J.6-SLI Programming Recommendations [Internal] Report (Final Feb 2024).pdf

SEQUENCING, LAYERING, AND

INTEGRATING HUMANITARIAN AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMMING

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID/DRC

FEED THE FUTURE MARKET SYSTEMS AND

PARTNERSHIPS ACTIVITY

JANUARY 2024

Photo credit: Feed the Future

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document was made possible through support provided by the U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) under the terms of Contract No. 7200AA20C00054, the Feed the Future Market

Systems and Partnerships Activity managed by DAI. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

This document was prepared by Kim Beevers for Wellspring Development Capital and DAI.

Recommended citation

Beevers, Kim. Sequencing, Layering, and Integrating Humanitarian and Economic Development

Programming: Recommendations for USAID/DRC. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for

International Development (USAID). USAID/DRC. Prepared by Wellspring Development Capital for Feed the Future Market Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity, 2024.

The Feed the Future Market Systems and Partnerships Activity is advancing learning and good practice in market systems development and private sector engagement within USAID, USAID partners, and market actors. For more information, access to technical resources, and opportunities to engage, visit www.agrilinks.org/msp.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION TO SEQUENCING, LAYERING, AND INTEGRATING

CASE: INTEGRATED FEED THE FUTURE & DFSA PROGRAMMING, EASTERN CONGO

RECOMMENDATIONS: DESIGN & MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

1. ESTABLISH A COMMON AGENDA & RESULTS FRAMEWORK

2. ESTABLISH & REINFORCE REGULAR COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN IPS

3. PROACTIVELY ASSEMBLE AND DEVELOP IP TEAMS

4. CLARIFY ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURES

5. INFLUENCE COLLECTIVE ACTION BEYOND USAID IPS

RECOMMENDATIONS: TECHNICAL INTERVENTION OPTIONS

INTERVENTION OPTION 1: FINANCE

INTERVENTION OPTION 2: AGRICULTURAL INPUT MARKETS

INTERVENTION OPTION 3: AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT MARKETS

INTERVENTION OPTION 4: OFF-FARM ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

INTERVENTION OPTION 5: BUSINESS ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

CONCLUSION

ACRONYMS

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency

AfDB African Development Bank

BAB Bio Agro-Business

BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

COP Chief of Party

CRS Catholic Relief Services

DFC U.S. International Development Finance Corporation

DFSA Development Food Security Activities

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EG USAID/DRC Economic Growth Team

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FFP Office of Food for Peace

HDC Humanitarian-Development Coherence

IP Implementing Partner

MFI Microfinance Institutions

PSNP Productive Safety Net Program

RFA Request for Applications

RFSA Resilience Food Security Activity

SLI Sequenced, Layered, and Integrated

SVC USAID Strengthening Value Chains Activity

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide practical information and learning that the United States Agency for International Development Democratic Republic of Congo Mission (USAID/DRC) can use to develop sequenced, layered, and integrated (SLI) humanitarian and economic growth programming in the DRC.

Reflecting USAID/DRC Economic Growth (EG) Team priorities, the report focuses on opportunities to integrate potential Feed the Future (Feed the Future) programming with recently awarded USAID/Bureau of Humanitarian Affairs (BHA) Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs) in the provinces of Kasai and

Kasai Central.

The report includes an evidence review of SLI practice, an analysis of RFSA programming, and recommendations for future Feed the Future program and technical design and management. The report is divided into two parts:

Part 1: Evidence Review of Sequenced, Layered, and Integrated Practice

Sequencing, the intentional phasing of interventions, layering, the strategic coordination of overlapping interventions, and integration, the intentional sequencing and layering of interventions is a core operational principle within USAID Resilience and Humanitarian-Development Coherence policies. SLI is also prioritized as part of the USAID/DRC Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2020-2025.

The term SLI is used to describe a wide breadth of programming, ranging from portfolio investments within a specific geographic area to closely coordinated humanitarian and development interventions within a single program. In practice, several commonalities mark SLI programming, including shared analysis, a common agenda, and multisectoral approaches that prioritize sustainability. While it is difficult to draw transferrable technical lessons from SLI programming examples, several design and management recommendations emerge as key determinants of SLI programming success that are relevant to programming in the DRC. These include the importance of teams and team culture, the presence of a collaborative framework that guides implementation, and the availability of resources to support coordination efforts.

Part 2: Opportunities for Integrating Economic Growth Programming with RFSA

Activity in Kasai and Kasai Central

Part 2 is further divided into two sections. The first section covers considerations for designing and managing integrated RFSA and Feed the Future programming. Key considerations include:

1) Establish a common agenda and results framework

2) Establish and reinforce regular coordination and collaboration between IPs

3) Proactively assemble and develop IP teams

4) Clarify allowable expenditures

5) Influence collective action beyond USAID funding.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 2

The second section also covers recommended technical intervention options. Recommendations are shaped by three primary factors: the technical scope and planned activities of the three RFSAs; Kasai, Kasai Central, and DRC contexts; and market-based programming best practice. Recommended technical intervention options are organized into five categories: finance, agricultural input markets, agricultural output markets, off-farm economic opportunities, and the business enabling environment. Each category is evaluated for the opportunity to integrate with the RFSAs, likelihood of achieving scaled impact, and feasibility.

Finally, integrated programming is a laudable goal, but not an easy one to accomplish. The remote, fragile, and conflict-affected context of Kasai and Kasai Central, along with the complex implementation structure involving multiple RFSA and Feed the Future IPs managed by two USAID/DRC teams, presents significant hurdles. This report aspires to establish a shared understanding of the leadership, resources, time, and expertise that will enable successful collaboration and well-integrated programming.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 3

Introduction

This report contributes to the Market Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity to support the

USAID/DRC Mission to strengthen market linkages through coordinated investment, programming, and activities.

Purpose. The purpose of this report is to provide practical information and learning that USAID/DRC can use to develop sequenced, layered, and integrated humanitarian and economic growth programming in the DRC.

Report Structure. This report is presented in two parts. Part 1 includes an evidence review of sequenced, layered, and integrated practice, including SLI programming origins and examples, success factors, and transferable lessons for the DRC. Part 2 presents ten recommendations for the design of future USAID economic growth programming that will sequence, layer, and integrate with USAID/BHA

RFSAs in Kasai and Kasai Central. Recommendations include design and management considerations as well as technical intervention options.

About USAID/BHA RFSAs in the Kasai and Kasai Central

In 2023, USAID/BHA funded three Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) cooperative awards in

Kasai and Kasai Central. The RFSAs, which comprise consortiums led by Adventist Development and

Relief Agency (ADRA), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), and Mercy Corps, will implement for an anticipated five years. With the goal of sustainably improving the food, nutrition, and economic security of vulnerable households, the RFSAs will implement two primary strategic purposes. The first strategic purpose focuses on strengthened livelihoods and increased incomes through improved usage of credit and capital, increased profitable, diverse enterprises and income generating activities, and increased sustainable agricultural production. The second strategic purpose focuses on improved utilization of quality food among vulnerable people, including improved maternal, infant, and young child nutrition behaviors and improved water, sanitation, and hygiene behaviors. The RFSAs also include the cross-cutting themes of risk reduction and resilience, governance, gender, youth, social inclusion, and patterns of power, and climate adaptation. The RFSAs launched in the fourth quarter of 2023. The first year of RFSA implementation will be characterized as the “refinement period” during which additional assessments are conducted, results frameworks are finalized, and RFSAs and USAID participate in planned co-design activities.

About Potential USAID/DRC EG Programming in Kasai

The USAID/DRC EG team plans an upcoming Feed the Future Activity in Kasai. The geographic focus on Kasai has been updated from Kasai and Kasai Central, which guided the research, findings, and validation presented in this report. The EG team intends to design the program to strategically integrate with the RFSAs. This report was commissioned to inform the design of the activity. The greatest opportunity to integrate programming with RFSA programming relates to the RFSA’s first strategic purpose which focuses on strengthened livelihoods and increased incomes, where significant complementarity is expected. Recommended technical intervention options focus on activities related to the first strategic purpose for this reason. However, recommended design and management considerations apply to programming at large.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 4

Methodology

The information, analysis, and recommendations presented in this report are guided by a robust desk review and discussions with key informants.

Desk review. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant policies, guides, studies, projects, and assessments drawn from diverse disciplines. Overall, 51 references were systematically reviewed, including:

• USAID/BHA RFSA materials, including the USAID/BHA RFSA RFA and proposed RFSA IP technical descriptions.

• USAID policies, guides, and strategies, including for topics such as USAID/DRC strategy, resilience, and Humanitarian-Development Coherence.

• Evaluations and learning notes regarding SLI and related programming funded by USAID and other donors.

• Industry publications, including learning documents and guides for topics such as SLI, humanitarian-development programming, resilience, Markets in Crisis, market-based programming, collective impact, cash and voucher assistance, and social capital.

• Market information related to specific sectors, issue areas, and technical approaches in the DRC, such as finance, seeds and agro-inputs, agriculture, business environment reform, and land tenure and rights.

• Market information related to Kasai and Kasai Central.

Literature was gathered from publicly available sources as well as consultations with key informants, including RFSA IPs and practitioners with experience in the DRC. References are noted in Annex 2. Direct quotes and specific examples are also footnoted within the body of the report.

Key informants. To complement the desk review, the consultant also engaged 27 key informants drawn from diverse stakeholder groups, including USAID/DRC EG and BHA teams, USAID RFSA IPs, market-based programming and resilience funders and expert advisors and practitioners, including those with

DRC expertise. Informants were carefully selected for their relevant expertise and varied perspectives.

Workshops with the EG team provided crucial context on strategic and programming priorities. In-depth interviews with USAID/DRC BHA team members and RFSA IPs provided context on BHA and RFSA programming priorities and limitations, planned activities and budgets, and opportunities for integration.

Further, in depth interviews with leading market-based programming and resilience funders, advisors, and practitioners, explored best practices, relevant programming, critical challenges and opportunities, and important contextual considerations. Finally, workshops with USAID/DRC EG and BHA teams, along with a USAID resilience adviser, served to refine and validate recommendations. Key informants are noted in

Annex 3.

Approach to technical intervention recommendations. Recommended technical interventions presented in Part 2 of this report are shaped by three primary factors: the technical scope and planned activities of the three RFSAs; the Kasai, Kasai Central, and DRC contexts; as well as market-based

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 5

programming best practice. These were informed by the desk review and discussions with key informants.

The three factors that shape recommendations as well as the process for refining and validating recommendations are discussed in detail at the start of the Recommendations: Technical Intervention

Options sub-section on page 19.

Limitations. While the information, analysis, and recommendations presented in this report offer useful guidance, further assessments are needed to refine programming in Kasai and Kasai Central. There is limited market information available for Kasai and Kasai Central as well as limited practitioner experience from which to draw on in the region, especially with respect to long-term development and private sector engagement. Given the marked differences between Kasai and Kasai Central and other regions within the

DRC, though relevant, reflections from these other regions are not fully transferable.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 6

PART 1

EVIDENCE REVIEW OF SEQUENCED, LAYERED,

AND INTEGRATED PRACTICE

Part 1: Evidence Review of Sequenced, Layered, and Integrated Practice introduces sequencing, layering, and integrating (SLI), including commonly used definition, origins and relevance, types of SLI programming, and commonalities of SLI practice. Part 1 also outlines determinants of SLI programming success, with transferable lessons for the DRC. In addition, Part 1 includes a case example of SLI in practice drawn from

USAID/DRC’s portfolio in Eastern Congo. This evidence review serves as a basis for programming recommendations presented in Part 2.

The information and findings presented in this section are based on a desk review of relevant programming, policies, and guides, as well as discussions with key informants, including leading resilience and market-based programming funders and practitioners.

Introduction to Sequencing, Layering, and Integrating

Definition

According to the 2022 USAID Resilience Policy, SLI is defined as:

● Sequencing is the intentional organization and phasing of interventions and the way they are delivered, to coordinate the order in which activities are implemented and actors are engaged to maximize outcomes and sustainability.

● Layering is the strategic coordination of geographically overlapping interventions across the different sectors and stakeholders that complement each other to achieve resilience objectives.

Interventions can be designed to layer over and build on the completed interventions in the recent past or ongoing interventions within or across sectors, stakeholders, and different pillars of assistance.

● Integrating is the intentional layering and sequencing of multisectoral interventions and the coordination of actors to address needs and prevent or reduce the drivers and effects of shocks and stresses that undermine long-term well-being.”1

1 2022 Resilience Policy Revision. USAID.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Resilience-Policy-Revision-Jan-2023.pdf

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 7

Origins & Relevance

The idea of connecting humanitarian and development assistance through complementary objectives, strategies, programming, and funding at multiple levels has been around for decades. However, the concept of

“SLI” emerged as an operational consideration as part of USAID’s efforts to strengthen resilience. Building resilience to recurrent crises arose as a cross-bureau priority in 2011-2012, following large-scale humanitarian emergencies in the Horn of Africa and

Sahel. These emergencies prompted USAID and others to recognize that continuing to treat recurring crises and chronic vulnerability as acute humanitarian emergencies was untenable. In the Building Resilience to Recurrent Crises: USAID Policy and Program Guidance (2012), USAID laid out its goal of building resilience across programming and acknowledged that to do so, the agency would also need to change the way it operationalizes resources to sequence, layer, and integrate humanitarian and development assistance. SLI is also relevant to

Humanitarian-Development Coherence (HDC)2. Within USAID, HDC is the complementary collaboration of humanitarian and development programming to maximize collective impact and reduce the need for humanitarian assistance over time. HDC is closely linked with resilience thinking. HDC describes SLI as an operational principle.

The USAID/DRC Mission also prioritizes SLI. Within its DRC Country Development Cooperation

Strategy (CDCS) 2020-2025, USAID notes that it will increase its efforts to address emergency situations and the factors that precipitate them by sequencing, layering, and integrating humanitarian and development assistance. Within the CDCS, the Mission also noted its intent to promote long-term, multi-sectoral and emergency programming concurrently by co-locating activities, developing joint risk analyses, and combining types of assistance.

Types of SLI Programming

In general, the term SLI is used to describe efforts to create coherence through mutually reinforcing activities delivered through different types of programming and sources of funding to enhance collective impact. However, within the literature, there are nuances between types of sequenced, layered, and integrated investments, programming, and interventions. The following describe types of SLI practice commonly referenced:

● Humanitarian and development investments that target complementary issues within the same geography.

Programming that falls within this type typically applies a portfolio approach by funding a range of

2 For this report, Humanitarian-Development Coherence also includes Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (HDP Nexus) and the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Coherence (HDP Coherence). While there are small differences between these, broadly they all refer to complementarity and collaboration by humanitarian, development, and peace actors in pursuit of a common agenda. See also Triple Nexus and

UNOCHA New Way of Working.

“We will build resilience as a common objective across development and humanitarian assistance programs. To achieve this, we will bring together our relief and development teams to develop a common understanding of risks and opportunities and identify ways to layer, integrate, and sequence programs.”

Building Resilience to Recurrent Crises: USAID Policy and Program Guidance (2012) https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/USAIDResiliencePolicyGuidanceDocument.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/USAIDResiliencePolicyGuidanceDocument.pdf

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 8

complementary initiatives within a set geographic context. For example, USAID-funded resilience and economic growth investments in Kenya’s arid lands on top of existing World Food

Programme (WFP) Food for Asset programs funded by the Office of Food for Peace (FFP) and timed these investments relative to an Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) recovery program3. In practice, collaboration for this type of SLI programming may be limited at the implementing partner (IP) level.

● Humanitarian and development programs and funding that coordinate interventions to target complementary issues within the same geography. Programming that falls within this type also follows a portfolio approach within the same geographic setting and, additionally, fosters collaboration between IPs. This type of integrated programming reflects USAID/DRC BHA and EG team ambitions with respect to future integrated programming in Kasai and Kasai Central. For example, in Ethiopia, USAID BHA, “funds the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), a graduation-style approach that combines food and cash transfers with skill and capacity development and market-based livelihood opportunities through development resources. The Joint Emergency Operation, funded with BHA emergency resources, is built around the PSNP, serving as an accordion that expands in times of crisis to reach additional beneficiaries and protect development gains. Feed the Future development funds were layered on top of the PSNP to expand livelihood opportunities for PNSP beneficiaries and enable many to graduate from the PSNP. Similarly, global health funds were then layered in the same communities to support a community-based health insurance program to help mitigate the impact of health shocks.”4

● Development programs that include humanitarian interventions. Programming that falls within this type includes development programming that integrates humanitarian assistance. This is typically done as a response to a shock or stress or to the needs of a specific, more vulnerable population. For example, in response to COVID-19, the USAID-funded Feed the Future Nigeria Rural Resilience

Activity (RRA), a 5-year Market Systems Development (MSD) program designed to strengthen recovery, economic opportunity and food security in Northern Nigeria, layered in unconditional cash transfers5. In addition, it is also possible for humanitarian programming to layer or sequence development interventions.

● Organizations that coordinate humanitarian and development assistance internally to implement complementary programming in the same geography. Programming that falls within this type describes organizations that receive complementary humanitarian and development funding to deliver programming in the same geographic and/or thematic area and use that funding to harmonize implementation at the local level to maximize impact. The funding may or may not be designed with the intent to combine or leverage efforts. Finances, processes, and reporting are also separate. For example, Sipar, a private sector children’s book publisher in Cambodia, uses

3 (2012). Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis: USAID Policy and Program Guidance. USAID.

4 (2022). Resilience Policy Revision. USAID.

5 Muench, S. (2023). Layering Cash into Market Systems Programs: Catalyzing Market-Driven Recovery in Nigeria.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 9

development assistance to develop books and humanitarian assistance to provide and distribute books6.

Commonalities of SLI Practice

Though types of SLI differ in practice, guidance and learning described within USAID policies and tools point to several common elements of SLI practice.

● Shared analysis. SLI necessitates a common understanding of the problem and a shared approach to agreed solutions. A shared understanding of context includes risks, such as frequency and severity of shocks and stress related to climate, conflict, economic conditions, and other factors, as well as the resilience capacities available to individuals, households, communities, systems, and countries.

● A common agenda. SLI necessitates a shared vision for change. This includes joint analysis, shared measurement, and mutually reinforcing activities that are managed through continuous communication and collaboration and backbone support to coordinate.

● Multisectoral approaches that prioritize sustainability. SLI engages with multisectoral approaches, such as livelihoods, human capital, and financial inclusion, rather than distinct sectors or crops. SLI also plans for sustainability, such as applying a market-based approach to programming that leverages commercial motivations, in recognition that sustained resources, capacities, motivation, and linkages are crucial in achieving and protecting outcomes.

Success Factors for SLI Programming

While there are many examples of intentional SLI design across different types of programming and funding, there are few ex-post assessments or reflections on the success of these efforts. The lessons that do emerge, however, are overwhelmingly reflections on the design and management of SLI programming as opposed to technical guidance. In practice, SLI programming – which should be rooted in a deep and shared understanding of context established through joint analysis – would reflect the unique, complex, and evolving qualities and relationships of a particular people, place, and time. For the most part, reflections on technical interventions, then, are highly contextual with limited transferability. The exception to this is with respect to learning regarding the application and integration of specific humanitarian assistance tools7, and in particular cash and voucher assistance, within longer-term resilience and development programming. The body of information and learning available for these tools, including on integration with market-based programming, is well-established.

6 Howell, H., Sommers, M., and Ezzi, O. (2022). USAID Practitioners Toolkit: Humanitarian-Development Coherence.

7 The community of practice, toolkits and guidance, and learning for cash and voucher assistance are too extensive to cover in this report. The

CALP Network is an excellent starting place.

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZHDK.pdf https://www.calpnetwork.org/

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 10

Design & Management Success Factors

Several design and management factors emerge as determinants of SLI programming success. These are transferable across contexts.

● Teams and team culture heavily determine the success of SLI efforts. Regardless of the type of SLI programming, leaders and teams that are intrinsically motivated to collaborate, find a way to do

so. This inherent drive is particularly crucial in SLI programming, where progress often demands individuals and teams actively push against the established current. For instance, navigating compliance requirements to implement innovative programming or finding consensus between humanitarian and development practitioners or bridging funding between multiple sources can all be difficult to accomplish. A strong personal commitment to collaboration motivates individuals to address inevitable hurdles that emerge to move integrated programming forward. This is underpinned by a team culture of coordination and collaboration. This includes strong working relationships between leaders and team members, dedicated time for consensus building activities, and open, collaborative design and critical reflection that fosters a sense of shared ownership.

● From the outset, a collaborative framework is key. Successful sequencing, layering, and integration requires a shared goal, direction, and targeting established from the beginning of design. Successful approaches were thorough, systematic, and clear. They focused on enhancing synergies and cross-sectoral approaches among funding sources, teams, or IPs, and typically involved participants with complementary strengths and mandates. They also identified intervention areas for collaboration and clarified responsibilities and division of labor to achieve that goal.

● SLI programming must be appropriately resourced to manage for collaboration, joint planning, team training, and capacity building. The time and effort required to coordinate is significant. The availability of dedicated resources for coordination was frequently cited as a key determinant of the success of integrated programming. Coordination is required at all levels, from the implementation team to USAID Mission, to achieve well-integrated programming. In some instances, USAID has funded “backbone support” in the form of a dedicated coordination program to create, manage, enable, and monitor collective impact between USAID-funded activities within a given geography.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 11

Case: Integrated Feed the Future & DFSA Programming, Eastern Congo

The following case is an example of integrated humanitarian and development programming and funding in which coordinated interventions targeted complementary issues within the same geography. This case was selected because it is an example of integrated programming within the

DRC Mission portfolio that is well-known to the EG and BHA teams. It offers valuable reflections as the Mission considers the development of RFSA and future Feed the Future programming.

The Strengthening Value Chains Activity (SVC) was a 5-year, $24.7 million Feed the Future activity implemented between 2017-2022. SVC was designed as one of three complementary USAID investments in the South Kivu area that, together, would reduce extreme poverty and malnutrition in target populations. The other investments included two Development Food Security Activities

(DFSAs) funded under Food for Peace and other USAID-funded projects active in the area. These activities comprised what was USAID/DRC’s new model of integrated regional transition planning for

Eastern Congo that aimed to shift assistance away from humanitarian relief and toward market-led development. This was outlined within USAID/DRC’s CDCS at the time.

Some examples of positive formal and informal integration between SVC and the DFSAs transpired, particularly with respect to the bean sector, including:

• SVC trained DFSA staff on strengthening producer organization capacity related to market principles, warehouse management, post-harvest processes, and access to finance that enhanced DFSA implementation.

• SVC provided technical assistance to DFSA initiatives, such as facilitating market linkages for

DFSA bean producer organization partners and delivering gender training to DFSA-supported village savings and loan association (VSLA) community agents.

• Activities also shared some partners, such as apex farmer organizations, and implemented in the same geographic areas.

However, overall, SVC and DFSA activities lacked formal and strategic integration that challenged collaboration and undermined USAID’s transition planning objective. Issues identified include:

• SVC and DFSAs lacked a shared, one team approach. Siloed work planning, including between consortium members and across IPs, challenged cohesive implementation.

Moreover, formal coordination efforts were halted early on, with IPs citing increased security issues as a chief cause.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 12

• Poor contractual alignment between SVC and DFSAs disincentivized integrated programming.

For instance, the activities largely focused on different value chains. SVC primarily worked on the coffee value chain and, to a much lesser degree, the bean and soybean value chains. The

DFSAs worked within the bean value chain but dropped their focus on the soybean value chain. This deviation was further encouraged by the performance metrics and targets that guided SVC implementation, which measured things like production, market linkages, access to finance, and improved practices, that are less challenging to achieve for commodities that have a strong commercial alignment.

• SVC and DFSAs also failed to appropriately budget or prioritize available budgets to facilitate cross-IP coordination and collaboration.

• The activities also received limited guidance from USAID on joint monitoring and reporting that may have reinforced integration.

The successes and shortcomings of the integrated programming effort between SVC and DFSAs point to several recommendations for future efforts. These recommendations were gathered through desk research, including a mid-term evaluation of the SVC activity, and discussions with

USAID Mission teams and IPs.

• The right leadership is paramount. The most cited reason for limited integration between Feed the Future and DFSA activities was limited buy-in from the programs’ leadership that translated into minimal effort to collaborate between teams. As one member of USAID/DRC

BHA team noted, “The human element: I don’t think we can underestimate how much this matters.”

• A framework for collaboration is needed. The use of standardized protocols, such as bi-annual work planning or shared beneficiary databases, and clear contractual obligations would further collaboration between IPs, even requiring it where necessary.

• Dedicated resources for integration efforts amplify coordination. Coordination activities, such as joint analysis, work planning, and learning exercises, receive more follow through when an IP has a dedicated coordination budget line.

• Integration is reinforced by coordination efforts at the Mission level. Coordination between Feed the Future and BHA Contracting Officer’s Representatives/Agreement Officer’s

Representatives (COR/AORs) and DRC Mission staff would benefit coordination at the IP level.

• Integration is reinforced by coordination efforts at the Mission level. Coordination between Feed the Future and BHA Contracting Officer’s Representatives/Agreement Officer’s

Representatives (COR/AORs) and DRC Mission staff would benefit coordination at the IP level.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 13

PART 2

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATING

ECONOMIC GROWTH PROGRAMMING WITH

RFSA ACTIVITIES IN KASAI AND KASAI

CENTRAL8

Part 2 presents recommendations for designing Feed the Future programming that will sequence, layer, and integrate with USAID/BHA RFSAs in Kasai and Kasai Central. The recommendations are practical and aim to ensure that the USAID/DRC Mission portfolio can integrate planned humanitarian and resiliency programming with longer-term market building efforts. The recommendations are also market-based and aim to engage with the private sector in ways that will not distort local markets. The recommendations presented in Part 2 are designed to leverage the Mission’s unique strengths and drive an economic growth agenda by developing integrated programming that will further the Mission’s goal of “A More Peaceful and

Prosperous DRC with Improved Opportunities for Communities and Individuals to Thrive.”

Part 2 is divided into two sections. The first section covers considerations for designing and managing integrated RFSA and Feed the Future programming. The second section covers recommended technical intervention options. Recommendations are shaped by three primary factors: the technical scope and planned activities of the three RFSAs, the Kasai, Kasai Central, and DRC contexts, and market-based programming best practice.

The considerations and recommendations presented in this section are based on analysis of planned

USAID/DRC BHA RFSA activities in Kasai and Kasai Central derived from a review of the USAID/BHA

Request for Applications (RFA), the proposed technical descriptions provided by two of RFSA IPs, ADRA and CRS, and a brief activity description shared by a third RFSA IP, Mercy Corps. They are also guided by the evidence review of SLI best practice presented in Part 1 of this report as well as a desk review of relevant DRC, Kasai, and Kasai Central market information and market-based programming literature on

DRC and other regions. Finally, the considerations and recommendations presented in Part 2 are also informed by discussions and workshops with USAID/DRC EG and BHA teams, RFSA IPs, and expert DRC and market-based programming funders and practitioners.

8 The geographic focus on Kasai and Kasai Central has been updated to Kasai as of February 2024. The research, findings, and validation presented in this report was earlier guided by a focus on both Kasai and Kasai Central.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 14

Recommendations: Design & Management Considerations

The following section presents five key considerations for designing and managing Feed the Future programming and shaping the current RFSAs during their refinement phase to maximize opportunities for effective and impactful sequenced, layered, and integrated humanitarian and development programming in

Kasai and Kasai Central.

1. Establish a Common Agenda & Results Framework

Well-integrated programming necessitates a common agenda established through a shared results framework and joint planning between activities from the onset. This will include close alignment between targeting used by RFSAs and Feed the Future activities, including the following considerations:

Focal geographies. The RFSAs each selected focal health zones9 within Kasai and Kasai Central geographies. One

RFSA will work at a population level while another intends to further refine geographic targeting by selecting focal villages within selected health zones. A more commercially oriented economic growth activity with a broader, potentially regional mandate, may require specific targeting to ensure populations within focal RFSA health zones and villages are engaged. Likewise, the RFSAs may also need a mandate to engage commercial and business networks, likely based in urban and peri urban areas that may or may not overlap with focal health zones, that will be a focus of an EG activity and also drive economic opportunities for and contribute to the durability of RFSA activities.

Target populations. The RFSAs target vulnerable populations within target geographies. While population targeting will be refined at the onset of programming, RFSA populations will likely be especially low in income and assets and may be more time scarce. This population is an important participant within the broader economic system but will likely require additional effort and resources to engage as potential business owners, producers/suppliers, and consumers of new products and services. Moreover, some economic outcomes (e.g. changes in income, production, or trade) associated with targeting this population will likely be lower. The additional

9 According to the proposed CRS RFSA Technical Narrative, “A health zone is the administrative level used by the MoH. Health zones are the most clearly structured and well-delineated geographic unit in DRC that also have accessible demographic data.” According to the EG team, health zones are a geographic unit of measurement that both BHA Resilience Focus Zones and Feed the Future Zones of Influence can use to determine areas of implementation in the DRC. Health zones are organized around health services that create more focus for humanitarian and development interventions than DRC provincial and territorial units of measurement in some cases. Health zones are also the method used by the Mission’s health programming to select areas of intervention. Accordingly, the use of health zones improves the Mission’s ability to coordinate.

RFSA Geographic & Population Targeting

In Kasai Central, CRS targets three health zones:

Lubondaie (Dibaya territory), Yangala (Luiza territory) and Masuika (Yangala territory). CRS will employ a total coverage approach, working in all villages and health areas within the three health zones and targeting all chronically poor and vulnerable families in these villages. In Kasai, ADRA targets five health zones in Kamonia, Tshikapa, Kanzala, Kamwesha, and Mutena in

Kamonia Territory. ADRA will further refine targeting during the refinement period, however, participant vulnerability is named as the foremost determining factor for selection. Mercy Corps did not share targeting.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 15

challenges and costs associated with engaging this population underscores the value of layering Feed the

Future activity with RFSAs. For example, using vouchers allocated within RFSA budgets to connect specific vulnerable individuals to agro-input dealers and agents established through Feed the Future would reinforce shared targeting and provide financial support for individuals that may not otherwise afford agro-inputs.

Value chains. Maize, cassava, groundnut, cowpea, beans, legumes, and others are noted as primary crops supported by the RFSAs. Failure to align value chains was cited as a core hindrance to integration between the SVC and FFP activities in Eastern DRC (see the text box on pages 11-12).

Indicator targets. There is overlap between USAID Feed the Future and RFSA standard indicators10, creating opportunity to align results measurement, which is a critical determinant of intervention design and targeting. In addition to aligned indicators, it will be important to structure targets to incentivize integrated programming. For instance, setting ambitious targets for yield, value of produce traded, or agriculture-related financing received, may incentivize a Feed the Future team to focus programming to more lucrative crops and commercial farmers that, if not balanced by targets that also incentivize them to target RFSA crops and populations, could challenge integration.

Market analyses. Joint, in-depth market analyses are often cited as a critical ingredient for integrated programming. Joint analysis can foster a shared understanding of market dynamics, actors, and risks that would enable activities to design layered and sequenced interventions from the same informed perspective. The RFSAs will complete initial assessments in early 2024, before the Feed the Future activity will be launched. The EG team should consider shaping these analyses to inform Feed the Future design.

Further, ensuring RFSA teams participate in and shape Feed the Future analyses at launch would also be important.

10 Examples: 1) Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance; 2) Value of annual sales of producers and firms receiving USG assistance; 3) Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance.

RFSA Refinement Activities

The RFSA refinement period presents a critical opportunity to shape RFSA activities, inform design, and create opportunities to integrate future programming. The refinement period began in

November 2023 and will continue until the end of September 2024. Key activities and corresponding dates are presented in the chart below, though dates and details are expected to evolve.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 16

TIMELINE OF RELEVANT RFSA REFINEMENT ACTIVITIES

2. Establish & Reinforce Regular Coordination and Collaboration between

IPs

Sequenced and layered implementation will require robust and regular coordination and collaboration between IPs, including at the level of specific implementation teams. While USAID/DRC EG and BHA teams cannot directly manage this process, they can play a critical role in establishing the foundation for effective coordination, including the following:

Use contractual incentives. The EG team referenced the use of contracts, as opposed to cooperative agreements, as a mechanism by which to ensure more substantial USAID involvement to direct IP activity and coordination. For RFSAs, which have been established as cooperative agreements (a type of grant), the BHA team noted annual planning, which includes budget and implementation plan review, as a place where USAID has leverage to steer programming. Finally, making option years11 conditional on a partner’s ability to collaborate with IPs within the field may be a particularly powerful incentive for integrated programming.

Leverage routine engagement. USAID should use regular engagement, such as routine communication with IPs as well as formal check-ins (quarterly or more frequently) and field visits related to cross-IP programming to consistently message the importance of sequenced and layered programming efforts. Where possible, USAID should also create opportunities for joint sessions between BHA and EG teams and IPs.

11Option years are a common feature of USG contracts. Such contracts provide for a base period of performance and then allow the USG to exercise one or more options to extend the contract term. When a contractor satisfactorily performs the contract, options are typically exercised.

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 17

Develop a common agenda. Create a common agenda by establishing a flexible strategy built from a robust analytical and results framework used by all IPs. This framework should provide a common understanding of shared objectives, target populations, and context. This is discussed in more detail under the first recommendation above.

Establish joint work planning. Regular, shared work planning sessions and documents are essential for integrated programming. Joint planning should involve relevant technical teams and advisors, foster open communication, and allow for early identification of potential challenges and opportunities. By jointly planning activities, IPs can streamline implementation and optimize resource utilization and timing to effectively sequence and layer implementation. USAID could require receipt of joint work plans on a semi-annual basis, for example. Robust planning would necessitate additional team time and administrative support.

Encourage a culture of collaboration. Effective collaboration starts with building a foundation of mutual understanding. At the onset, USAID could encourage IP teams to map and share their unique strengths, such as technical expertise, business or village relationships, and available resources. Encourage strategic partnerships and task allocation between IPs, where each leverages its comparative advantages to drive integrated implementation.

Budget for coordination. Regular coordination between IPs, including shared analyses, learning exercises, and joint work planning, as well as coordination with other development partners operating in the same geographic region, will require effort and funding. Requiring IPs to dedicate human resources, such as a specific coordination role or coordination responsibilities written into the job descriptions of key team members, and budget, such as a coordination or joint work planning budget lines, including at the bid stage, would signal USAID’s commitment to integrated programming and empower IPs to work together.

3. Proactively Assemble and Develop IP Teams

The capabilities and motivations of individual team members are likely to drive (or hinder) the effectiveness of integrated programming. Two core considerations emerge from literature and key informants:

Leadership. The personality and drive of the Chief of Party (COP) or Team Leader – specifically, their commitment to collaboration and ability to navigate complicated, opaque systems – were frequently cited as crucial factors in the success of integrated programming. Undoubtedly, systems and rules and norms of implementation will pose hurdles to integrated programming. As one informant aptly stated, integration is likely to happen "in spite of the system” not because of it. Therefore, securing leadership that is motivated to collaborate across IPs and resourceful in overcoming systemic obstacles to do so, will be essential. COPs/Team Leaders should possess strong interpersonal skills to foster a cohesive team environment and champion interactivity between programs. Additionally, navigating opaque financial and procurement requirements demands proactive and solution-oriented individuals who can find creative pathways to achieve integrated programming. As key personnel, COPs/Team Leaders will be approved by

SLI HUMANITARIAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING 18

USAID, giving USAID teams the opportunity to ensure the characteristics and qualifications of the COP are consistent with the needs of integrated programming.

Implementation team capability gaps. Effective integration will require teams equipped with market-based and humanitarian programming capabilities and motivated and adaptable individuals with a strong commitment to collaboration and continuous learning. It may be difficult to find this experience within

Kasai Central, where little market-based programming has transpired in recent years, necessitating a combination of thoughtful recruitment and professional development. For RFSA IPs, recruiting and building business, finance, market systems, and private sector development team expertise alongside humanitarian expertise will not only be key for the delivery of the activity, but also the integration with Feed the Future programming. Likewise, for the Feed the Future activity, recruiting fragile markets, vulnerable populations, and humanitarian team capabilities alongside core business, finance, market systems, and private sector development expertise will do the same. Where teams fall short on recruited capabilities, building in training and professional development will bolster performance. This should be extended to include training on integrated planning and interpersonal skills. Finally, ongoing cross-team coaching from market-based programming and SLI experts would be a benefit.

4. Clarify Allowable Expenditures

Inconsistent interpretation of allowed expenditures will challenge IPs to effectively layer interventions and place the timing of sequenced activities at risk. The ambiguity surrounding permissible activities and expenditures was identified as a key integration and delivery challenge in discussions with informants.