infant and young child feeding practices. In some cases, EREL was able to reinforce already widespread understanding, such as the importance of early initiation of breastfeeding, which


more than 90% of respondents were aware of at time of baseline. In other cases, EREL was able to address more substantial knowledge gaps, such as the need for dietary diversity in complementary feeding of infants and young children. In all cases, endline results demonstrated strengthened knowledge by respondents following participation in nutritional training at cash distributions and during agricultural capacity building. While improved knowledge is a critical component for better child nutrition, however, it should be noted that actual feeding practices can vary due to food availability, attitudes of caregivers and other stakeholders and other household constraints. Future food and nutrition security programs in Liberia should continue to reinforce knowledge but also address behaviors for more sustainable impacts upon children’s health. 5.6 Monitoring for Unintended Negative Impacts: Market Distortion Throughout EREL implementation, the potential for creating unintended effects on local markets, especially inflation due to the infusion of cash and agricultural inputs in the local economy, was a concern to the program. To monitor any changes in basic commodity prices, regular market surveys were conducted in one or two markets in each of the districts where the program was implemented. The market centers included Worhn and Yanwellie (Margibi); Queyondee and Nyehn (Montserrado); and Barkedu and John’s Town (Lofa). Though numerous commodities were captured, market survey analysis concentrated on the following commodities: (a) rice; (b) red palm oil; and (c) hot peppers. Rice is both imported and produced locally but Liberia is a net importer of rice. The field visit of the FFP/W Senior Markets Advisor in August 2015 was helpful in helping Mercy Corps refine its market monitoring tool. Four major market surveys were conducted during the program, as follows: FY15 Q3 (April-June 2015); FY 16 Q1 (October–December 2015), combined Q3-Q4 (April-Sept 2016), and FY17 Q (October-December 2016). Though the prices of these three commodities (rice, red palm oil and hot peppers) varied slightly during the program implementation, there were no significant changes or discernable trends in price for the six markets during the monitoring period. A detailed report on the changes that were observed is available in annex.

VI. CROSS-CUTTING ELEMENTS 6.1 Gender Mainstreaming Gender differences were considered throughout the design and implementation of the EREL program. Both the program design and implementation stages assessed gender needs and realized that, though lack of income and food affected all members of poor and vulnerable households, women and children are less resilient compared to men. In view of the very limited access to sufficient quality and quantity of nutritious food, the program also observed that males might misuse cash and vouchers, while women would be more likely to spend such resources on feeding their families. Program observations also found that people living with disabilities were often discriminated against or marginalized. To ensure equitability, the program adopted the followings:

• The participation of females, young people, and people living with disabilities was specifically encouraged in populating the community selection committees, which were a key element in our community based targeting (CBT) approach.

• Female-heads of household were prioritized in the selection of cash beneficiaries based on several factors: 1) females are often the most vulnerable to food insecurity. 2) the likelihood of the cash being spent wisely and distributed equitably within the household for nutrition


and health is increased when women are controlling cash resources. EREL enrolled 21,219 female heads-of-households (70.5% of total beneficiary households).

Gender equity was also considered in relation to the provision of agricultural inputs, trainings and production support, where women constituted 69% of the beneficiary pool. Inputs for sale at agricultural fairs were chosen in consultation with our selected farmers and included consideration of gendered preferences for various crops and the needs and traditional roles of men and women farmers. Finally, the lead farmers approach was designed taking into consideration the typical daily schedules of the rural women and young people. This was important in order to support and encourage their participations, to ensure that they were able to maximize the benefits from the training and extension efforts. 6.2 Protection of Beneficiaries The safety and accessibility of distribution venues for young women, older participants and less able was taken into consideration when choosing community sites. Distribution centers were selected within the proximity of 10 kilometers, and distributions are conducted early enough in the day to ensure women, young people, the elderly and unwell recipients had time to go back home before nightfall. As part of the protection strategy, community committee members escorted beneficiaries to and from the centers to ensure their safety and protection. To ensure protection of beneficiaries, the distribution sites were chosen with security and safety considerations in mind (open sight lines, ease of access, adequate entrance and egress, visible to community) and were often within close proximity of local police. Local partners and community leaders were consulted in choosing distribution sites. Rather than using armed guards, Mercy Corps saw the involvement of such community leaders as a critical component to its security plan, as well as the transparency with which beneficiaries are chosen. Finally, Mercy Corps had a security plan that was routinely updated and could inform the police about planned distributions before they occurred, in case support was needed. These mechanisms protected the dignity, ensured safety and human rights of program participants who were both direct beneficiaries and indirect beneficiaries. 6.3 Conflict Sensitivity Throughout the design and implementation of EREL program, Mercy Corps followed the “Do No Harm” approach and worked to ensure that the program did not unintentionally contribute to conflict between communities, households or genders. Cognizant of the potential conflicts that cash transfers could create within households and among community members, EREL cautiously employed, guided and monitored the community-based targeting approach (CBT). The effectiveness of this approach in mitigating potential conflicts lies with two key principles: community ownership and transparency of process. The assumption is that if communities, and the individuals in those communities, understand and take part in the selection and execution of the program activities, they are more likely to feel that those processes are fair and unbiased. The use of local selection committees invests the local leadership in the welfare of the people they choose. And the community sees the benefits accruing to its most vulnerable, especially those affected by loss resulting from EVD. While communities were given the stake to conduct initial identification and verification of beneficiaries, Mercy Corps ensured they followed the selection criteria. Additionally, Mercy Corps’ implementing partners conducted a follow-up verification process in each community to ensure the


minimization of inclusion and exclusion errors. Following the verification process by the implementing partners, Mercy Corps staff also conducted random verification. In addition to the centrality of the community selection process in reducing potential conflict, Mercy Corps also instituted a complaint mechanism, whereby a hotline contact number was posted for concerned community members to channel their grievances, observations, suggestions and commendations. A complaint form was maintained and managed at Mercy Corps’ office under the management of the M&E Manager, while the partners’ M&E officer manage forms in the counties. A complaint desk was visibly placed at each distribution site for community members to file their concerns during distribution and agricultural inputs trade fairs. We maintained a complaint system at local level so that community committees could resolve issues between members of their community. A complaint between two committee members was resolved by the town chief. Put together, the sum of all the systems and structures in place at community, partner, and Mercy Corps level ensured the peaceful program environment under which the program deliverables successfully reached beneficiaries to enable them recover from the impact of EVD. The approach also ensured beneficiaries’ right to express their views and concerns about the program.

VII. APPROPRIATENESS OF DISTRIBUTION MODALITIES At the time that EREL was designed, Mercy Corps considered whether cash, vouchers or food commodities were most appropriate to respond to the food insecurity conditions occurring in Liberia. Cash was selected as monitoring found that markets were functional and the distribution of cash would not only assist in the restoration of market function but also would bring income for smallholder farmers working in the program area. Cash distribution was similarly chosen by all other EFSP implementers in Liberia. In the current thinking of development sector specialist like CaLP (Cash Learning Partnership), the delivery of cash currency is the least desirable of transfer methodologies in emergency and early recovery environments. Digitally driven delivery systems, like mobile money, debit card transfer and electronic funds transfers are more secure, less resource intensive and more efficient. Unfortunately, the working environment in Liberia, both during and after the EVD crisis, did not lend itself to digitally-driven delivery modalities. There were many factors that necessitated the use of cash-based distribution:

1) Liberia has a weak banking system with very limited penetration into the market. Most Liberians do not use bank accounts, and outside of the capital, Monrovia, bank branches are difficult to find. Most Liberians living outside of the urban centers have limited access to any formal banking services. 2) There were not enough mobile money merchants using this system in smaller towns and communities to provide the liquidity of funds necessary for using or converting credits to cash, goods or services. Small local business and traders were not large enough, or familiar and confident enough in mobile money systems to participate.


3) Internet, mobile and wireless access are spotty and expensive. There is little to no connectivity, even by cell phone, in many parts of the country, including in areas of the 3 EREL target counties. 4) Mobile money, which relies on a minimum level of connectivity and mobile phone use, is present, but is not heavily used and is mistrusted by a large portion of the population. 5) These structural obstacles are not easily or quickly changed, and in an emergency response environment, the program could not count on the improvement of any of these systems as a condition of the program’s service delivery. 6) Many areas of the three counties targeted by EREL which were most heavily affected by the EVD crisis are difficult to reach by road in good conditions, and often impossible to reach during the rainy season when road conditions deteriorate.

These factors led EREL to the conclusion that cash currency distribution was the most practical and expedient method to meet the needs of the EVD-affected communities. One mitigation strategy originally designed into the program was the contracting of a financial partner, EcoBank, to manage the cash distribution from vault to community distributions. By mid-program, this proved to be an unacceptable solution as EcoBank was an unreliable partner (as described below in the “Challenges” section) and Mercy Corps took the management and distribution processes in-house in order to ensure the successful completion of the emergency response work. In the grant proposal, EREL did include a mobile money component for a portion of distribution. As the limitations to technology-based distribution became apparent, the effort was postponed. In October and November 2016, a pilot mobile money distribution was conducted in an urban area of Monrovia, West Point, which had necessary prerequisites to work effectively.

VIII. KEY SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED 8.1 Challenges During the implementation period, the program encountered a number of challenges from which we drew important lessons. Those challenges included: Bad Weather and Roads: The rainy season posed serious challenges for all aspects of the program work including cash distributions, agricultural inputs trade fairs and collection of monitoring data. Liberian weather during the rainy season, characterized by extended, heavy downpours, exacerbated bad road conditions and damaged bridges, making accessibility difficult. Since the majority of EREL distribution communities are in rural and semi-rural areas with unimproved, single car-width clay roads, cash distribution went far slower than normal in July-September 2016. This was especially true in Lofa County due to increasingly poor conditions of the road linking west and central Liberia with the county. The chief financial institution in the county, Ecobank, faced serious difficulties in moving cash to its office in Voinjama, the county capital and its largest city. Additionally, heavy floods often impeded movements of staff and vehicles as they tried reaching distribution sites.


To mitigate the delays caused by bad road conditions, team members often departed for the field earlier to allow for extra time in order to avoid reaching the distribution centers late. They often spend multiple nights in the field and had to anticipate being delayed on a road for 24 hours or more when trucks or other vehicles got stuck and blocked transit. For the agricultural inputs trade fairs, the team often went a day prior to the distribution site when flooding was anticipated. Delay in cash delivery for payment to beneficiaries: Apart from impediment caused by bad weather, Ecobank—the EREL program’s financial institution partner—was delinquent in delivering cash for parceling and onward distribution to beneficiaries. During the earlier period of the project implementation, the program engaged Ecobank to directly distribute cash to beneficiaries. Early in the course of program delivervy, the field teams observed that Ecobank often arrived late and departed earlier from the distribution sites. The Ecobank cashiers restricted payments to only 250 households per day which forced many beneficiaries to return home—often a walk of several hours-- and come again the following day or wait until the following distribution. This led to the decision to discontinue with our Ecobank contract for distributions services. They remained our primary financial institution for access to the funds used in ERELdistributions, and for the general banking needs of the MC Liberia country office. After we terminated the direct distribution contract with Ecobank, they often delayed the delivery of cash to our team for onward delivery to our beneficiaries. They attributed the delay to the bank’s inability to meet the demands of its clients, which was a result of their institutional restrictions on vault limits, or to the GoL’s Central Bank lack of liquidity. To counter the delay or postponement of distribution, the team resolved to submit cash request to Ecobank three to four weeks prior to the distribution period. However, the situation did not significantly improve despite of the early submission of cash requests. In July 2016, the Lofa branch of Ecobank told Mercy Corps it had no currency available for distribution, and at the end of August, they officially informed Mercy Corps that they would not be able to transport the quantity of money required for distribution before rainy season ended in October/ November. Mercy Corps consulted with USAID on steps forward, including the possibility of providing food vouchers rather than cash. With the assistance of USAID, Mercy Corps instead was able to enter into an agreement with Afriland Bank, which has two branches in Lofa. Together, Afriland and Mercy Corps arranged to airlift the necessary cash to Lofa County. The strategy was successful and distributions were able to finish on time. A key lesson learned from this challenge is the danger in over-reliance on a less-than-committed partner. This is especially true where there are limited options or a lack of competitors or alternate suppliers. Mitigation strategies could include experimentation with different sets of delivery mechanisms, For example, local traders, Village Savings and Loans groups and other financial institutions could be engaged as payment agents to avoid strangulation of the program by the inaction of a central financial partner. 8.2 Key Lessons Learned The key lessons during the implementation of the EREL program include the following: Weather: (a) Project risk assessment and analysis should include the challenges posed by heavy weather during the rainy season, so that appropriate mitigation mechanisms are developed in advance;


(b) Contingency plans for delays in distributions due to bad weather, road conditions or other factors should be discussed and agreed upon as part of the initial planning and kick-off meetings with communities. Internally, agencies implementing cash transfers in countries with poor road infrastructure should develop several response plans to address potential challenges, especially those challenges that affect cash and inputs delivery. Such plans could include the use of commodity vouchers in difficult terrains during the rainy season instead of cash. EREL observed that, while there were difficulties in getting cash to difficult terrains, markets in Lofa were functional, integrated and competitive, as the sources of goods and services also included Guinea and Sierra Leone. Distribution currency: The program initially delivered cash distributions in USD. The shift in delivering Liberian Dollars (LRD) to beneficiaries instead of USD was a good decision so as to minimize losses incurred by beneficiaries when exchanging from USD to LRD. Despite the positive outcome, however, the transition required additional resources (time, personnel, security, etc.) as every US dollar often equated to several in Liberian currency. During the implementation period, the largest denomination available in LRD was worth little more than a dollar, and the bank often provided bills worth only a tenth of that value. This increased the volume of currency several times over. To maximize time and resources, additional staff were hired, assigned to counting, packaging and distribution of cash. A key lesson learned from the currency issue is to incorporate such factors into the risks and assumptions developed during the design phase and create a contingency budget line to cater for such emergencies. We had not anticipated that accessing currency would be a challenge, and resolving the issue was costly. Fraud: Although Mercy Corps has found the community-based targeting approach the best option, it nonetheless has its own disadvantages. Despite precautions and the emphasis on process transparency, a few community leaders tried to defraud the program. The team, through its rigorous monitoring process, discovered that some of the community committees and leaders connived together to defraud the system by coaching ineligible members of their community to pose as beneficiaries. To preclude these types of illegitimate inclusions, the team conducted verifications using different approaches including unannounced spot checks on beneficiaries in their communities and spot verification during distribution. The program established a telephone hotline, which was utilized by the community to express grievances, seek information and clarifty on our activities as well as making commendation on our work. The hotline was utilized weekly mostly to make inquiries and commend us for the level of transparency. Occasionaly ( once or twice monthly) community members alerted us of any potential fraud for our monitors to follow up on. Lack of cooperation with conditionality for vouchers: Mercy Corps experienced some difficulties during program implementation in ensuring that the conditions of receipt of agricultural inputs vouchers were met. While most beneficiaries welcomed the opportunity to take part in training on agricultural techniques, a few farming group members resisted participation in farming demonstration activities. To address this issue, any planned cash payments or agricultural voucher distributions were delayed until conversations took place about the participant’s commitment to attend the next training session. Mercy Corps recommends that other programs with a conditional voucher distribution ensure that conditions are met prior to distribution.


Low coverage and poor network connectivity: Some rural project participants could not utilize the complaint system through the hotline due to either low GSM coverage or poor connectivity. The team addressed the connectivity issues by either providing the communities with the complaint form or ensuring regular visits of team members in the communities to allow participants to register their concerns. Further information on challenges and lessons learned is available in annex in the reports from the Lessons Learned and Partners Review Workshops held in August and September 2016. 8.3 Key Program Successes The EREL program achieved a great number of successes and exceeded its cash beneficiary target and reached nearly (99.3%) the farming households targeted. The community-based approach, whereby community members are empowered to select beneficiaries, was a powerful tool which gave a greater stake and sense of ownership of the program to participating communities. It also enabled beneficiaries to build confidence and trust in the program. Handing the security of the program staff and assets to community during distribution has been so far successful. The community based feedback mechanisms marked another success of the program. In many cases, district commissioners and other local leaders intervened in issues that could breed potential conflict if INGO staff had attempted to resolve the problem. For example, the District Commissioner of Gibi District presided over a case involving one of our vendors and community members who attempted to take items belonging to vendors brought into the community to serve beneficiaries. The collaboration between Mercy Corps program, finance and operations staff was instrumental to achievement of ambitious program milestones during the period under review. This is a very logistics-dependent program, and it required constant coordination with our entire support staff in Liberia. The program improved knowledge, attitude, and practice in agriculture production in participating communities. Through the lead farmers and demonstration farm approach, participants learned by doing, which increased their knowledge and skills in agriculture best practices. Beneficiaries have been able to apply skills such as compost and nursery preparation, proper spacing of crops, and post-harvest handling. Participants have also learned the importance of diversifying their diets using locally produced foods. Household dietary diversity survey results showed that participants have begun practicing the consumption of more than three groups of food. By providing complementary nutrition sensitization during cash distribution in combination with tools for improved agricultural production, EREL supported an increase in the percentage of households with high dietary diversity from 31% at mid-program baseline in March 2016 to 77.3% in December 2016 and increasing average dietary diversity score from 4.5 in May 2015 and 4.7 in March 2016 to 8.6 in December 2016. Most notably, the EREL program has been able to reduce the incidence of hunger in households that had been economically affected by the Ebola outbreak. For thousands of families that had already been poor, the outbreak had served to increase their vulnerability and distress. Consequently, they resorted to coping mechanisms such as skipping meals, eating less desirable or smaller quantities of food, selling assets or going into debt. The baseline found that 54% of


households had moderate hunger and 4% had severe hunger. The EREL program was able to affect this dramatically, so that later monitoring found that 76% of households reported little or no hunger and not one reported severe hunger. Thus, the EREL Emergency Food Security Program made great strides in achieving its goal, increasing the food security of populations affected by EVD in the targeted districts of Montserrado, Margibi and Lofa Counties of Liberia.

Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia (EREL) Program ...pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MNK7.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Economic Recovery from Ebola for Liberia (EREL) Program ...pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MNK7.pdf ·...