Conducted between July 2021 and April 2022, the evaluation examined the relevance of WFP’s strategic positioning in a volatile and crisis prone context, its contribution to outcomes, its efficiency and the factors explaining its performance. It concluded that:
- WFP has a strong comparative advantage as an emergency responder. Stronger engagement with government is needed to enhance focus on sustainability and capacity strengthening.
- The ICSP was a useful transitional framework which by nature did not include a long-term approach to addressing root causes of hunger. However there has been a shift over time towards a more forward-looking approach to sustainable resilience building. Given that available resources were insufficient to address all needs, targeting was a huge challenge and WFP assistance was perceived as being spread too thinly.
- Adaptations were assessed positively. Yet, research, assessment, monitoring and evaluation systems could be better integrated into decision-making processes.
- While WFP performance on unconditional food assistance and nutrition (SO1/SO2) was rated highly, overall performance of SOs fell short of targets. WFP delivered a strong performance on protection, accountability to affected population, humanitarian principles, conflict sensitivity and gender. However, it needs to continue to build on its work.
- The challenging context undermines potential to deliver sustainable impact. WFP was cognizant of the strong interconnections between long-term food security, resilience and peace building. Timely delivery was hindered by factors mostly outside WFP's control. Funding shortfalls were a major issue and a key driver of WFP’s serious attention to cost-efficiency measures. A deeper consideration of new funding streams is needed.