Amended Final Madagascar RFSA MY APS Round 2. 5-1-24.pdf

Issue Date: March 28, 2024 Deadline for Questions: April 11, 2024 at 12:00 p.m., noon (Eastern Daylight Time, EDT) Closing Date: May 13, 2024

CFDA Number: 98.007 Closing Time: 12:00 p.m., noon (Eastern Daylight Time)

Subject: Round 02 Madagascar Resilience Food Security Activity

Program Title: BHA Multi-Year APS: Round 02 Madagascar Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA)

Federal Assistance Listing Number: 720BHA23APS00002-02-MG

Introduction

Interested Applicants:

PLEASE NOTE: This Notification of Funding is Round Two for full applications under existing “Multi-Year Annual Program Statement No. 720BHA23APS00002-02-MG”.

All interested organizations should carefully review both this Round AND the full Annual Program Statement (APS), which can be found here: https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/348888.

Important information contained in the full Base APS is not repeated in this specific Round Two documentation.

Round Two of the Multi-Year Annual Program Statement (MY APS) No. 720BHA23APS00002-02-MG USAID (referred to as MY APS Round-2, RFSA, or Madagascar RFSA) is requesting the submission of applications focused on resilience and food security in Madagascar. USAID anticipates issuing up to two

(2) awards under this Round. Unless otherwise stated herein, all terms and conditions of the MY APS apply.

Please refer to the Base MY APS for additional information. While this Round is intended to be an elaboration of the information provided in the Base APS, should there be differences between the two, this MY APS Round-2 will supersede information in the Base APS. As such, both documents should be read in conjunction to ensure all application requirements are met.

Applicants should refer to the RFSA Application Guidance on the Resilience Food Security Activity section of the BHA website, including Technical References and the Monitoring and Evaluation Policy.

Thank you for your interest in USAID programs.

Sincerely, Matthew Nims Agreement Officer, Title II

Renee Newton Agreement Officer, Community Development Funds (CDF) https://www.usaid.gov/humanitarian-assistance/bha-rfsa https://www.usaid.gov/humanitarian-assistance/bha-rfsa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This MY APS Round-2 provides the following:

SECTION A: Program Description 2

SECTION B: Federal Award Information 17

SECTION C: Eligibility Information 19

SECTION D: Application and Submission Information 20

SECTION E: Application Review Information 62

SECTION F: Federal Award and Administration Information 68

SECTION G: Federal Awarding Agency Contact 69

SECTION H: Other Information 70

Appendix I: Essential Supporting Documents 71

Appendix II: Theory of Change Diagram 72

Appendix III: RFSA Geographic Areas 73

Appendix IV: Madagascar Resilience Focus Zone 74

SECTION A: Program Description

This funding opportunity is authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 and the Food for Peace Act of 2018, as amended (See Base APS Section B). The resulting award(s) will be subject to 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and USAID’s supplement, 2 CFR 700, as well as the additional requirements found in the Base APS Section F. See Base APS Section A.1 for background information on BHA.

1. Overview

USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) is committed to enhancing the resilience of vulnerable populations around the world. BHA’s resilience programming helps save lives, strengthen livelihoods, and build people’s capacities to better manage shocks and stresses. Using all of these approaches, BHA strengthens capacities of vulnerable populations to reduce morbidity and mortality, promote economic growth, minimize disaster risks, improve food security, improve nutrition, and adapt to climate change.

USAID intends to award up to two (2) Cooperative Agreements pursuant to this RFSA. Subject to the availability of funds and commodities and at the discretion of the Agency, USAID intends to provide up to a total of $100 million total for the five-year period of performance - $85 million from Community Development Funds (CDF) and $15 million from Title II non-emergency (commodities, freight, Internal Transportation, Storage, and Handling (ITSH)).

The RFSA will target extremely poor and marginalized households in rural and peri-urban areas of rural communes of the Grand South and Southeast Madagascar. This RFSA will implement a contextually-adapted version of the graduation approach, which BHA expects will reach a minimum of 85,000 to 100,000 households, and ideally more. This approach includes a strategically sequenced combination of consumption support, coaching, livelihood skill building, asset transfer, and savings that have been proven to improve the lives and increase the resilience of extremely poor households in many contexts, as detailed in Section A.6. The geographic implementation areas for this RFSA include the following regions and districts: Androy Region: Ambovombe-Androy1, Beloha, and Tsihombe Districts;

Anosy Region: Amboasary-Atsimo District; Atsimo Andrefana Region: Ampanihy Ouest District; or Atsimo Atsinanana Region: Farafangana and Vangaindrano Districts.

2. Country Context and Background

The island nation of Madagascar is rich in natural resources with largely untapped potential to capitalize on its biodiversity and diverse landscape.2 Despite this, Madagascar is one of the world’s poorest countries, a startlingly unique position given that most other countries with that distinction are facing widespread conflict.3 Eighty percent of Malagasy live below the extreme poverty line of $2.15 per day,4 and Madagascar ranks within the top five of countries experiencing the most hunger, according to the

4 World Bank Group. (April 2023). Poverty & Equity Brief: Madagascar.

https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/ddpext_download/poverty/987B9C90-CB9F-4D93-AE8C-750588BF00QA/current/Global_POVEQ_M DG.pdf

3 USAID. Madagascar CDCS. https://www.usaid.gov/madagascar/country-development-cooperation-strategy-cdcs

2 World Bank Group. (2022). Madagascar Country Environmental Analysis.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099635010242211316/pdf/P17701803653a407f0bbd80a9da77fa6f51.pdf

1 This includes the newly created Antanimora Atsimo District and all its communes, which were formerly part of Ambovombe District. See Report of the Republic of Madagascar Council of Ministers of March 6, 2024:

https://www.presidence.gov.mg/actualites/conseil-des-ministres/2074-tatitry-ny-filan-kevitry-ny-minisitra-alarobia-06-marsa-2024-lapam-panja kana-iavoloha.html.

https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/ddpext_download/poverty/987B9C90-CB9F-4D93-AE8C-750588BF00QA/current/Global_POVEQ_MDG.pdf https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/ddpext_download/poverty/987B9C90-CB9F-4D93-AE8C-750588BF00QA/current/Global_POVEQ_MDG.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/madagascar/country-development-cooperation-strategy-cdcs https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099635010242211316/pdf/P17701803653a407f0bbd80a9da77fa6f51.pdf https://www.presidence.gov.mg/actualites/conseil-des-ministres/2074-tatitry-ny-filan-kevitry-ny-minisitra-alarobia-06-marsa-2024-lapam-panjakana-iavoloha.html https://www.presidence.gov.mg/actualites/conseil-des-ministres/2074-tatitry-ny-filan-kevitry-ny-minisitra-alarobia-06-marsa-2024-lapam-panjakana-iavoloha.html

Global Hunger Index.5 Poverty is particularly concentrated in rural areas, with poverty rates double from those in urban areas.6 In the Grand South7, even greater portions of the population are extremely poor (90 percent).8 In the Southeast9, the poverty rate is as high as 93.1 percent in Atsimo Atsinanana.10

Drivers and consequences of poverty and food insecurity include:

● Vulnerability to natural and climate hazards: Madagascar is significantly impacted by climate change. Climate shocks have grown in severity over the last 20 years, including increased drought periods, sand storms, rainfall variability, intensification and frequency of cyclones, and cyclone-related floods. Moreover, deforestation and land degradation has increased exposure to climate shocks and stresses, and reduced livelihood opportunities. Natural conditions that contribute to extreme poverty and food insecurity in the Grand South and Southeast include:

low soil fertility and limited access to water due to deep water tables and saline groundwater in the coastal areas.

● Economic instability: Economic instability recently driven by COVID-19 and the conflict in Ukraine have worsened household poverty and vulnerability, with increasing food and energy prices negatively impacting households’ purchasing power.11

● Limited infrastructure and public service: Limited public infrastructure and government services are major contributors to poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition. Transportation and water infrastructure is a challenge everywhere in Madagascar, especially in the Grand South and Southeast. Roads in many areas of the Grand South and Southeast become impassable during the rainy season, and isolated districts in the Southeast may be difficult to access during the cyclone season due to flooding and destruction of infrastructure.12 The lack of a strong road network increases the cost of food and other essential goods and creates barriers for farmers in remote areas to participate in markets.13 Additionally, water scarcity in the Grand South, along with poor water infrastructure, creates barriers for household and agricultural uses that impact livelihoods, health, gender dynamics, conflict sensitivity, and environmental sustainability. Poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), health and nutrition services, particularly in rural and remote areas, limits households’ ability to access quality services necessary for their wellbeing.

● Early marriage and sexual exploitation of girls: Gender based violence (GBV), child early forced marriage (CEFM), and intimate partner violence (IPV) increase the risk and exposure of young

13 World Bank Group. (April 2022). The Urgency of Reforms: Structural Transformation and Better Governance at the Heart of the Strategy to Reduce Poverty. Systematic Country Diagnostic Update for Madagascar.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/551231652117328109/pdf/Madagascar-Systematic-Country-Diagnostic-The-Urgency-of-Reform s-Structural-Transformation-and-Better-Governance-at-the-Heart-of-the-Strategy-to-Reduce-Poverty.pdf

12 Global Food Security Cluster. (2023). An urgent nutrition and food security response is needed in the Great South-East of Madagascar. Global Food Security Cluster.

https://www.unicef.org/madagascar/media/10366/file/Nutrition%20and%20food%20security%20situation_Southeast%20Madagascar.pdf

11 Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). (May 30, 2022). Madagascar [Grand South & Grand South East]: IPC Acute Food Insecurity Snapshot. https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Madagascar_AcuteFoodSecur_22Apr23Mar_Snapshot_English.pdf

10 FEWS NET. (2018). Madagascar Enhanced Market Analysis. Washington, DC: FEWS NET. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00THGN.pdf

9 For the purposes of this RFSA, the Southeast refers to the region of Atsimo Atsinanana.

8ACAPS. (March 10, 2022). Food insecurity crisis in the Grand Sud regions.

https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/20220310_acaps_thematic_report_madagascar_food_security.pdf

7 For the purposes of this RFSA, the Grand South refers to the regions of Androy, Anosy and Atsimo Andrefana.

6 Healy, T. (2018). The Deep South. The World Bank Group.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/587761530803052116/pdf/127982-WP-REVISED-deep-south-V27-07-2018-web.pdf

5 Global Hunger Index. (2023). Global Hunger Index Scores by 2023 GHI Rank. https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ranking.html https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/551231652117328109/pdf/Madagascar-Systematic-Country-Diagnostic-The-Urgency-of-Reforms-Structural-Transformation-and-Better-Governance-at-the-Heart-of-the-Strategy-to-Reduce-Poverty.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/551231652117328109/pdf/Madagascar-Systematic-Country-Diagnostic-The-Urgency-of-Reforms-Structural-Transformation-and-Better-Governance-at-the-Heart-of-the-Strategy-to-Reduce-Poverty.pdf https://www.unicef.org/madagascar/media/10366/file/Nutrition%20and%20food%20security%20situation_Southeast%20Madagascar.pdf https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_Madagascar_AcuteFoodSecur_22Apr23Mar_Snapshot_English.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00THGN.pdf https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/20220310_acaps_thematic_report_madagascar_food_security.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/587761530803052116/pdf/127982-WP-REVISED-deep-south-V27-07-2018-web.pdf https://www.globalhungerindex.org/ranking.html girls to early pregnancy, increased disease, reduced access to education and livelihood activities, and perpetuate the cycles of stunting and malnutrition.

● Increasing conflict: Conflict is both a cause and consequence of food insecurity.14 The Grand South has seen increasing insecurity due to “dahalo” (organized crime and zebu15 theft), which restricts people’s movements and access to livelihoods, thereby exacerbating food insecurity.16

While mainly from the Grand South, dahalo groups can be found across Madagascar in rural “red zone” areas, where government control is largely absent.17 Consequently, these groups have stripped many communities of their security and ability to invest in local markets, livestock and productive livelihoods in the Grand South.18

Most households in the Grand South and Southeast are poor. The vast majority engage in diversified livelihood strategies that include pastoralism and/or smallholder subsistence farming, in combination with other economic activities. Such diversification helps families reduce their exposure to risk, cope with land poverty and shocks, and adapt to changing conditions. Men and boys generally engage in livelihoods centered around livestock or transporting goods, and women and girls most commonly participate in women-led livelihoods and women-owned firms, such as buying and selling handicrafts, produce, cereals, chickens, or fish.19 Increasingly, households rely on selling forest resources for fuel or construction materials as a coping mechanism, degrading natural resource assets that are historically a source of protection and resilience, thus increasing vulnerability in the long-term.

In the Grand South, both women and men traditionally rely on savings through livestock – prioritizing zebu – and selling animals in times of need. When crops or livestock are lost due to climate and other shocks, however, poor households have limited assets to draw upon during a crisis. In many areas of the Grand South, households rely on social capital within informal networks, such as communities, clans, and families, to overcome shocks.20 The onslaught of crises in recent years is exhausting such traditional coping mechanisms, and now households are resorting to harmful coping strategies, including poor feeding practices, eating foraged or wild foods, taking on debt, child labor, or selling critical assets, such as livestock, farmland, and even kitchen utensils.21 Some households have diversified their livelihoods while others have resorted to migrating.22 While most migration is seasonal, some households have migrated permanently.

As coping capacities wane after cycles of climate and economic shocks, acute food insecurity has risen;

the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) projects that 1.72 million people (30 percent of

22 World Bank Group. (2022). Madagascar Economic Update: Navigating Through the Storm.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099452505272217360/pdf/IDU063da38be0ec1a043a60b77f0e8c615d431fb.pdf

21 Global Food Security Cluster. (2023). An urgent nutrition and food security response is needed in the Great South-East of Madagascar. Global Food Security Cluster.

https://www.unicef.org/madagascar/media/10366/file/Nutrition%20and%20food%20security%20situation_Southeast%20Madagascar.pdf

20 Madagascar Country Partnership Framework. (2017). The Role of Informal Networks in southern Madagascar. World Bank 2020.

19 Ibid.

18 FEWS NET. (2018). Madagascar Enhanced Market Analysis. Washington, DC: FEWS NET. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00THGN.pdf

17 The New Humanitarian. (July 18, 2022). Madagascar’s unforgiving bandit lands.

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2012/07/18/madagascar-s-unforgiving-bandit-lands

16 IOM. (January 10, 2022). Building Peace in Madagascar’s Stronghold of Cattle Thieves.

https://storyteller.iom.int/stories/building-peace-madagascars-stronghold-cattle-thieves

15 A subspecies of cattle.

14 Hendrix, C and Anderson, J. (April 2021) Resilience and Food Security Amidst Conflict and Violence: Disrupting a Vicious Cycle and Promoting Peace and Development.

https://www.resiliencelinks.org/system/files/documents/2021-08/RTAC_Resilience%20and%20Food%20Security%20Amidst%20Conflict%20and %20Violence_April2021_508.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099452505272217360/pdf/IDU063da38be0ec1a043a60b77f0e8c615d431fb.pdf https://www.unicef.org/madagascar/media/10366/file/Nutrition%20and%20food%20security%20situation_Southeast%20Madagascar.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00THGN.pdf https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2012/07/18/madagascar-s-unforgiving-bandit-lands https://storyteller.iom.int/stories/building-peace-madagascars-stronghold-cattle-thieves https://www.resiliencelinks.org/system/files/documents/2021-08/RTAC_Resilience%20and%20Food%20Security%20Amidst%20Conflict%20and%20Violence_April2021_508.pdf https://www.resiliencelinks.org/system/files/documents/2021-08/RTAC_Resilience%20and%20Food%20Security%20Amidst%20Conflict%20and%20Violence_April2021_508.pdf the population) will be in IPC Phase 3 (Crisis) or IPC Phase 4 (Emergency)23 for the January-April 2024 lean season and thus require immediate humanitarian assistance.

3. US Government Policies and Strategies

By implementing a contextually-adapted version of the graduation approach, this RFSA will align with the following US Government (USG) policies and strategies in addition to those listed in the Base APS Section A.1.3:

● Madagascar was recently designated a target Feed the Future Country, guided by the USG Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS). This RFSA aligns with the GFSS Initiative. The GFSS core results framework underscores the need to engage in holistic, multisectoral, and well-coordinated approaches across all objectives, intermediary results (IRs), and cross-cutting IRs to build combinations of sources of resilience capacities. The GFSS seeks to build and protect a range of productive assets, including financial, physical, environmental, social, human, and political assets across multiple levels and scales. The GFSS Results Framework is based on a climate-smart resilient food systems approach to sustainably reduce poverty, hunger, and malnutrition in the Feed the Future Zone of Influence Plus by:

○ Enhancing an inclusive and climate resilient market-led food system approach that prioritizes meeting the nutritional needs of women and children;

○ Expanding the focus on resilience with particular attention on those experiencing chronic seasonal shocks and stresses; and

○ Prioritizing climate resilient natural resources (land, water and biodiversity) management in support of robust food systems.

4. Alignment with the Madagascar Country Development and Cooperation Strategy

RFSA programming aligns with Development Objective One (DO1) and Development Objective Three (DO3) of the Madagascar Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). The CDCS’s goal is, “Improved well-being and resilience of the Malagasy people to drive Madagascar’s Journey to Self-Reliance.” DO1 focuses on “Improved Human Capacity to Contribute to the Country’s Journey to Self-Reliance.” To achieve this, vulnerability to shocks must be reduced (CDCS Intermediate Result (IR) 1.3) through increasing individual preparedness to mitigate the impact of shocks (CDCS Sub-IR 1.3.2) and diversifying livelihoods (CDCS Sub-IR 1.3.3). DO1 also highlights the need for increased accessibility to a continuum of quality health, nutrition, and WASH services in order to improve human capacity. DO3 states “More sustainable economic opportunities are available for poor populations”, specifically through the implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies (CDCS Sub-IR 3.1.4) and improved access to markets (CDCS Sub-IR 3.3.1). As a result of the recent mid-course stock-taking, the Mission is prioritizing resilience in the goal and resilience integration across the DOs.

5. Programming Principles

See Base APS Section A.3.

23 1.1 million people in the Grand South and 651,000 people in the Southeast https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/us-government-global-food-security-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/us-government-global-food-security-strategy https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/CDCS-Madagascar-September-2025%20-%20508%20compliant%20-%2011-05-2020.pdf

6. Graduation Approach

The graduation approach combines carefully sequenced interventions tailored to the challenges faced by the ultra-poor in a particular context. “Working together, these interdependent interventions lead to strong outcomes at the household level including increased or improved assets, food security, savings and financial inclusion, health outcomes, social integration, and productive skills.”24

Before implementation begins, one of the most critical steps is intentional targeting of participants in order to reach extremely poor households. See Section D.5.c.2 for more information on Participant Targeting.

The graduation approach comprises the following five core elements. Illustrative examples of how the five core elements have been implemented by other graduation programs are provided below25:

1. Consumption support to ensure basic needs are met while starting or expanding livelihoods.

This is typically provided in the form of cash and/or food assistance, delivered in installments that generally last 10 to 24 months, and is designed to help participants stabilize food consumption levels until they start earning income from the livelihoods facilitated through other program components. The duration and frequency of the consumption support is contextualized to the specific context. In most graduation programs, the total value transferred tends to fall within the range of $10 to $30 per month, with variations based on local purchasing power, household size, availability of other sources of income, and presence of other high frequency cash transfer programs in which households already participate.

2. Ongoing coaching and mentoring. Graduation programs provide ongoing support designed to help participants overcome emotional and psychosocial hurdles and knowledge gaps that might prevent them from having resilient livelihoods. In addition to helping participants with business planning, money management, and social support, coaches also provide referrals to health and other services. The coaching and mentoring curriculum supports participants as they develop new or expand existing livelihood opportunities; supports participants to use their increased income in ways that contribute to improved food security, dietary diversity and resilience; and their ability to access and utilize health, WASH and nutrition services. The coaching content can include light touch behavior change elements that would improve RFSA target outcomes. Many graduation programs include weekly household visits from implementing partner staff, delivered for 12-24 months, though some programs provide less frequent (e.g., every 6 weeks) visits, provide visits for a shorter time (e.g., 6-9 months), or deliver coaching to groups instead of one-on-one. The duration and frequency of the coaching support is contextualized to the specific context. In addition, some programs identify local community volunteers who can fulfill the coaching function, rather than using paid program staff.

3. Improved access to savings or other financial services. Once their food consumption stabilizes, graduation programs encourage participants to start saving, either by facilitating the creation of informal savings groups (including self-help groups, village savings and loan associations, etc.) or by linking participants to formal financial services providers. Prior implementations of the graduation approach have employed a variety of formal and informal savings and lending

25 The graduation programs referenced in this section have generated meaningful improvements in participants’ income, assets, savings, food security, and other outcomes, according to rigorous impact impact evaluations.

24 Dharmadasa, H., Hashemi, S. M., Samaranayake, S., & Whitehead, L. (2016). BRAC Propel Toolkit: An implementation guide to the ultra-poor graduation approach. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2016/Poverty-SDGs/BRAC-PROPEL-Toolkit.pdf https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/egms/docs/2016/Poverty-SDGs/BRAC-PROPEL-Toolkit.pdf services. Examples include: informal savings groups (for example, village savings and loan associations); mobile money (as appropriate and accessible); and formal savings accounts (if local conditions allow) with a local financial institution, coupled with services that enable participants to seamlessly access and use a new formal account.

4. Training on business-related and other skills (e.g., soft skills) to increase economic security.

Participants receive training on the skills (both technical and interpersonal) required to start (or expand) a viable livelihood. Most trainings include a total of 20-40 hours of content, which can be delivered in a concentrated period of 4-5 days, or through shorter weekly sessions delivered over the course of 10-16 weeks. Training is typically delivered immediately before, or shortly after, the transfer of the productive assets, so it will be fresh in participants’ minds.

5. Provision of productive assets, typically as a cash grant or mobile money transfer (but in some circumstances, if local market conditions render likely more effective, could be in-kind).

Participants receive a lump sum cash transfer designed to “jump start” one or more income-generating activities in order to start (or expand) a viable livelihood. The asset transfer is for unconditional use, meaning participants can choose how to spend the cash transfer to pursue a new or expanded livelihood. In most cases, the assets are provided in the form of a lump-sum cash transfer, but may also be delivered in-kind. The value of the assets typically range from $100-$300 per household, again varying based on local purchasing power and the target livelihoods. Some programs deliver business grants to groups of participants, rather than individuals, which can serve as a platform for more efficient delivery of multiple components.

Illustrative examples for the use of Title II resources and in-kind food commodities within the graduation approach may be to complement the consumption smoothing element, support households during the lean season, or be used as a crisis modifier for shock-responsive programming.

Linkages: Recognizing that one activity cannot meet all the needs of extremely poor households, linkages are used to connect participants to external actors who can provide the necessary services, information, and financial and market opportunities. Illustrative examples of linkages include:

● Information to participants during coaching sessions: As part of Component #2 in the above description of the graduation approach, coaches provide information about how participants can access quality services offered by other implementers (whether for-profit, nonprofit, or government). Coaches support participating households to identify and access relevant services, and follow up with participants to ensure that they have received the expected support from other implementers.

● Savings groups invite external providers to meetings: As part of Component #3 detailed above, graduation implementers can inform savings groups of relevant service providers so that savings groups can invite providers to their meetings to learn about their services or information available (at no additional cost).

● Coordinate input providers and output buyers in the value chain of specific promoted livelihoods: Graduation implementers, as part of Component #4 detailed above, provide market information to participants on formal and informal actors, such as input providers and output buyers, or coordinate the presence of such outside entities to improve market access for participants.

● Layer with existing social protection programming: In areas where social protection, including social safety net programs exist and are delivered reliably, graduation implementers, as part of Component #1 detailed above, will layer the graduation approach with existing programs (for specific examples on social safety net programs, see Sequencing, Layering, and Integrating (SLI) Section D.5.c.3). In doing so, the graduation implementer will provide Components 2 - 5 of the graduation approach while other programs can support consumption smoothing.

In addition to building resilience to shocks and stresses, linkages to existing services, markets, and community support can contribute to a clear exit strategy that enables households to progress after the program ends.

Evidence Base for Graduation Programming

The selection of the graduation approach for this RFSA is motivated by a broad evidence base indicating that graduation programs can be highly cost-effective across settings, including settings with severe resource scarcity and limited service delivery. Randomized evaluations across six countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Pakistan, and Peru) found impacts on household economic outcomes after both 12 and 36 months: households reported a 5 to 18 percent increase in household consumption, with program costs ranging from about $800 to $2,000 per household in 2022 USD.26 These effects are meaningful, and the intervention is cost-effective, relative to effects generated by alternative approaches.

Results from other programs support this evidence, like one in Afghanistan which found that: household food insecurity fell by 0.48 points relative to a score of 5.9 in the comparison group; participants’ earnings increased by 39 percent; and total savings were six times greater than those in the comparison group.27 In the South Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo, an extremely vulnerable setting in which both governance and infrastructure are limited or non-existent, a graduation program improved weekly food consumption expenditure by 5 percent, and non-food consumption expenditure by 13 percent, when measured 12 months after the end of all program support. Savings balances almost tripled, and participants experienced meaningful improvements in women’s empowerment indicators.28

In Niger, a context highly exposed to climatic shocks and food insecurity, and among participants who lived more than an hour from the nearest market, a graduation program increased daily per capita consumption by 7 to 15 percent, savings by 90 to 156 percent, and generated additional improvements in food security, mental health, and women’s empowerment.29

Another impact evaluation in Afghanistan found that, four years after the end of a graduation program, participating households had higher consumption (16 percent higher), income (32 percent higher), and ability to recover from shocks (53 percent more likely) than those in the comparison group, despite two severe droughts, escalating conflict and insecurity, and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the years

29 Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B. et al. (2022). Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature 605, 291–297.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8

28 Angelucci, M., Heath, R., and Noble, E. (2023). Multifaceted programs targeting women in fragile settings: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Development Economics 164: 103146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103146

27 Gibbs A, Corboz J, Chirwa E, et al. (2020). The impacts of combined social and economic empowerment training on intimate partner violence, depression, gender norms and livelihoods among women: an individually randomised controlled trial and qualitative study in Afghanistan. BMJ Global Health; 5:e001946.

26 Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) & IPA. (September 2015). Building Stable Livelihoods for the Ultra-Poor.

https://poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/building-stable-livelihoods-ultra-poor.pdf https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103146 https://poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/building-stable-livelihoods-ultra-poor.pdf following the intervention.30 Other long-run follow-up studies conducted in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and India have found that impacts persist or even grow over time (seven, seven, and ten years, respectively), indicating that the graduation approach generates sustainable improvements in participants’ lives.31, 32, 33

In many cases, psychosocial well-being34 and other outcomes also improve as a result of the graduation approach; indices of physical well-being (which summarize participants’ perceptions of their own health, whether they need to miss work, and ability to perform physical tasks) increased by 0.11 standard deviations four years after a graduation program in Bangladesh, and by 0.19 standard deviations ten years after a program in India; these programs cost $419 and $463 per household, respectively, in 2022 USD.35, 36 Graduation programs have also generated positive impacts on social capital, with programs in Afghanistan and Niger leading to 0.13 to 0.33 standard deviation increases in indices summarizing participants’ responses to questions about social connectedness and support; the cost of these programs ranged from $727 to $1,997 per household in 2022 USD.37, 38

7. Theory of Change

a. Activity Goal

Resilience and food security for extremely poor and marginalized households in the Grand South and Southeast Madagascar increased.

b. Activity Purposes, Sub Purposes and Cross-cutting Themes

● Purpose 1: Economic security increased

○ Sub-Purpose 1.1: Financial capital, savings, and assets increased

○ Sub-Purpose 1.2: Diversified, prosperous (on-, off-, and non-farm) livelihoods strengthened

● Purpose 2: Human capital increased

○ Sub-Purpose 2.1: Livelihood-related capacities and skills strengthened

○ Sub-Purpose 2.2: Access to quality (nutrition, WASH, health) services increased

● Purpose 3: Capacity to withstand climate and other shocks increased

38 Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karmou, B., Karlan, D., Kazianga, H., Pariente, W., Premand, P., Thomas, C. C., Udry, C., Vaillant, J., & Wright, K. A.

(April 2022). Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature 605, 291–297.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8

37 Bedoya, G., Coville, A., Haushofer, J., Isaqzadeh, M., & Shapiro, J. (June 2019).

36 Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., & Sharma, G. (December 2021)

35 Bandiera, O., Burgess, R., Das, N., Gulesci, S., Rasul, I., & Sulaiman, M. (2017). Labor Markets and Poverty in Village Economies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132 (2), 811-870. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx003.

34 An RCT in Niger found that an index of participants’ mental health increased by 0.15 SD in the standard program, 0.26 SD in the full program, and 0.21 SD in the psychosocial program, and an index of social cohesion increased by 0.10 SD, 0.10 SD, and 0.20 SD, respectively. All arms had significant positive effects on women’s control over their earnings, which increased by 0.25 SD, 0.25 SD, and 0.16 SD, respectively. Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B. et al. (2022). Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature 605, 291–297.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8

33 Barker, N., Karlan, D., Udry, C., & Wright, K. (May 11, 2023). The Fading Treatment Effects of a Multi-Faceted Asset Transfer Program in Ethiopia. Northwestern Institute for Policy Research WP-23-14.

https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/our-work/working-papers/2023/wp-23-14.html

32 Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., & Sharma, G. (December 2021). Long-Term Effects of the Targeting the Ultra Poor Program. American Economic Review: Insights, 3 (4): 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200667

31 Dizikes, P. (May 10, 2022). Springing people from the poverty trap. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) News.

https://news.mit.edu/2022/poverty-trap-bangladesh-0510

30 Bedoya, G., Belyakova, Y., Coville, A., Escande, T., Isaqzadeh, M., and Ndiaye, A. (2023). The Enduring Impacts of a Big Push during Multiple Crises: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper #10596. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10596 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8 https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx003 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8 https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/our-work/working-papers/2023/wp-23-14.html https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200667 https://news.mit.edu/2022/poverty-trap-bangladesh-0510 https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10596

○ Sub-Purpose 3.1: Risk reduction practices improved

○ Sub-Purpose 3.2: Ability to respond to shocks improved

○ Sub-Purpose 3.3: Long-term adaptation improved

● Cross-Cutting Themes

○ Cultural Norms

○ Gender Dynamics

○ Conflict Sensitivity

c. Theory of Change Narrative

Goal Narrative: Resilience39 and food security for extremely poor and marginalized households in the Grand South and Southeast Madagascar increased.

Improving food security and resilience - and the ability to maintain these gains in the face of shocks and stresses - is imperative for extremely poor and marginalized Malagasy. To achieve the RFSA goal, BHA expects applicants to utilize the classical graduation approach with the five components (mentioned under Section A.6) contextualized to the Madagascar context, and delivered to each participating household. Applicants should not propose additional interventions outside the scope of the classical graduation approach as outlined in Section A.6.

The graduation approach can support participating households in the Malagasy context by:

1. Increasing economic security through financial capital, savings and assets, and diversified, prosperous on-, off- and non-farm livelihoods.

2. Increasing human capital through livelihood-related capacities and skills, and access to nutrition, WASH, and health services.

3. Increasing capacity to withstand shocks, through risk reduction practices, ability to respond to shocks, and long-term adaptation.

Extremely poor and marginalized households in Madagascar struggle under the weight of extreme and pervasive poverty. In a complex and shock prone context like Madagascar, resilience to shocks and stresses is paramount for long-term well-being, and BHA believes that improvements to savings; income;

agricultural productivity (including crops, livestock, and fisheries); livelihood creation, expansion, and risk diversification; and human capital, which are likely outcomes of the graduation approach, are necessary complements to improved and sustained livelihoods for long-term resilience and food security.

Based on impacts measured using randomized impact evaluations in other contexts, BHA anticipates that this RFSA will generate sustained improvements in participating households’ income, consumption, food security (including dietary diversity), resilience, and psychosocial well-being in line with the evidence summarized under Section A.6:

● Household consumption can be expected to increase by at least 10%

● Household income or revenues can be expected to increase by at least 30%

● The value of household assets can be expected to increase by at least 40%

● The value of household savings can be expected to at least double

39 USAID defines resilience as “the ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth.” See the USAID Resilience Policy for more information: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Resilience-Policy-Revision-Jan-2023.pdf.

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

● Household food security, as measured using an index that incorporates indicators measuring both the quality and quantity of food, can be expected to increase by at least 0.2 standard deviations40

Purpose 1 Narrative: Economic security increased.

Purpose 1 of the RFSA TOC, Economic security increased, aligns with the CDCS Sub-IR 1.3.3: Livelihoods diversified. Purpose 1 also aligns with the GFSS Objective 1: Inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth, through IR 2: Strengthened and expanded access to markets and trade, IR 3: Increased employment and entrepreneurship, and IR 4: Increased sustainable productivity.

The graduation approach seeks to build resilience among extremely poor populations and to do so, diversified and prosperous on-, off-, and non-farm livelihoods must be strengthened. Improved livelihoods, reliable incomes, and livelihood asset diversification are crucial for increased economic security and resilience. This in turn improves access to both nutritious food and non-food needs, while simultaneously strengthening the ability to invest in the natural resource environment, health, and education.

On-farm livelihoods in particular can contribute to sustainable agricultural productivity and can be a means for farming as a business. Agriculture-based livelihoods may also contribute to increased food availability, improved landscape management, and climate resilience.

For extremely poor and marginalized populations in Madagascar, improving access to livelihood opportunities requires improving existing livelihoods, starting new livelihoods, and livelihood diversification.

Through the five components of the graduation approach, this RFSA seeks to address food security and resilience-building in Madagascar through prosperous livelihood development for extremely poor and marginalized households. As such, applicants should illustrate knowledge of and address the realities that are present in Madagascar including:

● Aspects of daily life which impact livelihoods pursuit (and how);

● Locally relevant material (capital, inputs, tools, machinery, and other physical assets) and non-material (knowledge, skills, abilities, social connections, cultural acceptance, and legal access) elements of contextually relevant livelihoods;

● Contextually appropriate training and mentorship for livelihood opportunities, which may vary by location and by household;

● Factors impacting women’s development of income-generation aspirations and successful pursuit thereof, including women’s interests and desires around livelihoods; and

● Factors impacting youth’s development of income-generation aspirations and successful pursuit thereof, including youth’s interests and desires around livelihoods.

40 “Standard deviation” is a measure of how much an indicator varies within the sample. The higher the standard deviation, the more dispersed food security is within a given population; a lower standard deviation indicates that food security is more homogeneous among the relevant group. Because food security is typically measured using an index that includes multiple components (for example, the Food Consumption Score, a commonly-used food security indicator, includes information about households’ dietary diversity, food consumption frequency, and relative nutritional value of different food groups), program impacts on food security are typically reported in terms of standard deviation improvements, rather than percent changes.

Based on the specific geographic area, applicants should consider all appropriate sustainable and economically viable livelihood opportunities that specifically prioritize the interests, capacities, and level of risk aversion of the target population.

Approaches should promote livelihoods that sustain independently of humanitarian assistance by building on existing socio-economic structures, private sector partners, and make innovative use of resources typically available to targeted participants.

In addition to improved livelihoods, economic security also requires building savings and assets. In many contexts, marginalized populations have lower levels of access to both formal and informal financial services. Barriers such as a lack of identification, distance from bank branches, need for collateral, and low financial capability may constrain access to formal financial services, while social exclusion, norms, and other power dynamics may constrain access to informal financial products. Applicants should design their approach to understand and address existing barriers to financial products and services, taking into account both formal and societal barriers facing each member of this activity’s target population.

Economic security for poor and marginalized households in Madagascar also includes investment and improved management of natural resources to increase income and protect assets. As outlined under Section D.5.c.3, applicants are expected to incorporate considerations of natural resource management into their training and coaching curricula, as appropriate, to encourage participants to engage in appropriate household- and community-level strategies that reduce pressure on natural resources.

Purpose 2 Narrative: Human capital increased.

Purpose 2 of the RFSA TOC, Human capital increased, aligns with CDCS DO 1: Improved human capacity to contribute to the country’s Journey to Self-Reliance. Purpose 2 also aligns with GFSS Objective 3: A well-nourished population, especially among women and children through IR 3: Increased employment and entrepreneurship, IR 4: Increased sustainable productivity and IR 7: Increased consumption of safe and nutritious foods. This purpose focuses on the target population’s ability to make proactive and informed choices by addressing knowledge gaps, improving psychosocial well-being, and supporting access to and use of basic services. By implementing the five components of the graduation approach, this Purpose will specifically focus on livelihood skills development and psychosocial functioning and well-being, including aspirations, planning, and self-efficacy. Coaches work alongside participating households to help them overcome emotional and psychosocial hurdles. Given that quality nutrition, health, and education are vital factors to improving human capital, this activity will promote good health and hygiene behaviors, nutrition-specific practices, and nutrition-sensitive practices related to agriculture, WASH, or education through:

1. Specific, evidence-informed components of the coaching curriculum;

2. Investments in the livelihoods and related livelihood training; and

3. Linkages and referrals to existing services such as education, health, nutrition, agriculture, and

WASH.

The focus of the RFSA is the graduation approach and delivering the five components to participating households. In order to provide high quality access to services, applicants must identify services, including other donor-funded programs, in their areas of implementation and provide linkages between participating households and other services such as healthcare, nutrition, and WASH. If participants are already receiving these services, applicants should continue to encourage participants to access these services. Applicants should not provide these services directly nor to work on strengthening these external services. Rather, applicants should explore opportunities to link participants to necessary services available in the area of implementation and reduce exclusion from available services. Linking activity participants to existing services must be done equitably and in-line with their expressed needs and desires. Applicants should describe how they will work with existing cultural beliefs that result in limited access to services for marginalized populations. BHA encourages participants to become private service providers through livelihood training and asset transfer, where possible.

Maintaining and building human capital requires that individuals and households are able to benefit from critical inputs that help them become and stay adequately nourished, healthy, educated, motivated, and empowered. This increased self-efficacy leads to more productive livelihoods and longer, healthier lives. They also need to be able to maintain these assets in the face of shocks and stresses. By providing (or coordinating with other actors who deliver) consumption support, this RFSA will ensure participating households are able to invest in their human capital while starting or expanding livelihoods.

Purpose 3 Narrative: Capacity to withstand climate and other shocks increased.

Purpose 3, Capacity to withstand shocks increased, aligns with CDCS Intermediate Result (IR) 1.3 Vulnerability to shocks reduced and CDCS Sub-IR 3.1.4: Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies implemented. This purpose aligns with GFSS Objective 2: Strengthened resilience among people and systems through IR 4: Increased sustainable productivity, IR 5: Improved proactive risk reduction, mitigation, and management; and IR 6: Improved adaptation to recovery from shocks and stresses.

Applicants should use a risk-informed graduation approach. To do so, applicants must identify key hazards, vulnerability and exposure, and risk reduction strategies in each component of the graduation approach.