C.8 Value of assets and infrastructure handed over to national stakeholders as part of WFP capacity strengthening support

C.8 Value of assets and infrastructure handed over to national stakeholders as part of WFP capacity strengthening support

VERSION

V5.0 - 2026.03 — Existing with revisions

INDICATOR CODE

C.8

TECHNICAL OWNER

PRGS-CCS Workstream

INDICATOR TYPE

Country Level Output Indicator

INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION

Complementary

INDICATOR SCOPE

Sector Neutral

APPLICABILITY

This indicator is recommended for all CCS activity tags, when capacity strengthening efforts aim to handover assets and infrastructure to national stakeholders.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

USD Value

DEFINITION

This indicator measures the value of WFP assets and infrastructure handed over to national stakeholders in USDs. It excludes:

1. Individual/household-level assets: The USD value of assets or infrastructure provided directly to individuals or households is not counted under this indicator. These are instead reported under output indicator T.6 on the total value (USD) of individual capacity strengthening transfers.

2. Assets and infrastructure secured by national stakeholders or other partners: Resources mobilized independently by national stakeholders or through other partners – even when influenced by WFP’s capacity strengthening efforts – are not counted here. These are captured under outcome indicator #39 on resources mobilized for national systems with WFP capacity strengthening support.

Key terms for this indicator are defined below.

Assets and infrastructure refer to all tangible assets, infrastructure and platforms that WFP provides to national stakeholders as part of its institutional capacity strengthening activities. This may include, but is not limited to:

• materials, equipment and machinery

• hardware and software

• licences and permits

• movable and immovable physical infrastructure

• platforms or facilities required to support national systems

Handed over refers to assets and infrastructure that WFP provides to national stakeholders with the intention that these will be managed, maintained, and utilised by them with limited or no ongoing WFP support.

This generally implies that complementary capacity strengthening activities have been carried out or are already in place to ensure that national stakeholders have the knowledge, willingness, and ability to manage the assets sustainably.

The provision and handover of assets must be documented (e.g. delivery notes, handover letters, memorandum of understanding, transfer forms) and typically involves a formal transition process that is acknowledged and validated by all relevant parties.

National stakeholders: These are actors from the country’s own systems at national, sub-national, or local levels. In line with a whole‑of‑society approach, they can include government, civil society (formal or informal), the private sector, academia, and communities. Regional organizations, such as the African Union or Asian Development Bank, can also be included when relevant. However, this indicator does not apply to stakeholders from organizations governed or managed by WFP or other international/external entities (e.g. UN agencies, the World Bank, IMF, bilateral donors, international NGOs).

WFP capacity strengthening support: Engagements with national stakeholders aimed at enhancing the capacity of national systems and programmes to function efficiently, effectively and sustainably. WFP applies a mix of support types – from accompaniment to advocacy, convening, piloting, modeling, secondment, physical and financial assets, knowledge products and training – to address diverse needs and entry points.

* WFP does not work alone as an enabling partner, and results cannot always be attributed exclusively to WFP. Contributions from other stakeholders should be acknowledged in narratives.

RATIONALE

This indicator captures tangible WFP contributions to national capacity by recording the value of assets and infrastructure handed over to national stakeholders. Many capacity strengthening interventions rely not only on technical assistance but also on tangible inputs (e.g. equipment, platforms, and physical infrastructure) to enable national systems to function effectively. Expressing these contributions in USD makes them visible in reporting and supports consistent documentation over time.

DATA SOURCE

Data for this indicator can be extracted from WINGS. This includes annual budget and expenditure information recorded under the ‘capacity strengthening’ transfer modality. Additional data can be drawn from CCS activity documents such as workplans, budgets, and cooperating partner or service provider proposals and reports.

Planned values should be based on the Implementation Plan. This is the annual prioritized plan of work derived from the Country Portfolio of Needs. It reflects available resources and any anticipated operational constraints.

Actual values should be taken from expenditure data recorded in WINGS. The activity manager should work closely with the CO budget and programming team and with finance officers to ensure that the correct data are accessed.

Costs that are not reflected in WFP systems should not be included in the calculation. This applies to proposals that are not integrated into the Implementation Plan and to costs that have not yet been expensed in WINGS. These costs should be included in the next reporting cycle once they appear in corporate systems.

INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING

Different WINGS cost elements may be relevant depending on the activity and on the type of asset or infrastructure being captured.

The scenarios presented below are not mutually exclusive. The same CCS intervention may incur relevant costs under more than one scenario when calculating this indicator.

For scenarios 2, 3 and 4, relevant costs for assets, platforms or infrastructure that are eventually handed over may come from several annual budgets or reports. This is the case when design, development or construction spans more than one reporting cycle.

These costs should only be counted under this indicator once the asset, platform or infrastructure has been handed over – not at the moment when WFP incurs the cost.

Scenario 1: WFP directly hands over equipment or supplies to national stakeholders as part of the CCS intervention.

Scenario 2: The creation and sustainable handover of an asset, platform or infrastructure is a significant part of the activity, and WFP is directly involved in its design or development. In this case, the activity manager should estimate the proportion of costs that are directly related to the design and development of the asset, platform or infrastructure.

Costs for other capacity strengthening activities should not be included. This includes activities such as advocacy, training or other support that facilitates the handover but is not part of the asset or infrastructure itself.

Scenario 3: WFP contracts an external service provider to carry out capacity strengthening activities. For example, WFP may contract a local service provider to support a national stakeholder in developing an IT solution for transfer delivery in a national social protection programme.

In this scenario, the cost of developing the IT solution should be included. Costs for activities such as training delivered by the service provider should not be counted. Detailed information should be available in the service provider’s budgets and billing documents.

Scenario 4: Capacity strengthening activities are carried out by cooperating partners. In this case, costs are budgeted under the “Cooperating Partner Costs” planning category within the CS modality. Detailed proposals, the FLA budget annex, completion reports and CP billing documents will provide more granular information on the cost of any equipment or supplies, or the design and development of assets, platforms or infrastructure that should be included.

Where possible, activity managers should consult technical unit colleagues or relevant guidance to confirm how the capacity strengthening transfer modality is reflected and costed in the budget.

DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS

Planned values for this output indicator are entered in the Other Output Plan (OOP) in COMET, while actual values are recorded through completion reports. Planned and actual values must be disaggregated by activity tag and location.

Values should be reported in COMET as shown below.

PLANNED FIGURES

To determine the annual target value for this indicator, COs should consider the following:

• Assets and infrastructure expected to be handed over should be identified during programme design, based on assessments of stakeholder capacities, and included in CCS workplans. COs should plan the timelines required both to create or rehabilitate these assets and to transition their management to the national stakeholder(s) responsible for taking them over. Related costs must be budgeted in the Country Portfolio Budget and updated in annual Implementation Plans.

• The annual target should be calculated using budget data included in the Implementation Plan, with additional granularity drawn from activity budgets, proposals, and/or local service provider agreements, as described in the “Data source” section.

• The targets for this indicator are set annually in the COMET Other Output Plan (OOP). They should be established in the first quarter of the first year of CSP implementation and then reviewed and updated in the first quarter of each subsequent reporting year.

FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION

The indicator should be monitored continuously through proper record keeping, with records reviewed at least quarterly for quality assurance and accurate tracking. Data must be consolidated and reported at least annually in the COMET completion report.

INTERPRETATION

The USD value of assets or infrastructure handed over does not, on its own, reflect the full significance of WFP’s capacity strengthening support. To make this figure meaningful, COs should provide a short narrative that links the assets to the objectives of the intervention and explains their intended contribution to national capacity.

The narrative should briefly describe what the asset or infrastructure is for and how it supports the expected capacity strengthening outcomes. For example, a fortified food production facility should be linked to improvements in the national programme it serves, alongside any complementary support provided (e.g. technical advice, training, or advocacy).

The narrative should also specify who is doing what, summarizing the roles of the national stakeholders taking over the asset, WFP’s role in providing or supporting its use, and the contributions of any partners involved.

REPORTING EXAMPLE(S)

Below are two examples of how this indicator could be reported in the Annual Country Report. Both situate the asset/infrastructure handed over to the broader capacity strengthening support provided to ensure its effective use and sustainability.

Example 1

As part of its commitment to strengthen food security, WFP handed over technical equipment to the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) in 2025. This was accompanied by technical assistance aimed at supporting national and subnational institutions and smallholder farmers to enhance the functioning of the local food system. For example, twenty motorbikes were handed over to improve the MoA’s capacity to deliver extension services in remote areas. This was identified as an operational priority during a joint capacity assessment with national stakeholders. Following WFP advocacy, resources were secured in the national budget to cover the motorbikes’ ongoing operational and maintenance costs.

Example 2

The Government’s Development Plan identifies inadequate transport infrastructure as a major constraint within the food system in country X. Joint assessments conducted with the Ministries of Agriculture (MoA) and Transport (MoT) in one county found that a new feeder road would be essential to improve market access for a large farming community benefiting from a WFP–MoA post‑harvest loss reduction project. In 2024, WFP contracted a local service provider to construct a five‑kilometre feeder road, which was handed over to the county MoT in March 2025, in line with plans agreed with the central ministries.

The central government added the road to the national asset register to enable annual budgeting for maintenance. To further support sustainable use of the road, WFP worked with local authorities to establish a maintenance cooperative. WFP also collaborated with the MoT to develop guidance materials and design a training programme, which MoT staff delivered to cooperative members. In partnership with the cooperative, WFP advocated for the MoT to include funding for equipment rental needed for periodic repairs, following an agreed maintenance schedule.

A post‑rainy‑season survey in 2026 found the road in good condition and reported a 20 percent increase in average sales of local farmers’ produce to traders in the county capital. This translated into an average additional income of USD 1,230 per farmer. According to cooperative members interviewed, the rainy season caused only minor damage, which the cooperative repaired prior to the harvest.

INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME

As assets and infrastructure should not be handed over in isolation, it is recommended that additional output‑level indicators be used to contextualize the figures reported under this indicator. The following output indicators are often relevant for illustrating the broader scope of WFP’s CCS engagement and should be monitored together with C.8 whenever possible:

• C.25 provides information on the number of people engaged through capacity strengthening initiatives. This can be useful for showing the scale of human capacity support linked to the asset or infrastructure.

• C.26 shows the number of initiatives delivered and helps clarify the type of support that accompanied or enabled the handover.

• C.27 captures the tools, products, or materials developed or revised, including some that may be necessary for the effective use or management of the asset or infrastructure.

• C.28 shows the number of institutions engaged at national and subnational levels, and can provide context on which institutions are taking over assets and infrastructure and how they are being engaged.

Taken together, these indicators provide a more complete picture of WFP’s capacity strengthening support, showing the initiatives delivered, the people and institutions engaged, the tools developed, and the assets or infrastructure transferred.

VISUALIZATION

N/A

LIMITATIONS

• Reflects value only. The indicator captures the USD value of assets or infrastructure handed over but does not reflect their quality, appropriateness, or condition.

• Does not capture utilization. It records what was transferred, not whether national stakeholders are using or maintaining the asset or infrastructure as intended.

• Does not measure capacity strengthening results. The indicator shows that an asset or infrastructure was handed over, but not whether this contributed to improved capacity, service delivery, or system functioning.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Refer to the CCS Framework, 9 Types of Capacity Strengthening Support, and additional resources in the CCS section of the Programme Guidance Manual.