FEBRUARY 2014 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS) for the USAID/Zimbabwe Economic Growth Office under Contract No. RAN-I-00-09-00015-00, Task Order No. 613-TO-13-00001. Authors: Janet Kerley, Lighton Dube, Felix Tete, and Surendra Bhatta. ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURAL PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number AID-RAN￾I-00-09-00015, Task Order Number AID-613-TO-13-00001, Zimbabwe Agricultural Portfolio Evaluation. Implemented by: Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS) 4600 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 402 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: +1 703-465-9388 Fax: +1 703-465-9344 www.onlinedts.com ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURAL PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT FEBRURARY 2014 DISCLAIMER The authors' views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT i CONTENTS Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter One: Introduction, Evaluation Purpose, Background and Country Context ...........................1 Purpose of The Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Zimbabwe Development Context.............................................................................................................................. 3 Economic Context of Smallholder Agriculture ................................................................................................. 3 USAID Strategy and Activities in Response to Agriculture and Livelihoods Problems ................................... 5 USAID Involvement in Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Sector................................................................................ 5 USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy, Development Hypothesis and Development Objective 2............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter Two: Findings and Conclusions .............................................................................................10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 11 I. Effectiveness of the Management of the Transition Between the Recovery Phase and the Development Phase ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 II. Appropriateness of Portfolio Design ................................................................................................................. 12 Initial Response ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Phase I Program Design Solutions.................................................................................................................... 12 Phase II Program Design Solutions ................................................................................................................... 13 Beneficiaries’ Satisfaction with Support............................................................................................................ 15 Types of Support Beneficiaries Received .......................................................................................................... 17 Conclusions on Appropriateness of Designs................................................................................................... 19 III. Critical Program Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 20 IV. Achievement of Intended Objectives: Did Household Food Security, Incomes, Production and Productivity, and Employment Increase in Targeted Areas?............................................................................... 21 Achievement of Intended Objectives ................................................................................................................ 22 Household Food Security.................................................................................................................................... 22 Productivity ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 Production.............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Employment .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Income .................................................................................................................................................................... 30 V. Degree to which Activities Incorporated and Provided Real Benefits to Women ..................................... 32 VI.Were Agricultural Production Systems, Market Linkages, Credit Financing Systems and an Effective Policy and Regulatory Environment Established? ................................................................................................ 37 Agricultural Production Systems and Market Linkages .................................................................................. 37 Credit Financing System ...................................................................................................................................... 38 Effective Policy and Regulatory Environment ................................................................................................ 41 Achievements........................................................................................................................................................ 42 Inter-project Coordination Among Livelihood and Agricultural Portfolio Projects ....................................... 46 ii USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................................ 47 Chapter Three: Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................51 Overall Performance .................................................................................................................................................. 51 Appropriateness of Portfolio Design ................................................................................................................ 51 Achievement of Intended Objectives ................................................................................................................ 52 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 55 Appropriate Portfolio Design ............................................................................................................................. 55 Achievement of Intended Objectives ................................................................................................................ 55 Policy Reform ........................................................................................................................................................ 56 Access to Financing .............................................................................................................................................. 56 Coordination .......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Policy and Enabling Environment ........................................................................................................................... 57 Zim-ACP ................................................................................................................................................................ 57 Success Stories ..................................................................................................................................... 59 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................ 69 Annex A. Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 71 Annex B. Evaluation Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 81 Annex C. Evaluation Tools ....................................................................................................................................... 91 Annex D. Descriptions of Phase One and Phase Two Projects ....................................................................... 113 Annex E. List of Meetings, Interviews, and Focus Group Discussions .......................................................... 121 Annex F. Quantitative Data Tables ....................................................................................................................... 127 Annex G. Qualitative Responses from Household Survey Questions............................................................. 133 Annex H. Performance Monitoring Tables for Zim-AIED, Zim-ACP, and HWA ...................................... 155 Annex I. Bibliography of Documents Reviewed ................................................................................................. 178 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Beneficiaries’ Satisfaction with Appropriateness of Support Received...................................................16 Figure 2: Beneficiaries’ Degree of Satisfaction with the Appropriateness of Activities, by Project....................16 Figure 3: Types of Support Received by Beneficiaries, Self-reported ......................................................................18 Figure 4: Support Received by Beneficiaries from the USAID Projects ................................................................. 19 Figure 5: Beneficiaries’ Statement of Changes Seen As a Result of the Projects...................................................21 Figure 6: Impact of Activities in Six Key Areas ...........................................................................................................22 Figure 7: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Food Security ................................................................................23 Figure 8: Households Reporting at Each Level of HHS Score .................................................................................24 Figure 9: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Productivity ...................................................................................25 Figure 10: Achievement of Intended Objectives. Production by Project. ...............................................................28 Figure 11: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Employment. ..............................................................................30 Figure 12: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Income .........................................................................................31 Figure 13: Use of Extra Income .....................................................................................................................................32 Figure 14: Word Cloud, Project Contributions to Development of Women Leaders ..........................................36 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number and Type of Respondents .................................................................................................................. 2 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT iii Table 2: Phase I and Phase II Activities by Project, Value Chain, and Adoption by Zim-AIED ......................... 6 Table 3: Number of Farmers Trained Through SAT Demonstration Plots ...........................................................26 Table 4: New Ideas and Technologies Adopted By Farmers as a Result of USAID Support .............................27 Table 5: Trends in Tea Production. ...............................................................................................................................28 Table 6: New Employment Creation Observed by Beneficiaries .............................................................................29 Table 7: Women’s Involvement in Project Activities ................................................................................................. 34 Table 8: Involvement of Women in Community Associations Managing the Project. Percent of Total Mentions. ............................................................................................................................................................................34 Table 9: Influence of Project on Status of Women. Percentage of Total Mentions, Multiple Answers Possible ..............................................................................................................................................................................................35 Table 10: Number and Percent of Cumulative Disbursements by Gender (Zim-AIED Table 21)....................35 Table 11: Recommendations for Continued/Future Support ...................................................................................48 LIST OF ANNEX TABLES Annex Table 1: Survey Respondents by Marital Status ..............................................................................................84 Annex Table 2: Survey Respondents by Sex ................................................................................................................84 Annex Table 3: Survey Respondents by District .........................................................................................................85 Annex Table 4: Tentative Distribution of Selected Evaluation Wards ....................................................................87 Annex Table 5: Distribution of Actual Evaluation Wards Visited ...........................................................................88 Annex Table 6: Ward Sampling Intensity by IP ..........................................................................................................89 Annex Table 7: Percentage of Respondents by Project..............................................................................................89 Annex Table 8: List of Phase One Projects by Implementing Organization ........................................................113 Annex Table 9: List of Meetings, Interviews, and Focus Group Discussions ......................................................121 Annex Table 10: Zim-AIED Performance Indicator Summary Table. Source: Annual Report. FY 2013. October 2013 ...................................................................................................................................................................155 Annex Table 11: Summary of Indicators ....................................................................................................................166 Annex Table 12: HWA Performance Indicator Summary Table. Source: USAID/Zimbabwe Results Reporting FY 2013 (Q4 Revised) ................................................................................................................................. 168 LIST OF ANNEX FIGURES Annex Figure 1: The dTS Evaluation Team at Work ................................................................................................. 82 Annex Figure 2: Theory of Change for Zim AIED Interventions. Adapted from Zim-AIED Q11Report July 2013...................................................................................................................................................................................120 Annex Figure 3: Support Received, FINTRAC .........................................................................................................127 Annex Figure 4: Support Received, Land O’ Lakes ..................................................................................................127 Annex Figure 5: Support Received, HWA..................................................................................................................128 Annex Figure 6: Changes Observed, FINTRAC .......................................................................................................128 Annex Figure 7: Changes Observed, Land O’ Lakes ................................................................................................129 Annex Figure 8: Changes Observed, HWA ...............................................................................................................129 Annex Figure 9: Number of Months during Which Food Aid Received Annually Before/After Project ......130 Annex Figure 10: Number of Meals Consumed Daily Before/After Project .......................................................130 Annex Figure 11: Number of Months Self-sufficient From Own Harvest Before/After Project ....................131 iv USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT v ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AEW Agricultural Extension Worker AMA Agriculture Marketing Authority AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative APS Annual Program Statement AusAID Australian Agency for International Development BIZ Bio-innovation Zimbabwe CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CIBER Competitiveness Impacts of Business Environment Reform CLUSA Cooperative League of the United States of America CNFA Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs COR Contract Officer’s Representative CRS Catholic Relief Services CSO Civil Society Organization DAEO District Agricultural Extension Officer DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DCA Development Credit Authority DFID Department for International Development DO Development Objective dTS Development and Training Services, Inc. EG Economic Growth ESF Economic Support Fund FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FGD Focus Group Discussion FTF Feed the Future [Initiative] FTLRP Fast Track Land Reform Program FY Fiscal Year GDA Global Development Alliance GDP Gross Domestic Product GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit [(German) Agency for International Cooperation] GNDR Global Network for Disaster Reduction GNU Government of National Unity GOZ Government of Zimbabwe HH Household HHS Household Survey HWA Hilfswerk Austria International IO Implementing Organization IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRD International Relief and Development, Inc. KII Key Informant Interview vi USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT LOL Land O’ Lakes LPD Livestock Production and Development [Department, GOZ] LSC Large-scale Commercial [Farmer] M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MABC Matabeleland Agri Business Chamber MAMID Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development MLRP Mashonaland Livelihoods Restoration Project MNWLA Matabeleland North Women Livestock Association (MNWLA) MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPPA Manicaland Poultry Producers Association MYAP Multi-year Assistance Program NGO Non-governmental Organization OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PAD Project Appraisal Document PAEO Provincial Agricultural Extension Officer PMP Performance Management Plan PRIZE Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe [Project] R2DT Relief to Development Transition RAIN Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes & New Markets (RAIN) REALIZ Restoring Economic Agricultural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe [Project] RLR Revitalization of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe [Project] SAT Sustainable Agricultural Technology SBU Sensitive but Unclassified SOW Scope/Statement of Work SSC Small-scale Commercial [Farmer] STAMP Smallholder Technology and Access to Markets Program USAID United States Agency for International Development USD U.S. Dollar[s] USG United States Government WVI World Vision International ZAPAD Zimbabwe Agricultural Production & Agribusiness Development Project (ZAPAD) ZCFU Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union ZFU Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union Zim-ACP Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program Zim-AIED Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development [Program] ZimVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee ZRLP Zimbabwe Restoring Livelihoods Project USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Agricultural Portfolio for USAID/Zimbabwe’s Economic Growth Office (EG). The purpose of the evaluation was to review the entire portfolio of agricultural activities, rather than conduct project evaluations of implementing partners. Farmers referred to in this report are smallholder farmers1 unless mentioned otherwise. USAID will use the results of the evaluation to make design changes (as appropriate) and mid-course corrections to its current strategy, and to share lessons learned with key stakeholders. Lessons learned will inform follow-on activities. The evaluation was conducted from September to December 2013 by Development Training Services, Inc. (dTS). EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation team examined USAID's current strategy and DO2 activities in terms of their relevance to meeting its economic growth objectives and FTF initiative objectives, taking into consideration the country context, past experience of USAID projects, and lessons learned from the projects. The portfolio evaluation was organized by these topics: (1) Appropriateness of the portfolio design; (2) Achievement of intended objectives under each phase; and (3) Transition Management between the recovery phase and the development phase. The evaluation paid particular attention to women’s incorporation into portfolio activities and the benefits they derived from that participation (Annex A. Scope of Work). METHODOLOGY The evaluation team conducted a desk review of project documents and did fieldwork, including Focus Group (FG) discussions (27); Key Informant Interviews (KII) (113); a mini household survey (94); positive deviance inquiry; and observations, to capture the attitudes and perceptions of beneficiaries. Limitations to the data stem from the difficulty in locating participants of closed projects, potentially introducing a positive bias to the findings. Current political sensitivities in certain regions limited access to some individuals. Farmers were occasionally reluctant to speak about government programs, limiting the teams’ ability to determine the full picture of a program. Finally, data collection took place close to planting season.2 The full evaluation methodology is found in Annex B. Individuals interviewed are listed in Annex C. COUNTRY CONTEXT AND USAID’S PROGRAMMATIC RESPONSE During the 2009 recovery from hyperinflation, the smallholder agriculture sub-sector experienced a number of challenges that seriously affected its recovery and ability of the country to address food security. Chief among them were: depleted productive assets for smallholder farmers and limited access to inputs; loss of financial savings; insufficient agro-finance; high indebtedness; dilapidated rural infrastructure and services; low production due to inadequate agronomic knowledge, poor agronomic practices and technologies and insufficient use of improved technologies; weak access to markets; an inadequate enabling environment and weak institutions; and political instability and land tenure insecurity. 1 A smallholder farmer is defined by FTF as “a beneficiary with five hectares or less of arable land or equivalent units of livestock, which are Cattle: 10 beef cows, Dairy: two milking cows, Sheep and Goats: five adult ewes/does, Camel Meat and Milk: five camel cows, Pigs: two adult sows, Chickens: 20 layers and 50 broilers. 2 Additional information on data limitations is found in Annex B. Evaluation Methodology. ii USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID began emergency and recovery programs in agriculture and economic growth in that same year. The activities addressed the need for under-skilled smallholder farmers to learn farming practices and gain access to tools to increase productivity. USAID funded 11 Economic Support Fund (ESF) agriculture sector development activities in Phase 1. The EG office also contributed $2M to a Title II program to improve resiliency and initiate the transition from emergency response to development. Two contracts were awarded in Phase 2: The Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development Project (Zim-AIED) and the Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP). Hilfswerk Austria (HWA), a Global Development Alliance partnership, was incorporated into the portfolio in 2011. Elements of the Land O’ Lakes (LOL) program were folded into Zim-AIED in November 2013. EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The portfolio is innovative because it is introducing changes in systems and individuals’ mindsets about the agricultural sector at multiple levels: farmers, bankers, association leaders, government and private players in the sector, and policy makers. The lessons learned can be useful for the projects and beyond when the sector normalizes. APPROPRIATENESS OF PORTFOLIO DESIGN The Mission-level agricultural strategy and program design were well aligned to meet agriculture growth and food security objectives. The strategy and approaches used in Phases I and II remain appropriate. The Transitional CDCS and DO2 PAD used past experiences and lessons learned and are well aligned with the Agency’s FTF Initiative strategies and goals of reducing hunger and improving nutrition. All key issues of agriculture and food security are being addressed in these documents. USAID effectively identified areas of intervention for the portfolio considering the country context at the time. Project designs are appropriate to achieve DO2 objectives. Phase I activities were appropriate for country conditions in 2009-2011; Phase II carried successful programs forward. The mix of portfolio activities was appropriate to address the two major challenges the agriculture sector faced—creating an enabling environment and improving productivity. Beneficiaries said they were very satisfied with the appropriateness of the design. The question “Did critical program assumptions hold?” was addressed for three assumptions and the answers follow. (1) The national elections would result in a change of leadership and allow for changes in the project design. Given the results of the elections, short term national planning in agriculture is expected to continue on the same course. (2) The inability to work directly with the GOZ would introduce constraints. The tense political environment and lack of trust among key stakeholders caused project start-up delays. As implementation progressed, stakeholder engagement increased and has contributed significantly to achieving results. (3) Funding for the EG Programs would remain constant or increase. Funding was reduced by 45% in FY 2013. Therefore, programs are not likely to be fully funded which has implications for focusing activities. ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED OBJECTIVES The expected outcomes of DO2 programs were achieved: improved ability of households to meet food needs, and increased staple food and cash crop production, incomes, rural employment, and access to markets and credit. Improved Household Food Security This overarching goal of the project was achieved. Participants selected were “vulnerable [poor] but viable” farmers with an annual household income on average between $400 and $500. Project participants are USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT iii considerably less vulnerable to food insecurity due to the project. Eighty-three percent of the families surveyed had “little to no hunger” after participating and 79% said their food security situation improved due to USAID-supported programs. Eighty-six percent of the households reported that household nutrition also improved. Increased Productivity and Production Significant increases were achieved in productivity and the volume and value of marketed surplus. Project stakeholders and beneficiaries corroborated project findings. Two factors played a decisive role in increasing productivity and production: (1) the training/capacity building provided by all implementing partners for stakeholders at all levels of the value chain; and (2) adoption of new ideas and technologies by farmers. Impact of Capacity Building and Training Capacity building and training was one of the most successful achievements of the portfolio in both Phase I and Phase II. Training was provided at all levels, to individual farmers, association members, and stakeholders at the national level. The performance of the trained farmers showed remarkable improvement and farmers exhibited a paradigm shift towards commercial production. The training provided by Sustainable Agricultural Technology (SAT) in the Zim-AIED program was practical and used hands-on methods.  “Farming as a Business” was a fundamental concept taught in all projects and is beginning to overcome the donor dependency attitude that had arisen among the farmers.  A cascading training approach enabled IPs to reach a large number of people.  A majority of the training was provided by implementing partners. Ensuring training programs are sustained when the project ends by facilitating moving the training to local institutions will increase sustainability. Impact on Women Beneficiaries Women have been adequately incorporated into and are deriving real benefits from portfolio activities. All partners introduced activities to address gender issues and established monitoring and evaluation systems which tracked results disaggregated by men and women. Women have participated nearly equally in training and have increased their incomes and access to assets. Social relationships are changing as women gain economic power. Women’s access to leadership positions in. community and industry organizations has increased. Women continue to face barriers in accessing credit however. The loan disbursement rate for Zim-AIED’s AgriTrade facility shows that women are still relatively disadvantaged in terms of access to credit financing; 31 percent of beneficiaries were women. The respondents to the survey and in the focus groups expressed the same concern. During the economic crisis in Zimbabwe, women were often the principal farmers and may have been able to avail themselves of opportunities provided by the projects in ways not possible previously. USAID mainstreamed the agency’s gender policy resulting in women making significant gains. Effective Enabling Environment and Policy Reform Zim-ACP is meeting its objectives of improving the enabling environment through its capacity building support to national and regional associations to become skilled in advocating for policy reforms. The agribusiness associations and farmers’ unions have successfully analysed and prepared draft legislation.  Five new laws have been passed/approved and implementation has begun. The impact of the new legislation should begin to appear this year. iv USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Twenty draft legislation/decrees were presented for consideration and 35 were presented for public/stakeholder consultation. Zim-ACP also built the capacity of farmers’ unions and commodity associations to dialogue with government ministries and the government is increasingly interested in what these associations are discussing. GoZ representatives participated in the ‘Competitiveness Impacts of Business Environment Reform’ (CIBER) assessment, stakeholder meetings facilitated by Zim-ACP, and various government units are increasingly participating at the regional level with farmers associations. The project still does not directly work with GoZ. Two components did not meet their initially established targets: increasing efficiencies in agricultural markets (Component 2) and enhancing business service providers’ capacity to deliver training to firms and farmers (Component 3). The project is meeting targets for one of four indicators for these components. Most of the market infrastructure and institutions are in the public domain and the current U.S. policy does not allow Zim-ACP to work directly with them. Component 3 was integrated into Components 1 and 2 and is no longer a separate component. The work plan modified the indicators and targets to correspond to the greater emphasis on Component 1. Credit Financing System CNFA (Phase 1) provided loan guarantees to input suppliers to provide inputs on loan to agro dealers (primarily rural business people trading in agricultural inputs and buyers of agricultural produce). The agro dealers then could provide inputs and services to smallholder farmers. CNFA linked trained agro dealers to the Agritrade facility. Zim-AIED built on this approach (Phase 2), established a $5 million revolving credit facility with AgriTrade. AgriTrade disbursed $12.70 million in 1,453 loans as of July 2013.3 The agro dealer loan recipients view the program favorably; interest rates were lower than other finance institutions and the collateral required was reasonable. While substantial progress was made on improving access to credit, two structural challenges continue to confront AgriTrade: the limited supply of appropriately structured credit for smallholder agriculture from Zimbabwe’s financial and commercial banking institutions and incomplete information for banks to assess creditworthiness of nontraditional borrowers. Financing has reached a relatively small number of beneficiaries, but represents progress compared with the lack of available credit to smallholder farmers at the outset of the project. Some commercial banks have started lending to the agriculture sector and borrowers and lenders are building their experience, transactions and relationships. The elements of cost sharing, training, and technical assistance were particularly important for Zimbabwe since there was no longer a connection between the farmers and commercial enterprises. Implementation Gaps Gaps in implementation were identified, such as delayed delivery of inputs in both phases, uneven performance of sub-partners and relatively inexperienced support service personnel. Integration and Coordination among Interventions USAID’s existing portfolio interventions cover all elements needed to impact positively on the DO2 goal to increase food security for the targeted populations. Given the complex nature of the portfolio and achievements of the entire portfolio to date, it is evident that the quality of technical planning and implementation is very high. Partially because of this, each project works primarily on its own specific set of 3 AgriTrade Monthly Report to USAID. 31 July 2013. p. 1. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT v activities with good intra-project coordination and less coordination with other projects, even in areas where both projects’ activities are addressing a similar issue. RECOMMENDATIONS APPROPRIATENESS OF PORTFOLIO DESIGN  Given reduced funding, USAID will need to reconsider the focus of the current portfolio to determine which innovations can be moved forward.  The programs were designed before the CDCS and DO2 PAD were finalized and prior to FTF. Hence gaps exist between the operations of the portfolio and the mission strategy which is aligned with FTF guidance. The Mission can either realign or add components to the existing projects if applicable, or design new projects to minimize the operational gaps. ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED OBJECTIVES  Farmers will need support from outside for sustaining the farming practices, with the exception of the contract farmers who may receive updates from the buyers. Few institutions being trained have shown the capacity to provide this support to farmers after the project ends.  Sustainability of the training is critical to continuing to upgrade the systems and the farmers, but depends upon identifying institutions to continuously provide the training, be they government extension services, or other committed institutions to carry on the work. Catalog the training courses conducted by the partners.  Begin to build institutional support outside the projects and coordinate with Zimbabwean organizations to continue the training. While the national agricultural extension system would be the best institutional base, given the USG policy restrictions, commodity associations, farmers’ unions, and extension worker training institutions can play a role in continuing the training. Farmers’ organizations should be encouraged to provide extension services to their members.  Consider including other players to support these training activities, such as Agricultural Finance Houses that can build some of the courses into their support package for farmers. Make it a requirement for first time borrowers to go through the training modules.  All the recommendations on training require an overhaul of the extension system - move it away from extension for subsistence needs towards extension for commercial goals. ZIM-ACP can facilitate this paradigm shift.  Encourage more collaboration among projects on technically proven approaches to engage households, such as tools developed in home gardening, food fortification, farming as a business training, and commodity selection, creating a core set of approaches that are appropriate for all programs and identifying specialized techniques.  Assess the selection process to identify sub-partners and tighten the selection of sub-partners to avoid short changing the farmers. Some local partners or actors supported by projects to provide inputs and services have not met the expectation.  Continue to improve the capacity of local organizations. While institutional training was provided, some institutions continue to be fragile and need additional support. They ultimately determine the long-term sustainability of interventions. Include farmers in development and design of activities at the local level, not only in farming practices, but also in seeking their advice on service providers. This increases trust among the parties and increases sustainability by sharing ownership. vi USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Potential activities that could be scaled up are Zim-AIED’s model of value chain approach and the market linkage approach in high value cash crops, such as banana and paprika and Land O’ Lakes dairy model. POLICY REFORM  To increase effectiveness, seek maximum cooperation with GoZ under the constraints. Successful advocacy work remains dependent upon continued willingness of GoZ to participate fully in the dialogue.  Alternate financing will be needed to support a secretariat or umbrella organization to carry on the work of Zim-ACP. The farmer associations are expected to carry on training and other services provided by Zim-ACP. Few have the revenue base to continue activities on their own or support such a secretariat. Broaden the type of services the associations can provide on a fee basis to make them sustainable.  Zim-ACP should continue to strengthen associations so they have the skills to do at least the basic minimum analysis. ACCESS TO FINANCING  Continue work to increase access to financing for women. Agritrade can consider a special loan facility for women beneficiaries to increase the uptake of loans by women.  Consider an insurance component for farmers’ investments, to ensure that when farmers pay for insurance coverage, the companies honor the contracts. A local company has introduced Ecofarmer, with an insurance component for maize production. USAID could consider engaging this and other players to identify suitable products tailor-made to suit the farmers and value chains they are supporting. COORDINATION  The program should consider strategies to increase the overall impact of the portfolio through increased efficiencies to be gained from coordination among USAID offices, given diminishing resources.  Achieving DO2 would be easier if there were closer programming integration between the Humanitarian Assistance Office and Economic Growth Office.  The discussions already underway to discuss how best to develop synergies and complementarities between the two programs should continue between the two offices. A common thread clearly exists between the approach of targeting HA resources and the market-led, value chain-based approach of EG agricultural growth activities. Complement and supplement the activities by sharing best practices, technical knowledge, relationships and build on success. Consider increased geographic targeting to continue the type of collaboration undertaken in the PRIZE program. Both programs could work in the same geographic location where EG programs involve the vulnerable yet viable households and HA programs engage the most vulnerable ones.  The Economic Growth Office should also consider increasing coordination among the major EG partners, Zim-ACP and Zim-AIED, and potentially HWA and HA partners. The programs are complementary to each other and should work together.  Offices should discuss the value of focusing on fewer partners and in fewer value chains in order to work more deeply, as opposed to working broadly. Narrowing the geographic and commodity focus will allow the Mission to provide more FTF-related interventions and also provide more needed support to actors in a commodity value chain that will better strengthen the selected value chain.  USAID should initiate and lead the partner coordination by creating a stronger forum/platform for implementing partners to share experiences and integrate programs. A successful strategy is to have periodic food security implementing partner meetings to share progress, and identify and plan activities to realize synergies needed to integrate projects in a geographic region. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT vii POLICY AND ENABLING ENVIRONMENT  Ensure smallholder issues are considered in the policy process. Policy issues are being advocated by the associations at the national level, with input from provincial offices for some associations. This is a caution to maintain attention on including small holders’ issues. Most of the association office holders are larger farmers and smallholder issues may get neglected in the process if they are not made part of it. viii USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION, EVALUATION PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND COUNTRY CONTEXT PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Agricultural Portfolio for USAID/Zimbabwe’s Economic Growth Office (EG). USAID/Zimbabwe undertook this performance evaluation to review the entire portfolio of agricultural activities and determine (i) whether the design of the agricultural portfolio was appropriate, given the country context at the time, and (ii) whether its projects have and are achieving desired results. The evaluation is not intended to serve as project performance evaluations. USAID will use the results of the evaluation to make design changes (as appropriate) and mid-course corrections to its current strategy, and to share lessons learned with key stakeholders. The implementing partners will learn about their strengths and weaknesses and adjust their projects accordingly. Finally, lessons learned from this evaluation will inform follow-on portfolio activities to be designed in FY 2014/2015. The evaluation was conducted from September to December, 2013 by Development Training Services, Inc. (dTS). EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation team was tasked to examine USAID's current strategy and DO2 activities in terms of their relevance to meeting its economic growth objectives and FTF initiative objectives, taking into consideration the country context, past experience of USAID projects, and lessons learned from the projects. Farmers referred to in this report are smallholder farmers unless mentioned otherwise. The evaluation examined interventions of the portfolio organized under three main topics: (1) Appropriateness of the portfolio design; (2) Achievement of intended objectives under each phase and in household food security, household agricultural incomes, and agricultural productivity in the targeted geographic zones; and (3) Transition Management between the recovery phase and the development phase. The evaluation gave focused attention to the degree to which women were incorporated into and derived benefits from the interventions. Each topic has a related set of sub-questions which are listed below. Appropriateness of Portfolio Design 1. Were Phase I and Phase II portfolio designs appropriate, given the political and economic conditions that existed in 2008/2009 and 2010? 2. Given varying levels of coordination and collaboration between USAID development and humanitarian assistance programming, as well as other donor programs, were/are the mix of Economic Growth activities sufficient and appropriate to meet USAID's objectives? 3. Which critical assumptions held for each phase and which did not? If some critical assumptions did not hold, which did not, why, and what effect did that have on achieving project objectives? 2 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Achievement of Intended Objectives under Each Phase 4. To what extent did household food security, household agricultural incomes, and agricultural productivity increase in the targeted geographic zones? 5. To what extent were women beneficiaries adequately incorporated into and deriving real benefit from interventions? 6. How well has USAID programming established sustainable agricultural production systems, market linkages between input suppliers, farmers, and buyers, credit financing systems, and an effective policy and regulatory enabling environment? For Phase II development activities that are still underway, how well are they creating the right conditions for long-term sustainability? 7. How and how well did USAID programming adapt to changing conditions on the ground, addressing challenges and taking advantage of opportunities presented? 8. What modifications to the design of Phase II portfolio activities (Zim-AIED, HWA and Zim-ACP) are needed to more effectively achieve the stated FTF and long-term sector development objectives? Transition Management 9. Was the transition between the recovery and development phases managed effectively by USAID and its implementing partners? METHODOLOGY The evaluation used several data collection methods (mixed-methods): a desk review of project documents and fieldwork using focus group discussions (FG) (27); key informant interviews (KII) (113); a mini household survey (94); positive deviance inquiry/success stories (7), and observations (Table 1). The team reviewed each project’s design and implementation in the field to identify how it aligns with USAID/Zimbabwe’s CDCS strategy and DO2 objectives. Some projects may have been referenced more frequently than others as they have more components. The importance of all programs contributing to the portfolio was appreciated. Based on the Rao size software (www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html), the mini survey’s (household survey) target was ninety four households. This number is based on the goal of a target population of one hundred and fifty thousand4 (which was the highest achieved target by implementing partner for Zim AIED). Three major limitations to data collection arose during the implementation of the evaluation. First, the team had difficulty locating participants of closed projects, potentially introducing a positive bias to the findings. The second limitation came as a result of the current political sensitivities in some geographic regions. Farmers were sometimes reluctant to speak about government programs, thus limiting the teams’ ability to determine the full picture of what had happened. A third limitation was the timing of the data collection which took place close to planting season thereby restricting access to some of the farmers.5 The full 4 Participation in Zim-AIED in October 2013 was 122,823 households, “Zim-AIED Annual Report FY2013.” p. 2. 5 Additional information on the data limitations is found in Annex B. Evaluation Methodology. Table 1: Number and Type of Respondents Method Number/Percent Focus Groups 27 FG Participants 200 Mini Household Survey 94 Women 55% Men 45% Key Informant Interviews 113 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 3 evaluation methodology is described in Annex A, Scope of Work; Annex B, Evaluation Methodology; and Annex C, Evaluation Tools. The list of individuals interviewed is found in Annex D. ZIMBABWE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT Since 2000, Zimbabwe has experienced a series of economic, political and social challenges resulting in loss of livelihoods, widespread poverty and human displacement, high unemployment, and reduced food security. Inflation spiraled out of control and because of the economic turmoil; Zimbabwe lost its major driving forces for economic growth, agriculture and industry. In 2008, Zimbabwe faced 231 million percent peak hyperinflation and a high unemployment rate; nearly 80 percent of the population lived below the poverty line. Between 2000 and 2008, the national economy contracted by as much as 50 percent; GDP per capita dropped by 40 percent, agricultural output dropped by 79 percent, and industrial production dropped by 47 percent. The agricultural sector has struggled, more than most, to cope with the combined effects of the Fast Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP), hyper-inflation, capital constraints and government controls on markets. The 2013 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee’s (ZimVAC) rural livelihoods report, which estimates food insecurity levels, predicts that ‘2.2 million Zimbabweans will be unable to access sufficient food during the peak hunger period, January – March 2014. This is the highest level of food insecurity since 2009.’6 Agriculture has traditionally been the backbone of Zimbabwe’s economy. The sector accounts for 16 to 207 percent of the country’s GDP8 and provides a livelihood for three-quarters of the country’s population, including farmers, traders and agro-processors. Agriculture is the primary livelihood for most of the 60 percent of the population residing in rural areas.9 The agricultural sector contributes over 60 percent of manufacturing value-added, i.e. the value addition from industry comes from agro-industries and also input manufacturing. The agricultural sector accounts for one-third of Zimbabwe’s export earnings.10 However, as noted in USAID/Zimbabwe’s Transitional Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), “the economic collapse severely disrupted commercial supply chain and retail marketing systems, causing chronic food and agricultural commodity shortages. Poorly designed policies, a structural shift in the agriculture sector to smaller farms, declining agricultural extension capabilities, significant deterioration in the agricultural inputs supply chain, and loss of livestock for tillage and household savings inhibited food production, resulting in significant food deficits at both the national and household levels.” 11 ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURE During the 2009/10 recovery from hyperinflation, the smallholder agriculture sub-sector experienced a number of challenges that seriously affected its recovery, growth and ability of the country to address food security. Chief among them were: 6 Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVac). “ZimVac Interim Rural Food Security Assessment National Report.” August 30, 2013. p. 124. 7 World Bank and Government of Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Assessment Study. Final Report.” December 2010. Harare: PricewaterhouseCoopers. 8 Global Finance: “Zimbabwe Country Report.” Accessed January 2014. http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/143- zimbabwe-gdp-country-report.html 9 The World Bank, World Development Indicators. “Rural Population (% of total population).” Accessed January 2014. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS. 10 World Bank and Government of Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Assessment Study. Final Report.” December 2010. Harare: PricewaterhouseCoopers. 11 USAID/Zimbabwe. “Transitional Country Development Cooperation Strategy.” p. 6. 4 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Depleted productive assets for a majority of smallholder farmers and limited access to inputs. In an effort to survive the economic meltdown, most smallholder farmers had to sell most of their productive assets, such as livestock and farming equipment.12 This strategy was a short-term measure that then left most farmers vulnerable in the long term, as they lost their capacity to produce. Farmers were in serious need of access to inputs: improved seed, fertilizer, crop protection pesticide, and water. Loss of financial savings due to hyper-inflation, currency reforms and dollarization of the economy. During this period, Zimbabwe went through a series of currency reforms in an attempt to cope with the hyperinflation the country was experiencing. The hyperinflation drastically reduced the total worth of farmers’ past savings, as most had been in the local currency. As a result of hyperinflation and subsequent dollarization of local currency, farmers became bankrupt overnight, losing their savings and ability to finance farming activities from their own resources. Conversion of utility bills (electricity, telecommunications and water) from the Zimbabwean dollar to US dollars left most farmers highly indebted; the loss of past Zimbabwean dollar savings made it virtually impossible for most smallholder farmers to honor these bills. As a result, many lost their electric, water and telecommunication services. This move left a number of irrigation schemes and most milk processing centers inoperable. Insufficient agro-finance. The liquidity challenges that were facing the country made it difficult for banks to lend to the agricultural sector. Seasonal lending was seriously affected, as banks preferred to provide short￾term consumer loans over a six-month repayment period to productively employed citizens. In addition, few farmers had (have) access to credit to finance the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, herbicides and supplemental labor due to insufficient collateral and lack of relationships with financial institutions. Access to credit was not only limited to farmers but also to the off-farm actors in the value chain. The banking sector had no experience in dealing with smallholder farmers and viewed them as non-bankable. Further, difficulties experienced by the population with the banking and financial system resulted in a majority of people losing confidence in the formal finance sector. Dilapidated productive agriculture, rural infrastructure and services. Due to years of poor maintenance and declining public expenditure on social infrastructure, most productive agriculture and rural infrastructure was dilapidated. This included irrigation infrastructure, rural banking infrastructure, input supply infrastructure and services, produce marketing infrastructure and services, and transport and telecommunication infrastructure. Institutions to service farmers were weakened, as most of the highly skilled and experienced extension and research experts left public service in search of better opportunities in neighboring countries and internationally. The decayed infrastructure made it unprofitable for service providers to work with rural smallholder farmers. Low agriculture production and productivity due to inadequate agronomic knowledge, poor agronomic practices, poor technologies and insufficient use of improved technologies. Smallholder farmers were characterized by a low capacity to farm efficiently due to lack of training and low access to technological tools. As noted in the CDCS,13 “the reform process redistributed land to subsistence and small￾scale commercial farmers who are climate dependent, …do not fully utilize good agricultural practices, …and to recipients with no farming experience …but the greatest capacity reduction has been in the technical and managerial labor needed to work the land, due to large scale displacement of commercial farmers and their former employees.” Farmers needed new information about techniques and training in skills to apply knowledge about improved inputs, management practices, farming techniques for improved farming, 12This happened primarily before the 2009 multi-currency period. 13 USAID/Zimbabwe. “Transitional Country Development Cooperation Strategy.” p. 7. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 5 processing technologies such as grading, sorting, packaging, and changes in government policy to suit market preferences. Further, due to the economic hardships, a significant portion of the male population left rural areas to seek work outside the country, leaving women and children to conduct most farm operations in communal areas. Weak linkages and access to markets. Very few smallholder farmers had experience producing in quantity and at quality levels demanded by commercial buyers. Most buyers did not have relationships with smallholder farmers, nor were their logistical systems designed to work with hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers. Access to markets meant linking farmers with buyers: aggregators, processors, traders and exporters. Assistance was also needed to link these actors to farmers through approaches such as contract farming and warehousing. Inadequate enabling environment and inexperienced institutions. Zimbabwe’s agriculture sector also suffered from overlapping, outdated and counterproductive policies and regulations at the national, provincial and district levels. Multiple levies and time-consuming processes significantly increase costs within most value chains. Prior to the Government of National Unity (GNU) era, government ministries and agencies did not typically consult with key stakeholders, nor did they conduct impact analyses prior to promulgating new regulations. Policies often focused on protectionism rather than fostering competitiveness within value chains, due to fear of losing share to cheaper imports within some sectors. In addition, key market facilitating institutions either did not exist or failed to create an environment to promote rapid, low-cost and reliable market transactions. For example, commodity exchanges, warehouse receipts systems and credit reference and reporting systems that facilitate commerce in many countries do not exist in Zimbabwe, although various organizations have attempted to create them over the past decade. Furthermore, the introduction of price controls on farming inputs and outputs, forced contracting, and seizure of maize and wheat reduced overall agricultural productivity and resulted in a precipitous decline in food security for many Zimbabweans. Poor market signals as a result of multiple prices for the same inputs. The different input subsidy schemes being promoted by the government, NGOs and various donors created confusion in the input markets. To a large extent, this forced a majority of agro-dealers out of business, as it was no longer viable or profitable to serve the rural market. The broader impact on rural markets of buyers and suppliers no longer operating with smallholder farmers was significant. Political instability mainly caused by political polarization of members within communities. Members within communities became aligned to the two major political parties and political affiliation became the major deciding factor in community development issues and access to farming resources. The polarized environment also resulted in politically motivated violence and some members of communities were displaced. Land tenure insecurity. The climate of uncertainty regarding land tenure security and the inability to use land as security to improve access to credit was a deterrent, resulting in little new investment or capital input into the industry. Uncertainty about the future made farmers reluctant to improve, maintain or repair existing infrastructure. USAID STRATEGY AND ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSE TO AGRICULTURE AND LIVELIHOODS PROBLEMS USAID INVOLVEMENT IN ZIMBABWE’S AGRICULTURAL SECTOR Since 2002, USAID has provided emergency humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe. In 2009, USAID commenced and expanded “humanitarian plus” programming, which included both emergency and recovery 6 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT programs in agriculture, livelihood and economic growth programs. As part of the Mission’s early Relief to Development Transition (R2DT) process, these programs sought to increase agricultural productivity and incomes for smallholder farmers, complement humanitarian interventions and provide a more comprehensive response to the crisis. In Phase I of the agricultural portfolio, USAID initiated 11 Economic Support Fund (ESF)-financed agriculture sector and livelihood development activities14 which focused on increased production and expanded commercialization for viable farmers. The 11 separate grants were primarily extended to NGOs15 in two rounds under an Annual Program Statement (APS)16 mechanism that allowed for rapid startup. Some organizations were already working in-country (i.e. World Vision, IRD, Africare); others established offices upon receipt of the grant (i.e. CNFA, CLUSA, and FINTRAC). This phase also included the Title II emergency-funded Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) project to improve resiliency and initiate the transition from emergency response to development. The EG office contributed $2M to PRIZE. In 2010, USAID began Phase II by awarding two major contracts that were more firmly focused on recovery—The Zimbabwe Agriculture Income and Employment Development Project (Zim-AIED) and the Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP). Hilfswerk Austria (HWA), a global development partnership program, was incorporated into the portfolio. Elements of the Land O’ Lakes (LOL) program were incorporated into Zim-AIED in 2013 after the completion of the LOL activity in November 2013. In Phase 2, USAID consolidated activities into one major project to focus on staples and high value cash crops value chains. Four projects moved forward from Phase I-Round One; the value chains adopted by subsequent projects (Phase I-Round Two) are described below (Table 2). Others were not integrated, such as coffee, as the time required to harvest was considered too long for the project. Table 2: Phase I and Phase II Activities by Project, Value Chain, and Adoption by Zim-AIED Implementing Organization Project Code Main Value Chain Chosen for Project Adopted by Zim￾AIED Phase I – Round One 1-International Relief & Development (IRD) 01-Restoring Livelihoods￾Strengthening Value Chains (Revalue) Groundnuts Yes 2-ACDI/VOCA 02-Restoring Economic Agricultural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe (REALIZ) Vegetables, horticulture Yes 3-Mercy Corps 03-Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes & New Markets (RAIN) Microfinance, horticultural intervention Yes 4-Land O’ Lakes 04-Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Livestock, dairy Yes (after completion of LOL activity) 5-CARE 05-Zimbabwe Restoring Livelihoods Project (ZRLP) Nutrition gardens, sweet potatoes Yes 6-CLUSA 06-Zimbabwe Agricultural Production & Agribusiness Development Project (ZAPAD) Sesame, ag service provider, business training Yes, working in same areas but not with sesame 14 Detailed descriptions of Phase I projects are found in Annex D. 15 Fintrac, Inc., a private company, received one grant. 16 Criteria for using the APS are ‘responsiveness to local circumstances and flexibility in allocating funds on a rolling basis.’ By design, an APS encourages applicants to propose innovative new approaches to addressing a specific challenge. USAID/Capable Partners Program. “NGO Tips: Introducing USAID Solicitation Instruments.” October 2011. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 7 7-Africare 07-Mashonaland Livelihoods Restoration Project (MLRP) Soya, sunflower, rabbits No Phase I – Round Two 9-CNFA 09-Agro-dealer Strengthening Project-Zimbabwe (APS-Z) No 10-Fintrac 10-Smallholder Technology & Access to Markets Project (STAMP) Bananas, paprika, proteas, potatoes Yes 11-Technoserve 11-Revalitilizing Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector Soya beans and poultry No 12-World Vision 12-Revitalization of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe (RLR) Tea, coffee, sugar beans No, working with these farmers already in Honde valley. 13-CRS 13-Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) This was a separate funding mechanism but Zim-AIED did take over some of their schemes in Mat south. Phase Two 14-Fintrac 15-Zim-AIED Staples (maize), cash crops horticulture (bananas, ground nuts, paprika, chilies) and livestock (dairy and cattle) 15-DAI 16-Zim-ACP Complements Zim-AIED supported value chains with policy work to create a favorable enabling environment. Works with commodity groups 16-HWA – Zimbabwe 14-Developing Underutilized Plants Wild bush products Zim-AIED does not work with indigenous plants. Zim-AIED is a four-and-a-half-year project (October 2010 to February 2015) valued at $36 million, being implemented by Fintrac, Inc. in cooperation with four subcontractors and grantees: International Relief and Development (IRD); the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA); Sustainable Agricultural Technology (SAT); and CARE International. The project’s goals are to increase the food security and household income of 150,000 households. Zim-AIED is commercializing small-scale growers on communal and non-contested land through the following ways:  Market linkages – increasing the number of companies purchasing products from smallholders both through contracts and by opportunistic buying.  Finance and credit – increasing the availability and disbursement of working capital to rural-based agribusiness investors and to agro traders buying products from smallholders at the village level and supplying inputs. Increasing direct credit to farmers through commercial loans, advances from buyers, and recoverable grants.  Staple food crops – increasing local and national production of maize, groundnuts, and root crops at competitive prices. 8 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Cash crops – raising smallholder earnings through surplus production of staple food crops and commercial production of high-value cash crops, particularly banana and paprika.  Rural entrepreneurs – actively supporting a new generation of small- and medium-sized agribusinesses willing to invest in rural areas across Zimbabwe. Zim-ACP is a four-and-a-half -year, $15 million project (October 2010 to February 2015) being implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) to improve the regulatory, policy and business-enabling environment for agriculture, thereby improving competitiveness within the agricultural sector. Zim-ACP is designed to provide support to the farming and agribusiness sector (irrespective of being a smallholder or large scale farmer),17 via representative farmer bodies to advocate for an improved business environment and to encourage private investment in the agricultural sector. However the sector is now dominated by smallholder farmers. The project had three interlocked components:  Component 1 – supporting and strengthening representative farmers’ unions, commodity associations and agribusiness associations, and assisting them in developing their analytical and advocacy capacity.  Component 2 – increasing efficiencies in agricultural markets, developing and applying improved technologies, and enhancing the capacity of market institutions.  Component 3 – enhancing the capacity of business service providers to deliver quality, demand-driven training and technical assistance at a firm and farmer level. HWA was added to the portfolio in 2011. The HWA consortium is a public-private partnership between an NGO, (HWA), a research organization, Bio-Innovation Zimbabwe (BIZ), and a private company (KAITE Pvt. Ltd.). The consortium is funded for $1 million over a three-year period through a global USAID-funding mechanism, the Global Development Alliance (GDA). 18 HWA was incorporated into the EG agricultural portfolio for ease of administrative reporting, and was not originally part of the portfolio design. HWA implements the Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilized Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe project, which is commercializing indigenous plant species and derivative products. The activity’s goal is to support approximately 4,000 smallholders in natural regions IV and V who lack access to irrigation and have minimal ability to generate income from agriculture. USAID’S COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION STRATEGY, DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 2 To examine the appropriateness of the portfolio, the evaluation team reviewed USAID/Zimbabwe’s Transitional Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), Development Objective 2 Project Appraisal Document (PAD), and the project documents of USAID-funded programs. The Transitional CDCS acknowledges the challenging political economy of Zimbabwe in the overall goal, “Strengthened Democratic System of Governance Contributing to Sustainable Recovery.” This goal is supported by Development Objective 2, “Food security in targeted areas increased,” with the development hypothesis for the program being: “If access to markets is improved, staple food and cash crop production expanded, rural employment generated, and if vulnerable households are better able to meet their food needs, 17 Correspondence from Zim-ACP key informant. January 27, 2014. 18 The proposal was submitted under a GDA solicitation from USAID/Pretoria, No. M/OAA/GRO/EGAS-11-002011 on August 12, 2011. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 9 and if poverty is reduced, incomes increased, under nutrition mitigated, then food security will be increased and Zimbabweans will be less vulnerable.”19 DO2 includes both Humanitarian Assistance (HA) and Economic Growth (EG) objectives and seeks to achieve complementarity among these activities. The EG-focused agriculture activities target the vulnerable but viable farmers and are represented in IR 2.1 and IR. 2.2. HA activities are represented in IR 2.3 and to some degree in IR 2.2; the HA activities target the most vulnerable population. The humanitarian aid programs funded by Title II provide food (cash to purchase food) and agricultural inputs for farming in targeted areas where there was a high incidence of food insecurity. USAID is in the process of launching a new HA program to target the most vulnerable households. Households at the bottom of the poverty spectrum (e.g., handicapped, elderly, OVCs, etc.) are beneficiaries of GOZ safety nets. The HA programs assist households that are just slightly up on the poverty spectrum. The EG beneficiaries are defined as vulnerable but viable households. All are poor, but EG purposely does not work with the poorest of the poor. The DO2 PAD further elaborates the mission’s agriculture development and food security strategy and approach. Also, PAD incorporates the value chain approach to promote agriculture development in general. At the project level, portfolio activities were designed to address two critical challenges identified as necessary to achieve DO2: (1) strengthening the agricultural value chain of staples and high-value (cash crops) commodities proven to be profitable in Phase I to facilitate the efficiency of market infrastructure and systems, and improve access to finance. Zim-AIED [Fintrac] was contracted for this component; and (2) improving the enabling environment by building the capacity of farmers’ associations and agribusiness associations for evidence-based advocacy and lobbying. Zim-ACP [DAI] was contracted to implement activities for this component. HWA, not part of the initial design, was engaged to work with targeted vulnerable communities to improve their livelihoods through the collection and sale of non-timber forest products. The LOL program begun in Phase I was integrated into the portfolio when the first grant ended. LOL works with dairy farmers to improve efficiency, quality, and profitability, and increase milk production. Conclusion. The Mission-level agricultural strategy and program designs were well aligned to meet both agriculture growth and food security objectives. The key expected outcomes of DO2 programs, such as expanding staple food and cash crop production, improving access to markets, increasing access to credit, improving the ability of vulnerable households to meet food needs, reducing poverty, increasing incomes, generating rural employment, and mitigating under-nutrition, were reasonably expected to be achieved through Phase II. Further, the Mission’s strategy and approach were well aligned with the Agency’s FTF Initiative strategies and goals of reducing hunger and improving nutrition, that is, hunger and nutrition are well dealt with in the strategies. 19 USAID/Zimbabwe. “Transitional Country Development Cooperation Strategy.” p. 16. 10 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 11 CHAPTERTWO: FINDINGSAND CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION The following sections present evaluation findings and conclusions related to each major research question. The first section discusses the findings on the management of the transition from the Phase I emergency-plus programs to the Phase II recovery program.20 A discussion of the overall appropriateness of the portfolio designs follows, including a discussion of the support households reported receiving from the portfolio activities (Were services delivered as planned?) and farmers’ perception of the appropriateness of the activities. This section is followed by a discussion of critical program assumptions. The findings on the achievement of intended objectives follows and implementation gaps. The impacts on women are examined in the fifth section. The final section describes the extent to which institutional systems – production, market linkages, credit financing and an effective policy and regulatory environment –were established. I. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE RECOVERY PHASE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE Given the crisis of the period, USAID reentered the agricultural sector with a program of grants through the APS mechanism that allowed for rapid implementation. Phase I programs (described in Chapter One and Annex D) focused on agriculture and livelihood activities that would provide beneficiaries with immediate benefits. The grants were also pilot programs to identify potential areas for longer-term agriculture development activities and develop innovative, efficient solutions, per the APS mechanism criteria. The programs averaged two years in length. Some were slow to begin, primarily due to delays in obtaining approvals to work in the target districts, which were granted through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Those programs were granted no-cost extensions. Despite delays, Phase I responded with programs that addressed the identified need to quickly deliver critical inputs to farmers, accompanied by technical training and market linkages. Program results further helped the Mission target Phase II programs. However, while the intent of Phase I was to identify value chains with potential for intense development in Phase II, the award of the second round of NGO grants overlapped with the award of the Zim-AIED contract.21 Consequently, little time was available to achieve results with Phase I projects and fully identify and apply the lessons to Phase II design. Start-up delays and the short-term nature of the projects were identified as key reasons for the difficulties in transitioning and applying lessons learned to Phase II. Nevertheless, during the first year of Zim-AIED, cooperation between Zim-AIED and Phase I implementing partners (IP) was described by several key informants as excellent. Zim-AIED also experienced delays obtaining an MOU from the GOZ to work in the districts. Thus, in addition to conducting careful studies of value chains that had shown potential for 20 In the SOW, the topic of ‘Transition Management,’ with two sub questions, was the third category to be addressed by the evaluation. This first sub question is discussed at the beginning of the report to inform the subsequent presentation of results. 21 The second round of the Phase I grants was awarded on September 29, 2010. ZimAIED, the largest contract in Phase II, was awarded on September 30, 2010. 12 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT commercialization through analytical studies,22 the Zim-AIED team studied the emerging results from Phase I grants, worked alongside Phase I IPs in geographic areas related to successful value chains, and adopted those with the highest potential. Five value chains from the Phase I projects – groundnuts, horticulture, sweet potatoes, paprika, and livestock – are now incorporated into Zim-AIED’s portfolio. II. APPROPRIATENESS OF PORTFOLIO DESIGN Three major questions were addressed when considering the appropriateness of the designs:  Were Phase I and Phase II portfolio designs appropriate given the political and economic conditions that existed in 2008/2009 and 2010?  Given varying levels of coordination and collaboration between USAID development and humanitarian assistance programming, as well as with other donor programs, were/are the mix of Economic Growth activities sufficient and appropriate to meet USAID’s objectives?  Which critical assumptions held and which did not, why, and what effect did that have on the achievement of project objectives? INITIAL RESPONSE USAID had withdrawn from the agriculture sector, partially due to the government’s land reform initiatives, but re-entered in 2009 during the Government of National Unity (GNU). USAID/Zimbabwe’s re-entry and engagement in agricultural development occurred during a period characterized by uncertainty, but one that required urgency of action. In addition to the challenges outlined in Chapter One, there were no strong government institutions, as capacity was severely diminished. The alternative strategy for implementation was to look for Implementing Partners (IP) with expertise in the given value chains that needed immediate assistance. A number of donors and the Zimbabwean government were engaged in livelihoods23 programs, with differing approaches, but often with heavy subsidies (if not free aid) that had led to a strong “donor dependency” among smallholder farmers. USAID’s initial action to issue grants to NGOs through an APS was the most appropriate and efficient way to deliver assistance quickly, allowing farmers to procure much needed inputs, as well as technical assistance to improve productivity. The objectives were to address a set of interrelated issues: improved food security, stem unemployment, increased household incomes, and increased total production/productivity. PHASE I PROGRAM DESIGN SOLUTIONS The logic behind the interventions was to immediately address food insecurity by delivering inputs of seeds (basic food security packets) to grow a summer crop. At the same time, projects were piloting activities based on the belief that food security would result from creating conditions to increase productivity and production, link small farmers to market, and increase incomes and employment. A second underlying design principle was to work directly with farmers, rather than going through the government, to build farmers’ capacity in good farming practices. Training was incorporated into virtually all grants programs. Some were particularly innovative, such as the IRD work in Mutare, where principles of adult learning theory and experiential learning were applied in demonstration training for farmers. 22 Zim-AIED conducted seven studies from March 2010 to May 2011 on Mangetout Peas, Export Horticulture, Processing in Zimbabwe Smallholder Irrigation, Banana Production, Sweet Potato Production, and Potato Production. 23 Key informant interview with a European Union official. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 13 In addition to providing training in basic farming skills, the programs taught farmers that farming is a business. Focus group participants spoke frequently and enthusiastically of how their attitude about farming had changed and how they had learned new skills in budgeting, planning and management to calculate their income by tracking the cost of inputs and crop value to determine profit. During household survey interviews, farmers would bring out their notebooks to show the interviewers how they were performing accounting. As the former manager of the Smallholder Technology and Access to Markets Program (STAMP) said, “When I began working with the program, farmers identified themselves as ‘unemployed,’ but identified themselves as businessmen and women after participating in the program.” Program implementers applied practical solutions to break the log jams in the systems. The revolving grant concept was one such solution introduced in several programs to work with the “donor-dependent” mind-set of farmers. As a partner said, “Resources are finite, and you [need to] find a mechanism that can reach out to more.”  Land O’ Lakes introduced cattle banks facility through which a farmer was told he/she could access a pure dairy breed heifer in calf upon paying a deposit and pay the balance over an eighteen month period. Repayments were used to purchase additional heifer to distribute to other farmers.  Recoverable grants were established for agribusinesses. A major constraint for agribusinesses was lack of capital; recoverable grants provided them with needed capital to provide farmers with input and to buy produce from farmers who could then be paid in cash.  Pass-On-Schemes were established. These ‘in-kind’ revolving funds were based on the principle that a farmer who receives initial support from a formal technical assistance program agreed that after the harvest, he/she passes on part of the harvest to the neighbor. Farmers explained the concept during the ground nut focus group discussion, saying “You have a bag of ground nut seed, and from the first harvest, [you] pass on a bag to your neighbor.”  An unintended positive benefit of the scheme was pointed out by the farmers themselves who said that the unexpected generosity promoted social cohesion among neighbors, especially between those who had not been selected to participate in the formal program and those participating. PHASE II PROGRAM DESIGN SOLUTIONS USAID/EG commissioned an internal review/evaluation of its Phase I grants program in the fall of 2011.24 The report identified the issues in the agriculture sector, interventions and practices that had worked and had not worked in Phase I as anticipated, and lessons learned. Some of the issues identified in this evaluation were: Grant Administration  The APS mechanism was fast and also solicited the best ideas from USAID’s partners.  Grantees had trouble obtaining the requisite approval from the GOZ to begin implementation.  Quarterly partners’ meetings, facilitated by the EG office, were very helpful in improving coordination and cross fertilization. Program Implementation and Results  Years of economic instability and a general lack of trust for the market led many beneficiaries to see farming as subsistence rather than a source of income. 24 USAID/Zimbabwe. “Internal Review of Phase I Livelihood Grants.” Completed in April 2012. 14 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Market linkages proved to be key drivers for success, as projects with less formal connections with market and financial institutions experienced lower returns to farmers.  Access to finance for buyers, not smallholders, was a major constraint identified early on by a number of grantees. The lack of credit prevented agro-dealers, traders, and consolidators from purchasing smallholder produce from input suppliers. The report listed the following as the Lessons Learned from the grants program.  Trust needs to be restored among the market actors.  High value cash crops build trust in the markets and raise farmers’ income.  A market-driven approach is vital to improving incomes.  Donors should take better advantage of the private sector.  Formal finance leads to greater returns to the farmers. USAID commissioned a number of additional studies to further explore these findings and these findings guided the development of the Mission strategy documents: the Transitional CDCS and DO2 PAD. (The studies are listed in the PAD.) The current programs have incorporated the lessons in their on-going work. Noteworthy ‘lessons learned’ that were incorporated into these strategy documents25 were the need for a geographic focus, commodity focus, and for increased coordination among projects to maximize results and synergies. The CDCS and DO2 PAD have also incorporated the elements of a market-based agricultural development approach, such as a value chain approach. They have likewise included the key elements of food security: access, availability, utilization and resilience. The CDCS further discusses the need to orient the new Title II (FFP) programs away from food aid distribution to distribution of inputs and technologies that will help vulnerable populations engage in productive activities and improve their resilience. Existing programs address most of these issues and are implementing activities to address most elements of agriculture growth (inputs, market links, value chain, productivity, and agro-finance), as follows:  Zim-AIED promotes market-based agricultural production and productivity, and access to credit finance by strengthening the actors in value chains.  The Land O’ Lakes program followed the same approach in the dairy sector.  Zim-ACP is working on improving the enabling business environment with a focus on improving the policy and regulatory environment and the efficiency of the market infrastructure and institutional and business development services; and analyzing the factors affecting agriculture competitiveness at the national level.  HWA is focused on improving the livelihoods of more vulnerable households in dry land areas by improving efficiency in the collection and trade of non-timber forest products. A needs assessment was done during the Livelihoods Projects phase which also provided valuable lessons for the development of Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP. Phase II built on Phase I because the circumstances had not substantially changed in two years, and the bottlenecks continued to be serious constraints. Following the learning phase, Zim-AIED focused on staples and high-value cash crops, adopting some from Phase I and leaving others. World Vision, for example, tried tea and coffee for two years through their APS. Zim-AIED did not continue with coffee, using as selection criteria the need to (i) focus on selected crops and (ii) see results within the four and one half year time 25 Adoption of the strategies during implementation is discussed later as an operational issue. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 15 horizon. Resurrecting the coffee industry would have been challenging from that perspective. Coffee is a longer term crop and needs long term continued support beyond Zim-AIED’s time frame. Not all stakeholders were satisfied with the decisions. The key informants from the Zim Coffee Mill Association voiced their disagreement with this decision, noting that, while coffee requires a longer start up time, it is worth the investment. They noted that in fact, the production from the World Vision coffee plantations of 2010 were just coming into production at the time of the evaluation (2013).26 During the “learning phase,” USAID had the opportunity to work with a wide variety of local partners, assess their capabilities, as sub-partners, and determine which companies had sufficient resources and capacity to service farmers.  Some initial partners were “political friends,” who formed trusts in order to partner with a donor to participate in activities, such as buying a commodity. Donors soon realized that these trusts were more often convenience groupings of a family or a political group, than a development organization and looked elsewhere for partners.  Zim-AIED began working in Chimanimani (Ruisitu is a major banana producer area, leveraging natural climatic advantages). The project needed a local partner with sufficient capacity to transport the crop to market. The first partner failed, so they reached out to others. During Phase I USAID’s IPs reached out, with varying levels of success, to local government. While cooperation with government was minimal at the national policy level, operationally, some established good working relationships with local extension agents and provincial officials. The lesson learned was applied in Phase II; Zim-AIED officials explained that the ease with which you operate in a given area depends upon your relationship with local officials.27 This coordination is happening on the basis of personal relationships, however, not as a result of institutional relationships. BENEFICIARIES’ SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT Another perspective on the appropriateness of the designs came directly from the beneficiaries who were asked to rate their “satisfaction with the appropriateness of the support received.” Overall, 90 percent of the survey respondents said they were very satisfied (54%) or satisfied (36%) with the appropriateness of the support (Figure 1). Satisfaction levels varied among the three major projects, however. Seventy percent of Zim-AIED respondents were very satisfied; 27 percent were satisfied. Thirty five percent of LOL respondents were very satisfied; 40 percent were satisfied. Twenty-nine percent of the HWA farmers were very satisfied (Figure 2). 26 Key informant interviews with Zim Coffee Mill Association and IP representatives in the field. 27 Key informant interview with Zim-AIED staff. 16 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Ten percent (nine people) expressed dissatisfaction with the project and listed three main reasons: crops were not profitable (five); inputs were unsatisfactory (three); and a local partner was not reliable (one). Specific observations on profitability were low prices being paid for commodities (four) and poor choice of a crop with low yield (paprika). Inputs were delivered late by the implementers or not provided at all to the beneficiaries (bicycles) and dairy cows were dry or not suitable for the local conditions. The topic of appropriateness of the project interventions was also discussed with the Key Informants and in the focus groups. All district and provincial key informants indicated that the interventions were appropriate: productivity improved, incomes and employment improved, except for two cases in Gutu where the key informants noted that incomes did not improve mainly because of poor produce markets. Nevertheless, the District Agricultural Extension Officer (DAEO) said, in answer to the question, ‘In your own view, what has been the greatest impact of this assistance on agriculture?’ “Farmers now appreciate that farming is a viable business.” The World Vision representative noted that “farmers had abandoned their plots due to hyperinflation. The economic stability encouraged them to go back to the fields.” [It was appropriate] given the appropriateness of plantation crops in the area. Another District Agricultural Extension Officer’s comments on the appropriateness of the interventions in a district where Zim-AIED is working are a strong testimony. “Yes, the activities are very relevant. It shows that communal farmers can be transformed into commercial farmers which is crucial for our economic turnaround strategy. The government policy of giving communal farmers inputs adequate for subsistence farming is being challenged by the USAID approach, as communal farmers can be transformed into commercial farmers given the right support.” Focus Group Results. The consensus of the Figure 1: Beneficiaries’ Satisfaction with Appropriateness of Support Received Figure 2: Beneficiaries’ Degree of Satisfaction with the Appropriateness of Activities, by Project 35.90% 54.30% 9.80% Satisfaction with Support Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied 70% 27% 97% 3% 35% 40% 75% 25% 29% 57% 86% 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied and satisfied combined Not satisfied Satisfaction with Activities ZimAIED Land o Lakes HWA USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 17 participants in 22 of the 28 focus group discussions was that the interventions were appropriate. 28 In two FGDs, participants said that the interventions were not appropriate. The remainder noted that they are partially appropriate. These opinions came from the dry Matabeleland regions. The main reasons for the farmers’ dissatisfaction were late delivery of inputs, poor prices, lack of viable markets, and lack of adequate water for irrigation.  Positive Comments from Focus Group Discussions  “Yes the project is appropriate to our needs, as farmers we had been in sweet potato production since long back; however, the project is adding value to our cropping trends and systems.” (Sweet Potato farmers)  “Yes the project is appropriate to our needs. For a long period we would produce and force a product into the market but for now we are into market-led production.” (Banana Irrigation Group)  “… [The] intervention is relevant for we had been lacking capacity to procure [our] own inputs and advanced knowledge on market-led commercial paprika production.” (Paprika Farmers’ Group)  “Yes, we see the interventions as appropriate to our needs because most beneficiaries here did not have cattle of their own and those that had cattle had one or two that could not produce enough manure and could also not be used as draft power. Since we have cattle that we have been loaned, we are sure that we will build on our herds in the near future.” (Zim-AIED. Nkayi)  “Yes, the input support that we received in 2011 addressed our input shortage needs as a scheme. The training that we received also addressed our needs.” (Zim-AIED. Insukamini)  Negative Comments from Focus Group Discussions  “No, the interventions are so far not [based] on needs assessment but rather on trial and error basis. Paprika failed, sugar beans and potatoes did well although potato seed did not suffice the farmers. Maize came in time, and cabbage seed placement was late.” (Zim-AIED. Irrigation Scheme participants)  “No, well that is not the best that we would have wanted because when the crop failed [paprika] we didn’t even salvage some that we could eat. If it were maize and beans support then even in drought or frost times, we could have picked some few grams for consumption at home. (Zim-AIED. Mnakwe) Finally, in all focus groups, the participants were asked to “rate this assistance in terms of effectiveness and importance to the beneficiary farmers and the country?” On a scale of 1-10 (with one being the lowest and 10 the highest), the minimum rating given by participants in any group was seven and the maximum rating was eight across all projects. TYPES OF SUPPORT BENEFICIARIES RECEIVED A wide array of support was introduced to beneficiaries29 through project activities to achieve the four main sub goals. 28 A standard question was asked in all focus groups: “Are the interventions appropriate to the needs of families, groups, and the community? How?” 29 Forty percent of respondents received support from Zim-AIED. Respondents also participated in activities sponsored by HWA and some APS programs, specifically, STAMP and Land O’Lakes. 18 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Beneficiaries were asked about the types of support they received. First, they were asked to indicate which of four types of support their household received. The beneficiaries reported twice as much support for agricultural productivity as for access to credit, as shown below.  Agricultural productivity 32%  Access to agricultural inputs 26%  Access to markets 25%  Access to credit 16% In the second question, respondents were asked to choose from a more detailed list of support activities. Overall, training was noted by over half of the participants: training in crop production (54%) and basic record keeping (47%). Over 40% received market-related support (market linkages 46%, market information (44%), and linkages with produce buyers (34%). Over a third recalled receiving support for agricultural inputs: (ag-inputs 38%; linkages with input supply 33%). Nearly 27% received support for cash crops, compared with 9% who indicated receiving support for staple food crops. The support Zim￾AIED beneficiaries reported is evidence of the assistance provided for both staple crops and high value cash crops. A large percent of beneficiaries are growing maize, groundnuts, or cowpeas with USAID assistance (many under the SAT subcontract). The responses also indicate support was modified for different project beneficiaries. All Zim-AIED farmers, for example, reported support for “farming as a business,” compared with 45% of the LOL and 38.5 % of the HWA beneficiaries. Support for agricultural financing was reported by 43% of the Zim-AIED farmers, compared with 10% of the LOL, and 8% of the HWA participants. Similarly, 86% of the Zim-AIED participants were supported in crop production, compared with 46% of the HWA and 20% of the LOL respondents. (Annex F, Annex Figure 3). Definitions for the types of support received are listed below  Training is learning new information, techniques, attitudes, skills and applying knowledge about improved inputs, management practices, farming techniques for improved farming, and processing technologies such as grading sorting, packaging.  Access to inputs includes: improved seed, fertilizer, crop protection pesticide, water.  Access to markets is linking farmers with the buyers who could be aggregators, processors, traders /stockiest, or exporters. The work with these actors is to link them to farmers through mechanism such as contract farming, warehousing.  Agro-financing is access to finance by farmers as well as the off-farm actors in the value chain. Figure 3: Types of Support Received by Beneficiaries, Self￾reported 32% 25% 26% 16% 1% What kind of support did you and your household receive from the organization? (N=94) Agricultural Productivity Marketing Agricultural Inputs Credit Other USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 19 Figure 4: Support Received by Beneficiaries from the USAID Projects CONCLUSIONS ON APPROPRIATENESS OF DESIGNS The strategy and approaches taken by USAID/Zimbabwe in Phases I and II were and remain appropriate. USAID effectively identified potential areas of intervention considering the country context at the time. CDCS and DO2 PAD build on past experience and lessons learned. The challenge is to align existing programs to the strategy in terms of on-the-ground implementation, and also design new program mechanisms as the existing mechanisms come to an end. The portfolio design was and still remains appropriate. Phase I activities were appropriate for country conditions in 2009-2011; Phase II used the experience gained from Phase I partners in its initial design and implementation. Projects, in terms of design, are appropriate to achieve DO2 objectives Further, the mix of portfolio activities was and still remains appropriate to address the two major challenges that continue to face the agriculture sector - creating an enabling environment and improving productivity - given the current policies of the GOZ.  Policy issues are addressed by Zim-ACP. Given continuing USG restrictions on direct engagement with the Government of Zimbabwe (GOZ), addressing policy issues by building the capacity of advocacy groups to engage with GOZ was and appears to remain the right approach for the Zimbabwean context.  Productivity issues are addressed by Zim-AIED. The current USAID/Zimbabwe agriculture/food security portfolio contains a range of programs in agriculture and Title II-funded programs to address the continuing humanitarian crisis while addressing the needs of the commercial sector.  The Phase I projects met immediate needs for the major inputs – seed, fertilizer, water – and technical training to improve productivity and worked on key value chains that had collapsed during the crisis: groundnuts, maize, horticulture. 53.8% 47.3% 46.2% 44.1% 37.6% 34.4% 33.3% 28.0% 26.9% 19.4% 18.3% 17.2% 16.1% 16.1% 15.1% 8.6% 7.5% 5.4% 4.3% 1.1% Crop production training Market linkages Provision of agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers,… Linkages with input supply Cash Crops (groundnuts tomatoes, onions, leafy… Agriculture Financing Horticultural production Animal health & Management Non Timber Forest Products processing Commercializing targeted irrigation schemes What support has your household received from the organizations you mentioned? (N=94) 20 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  The Phase II projects focused on, regulatory review, staple food crops and high value cash crops, and the needed range of services in marketing and credit. Given the limitations in the operating environment and the objectives of the USG policy, the method of delivery was the most appropriate. The method was based on direct support of the vulnerable population using non-state actors. Selection of IPs was based on their core competencies, experience in implementing similar projects and working knowledge of targeted areas. III. CRITICAL PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS The project began with assumptions that would affect implementation. The evaluators were asked to identify which critical assumptions held and which did not hold, why, and what effect that had on the achievement of project objectives. Assumption One. The national elections would result in a change of leadership and would allow for changes in the project design: At the outset of the planning for the evaluation, Zimbabwe was looking towards a national election and it was assumed that a major change in leadership would provide the opportunity to move in a different direction. At the time the SOW was prepared, one focus of the evaluation was to offer alternate design proposals in the event of this change occurring. The evaluation began in September 2013 after the election and therefore short term national planning in agriculture was expected to continue on the same course. Assumption Two. It was assumed that the inability to work directly with the GOZ would introduce some constraints on the project. The assumption held, as the political environment remained tense and the lack of trust among key stakeholders caused delays in getting MOUs with MAMID. This delayed implementation with some Phase One projects and with Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP, as IPs worked to first build trust among all players in the industry. As program implementation has progressed, stakeholder engagement has been high; their engagement has contributed significantly to achieving results. Assumption Three. It was assumed that the funding for the EG Programs would remain constant or increase. Funding for the EG program was reduced by 45 percent in FY 2013. The reduced funding resulted in reductions in program funds to Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP. Programs are not likely to be fully funded because of budget shortfalls and this has had implications for focusing activities. The effect of the assumptions not holding is that USAID may need to reconsider the design of the current portfolio to determine which innovations can be moved forward and/or to consider a reduction in the scale of operations. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 21 IV. ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED OBJECTIVES: DID HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY, INCOMES, PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY, AND EMPLOYMENT INCREASE IN TARGETED AREAS? 30 In this section, the results of the evaluation will be presented to answer the question, “What changed as a result of the project?” and in particular: “To what extent did household food security, agricultural incomes, production and productivity, and employment increase in its areas of operation?” The discussion will also address (i) the extent to which women beneficiaries were incorporated into the projects and derived benefits and (ii) How well has USAID programming established sustainable agricultural production systems?” Farmers were asked to reflect on the overall changes they had seen as a result of the project (Figure 5). The top three changes were: improved food security (71%); more technology to increase production selected by over half (56%); and training and capacity building via increased knowledge in crop production and animal health (44%). Nearly half referenced improved quality of life: school drop-outs had been reduced (48%) and families had increased disposable income to pay for medical bills (45%). Figure 5: Beneficiaries’ Statement of Changes Seen As a Result of the Projects31 30 In the Draft Final Report Outline, these are listed as numbers 2 and 4, respectively. They have been combined in this report to reduce redundancy. 31 The number of respondents to the survey was 94. Five people chose not to answer this question. 70.8% 56.2% 48.3% 44.9% 43.8% 39.3% 37.1% 32.6% 30.3% 27.0% 22.5% 21.3% 19.1% 19.1% 18.0% 16.9% 14.6% 11.2% 7.9% 6.7% 6.7% 4.5% Improved food security More technology available to increase production Reduced school drop outs Increased disposable income to pay for medical bills Increased knowledge in crop production, animal… More and more involvement of women in community… Easy access to markets to sell agricultural products Market & production information New employment creation at household level Linkages with buyers Input supply Value addition of produce Easiness of access to financial services (credit, loan) New employment creation community level Product price Linkages with processors Increased agro-based employment in the community Nearness &Easiness to buy inputs for agriculture Easy access to sell non timber produce Improved community based processing of produce Other (please specify) New agro industries What changes have you seen? (N=89) 22 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED OBJECTIVES The following sections describe the extent to which the projects achieved the intended objectives in food security, productivity and production, income, and employment. The information from the household survey comes from the question: “In your opinion, how would you rate the impact of the activities in relation to the total agricultural production, productivity, household income, and employment creation? Information from the focus groups and key informant interviews is also discussed for each category. Data from project indicators is also referenced in order to support the conclusions by triangulating the various sources. The respondents reported increases in six key project areas as a result of the projects. The greatest impact was noted for household nutrition (86%) and food security (81%). Productivity and total production increased 80% and 79% respectively). Employment (73%) and income (72%) also increased for over seventy percent of the respondents (Figure 6). Figure 6: Impact of Activities in Six Key Areas HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY The overarching DO2 objective is “Food Security in Targeted Areas Increased,” and as such it was a key aspect of the program covered by the evaluation. The evaluation team used several measures to understand how project activities impacted beneficiaries’ food security, including asking questions in the household survey, focus group discussions and interviews with key informants in the field. Household survey data are presented first, followed by information expressed by focus group participants and key informants. Three measures of food security were included in the household survey. A fourth question asked respondents to indicate what changes had occurred on a number of indicators, as a result of the program; food security was one choice. As no baseline data were available for the population sampled, the evaluators asked respondents to recall their situation related to food security before the project began and describe the situation at the present (post-pre-test method). Respondents were asked, “How did you rate the impact of the project on food security, on a scale of high change, no change, or low change?” A majority of farmers (79%) surveyed said their food security situation improved due to USAID-supported programs. The responses varied some by project, with the largest number of positive responses coming from 11% 15% 14% 13% 23% 23% 3% 3% 7% 7% 4% 4% 86% 81% 79% 80% 73% 72% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Household Nutrition Food Security Total Production Productivity Employment Creation Household Income Impact of Activities in Six Key Areas (N=90-92) Low Medium High USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 23 the Zim-AIED farmers (86%); Land O’ Lakes’ participants (77%) were also very positive about the impact of the project on their food security. While lower than the responses from the other project, over two-thirds (67%) of the HWA farmers were positive about the impact of the project activities on their food security (Figure 7). Nutritional status was also included in the survey questions, although measuring the nutritional status of the households was not in the evaluation scope. Respondents were asked to rate the project’s impact on household nutrition. A higher number of farmers (86%) reported improved household nutrition as a result of project activities. Respondents were also asked three standard questions based on the Household Hunger Scale (0-8) which has been validated by Food for Peace (FFP) for use across cultures. The scale is sensitive to the season in which data is collected (pre- or post-harvest). The household survey for this evaluation was carried out during post￾harvest season, which is not a particularly food-insecure time of year. To eliminate potential bias, the question was posed relative to the last 12 months, rather than the more typical last three months. The results of the household scores revealed that 83% of the families had “little to no hunger” after participating in the project. (0-2 is little to no hunger; 3-5 is moderate hunger, and 6-8 is severe hunger). Seven percent experienced “moderate hunger,” and ten percent experienced severe hunger sometime in the last twelve months (Figure 8). Data have shown that 60% of households across Sub-Saharan Africa score greater than 0. Participants were also asked to describe the changes they have experienced due to the projects (open ended comments). Overall, 71% of farmers (63 people) listed improved food security as the first change. By projects, the majority of beneficiaries responded they had improved their food security situation, with beneficiaries of Zim-AIED the highest at 86%, LOL at 76% and HWA at 68% (Annex F, Annex Figure 6, 7 and 8). Some 76.5% of the Land O’ Lakes farmers noted food security as a positive change, rating it as the most important change, followed by decreased school dropouts at 53%. (Annex F, Annex Figure 7). Sixty-seven percent of the HWA participants saw positive changes in their food security also rating it as the most important change, followed by ‘women’s participation in community development,’ at 58%. (Annex F, Annex Figure 8). Figure 7: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Food Security Zim-AIED Impact on Food Security “With the new knowledge, we are raising rood and can eat. Before we were hungry.” Beneficiaries want the program to expand, saying: “Put five more people per ward in the program and you could kick hunger out of the ward.” 86% 77% 67% 0% 50% 100% Achievement of intended objectives: Food security by project Zim-AIED Land O'Lakes HWA 24 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Finally, 72% of beneficiary farmers reported that they do not receive food aid handouts compared with 83% who reported relying on food aid prior to the project. Some 19% of respondents indicated they relied on food aid for more than three months a year prior to the project; 8.5% said they rely on food aid for the same period now: “We are now food secure for [the] greater part of the year.” (Annex F, Annex Figure 9). Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews. The evidence of improved food security for beneficiary households was observed across all projects in the focus group discussions. HWA beneficiaries had modest household income gains (US$100 annually, on average), yet beneficiaries reported it was enough to help cover the hunger period (January to March, immediately before the communal farmers start harvesting their crop.) Dairy project beneficiaries, with additional income from milk, provided enough extra income to cover grain needs for the year. The income for the Zim-AIED participants, due to the high value cash crops was used for food, but also left disposable income for other purchases (see Figure 13, below). Very few criticisms were raised about the program’s focus being on the commercialization of high-value cash crops. One humanitarian assistance specialist noted that, “This [strategy] can be risky because it means you’re not working with the poor.” By contrast, he said, Food for Peace targets the most food-insecure and the most vulnerable, which FTF does not always do. However, the baseline study conducted by Zim-AIED noted that beneficiaries have an average beneficiary household income between $400-500 per year. Virtually all of the beneficiaries were shown to be below the poverty line and 95% met the BFS definition of smallholder farmers (less than five hectares and less than 10 head of cattle or equivalent livestock).32 Conclusion on Impact on Food Security and Nutrition. Project activities are contributing to increased food security for beneficiaries. While it was not possible to determine with precision the degree to which food insecurity has declined in the sample areas (due to lack of baseline data), the findings indicate that food insecurity in project areas has decreased as a result of project activities and that a majority of the participants are no longer vulnerable to hunger. Twenty percent of the beneficiaries remain subject to food insecurity. 32 Zim-AIED. “Baseline Survey Report.” November 2012. HWA Achievements in Food Security The actual prevalence of HWA households with moderate or severe hunger decreased from 23% to 17% (based on an HWA survey in 2012). Participants in two focus groups of baobab producers indicated food security had improved, “Improved household income improved our purchasing power for food.” Rosella Producers in a third focus group however said: “[We are] relying on food handouts.” Land O’ Lakes and Food Security “In terms of us, women, we are no longer begging or scavenging for food to feed the family. We can milk the cow to feed our family.” Figure 8: Households Reporting at Each Level of HHS Score 83% 6% 10% Percent of Responses by Level of Food Insecurity (N=94) Little to No Hunger 0-2 Moderate Hunger 3-5 Severe Hunger 6-8 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 25 While some criticism was voiced regarding the approach of focusing on bringing high value cash crops to the commercial market instead of focusing on the most vulnerable households, there is need and space for both. PRODUCTIVITY Eighty percent of all beneficiaries reported a high impact on productivity (Figure 9), with 93% of the beneficiaries from Zim-AIED reporting the highest impact. Land O’ Lakes’ beneficiaries reported the second highest impact at 65%; only 4% of the HWA beneficiaries reported a high impact on productivity. The increase in farmer productivity, as reported by the beneficiaries, is corroborated by information from Zim-AIED FTF indicators. The baseline data reported showed net income per household from target agricultural products was $483. At the end of Q3, the reported net income had reached to $1,062.33 Respondents in 18 of the FGDs noted that there were improvements in productivity. The consensus from participants in two FGDs indicated no improvements in productivity. The remaining eight indicated some change. These participants were dairy farmers and their dissatisfaction was mainly caused by the poor quality of the livestock they received from Land O’ Lakes, explaining the lower rate (65%) of productivity (Figure 9). The beneficiaries spoke of this frequently, in the survey and in the focus groups. “The cows were old, not suited for the region, and had no known papers,” they said. In the Matabeleland region, poor water supply and late delivery of inputs also affected productivity. Some indicated the cows they received from the revolving fund were better than the first allocation. Role of Training The major contributing factor to increasing productivity was reported to be the training offered in Phase I and currently by Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP in all aspects of the value chain, and in the critical areas of business development services and farming as a business. Zim-AIED reported that at the end of 2013, 54,851 farmers had received short term agricultural sector productivity or food security training and 13,245 had received training in business skills.34 The training was of high quality. Training courses were monitored and the evaluations completed in year one by Zim-ACP 35 reported the lowest score was 78% satisfaction with the course. The gender mainstreaming policy increased women’s participation in both Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP training. One of the most effective methods described by the farmers was the use of the demonstration plot. Farmers were organized into small groups, provided a one-acre plot, a package of inputs and technical assistance from a master farmer who in turn was being trained by the IP. In one group, a participant said “about 500 farmers were being trained by one man and his demonstration plot.” He said the plot was being used as “a learning 33 Zim-AIED Annual Report FY 2013. p. 2 34 Zim-AIED Annual Report FY 2013. p. 65 35 Zim-ACP Annual Report#1, Table 1.9, p. 42. Figure 9: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Productivity 93% 65% 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Achievement of intended objectives: Productivity by project Zim-AIED Land O'Lakes HWA 26 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT center so farmers could see what had been produced with new techniques and then apply the techniques to their own land.’ Use of lead farmers is a recognized training approach for FTF projects. In Zimbabwe, the program to date has trained and deployed 526 lead farmers, 49%36of whom are women. Further, a Zim-AIED field manager explained that Zim-AIED is creating ten new agri-business hubs in Year Two of the SAT subcontract (Year 4 of the Zim-AIED project).37 The planned addition of up to 15 lead farmers per hub would yield a potential reach of over 30,000 farmers. Beneficiaries provided practical examples of how they had applied the training and its impact on their productivity.  “I had been planting a larger plot but getting a small harvest. But after the demo plot, we are getting a larger harvest. I learned that you can grow on a smaller area if you feed it.”  A similar method was used with poultry. “We did not have enough knowledge to run diverse projects like poultry, ground nuts and gardening. We now know how to farm, with records and proper planning.  “We have learnt that knowledge is power. Now we appreciate intensive and all-year round farming.”  One woman said candidly “Before the training, I was working the fields harder. We were wasting labor. We learned we were wrong to think we had to plant on larger areas. We needed to learn how to use the land we had.” Zim-ACP’s Annual Report of 2013 presented testimony from farmers who said they were empowered by the “farming as business training” as they learned how to negotiate better deals with input suppliers and traders. The training is reaching non-project participants as well. An example of the spread effect and indirect impact of the training came from a community leader who asked the interviewer to accompany him to a local high school to show her the demonstration plot Zim-AIED had created. Local educators were using the demonstration plot to teach agricultural techniques to their students. Impact of New Technology A second major contributor to increasing productivity is the availability of new technologies. Zim-AIED reported that at the end of 2013, 75,178 “farmers have applied new technologies or management practices as 36 Apendix H. Zim-AIED Indicator Table. # 21. 37 Zim-AIED noted in February 2014, that Zim-AIED in partnership with private sector partners has created 20 hubs non-SAT hubs with approximately 269 lead farmers and between 4,000-5,000 beneficiaries. No specific source was cited. Table 3: Number of Farmers Trained Through SAT Demonstration Plots Number Year One Year Two Hubs/Demonstration Plots 40 plots 36 (10 new; 26 from year one) Lead farmers 160 544 Total No Reached 25,724 23,315 High Quality Training A local businessman/agro dealer in Gokwe South said, “The program was an eye￾opener to the farmers because of the intense trainings which were facilitated by the implementing partner. Farmers received knowledge on how to select, store, grow, and harvest seeds which are suitable for their environments. The training was both practical and theory (sic). Training provided helped farmers to move from subsistence to commercial farming, by introducing a variety of crops. Beneficiaries were provided with inputs such as maize, groundnuts, seeds and fertilizers which contributed to increase (sic) in production and food security at household levels. Diversification of crops resulted in increased yields. Use of herbicides resulted in an increase in crop production and this motivated more farmers to participate in the program.” USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 27 a result of USG assistance.”38 Likewise, 942 associations had applied new technologies or management practices at the end of 2013. In 2013, Zim-AIED reported that [the] “high levels of technology adoption noted by field staff during planting and crop emergence will result in higher yields, and therefore higher gross margins, this year. At current prices, average gross margins and net household incomes from all agricultural products are likely to be at around $835 per household. Gross margins and net earnings by maize and banana growers are set to surpass their targets while paprika is currently underperforming.” During the field work, beneficiaries corroborated this observation. Fifty-six percent of the respondents said that one of the major changes they had observed was “more technology available to increase production. During the focus groups, participants would reference new techniques they had learned on a large variety of agricultural practices, frequently summing up the discussion with emphasis on “farming is a business.” Farmers were asked to list two-three of the most important new ideas and technologies they adopted as a result of the USAID support (qualitative answers with no categories provided). Farming as a business emerged as the most frequently mentioned new idea adopted by 36 people, followed by use of management techniques to increase soil fertility (20), use of indigenous crops (18), conservation farming and improved agronomic practices (14). PRODUCTION Seventy-nine percent of all the beneficiaries reported the project activities had a high impact on production. By project, Zim-AIED beneficiaries reported the highest impact on production at 89%; 70% of Land O’ Lakes’ farmers while 4% of HWA farmers reported a high impact. 38 Zim-AIED. Annual Report FY2013 Issue. p.65. Table 4: New Ideas and Technologies Adopted By Farmers as a Result of USAID Support Response Category Frequency Farming as a business including market-led production, record keeping and budgeting 36 Soil fertility management including compost making, mulching and correct use of inorganic fertilizers 20 Importance and use of indigenous crops (e.g. Baobab fruits, Rosella and Devil’s Claw) 18 Conservation farming 14 Improved agronomic practices 14 Production of new high value cash crops 11 Livestock fodder production and silage making 9 Animal disease management and disease diagnosis 8 Water management and irrigation scheduling 8 Post-harvest handling of produce 8 Livestock feed formulation and production 7 Market linkages, including input supply chain management and price negotiation skills 7 Contract farming 5 Leadership skills and farmer group dynamic management 4 Artificial insemination 3 Export marketing 1 Poultry management 1 Source: Open-ended Responses to Survey Question 30. The full set of responses is found in Annex G. 28 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT The information from the focus groups and the key informant interviews provided overwhelming evidence of increased yields from the various value chains across the portfolio Phase I participants in the World Vision program, for example, reported very high production from the tea plantations. The World Vision representative noted that 478 abandoned hectares of tea had been rehabilitated with approximately 1068 farmers working the land. He provided production data on the tea plantation, as evidence to support his statement that production had increased (Table 5). Land O’ Lakes reported that production of milk has gone from zero to 200 liters a day (on average) at milk collection centers that were closed when the project started. Project documents report a marked and steady improvement in milk outputs, milk deliveries to both MCCs and processors, and farm incomes. Even the quality of the milk and productivity per milking cow has improved Phase II focus groups and key informant interviews, provided overwhelming evidence of increased yields for the various value chains supported across the portfolio: bananas, paprika, bird eye chilies, sweet potatoes, sugar beans, groundnuts, and table (Irish) potatoes. Statistics on the increased yields from the highly commercial product, such as banana production, are one example, provided by a District Agricultural Extension Officer. Banana production reached 70 tons per hectare in Mutema and 55 tons per hectare in Musikavanhu compared with the baseline of one ton per ha. The average for Mutasa is about 40 tons per ha. Noteworthy are the productivity studies Zim-AIED has done for sixteen commodities and on which data are reported every quarter. Total volume of production (tons) has increased from the baseline of 22,369 to a high of 164,975 at the end of Q.3 2013.39 In the same quarterly report,40 Zim-AIED notes that production of maize by Zim-AIED lead farmers is nearly three times the national average. A gross margin study based on 1600 paprika farmers also confirmed that production had increased. Zim-AIED has included three additional “custom” indicators in its well-executed data management system41 (CIRIS): Value of production per target product, Area Grown per target product, and Average yields per target product.42 39 Appendix H. Indicator Table. Zim-AIED Quarterly Report. July 2013. 40 Zim-AIED Quarterly Report. July 2013, page 15. Harere, Zimbabwe. 41 Ms Kerley conducted a Data Quality Assessment of the data management system as part of the evaluation. 42 Appendix H. Indicator Table. Zim-AIED Quarterly Report. July 2013. Table 5: Trends in Tea Production. Year Tonnage Total Income No. of Farmers 2010 516 USD 32,735.66 213 2011 1058 USD 83,078.98 798 2012 936 USD 68,529.05 895 2013 (Sept) 807 USD 91,774.65 1068 Source: Key Informant Interview with Management: Honde Valley Smallholder Development Company Figure 10: Achievement of Intended Objectives. Production by Project. 89% 70% 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Achievement of intended objectives: Production by Project Zim-AIED Land O'Lakes HWA USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 29 While Zim-AIED beneficiaries reported a significant increase in production, a common theme surfacing from these focus groups was the difficulty in obtaining agricultural inputs in a timely manner. The farmers said the assistance was appropriate and had the potential to increase household income, land productivity (food production and supplementary livestock feeds) and lead to increased employment. However, farmers consistently reported delays in placement of inputs which had a negative impact on achieving these objectives, most importantly production. Late inputs led to low yields and/or lower prices. “We need to plant on time, so we’re not left behind, i.e. selling produce late when the prices are lower the intervention.” Inputs were delayed by the project (per interview with a Zim-AIED field manager and a USAID official) as well as by agro-dealers who reported delays receiving inputs from their input suppliers. Farmers considered the inputs were delivered in a “pre-packaged” set of seeds, fertilizers, etc., which may not have been what they needed or preferred. “Farmers have their own preferences that should be considered too,” they said. Implementation issues for Land O’ Lakes have been reported in earlier sections of the report and can be summarized as poor choice of cows for the cattle banks, uneven provision of services to the milk collection centers, and transportation challenges for individual farmers bringing milk to the centers, often done by women. EMPLOYMENT Zim-AIED reported that at the end of 2013, 1,22443 jobs had been created, using the FTF definition of employment. However, seventy￾three percent of all beneficiaries reported the activities had a high impact on employment (Figure 6). Zim-AIED farmers (82%) reported the highest impact. 71% of LOL farmers reporting increased employment and slightly more than half (55%) of the HWA farmers reported higher employment created (Figure 11). The difference between the two figures can be attributed to the types of jobs FTF counts as employment and the types of jobs the beneficiaries described as employment.44 FTF is geared to creating commercial farm labor as a result of high value cash crops and export-oriented and counts new jobs that did not exist previously. When asked what changes they had seen with respect to employment opportunities created as a result of the project, a third of the respondents noted new employment at the household level, but few (19%) noted new 43 Zim-AIED Annual Report FY2013. p. 64. 44 Jobs “Attributed to FTF implementation” include farming and nonfarm jobs where FTF investments were intentional in assisting in any way to expand (or contract) jobs” and where a program objective of the Feed the Future investment was job creation. Jobs are all types of employment opportunities created during the reporting year in agriculture-or rural-related enterprises (including paid on￾farm/fishery employment). Jobs lasting less than one month are not counted in order to emphasize those jobs that provide more stability through length. Table 6: New Employment Creation Observed by Beneficiaries Type of Employment Created Percent of Beneficiaries New Employment Created at the Household Level 30% New Employment Created at the Community Level 19% Increased Agro-based Employment in the Community 15% New Agro-industries [created] 4.5% Source: Household Survey. Question: What changes have you seen? New Employee in MCC 30 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT employment created within the community. New employment within agro-based businesses was very weak at 4.5%) Table 6). The types of employment created, as described in the focus groups, are predominantly in the informal labor market, are not full-time work, and are often uncompensated. Many were described as seasonal day labor workers, truck drivers to move produce to market or family labor with in-kind payment. Family labor is a financial gain for the household, but could be a loss in women’s empowerment when women provide the labor. The cheapest source of unpaid labor is women. What is clear, however, is that the financial impact on families was positive. It may be useful to consider another indicator that measures the financial impact in addition to employment created. High value cash crops (Zim-AIED) have created secondary employment opportunities, in transportation of produce, and day labor work.  On tea plantations, seasonal labor was employed; coffee plantations were reported to be family centered (World Vision).  Land O’ Lakes activities at the milk collection centers created full￾time employment for technicians to run the milk processing equipment, accountants to record the daily intake and payment to farmers, and clerk positions in the street front shops to sell the center’s products (milk and yogurt). The team was not tasked to conduct a survey of jobs created.  HWA farmers were self-employed collectors of fruit who described the activity as primarily women’s work, but that youth and men were involved. Jobs were created in the KAITE processing plants and beneficiaries reported in focus groups that they would like to be trained and hired in the local plants.  In some cases, participants in the focus groups and key informant interviews were individuals who had resigned formal employment in urban areas to return to agriculture. INCOME Seventy-three percent of beneficiaries reported project activities had a high impact on income, with a larger number (84%) of Zim-AIED farmers reporting higher incomes achieved (Figure 12). Over two-thirds (62%) of the HWA farmers and 70% of the Land O’ Lakes farmers reported higher income. In some cases, such as the banana production schemes, it has quadrupled. Employment / Women “The project created local employment for our husband, thus, less stress to us the female counterparts for our men will no longer leave us to [go to] town for employment.” (Zim-AIED focus group participant, Nyamutumba) Figure 11: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Employment. 82% 71% 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Achievement of intended objectives: Employment by project Zim-AIED Land O'Lakes HWA USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 31 HWA had modest income gains, (on average $100 a year), which beneficiaries reported was enough to help cover the hunger period. Dairy project beneficiaries with additional income could provide enough extra income to cover grain needs for the year. More profitable high end crops, from groundnuts to the highest, bananas, provided basic needs and much more. Many of Zim-AIED’s beneficiaries (and HWA’s as well) are/were among the vulnerable – even the most productive farmers today (Mutema banana farmers) earned only $200/annum prior to the program. Today they earn more than $3,000 in net sales on a quarter hectare. Respondents were also asked how they used the extra income they earned. Out of the 75 farmers who responded, nearly half (46%) reported that the increased income has been used to build social capital by investing in their children’s education. What was learned from the focus groups is that farmers may be supporting grandchildren and we learned they are supporting the Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) in the community. This investment in schooling will generate a ripple effect; it is a long term investment not solely for the family, but for the nation. As is known from the Global Competiveness Report45, elementary education is one of the twelve pillars for contributing to a nation’s competiveness.46 The tea plantation focus group participants, in particular, explained that increased production, hence income, has allowed families to pay school fees, resulting in fewer school dropouts, as well as improve their quality of life in other ways. “Here, there are some who have managed to renovate our houses or build new [houses].” Approximately 37% of the respondents reported using the extra income to reinvest in productive assets like livestock and improving the farm in other ways, such as building fencing, storage facilities, pens for cows, chickens and pigs (17%). Sixteen percent said they used the extra income to buy food (Figure 13). The beneficiary community key informants also reported increases in incomes as a result of the interventions. All district and province key informants indicated that… incomes improved … except for two cases in Gutu where the key informants noted that incomes did not improve mainly because of poor produce markets. 45 Schwab, Klaus. Editor. World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013, which defines “competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country.” 46 Ibid. “Basic education increases the efficiency of each individual worker. Moreover, workers who have received little formal education can carry out only simple manual tasks and find it much more difficult to adapt to more advanced production processes and techniques, and therefore contribute less to come up with or execute innovations.” Figure 12: Achievement of Intended Objectives: Income 84% 70% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Achievement of intended objectives: Income by project Zim-AIED Land O'Lakes HWA 32 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT The consensus of the participants in fourteen of the FGDs indicated significant changes in income; in ten FGs, the participants indicated little changes in incomes, mainly caused by low prices. Two indicated no changes in incomes. Phase I projects beneficiaries noted increased incomes, as reflected in the focus group discussions. For example, the groundnut production project representative noted that baseline household income was at US$350/year and rose to US$800- 1000 a year at the time the project exited. The former project manager attributed this outcome to “good quality seed use and improved agronomic practices as the basic forces [contributing to] project success.” Conclusion: Farmers are generating higher incomes than prior to the start of the project and they are investing in both economic and social assets. V. DEGREE TO WHICH ACTIVITIES INCORPORATED AND PROVIDED REAL BENEFITS TO WOMEN Immediately prior to the implementation of project activities, the country’s economic problems and crisis in agriculture had severely affected women in rural communities. Approximately 70 percent of farm operations in communal areas were being conducted by women, due to the out migration of a significant portion of the male population to seek work in urban centers or outside the country. Women’s ability to farm successfully was also compromised by the same challenges outlined in Chapter I that the sector as a whole faced. Added to these challenges were the constraints on women of traditional practices in rural agriculture about access to land, credit, training, and markets, and division of labor in cropping by women and men, due to cultural practices.47 Both Phase I and Phase II projects actively pursued a policy of gender equality and implemented a series of activities, with an emphasis on gender, to dynamically include women. A review of the project documents revealed that all interventions addressed gender issues and are reporting statistics disaggregated by male and female. The project reports and indicators confirm that women are being adequately incorporated into project activities, as measured by number of women participating in activities. All projects included the USAID/FTF gender indicators in their performance monitoring plans. A review of the data tables 47 In 2011, Zimbabwe received a score of 0.583 on the Gender Inequality Index, placing the country at 118 out of 146 countries with data. In 2011, the World Economic Forum ranked Zimbabwe 88 out of 135 countries in its 2011 Global Gender Gap Report, with a score of 0.6607 where 0 represents inequality and 1 represents equality. Source: OECD. Figure 13: Use of Extra Income* Benefits to STAMP Farmers “As a community we are witnessing an increase in our household asset base, new and better houses, reduced school drop outs, improved household income, ability to pay for medical bills and we are now able to buy own inputs.” Focus group with STAMP beneficiaries. 3% 11% 12% 12% 13% 16% 17% 23% 34% 46% Paying for healthcare Household furniture & equipment Kitchen utensils Other Loan repayment Food Improving the farm Improving the homestead Investing in livestock School fees and provisions How have you used the extra income realized from the project? (N=94) USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 33 revealed that not all projects were reporting on the full set of indicators and had not been reporting from the outset, making it difficult to establish performance trends.48 Some representative statistics follow:  Of the total number of beneficiaries Zim-AIED has supported, 52% are women and the percentage of women registered in Zim-AIED trainings is at 50% over the life of the program.49  Women represent 49%50 of the Zim-AIED lead farmers.  Zim-ACP’s training statistics capture women’s participation in their wide range of training and stakeholder meetings.  Stakeholder engagement meetings in Matabeleland provinces had 125 participants of whom 46 (37%) were women; ZCFU Mashonaland Central had 70 participants of whom 26 (37%) were female; policy analysis training had 72 participants of whom 16 are female (22%); of the 64 stakeholder consultations 20 (31%) were women (p.27).  Cascading trainings included 2,387 enterprises (1,192 male-owned enterprises of which 1,068 (45%) were female-owned and 127 jointly owned). All projects provided training on gender issues. Zim-ACP for example, developed two manuals to use in its training and that of its member organizations: (i) a Gender Mainstreaming Manual and (ii) a gender-oriented ‘Farming as a Family Business’ Manual. Several of these organizations prepared gender mainstreaming action plans, with Zim-ACP assistance, which they have started implementing. The findings from information gathered directly from the beneficiaries – household survey, focus groups, and Key informant interviews – were captured around three issues: women’s participation in project activities, including project organizations and leadership status; the impact of the activities on women’s economic status; and the changes observed by women and men in organizational and social relationships. These categories are parallel the three major issues of power, access and finance, identified in the USAID/Zimbabwe Gender Analysis.51 Women’s involvement in project activities was rated very high on two measures. Ninety-six percent of the respondents reported high satisfaction with the way the projects considered women’s concerns; 97% reported that women held project leadership positions. Reported changes in relationships between women and men were considerably lower at 36% (Table 7). 48 USAID noted that additional gender indicators were introduced in 2013. The indicators were not relevant to all projects hence the gaps. However in reporting they all used the same template. 49 Zim-AIED Annual Report. #3. FY 2013. p. 40 50 Appendix H. Zim-AIED indicator table. #24. Data are only available for Q. 3, 2013. 51 USAID/Zimbabwe. “Gender Analysis and Assessment for Feed the Future Programming.” January 2012. 34 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Women were reported, by both men and women, to be active in the project implementation organizing committees (96%) and to have moved into leadership positions (97%), but were less involved in community associations (36%). This tracks with the 39% of respondents who said that one of the changes they had observed was “more involvement of women in community development.” Overall, women were reported by 69% of the respondents to be chair or deputy chair and secretary of the organizations. Further, 54% reported women had become the treasurer of the organizations, a key position of trust in any society (Table 8). The high responses on women in leadership positions appear to contradict the low number of people who said women were more involved in community associations. The difference may be that the project committees are perceived as different from community associations, in which case, it would appear that the projects’ approach successfully encouraged women’s participation.52 Women became active in associations, with assistance from Zim-ACP, such as the North Women’s Livestock Association (MNWLA). A member of the ZFCU board who is also a member of MNWLA taught the members of MNWLA what she had learned through Zim-ACP’s partnership with ZWPFT. This resulted in the incorporation of this smallholder women’s organization into the Livestock and Meat Advisory Council (LMAC), which enables their views to be taken into consideration in terms of lobbying and advocacy on livestock issues. Zim-ACP also encouraged the participation of women during ACP-facilitated events stipulating that there should be an equal mix of male and female leaders to attend these trainings. While the mix of men and women did not reach 50-50, the impacts of the policy included changes in attitudes or perceptions of leadership of organizations such as the MABC which were originally male-dominated. They have restructured 52Respondents were not asked to discuss men’s involvement in community association leadership positions. Table 7: Women’s Involvement in Project Activities Type of Involvement Percent of Beneficiaries Satisfaction with the way projects considered women’s issues* 96% Women hold project leadership positions** 97% Changes in relationships between women and men*** 36% Women are more involved in community associations**** 36% Source: Household Survey:*Q. E-2, **Q. E-3, *** Q. E-7. **** Q. E-4 Table 8: Involvement of Women in Community Associations Managing the Project. Percent of Total Mentions. What is the involvement of women in the community associations managing this project? Response Percent Response Count Leadership – Chair/deputy chair 69% 64 Leadership – Secretary/vice 69% 64 Leadership – Treasurer 54% 50 Ordinary member 35.5% 33 Members of management committee 35.5% 33 Total Responses 93 Source: Household Survey, Q.45 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 35 to include women in their leadership structures. One group member explained, “Trainings were done on gender dynamics and women now hold leadership roles in our local farmer associations or committees.” Overall, the projects had a positive effect on women’s economic status (Table 9). The survey asked respondents to provide their opinions on a set of closed-ended questions about the impact of the project on women, primarily on economic issues. Respondents reported that 76% now may own productive assets and 57% have control over their income from agriculture. Women now have acquired agricultural skills, said 69%, and have input into production decisions (72%). Far fewer (33%), however, reported having access to credit, a key resource, in their own name (Table 9). The situation was summarized by Zim-AIED in the latest quarterly report. “The credit environment for women continues to be difficult as women face additional obstacles due to long-standing cultural traditions. One of the major challenges for women is access to collateral as title deeds and valuable assets such as cattle are traditionally registered in men’s names.” The low percentage of AgriTrade loans disbursed to women (31%) compared with the high percentage, 69%, disbursed to men further corroborates the beneficiaries’ perceptions. The value of the loans to women is 14% of the total value of the loans (Table 10). An analysis of the open-ended responses to the question about effects on women is shown in the word cloud (Figure 14, below),54 in which income is the most frequently mentioned outcome. 53 Zim-AIED. Annual Report. FY 2013. p. 42 54 A word cloud is a visual representation for text data, typically used to visualize free form text. Table 9: Influence of Project on Status of Women. Percentage of Total Mentions, Multiple Answers Possible How has the project affected the economic status of women in the community? Response Percent Response Count Women have input into production decisions. 72% 65 Women make their own decisions about what to produce. 64% 58 Women may own productive assets. 76% 68 Women may purchase, sell, or transfer assets. 43% 39 Women have acquired agricultural skills. 69% 62 Women have control over their income from agriculture. 57% 51 Women have control over their workload. 38% 34 Women have control over their leisure activities. 40% 36 Women can apply for loans in their own names. 33% 30 Total Responses 90 Table 10: Number and Percent of Cumulative Disbursements by Gender (Zim-AIED Table 21)53 Men Women Cumulative Number of Loans 1,033 466 1,499 Percent of Loans 69% 31% 100% Value of Loans $12,11,819 $1,821,076 $13,938,895 Percent of Value of Loans 86% 14% 100% 36 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT The Focus Groups provided insights into how women’s conditions have changed: Impact on Production “Women farmers dominate in potato production and they have since gained new agricultural skills like fertilization and pesticiding [sic].” Figure 14. Word Cloud. Project Contributions to Development of Women Leaders  “We women feel honored to have an intervention which specifically targets women (ground nuts demonstration plots for 10 women), easier to put food on the table for the family.” (Zim AIED Gokwe Focus Group in Gokwe)  “Yes the project addressed our concerns as women. Us (sic) women also received free training and inputs mentioned above for three women demonstration plots. We (women) are now actively involved in the projects and decision making.” (Zim AIED Focus Group in Insukamini). Evaluators note that the input were provided on a cost-recovery basis through the Zim-AIED project and may have been misrepresented by the beneficiaries. Impact on Status  “Membership where 70% are females [they are] included as leaders, contributing household income.” (Zim-AIED Focus group with Paprika farmers. Nyamaropa)  “Women who participate in the project feel that they have adequately been empowered in terms of knowledge gained because they have also been participating in trainings and other project activities.” Zim￾AIED Nkayi  “Ninety-three percent (68/73) [in our farming organization] are women and some of the women are widows. For us women it has been averagely effective.” (Focus Group Zim AIED Lukosi Irrigation) Increased Income in Home  Women indicated that the extra incomes they were getting were supplementing the usual income sources which were mainly available to their husbands. They indicated that domestic violence which was mainly caused by fights for the little available money were also down. Women no longer had to wait for their husband's to give them money for basic needs. Figure 14: Word Cloud, Project Contributions to Development of Women Leaders USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 37 The IRD groundnut and sugar bean Phase I project in Mutare reported increased income for women. A former manager of the project noted that “the project unlocked the ability of women to put food on the household table as they were realizing income from groundnut production.”  “Women have greater access to assets. Women are now fully involved in tea and coffee plantation crops, for example, which used to be a male-dominated enterprise because of its asset nature status,” a participant in the focus group said.  Farmers in Nyanga also indicated that they had an annual "couples day” – a get together function. This also promoted social cohesion and through this, the farmers indicated that they even discussed issues that were helping young couples. Conclusion: The evaluation results show that the activities have had a significant positive impact on women beneficiaries. Women have increased their incomes, women have access to assets and social relationships are changing as they have gained economic power. In this period, women were often the principal farmer, due to the male outmigration and may have been able to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the projects in ways not possible previously. In spite of the fact that they signed into training courses under their husbands’ names, they were attending the training. As has been documented in other periods of crisis,55 opportunities for change are created for breaking with traditional behavior. With the conscious attention paid by USAID in putting the agency’s gender policy into practice through the programs, women in Zimbabwe have made significant gains and realized significant benefits in agriculture. VI. WERE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, MARKET LINKAGES, CREDIT FINANCING SYSTEMS AND AN EFFECTIVE POLICY AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ESTABLISHED? In the last 12 years, most production and credit financing systems in Zimbabwe had become defunct due to internal political and economic turmoil. All agricultural portfolio programs are working on re-establishing one or many of these systems to revive the agriculture sector and improve food security. Most Phase I programs emphasized rebuilding and revitalizing aspects of the agricultural sector. In Phase II, Zim-AIED is currently working to re-establish production systems, market linkages and credit systems for selected commodities in selected geographic regions. Zim-ACP is building the capacity of farmers’ unions and commodity associations to advocate for an enabling environment that promotes competitiveness in the agriculture sector, and HWA is focused on the production and marketing of non-timber forest products. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND MARKET LINKAGES Production systems and market linkages were described by respondents as being established, though not yet fully independent of the project, except for specific groups of farmers and commodities. Zim-AIED follows the value chain approach, identifies marketable commodities and viable farmers, and provides support to actors in the value chain for production, processing and market. The program has supported farmers with technical training for farming systems, the introduction of improved inputs, and extension services. This work has shown good results in terms of improved productivity, production and sale of these selected commodities. 55 Robert Zoellick, Former President, World Bank. “Presentation: In the midst of the financial crisis, women can be agents of change.” March 26, 2009. Women are “self-sustainable and empowered by being in leadership.” HWA beneficiary/Binga 38 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Support to agro-dealers and credit facilities for farmers and value chain actors contribute to continuous growth. It was not clear from interviews with key informants and focus groups respondents, however, how these services would be continued in the absence of the projects. Some may continue as long as commercial interest from buyer companies exists to support smallholder farmers, but continuous growth in the sector may be slow, as few private or public institution have emerged with the capacity to undertake or monitor these efforts. Private partners such as Matanuska, FAVCO, Better Agriculture and Inala will likely continue to provide extension services and access to inputs beyond the life of Zim-AIED. The household survey and focus groups have revealed that farmers feel more connected to the market, and that both production and productivity have increased. Respondents also pointed out that support will still be needed for some years before they can access market resources and inputs on their own. They were critical of input dealers’ weak services and pointed out the need for improved management in order to access inputs on time. Agritex is actively involved in most program activities and will continue to provide extension services beyond the program. However, the extension service is nascent. A survey conducted early in 200356 revealed that 50% of farmers interviewed felt that farmer-extension worker linkages were inadequate and that farmers lack adequate assistance. Whereas, in 1999, 90 % of Provincial Chief Agricultural Extension Officers had between ten to fifteen years’ experience in post, the average experience level in 2002 had been reduced to just one year in post. The “Fast Track" program to train new extension staff was put in place to overcome the shortages and inexperience. Because there was little agricultural activity, they received no practical training outside the classroom. They are learning on the job, and farmers reported that they knew more than the extension workers. HWA has trained farmers in improved and sustainable wild harvest collection practices.57 Through its partnership with the private company, BIZ, HWA is establishing marketing channels for non-timber forest products. Production and collection of these forest commodities has increased, as (marginally) has farmers’ income. Focus group participants pointed out that the food security (hunger) situation has improved and households were able to minimize their lean period thanks to increased income. HWA is linking farmers with one buyer who is developing the export markets in Europe and the United States, however, the fact that only one buyer/exporter is linked with the farmer makes the system vulnerable, and potentially unsustainable if the linkage fails. CREDIT FINANCING SYSTEM Farmers' access to finance/credit is one critical factor for promoting agricultural growth and one of the major systemic constraints the portfolio is addressing. Projects can successfully teach farming techniques, link farmers to markets and help input dealers open shops closer to the farmer. Without access to credit, however, they will not have resources to buy inputs, practice the improved farming techniques they learned, and derive benefit from them. CNFA’s work in Phase I on revolving loan/grant funds to agro dealers was an important mechanism to support small business, so they in turn could offer better service to smallholder farmers. The agro dealers were primarily rural business people trading in agricultural inputs and buyers of agricultural produce, “who play an important role in bringing inputs closer to the farmer and consolidating produce for larger buyers.” 58 56Makadho, Joseph. 2003 57Farmers were collecting wild fruits prior to the HWA project. 58 Zim-AIED Quarterly Report. July 2013. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 39 Zim-AIED built on this approach and established a $5 million revolving credit facility through Agritrade. The AgriTrade facility provides short-term credit -“working capital and capital investment loans ranging from $500 to $200,000 to traders, processors, exporters, wholesalers, and directly to smallholder farmers.”59 The beneficiaries of this fund are primarily agro dealers who use the loans to finance the purchase of farm produce from smallholder farmers for sale to agro-processing companies. In some cases the facility was used to provide loan capital to companies doing contract farming.60 The facility set a national scope to reach the largest number of commercially viable rural traders. The banks managing the fund are expected to match Zim-AIED contributions at least 1:1 from its own resources, and cover the costs related to defaulting clients. Credit facilities are made available at somewhat lower than market rates approved by USAID. They also provide capacity building for staff in the banks and for the loan recipients. AgriTrade had disbursed $12.70 million in cumulative disbursements from 1,453 loans as of July, 2013.61 Thirty one percent of the borrowers were women (Table 10); fourteen percent of the loaned dollars went to women. AgriTrade is focused on facilitating the financing of new (unique) borrowers under the portfolio to reach as many borrowers as possible, no that the program is in its last 18 months. The project is viewed favorably by the loan recipients interviewed during the field work. All were agro dealers and first time borrowers who learned about the loans directly from AgriTrade personnel, or from their banks. They said, independently, that the “conditions were friendly to meet,” meaning specifically that the interest rates were fair and lower than other finance institutions in their areas, and the collateral required was reasonable. All indicated their businesses [butcher shops (2), buyers/sellers of agricultural produce and inputs (4), cattle fattening (2)] had grown as a result of having access to capital. All had received training, and all but one indicated they needed more training beyond the half day workshop. One of the beneficiaries of the AgriTrade Facility, among the 11 interviewed (six women and five men), was a farmer from an AgriTrade farmer center in Nyanga, formed in 2008. One of the Board of Directors describes the support the company received. This “joint venture approach” to commercialization is linking small-scale growers to local, domestic, regional and global markets through strong trade relationships that include technical support, market contracts and other business services that will endure after Zim-AIED has ended. This component of the project is dependent on sub-partners who have proven less committed to the project’s goals and deficient in the services they provide. Indeed, in early December, one of the major banks supporting the credit program declared bankruptcy. 59 AgriTrade Fact Sheet. Zimbabwe Agricultural Income & Employment Development Program. May 2013 60 In Mashonaland Central, Standard Chartered Bank Ltd financed ‘Northern Farming,’ a company that used the funds under its contract farming approach. See Success Story #7, “Early USAID Initiatives Supported Contract Farmers.” 61 AgriTrade Monthly Report to USAID. 31 July 2013. p.1. Agri-Trade Loans Support Agro Business One trader used the loan to expand his Maputi business - roasted dried maize grain which vendors use instead of popcorn. The funding enabled the trader to buy maize grain and he has managed to expand his business. An agrodealer used the loan to expand his business, which “grew by at least 5%. We managed to buy stock. We could supply enough fertilizer to farmers and the fertilizer has been readily available. Our sales increased by at least 10%. We have started re-payments and it hasn’t been difficult. Profit margins ranged between 12% and 15% depending on product. The major component of the loan went to buy fertilizers. The interest rates are fair as they are almost the same with what other banks are charging. We have added three more employees. We have also acquired a new 8-ton lorry valued at USD 30,000.” 40 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT In the Chipindeke Irrigation scheme, farmers said AgriTrade officers had reached out and linked them to financial institutions.  “We are linked to private financial institutions (Micro King, CABS and TRUST bank) which can avail credit loans to support our agricultural activities. Agritex, through the Irrigation Department as public sector actors, is supporting our project. The contracting companies as private sector are also supporting our activities.”  “[The] project helped us to work with private companies like Pure Season, Hyveld and Capsicum which contracted farmers for paprika production. As farmers our working relationships public sector organizations like Agritex and Irrigation departments were improved.” (Zim-AIED Focus group in Nyamaropa) Two additional measures to determine the degree of support farmers received for agricultural financing were included in the household survey. Eighteen percent of the farmers said they received support in financing (Figure 4). Nineteen percent said that one of the changes they had observed was “easiness of access to financial services (credit, loans)” (Figure 5). While the financing has reached a relatively small number of respondents and the project may not have provided sufficient support in this area, compared with the availability of credit for smallholder farmers at the outset of the project, progress is being made from this two year project. Working through local agribusiness was a unique approach for Zim-AIED and Zim-AIED staff said the loan program was the most successful/useful part of the program, as they “could see immediate impact. “In the past commercial agricultural enterprises were scared to work with small farmers and by rebuilding trust and capacity they could get them to work together to improve production. They see supporting the commercial sector is the most important activity for the future.” Two major structural challenges, however, confront Zim-AIED (and, hence, AgriTrade) in unlocking access to the supply of credit for smallholder agricultural value chain players via commercial lending institutions. The first challenge is the limited supply of appropriately structured credit for smallholder agriculture from Zimbabwe’s financial and commercial banking institutions. The second structural challenge is the endemic problem of incomplete information on which risk-averse credit providers can assess creditworthiness and the riskiness of supplying credit to nontraditional borrowers. While convincing commercial banks in most developing countries to lend in rural areas and to agriculture is difficult, it is more challenging in Zimbabwe because of the political and economic situation. Banks do not want to go into rural areas and also into agriculture despite incentives provided to kick-start their operation. (Incentives include portfolio guarantees, loan subsidies and operation costs.) Commercial banks are typically not inclined to lend to farmers due to the high transaction costs and risks (production and knowledge/ recovery) involved. They are more inclined to support trade financing, construction and operational costs of known entities. Banks will be interested once they understand the business of farming, and have a sizable number of borrowers who meet or exceed the operational and transactional costs for servicing this sector. Conclusion: Considerable improvements were observed in the production systems, market linkages and credit systems. Some commercial banks, previously reluctant to lend to smallholder farmers, have started lending to the agriculture sector (traders, processors and exporters and farmers) through activities sponsored by the project. Both borrowers and lenders are building their experience, transactions and relationships; the project still provides crucial technical assistance (TA) to both lenders and borrowers. The elements of cost share, training, and technical assistance were particularly important for Zimbabwe since there was no longer a connection between the farmers and commercial enterprises. They needed to rebuild the trust between agri￾business and farmers. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 41 By working with commercial enterprises (the standard Fintrac approach), activities are more likely to carry on past the project end date. The cost share component of the activity is the most significant factor in assuring sustainability after Fintrac leaves. Support for them to function on their own and become sustainable may still be needed. TA may be needed for both banks and for loan recipients for some time before both parties can act confidently. Finally, access to financing has reached a relatively small number of individual farmers indicating the project has not yet provided sufficient support in this area. Nevertheless, compared with the availability of credit for smallholder farmers at the outset of the project, progress is being made. EFFECTIVE POLICY AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT One of the major parts of USAID’s agricultural portfolio is the Zim-ACP program. The primary goal is to improve competitiveness in Zimbabwe’s agribusiness and agricultural sectors to attract private sector investment in agriculture. Zim-ACP is working with private sector and commodity/industry associations to achieve these goals. Project Design and Components In the initial work plan, the project had three components:  Component 1 - supporting and strengthening representative farmers’ unions, commodity associations and agribusiness associations, and assisting them to develop their analytical and advocacy capacity  Component 2 - increasing efficiencies in agricultural markets, developing and applying improved technologies, and enhancing the capacity of market institutions  Component 3 - enhancing the capacity of business service providers to deliver quality, demand￾driven trainings and technical assistance at both the firm and farmer level The difficult socio-political environment and USG restrictions on direct GOZ engagement meant that Zim￾ACP was not able to engage directly with the GOZ and therefore would need to adopt an alternative approach to addressing policy issues. In 2010, the approach taken was to build the capacity of the existing organizations – primarily the commodity/farmers’ association – to better engage with GOZ. Given the Zimbabwean context at the time, this was the only approach available. The intent was to provide a variety of services to the associations whose members would then receive information, training and technical support to carry out the activities of the three components. Project Focus and Activities Although USAID has a strategic focus in its DO2 PAD, when Zim-ACP was designed and implemented, USAID did not yet have a geographic focus or a specific commodity focus. Zim-ACP undertook a comprehensive assessment to determine the number of agricultural sector representative bodies that were national in character and viable to work with. Three Farmers Unions, three Commodity Associations, and three Sector Representative Bodies were initially identified. Each organization had a set of unique circumstances and missions, the study revealed, and a high degree of fragmentation existed among the various commodity associations. The smallholder producers’ associations were found to be weak and dispersed. The findings led Zim-ACP to focus more strategically on commodity industry groups (CIG). The program shortly refocused and identified six commodity industry groups (CIG) – livestock and meat, tree crops, horticulture, cotton, grains and oilseeds and legumes – with potential and willingness to work with the program. By focusing on the commodity groups, Zim-ACP included all organizations serving a range of 42 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT constituents involved with the commodity. Zim-ACP avoided working directly with the numerous Irrigation Management Committees because of their lack of organizational stability and the fact that the administration of these schemes are within the Department of Irrigation (Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development). Zim-ACP adopted a broad value chain approach for policy reform advocacy rather than working on specific value chains or commodities. Zim-ACP applied the CIBER Assessment approach (supporting the value chain approach) to all six CIGS as a framework to help identify and focus their efforts. This approach brought together all players in the value chain to map out and prioritize the constraints to competitiveness at multiple levels: farmer, district, province, national, buyer, process and retail levels. A review of the report indicated that participation in the CIBER assessment included representatives from a large segment of the stakeholders; all but one of the nine organizations identified in the first study were involved, and many more from the CIGs, universities and the government, including the -MAMID and the Ministry of Finance.62 Zim-ACP also undertook an Organizational Capacity Assessment to guide their organizational strengthening work in six areas: Leadership and governance; quality services provision; resource mobilization for organizational sustainability; advocacy and lobbying (using evidence); gender mainstreaming; and environment mainstreaming. Based on this information, Zim-ACP supported regional and national organizations, with a focus on livestock and horticulture, with targeted training and technical assistance in how to effectively advocate for policy change. Zim-ACP also provided capacity building to associations’ leadership to strengthen their service provision to members. Zim-ACP was not meant to provide inputs directly to farmers, however. ACHIEVEMENTS Responses from the key informants provide evidence of the impact of the training and advocacy work provided by Zim-ACP staff, the spread effect of the training, and the challenges facing the farmers’ organizations.  A representative of the Manicaland Poultry Producers’ Association (MPPA) noted that Zim-ACP has assisted them with funding for member training on resource mobilization, lobbying and advocacy. As a result of their support MPPA is “more pro-active, given the capacity training. Our membership base has risen to 173 active members from a potential of 213. We now have a steering management committee and a board as a legal entity. We are in the position of mobilizing for resources to get established and produce poultry in mass, as informed by market research.” Sixty percent of the members are women, while three of the 12 board members (25%) are women. They are also a member of the Zimbabwe Women Poultry Producers’ Association. The challenge he identified is that “Our membership is still in need of assistance, especially in hardware development like procuring seed poultry stock, poultry feed, and chemicals, constructing an abattoir...” They are linked to input suppliers who are willing to partner on a credit facility.  A member of the Livestock Zone and Secretariat of the Matabeleland Agri-Business Chamber (MABC) said that Matabeleland is a hub for livestock activity. MABC has been working with Zim-ACP since 2010; the program has helped them develop a “value chain concept for networking.” MABC acts as a platform for networking and connecting value chain actors. Zim-ACP also helped them register as a trust, and provided valuable information and training on such topics as cost of compliance. As a result of the assistance, MABC has influenced policy by successfully lobbying with the Agriculture Market Authority (AMA) to open an office in Bulawayo, fostering MAMID consultation of regional 62 Mudimu, Godfrey D. and Helene Kiremidjian. “Application of the CIBER Assessment Tool in Zimbabwe.” February 2012. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 43 bodies in policymaking, and, now, being included as a regional representative in various national bodies that deal with agriculture at the national level. As a result of training on gender, MABC has deliberately started including women in its activities. The MABC representative said farmers have started seeing the benefit of their training and have begun making monetary contributions to participate in these trainings. He also mentioned that support provided by Zim-ACP led to the employment creation – there are instances where livestock groups and individuals have hired farm laborers. Challenges: He noted that there is still need to bring all the farmers’ organizations together to create one voice.  A leader of the Horticultural Promotion Council (HPC) said they have been working with ACP since 2011. Zim-ACP facilitated and funded bringing together nine horticultural associations from around the country which had been working independently. HPC was assisted by Zim-ACP in developing a five-year strategy and recently preparing a lobbying and advocacy document, which HPC and affiliates to work with MAMID’s Trade and Marketing Department. HPC completed a feasibility study on export requirements and has established linkages with several organizations to foster horticultural exports, with Zim-ACP support. Affiliate organizations have received Zim-ACP-funded training on gender mainstreaming, leadership, quality control and competitiveness. He noted that “acceptance of Zim-ACP by politicians was at first unfriendly…, buy-in took a bit long and affected the take-off time for implementation of the planned activities.” As the project progressed, however, HPC developed a collaborative working relationship with the MAMID. “The operating environment has significantly improved from what it was at first and activities are [now] being implemented as planned…” As a result of the work, farmers’ organization are competing in the global market as a unit, with less competition among the members. The challenges facing the horticultural group, he said, are: (1) The GOZ plans to set up a horticultural parastatal that will compete with HPC instead of giving it support. He offered no suggestions on possible solutions to this. (2) The limited scope of Zim-ACP, which was restricted, he perceived, to creating an enabling environment, but lacked the ability to provide extension services for the small scale farmers. The Zim-ACP “did not have the necessary information on agro businesses for the affiliates.” (3) HPC has “limited resources and could not roll out most of the strategic issues in the Five Year Strategic plan. HPC does not get any levies from its affiliates. Those levies go to the Agricultural Marketing Authority, a government entity. Further levying of the affiliates will over burden farmers and affiliates,” he said. HPC recommended that Zim-ACP establish a strong research and development strategy and a unit to help identify areas of improvement and competitiveness to improve on production and marketing strategies.  A key individual in the Matabeleland North Women Livestock Association (MNWLA) and a current board member of the Zimbabwe Congress of Farmers Union (ZCFU) (Matabeleland North) received training from Zim-ACP through ZCFU, and has applied the training to her work at MNWLA. She pointed out that Zim-ACP has been working with ZCFU since 2010 and provided them training on how to lobby on such fundamental issues as better inputs, market policies, gender inclusion, farming as a business, and cattle fattening. The training was done “without any segregation,” she said, “and this has resulted in a number of women venturing into cattle pen fattening which in a way is a form of food security,” she said. She observed that the members of the organization are more empowered with the training and knowledge received. She emphasized that lack of other resources to access input continues to be a major challenge faced by farmers to get into business. Finally, she said that Zim-ACP has not provided any other resources or farming inputs to farmers. The evaluators note that Zim-ACP does not have a mandate to provide resources to farmers. Rather, their mandate is to work with organizations to advocate for such assets on behalf of their members. 44 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  A farmer, who had participated in the Zim-ACP training in Umbuza, however described the “farming as a family business” training and training in poultry production as very useful. As a result, the “program equipped farmers with farming skills. Farmers are able to do proper planning, taking stock of their produce and a small percentage of farmers is no longer relying on government inputs.” She said, “horticulture can only be sustainable if it is well managed …Farmers acquired skills which they can use to grow a variety of vegetables without outside assistance.”  The Zimbabwe Coffee Mill representatives noted that Zim-ACP came in 2013 and are involved in organizing farmers, providing training in leadership, and on organized structures to assist in policy issues through formation of associations that can address policy issues at the national level.  A representative of the Farmers Association Community Self-Help Investment Groups (FACHIG) in Mashonaland Central Province, an affiliate of ZCFU, noted that they have been working with Zim-ACP since 2010. As a result of their partnership with Zim-ACP, they participated in the CIBER Assessment, have developed a five-year Strategic Plan, have been introduced to national lobbying organizations and created a platform for interaction with other farmer bodies, such as ZFU and ZCFU. Zim-ACP has “oriented FACHIG to national policy documents that address different farmer concerns at community levels” and they have “received training as an institution and trainings targeted at 10,000 farmers that FACHIG is working with in the four project districts. FACHIG has also been linked up with national partners at the national meetings that they participated in. Through Zim-ACP support, they also have a website that markets their programs to a larger audience. They can now access information on agricultural competitiveness and keep abreast of national initiatives. Zim-ACP funded most of the training, but he noted that a cost-sharing culture was introduced by the program, which “resulted in farmers’ co-financing some of the trainings that were conducted.” Nevertheless, “farmers have a donor dependence syndrome which has failed to die down,” and while FACHIG is promoting low cost implementation of activities, this is contrary to what other NGOs are doing in the region. The effect is that farmers expect more from FACHIG. “They want more tangible benefits than lobbying yet in actual fact lobbying has helped to increase household income. We need to work on raising farmers’ awareness in that regard.” In fact, he said, FACHIG has limited resources and is overwhelmed with the 10,000 farmers they are working with.” He noted as a challenge that “Farmer unions rarely meet and it is of paramount importance that energies should be focused on creating a platform on which farmer organizations work together for the good of the farmers and speak with one voice that will represent the farmers rather than compete against each other." Zim-ACP’s efforts in Component 1 are showing results in terms of policy advocacy. First, leaders and members of associations are aware of the need to be involved in the public policy debate and have been provided with tools through Zim-ACP’s training on effective lobbying and advocacy. Second, results from the FY2013 Annual Report indicated that Zim-ACP support allowed the agribusiness associations and farmers’ unions to draft policies/regulations/administrative procedures that have been presented for public/stakeholder consultation. The agribusiness associations and farmers’ unions have successfully analyzed and prepared draft legislation. Five new laws have passed and implementation has begun. Twenty draft legislation/decrees have been presented for consideration and 35 were presented for public/stakeholder consultation. Zim-ACP has successfully engaged government ministries in the dialogue and the government is increasingly more interested in what these associations are working on and discussing, as evidenced by their participation in the CIBER assessment, subsequent meetings facilitated by Zim-ACP, and the increasing participation at the regional level of various government units with farmers associations. Zim-ACP built the capacity of leaders of farmer representative organizations, promoted building of coalitions among value chain players, USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 45 and facilitated public private sector dialogue through Indabas63 on topical issues such as extension, and cotton. Two components did not meet their initially established targets: increasing efficiencies in agricultural markets (Component 2) and enhancing business service providers’ capacity to deliver training to firms and farmers (Component 3). The project is meeting targets for one of four indicators for these components. A review of the Zim-ACP indicators showed that while one indicator (‘value of resources leveraged’) is exceeding the target significantly, the remaining three indicators are underperforming: service delivery to members, number of clients reached by market-facilitated institutions, and number of market institutions being strengthened.64 The Annual Report for Year Three reported on the challenges faced by the associations, such as failing to attract critical membership numbers and organizational vulnerability within smaller associations that depend on one or two leaders. The major expected results for Component 2 were establishment of a warehouse receipt system (WRS) and market infrastructures, including market information system. The study commissioned on best practices in WRS provided valuable information for operationalizing the system in Zimbabwe. However no substantial progress has been made on the WRS. Similarly, Zim-ACP sponsored a study on Information Technology. To date, the market information system is limited to associations rather than the markets and is slowed by outdated computers at partners’ organizations.65 Component 3 activities were curtailed and integrated with Component 1, effectively making it component 1. Conclusions: The program fits well with the CDCS DO2 Objective and also with the FTF initiative. The three components of the program aligned well with the CDCS and DO2 PAD in terms of areas of intervention (i.e., the enabling environment that is critical for any business to flourish). Since the difficult startup, considerable improvements and advancements have been made in creating an enabling environment for farmers and strengthening the organizations representing them. The country context has changed and the interventions have evolved to find successful opportunities to work with commodity groups. Component 1 – This component has shown good results. Farmer organizations have gained a sense of empowerment and are able to lobby the government and input markets for policy changes. New legislation proposed by representative organizations has not only been proposed, but has been passed. Over three years, Zim-ACP has increased participation of parts of government with the sector. The GoZ has begun to recognize the associations, with government officials from relevant ministries participating in meetings and workshops, and has given them representation on national-level bodies that consider policy. The team was not able to determine the level of smallholder participation in these policy dialogues or the degree to which their interests are represented. Component 2 – The component has been less effective under the current approach. Most of the market infrastructure and institutions are in the public domain and the current US policy does not allow Zim-ACP to work directly with them. It is worth considering redesigning to target efforts at the regional and the local level, where other projects are implementing production activities and have identified beneficiaries that will use these infrastructures. Again, this requires close coordination with other projects or efforts may be duplicated. 63 An Indaba is a council at which indigenous peoples of southern Africa meet to discuss some important question. 64 Appendix H. Zim-ACP indicator table. 65 Zim-ACP. Annual Report & Fourth Quarterly Progress Report. Year Three (October 2013-September 2013). October 2013. 46 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Component 3 – This component was integrated into Components 1 and 2 and is no longer a separate component. Nevertheless, it is worth asking for whom these business development services are being provided. If the organizations’ members, who are also being supported for policy advocacy, are the primary audience for services, services could be provided as they currently are. Farmers who avail themselves of these services will increase active membership and generate revenue, thus strengthening the organization. A second option is to target these services to beneficiaries of other USAID projects and realize synergies. Designing and offering business development services for a clearly defined group of potential beneficiaries who have a link to resources and provisions to utilize skills will increase the desired impact and increase the potential for sustainability. INTER-PROJECT COORDINATION AMONG LIVELIHOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PORTFOLIO PROJECTS Integration and coordination among interventions. USAID’s existing portfolio has incorporated interventions that in total cover all the elements needed to impact positively on the DO2 goal to increase food security. Given the complex nature and achievements of the entire portfolio to date, it is evident that the quality of technical planning and implementation is very high. Partially because of this, each project works primarily on its own specific set of activities with good intra-project coordination and less coordination with other projects, even in areas where projects’ activities are addressing a similar issue. USAID holds bi-weekly meetings with each of the partners. On occasion, staff from the two major projects, Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP partnered on coordinating events. Zim-ACP invited Zim-AIED’s participation in a number of stakeholder consultative meetings on specific value chain issues, notably in the CIBER Assessment, to collect smallholder inputs on policy issues for horticulture and livestock The two organizations, with USAID SERA’s support, collaborated in hosting the National Agricultural Competitiveness Conference in July 2012. In 2013, Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP jointly hosted the ‘Gender in Agriculture Workshop.’ Zim-AIED used the workshop to highlight problems women in its projects were encountering to access the AgriTrade loan facilities. Zim-ACP brought its two training manuals, ‘Gender Mainstreaming’ and ‘Farming as Family Business,’ as tools that could be used to address the challenges. Zim￾AIED has since been using the ‘Farming as Family Business Manual’ in its training programs. On an operational level, the two projects’ activities complement each other but coordination within regions and on issues of mutual interest was not observed. Zim-AIED, for example, supports activities to strengthen the market-based approach to value chains and activities for agro-financing. Zim-ACP has a mandate to work directly with the commodity associations to change/improve policy but they also deliver training to associations to improve services for their members/farmers. The services farmers are requesting include assistance with credit, farming practices, and other practical assistance with their day-to-day operations, the types of activities Zim-AIED manages. The evaluators spoke with participants from one program who expressed interest in other portfolio activities. In one regional center, for example, the president of a newly-formed farmers’ association, who had received advocacy support from Zim-ACP, wanted assistance to address the needs of his members. Since many of the services were being provided by Zim-AIED to farmers in his region, he met with Zim-AIED staff to find out his members could access some services. He was unsuccessful in brokering a link for his organization and members to have access to the services of Zim-AIED.66 66 USAID advised that no additional support would have been possible for additional beneficiaries due to budget constraints. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 47 The lack of coordination at the operational level was corroborated during interviews with key home office management staff from both Zim-ACP and Zim-AIED. The organizations’ representatives noted that there are very few incidences of inter-project coordination happening. Both said opportunities exist for collaboration but the organizations lack a platform to share, plan, and realize these collaborations. The USAID meetings do not include the project staff and are not set up for this type of planning. There is ample opportunity and need for these projects to coordinate with each other to achieve efficiency and synergy. Zim-AIED and HWA can clearly benefit from and contribute to the policy work of Zim-ACP and capacity building provisions available with Zim-ACP. Zim-ACP-assisted associations want to provide additional services for their memberships beyond training in advocacy, be they farmers and traders. They would profit from the inputs supported by other programs. In fact, one key informant noted that USAID communicated to Zim-ACP that farmer-leaders and association and Irrigation Management committee members with whom Zim-AIED worked would benefit from Zim-ACP capacity building for advocacy, lobbying, leadership and good governance. Zim-AIED banana growers and traders might benefit from the policy work support of ACP, Zim-AIED farmers should be providing inputs to ACP for policy, and Zim-AIED farmer associations may benefit from supporting evidence-based policy training available with ACP. HWA works independently on livelihood improvement through alternative products and did not describe any coordinated activities with other actors in the portfolio. LOL had worked independently through the end of its grant. In the fall 2013, this work was incorporated into the Zim-AIED set of activities, albeit on a much smaller scale than before. Conclusion: While ad hoc opportunities arose for collaboration among the project’s implementers, few mechanisms for planned coordination were observed beyond the periodic meetings convened by USAID. The coordination that has occurred is on studies and workshops but not on delivery of support services to farmers or beneficiaries. The need for better coordination and collaboration was a prominent issue raised by key informants who underscored the need for USAID to lead and initiate this coordination. In similar FTF￾focus country/mission programs, the same need for greater coordination was recognized. For example, the Bangladesh mission started with monthly food security IP meetings and the meetings continue quarterly. During the meetings, the partners share their progress and discuss opportunities for collaboration. The Liberia mission also has just started this process. The Mission calls for the meeting, sets the agenda and one of the partners hosts the meeting. SUSTAINABILITY As projects begin to wind down, the issue of sustainability is in the forefront. Sustainability, being able to continue past the end of the project based on increased knowledge and agricultural approaches gained by the farmers, is acknowledged by beneficiaries and implementing partners. The beneficiaries especially noted those methods introduced by Zim-AIED as a role model.67 From the perspective of the beneficiaries, sixty-nine percent said they would be able to continue their activities without support from the project. One third (31%) indicated they need more time to get established (25 people). One person said he/she lacked the ability to continue without support.68 67 This observation may be due in part to the more recent interaction with Zim-AIED activities as well as the lower number of respondents from closed Phase I projects. 68 Question 63: Household Survey. ‘Do you think you will be able to maintain the activities in the absence of support from the project?’ 48 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Farmers from the focus groups were also asked about the future: ‘Could they continue after the project ends?’ The consensus of the farmers in 20 of the groups, in particular the Zim-AIED groups was “Yes.” A farmer in Gowke South captured the major reason why: “Even though Zim-AIED is gone, it’s impossible to lose it [the new knowledge gained]. A third (31%) of the respondents and the consensus from participants in eight focus groups, however, suggest that the projects have work left to be done. The rankings on a question about future areas of support needed to improve farming practices indicated that farmers believe they need additional production related support (70 people). In addition, they asked for additional support for acquiring inputs (52) and for marketing their products (44) (Table 11). Strengthening the sector’s systems, as introduced by the projects, is one of the most important indicators for measuring sustainability. The AgriTrade facility has established a model for linking commercial banks to the smallholder farmers, primarily to new borrowers, and has begun to establish the trust and confidence of both borrowers and lenders. The linkages being built among the respective stakeholders in the value chain, from supply of inputs, through access to markets, are in place and sustained by the continuous training provided by the project. Weaknesses continue to exist, however. Conclusion: With more time and financial effort directed to and managed in consultation with farmers, Zim￾AIED will be impactful. This also assumes that the agro-dealers will continue to serve the small farmers, a critical issue, as the agro-dealer link is the weakest point of the chain, due to institutional weaknesses, including limited and sustained access to working capital and limited demand from the local market. Financial stability also assumes that financing will be available and that banking institutions will be strengthened. HWA shows weak sustainability in many aspects of the project. While the farmers collecting the fruit have marginally increased their household income and report improved food security as a result, their livelihood from this endeavor depends solely upon one buyer. Land O’ Lakes farmers have increased their incomes as a result of increased milk production, compared with their incomes and yields measured at the outset of the project.69 However, beneficiary farmer yields increased more or less in line with non-beneficiary farmer, based on measures of the national output. Farmers’ sustainability appears to depend upon the individual farmer’s endowment. Further, many challenges remain to be addressed, such as renovation of additional milk collection centers which were not completed under the project, broader implementation of the solutions for transporting the milk from the farmers to the centers, upgrading the quality of cows available through the program, improving the training/knowledge of the paravets, monitoring the insurance program so that the farmer is paid upon the death of an insured animal. The project has closed and only five centers will be supported for a year under the Zim-AIED project. 69 The evaluators did not locate any LOL studies that indicated a baseline study had been undertaken with a control group of dairy farmers (who did not participate in the program) against which one could compare the beneficiary farmers to determine the impact of the project on farmer yields. Table 11: Recommendations for Continued/Future Support Area of Support Needed by Farmers Number of Responses* Production Related 70 Inputs 52 Marketing 44 Irrigation Related Support 37 Finance Related Support 28 Processing 8 *The complete list of answers offered by beneficiaries is found in Annex G: Qualitative Responses from Household Survey Questions, Question 61. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 49 ACP has conducted many studies of the market needs and constraints to inform policy, has created linkages among stakeholders in the sector, and provided training for association leaders and managers to effectively lobby on behalf of their constituents and to improve the services they provide to their members. While the associations are expected to carry forward the work done under Zim-ACP, at the present, few of the associations have the revenue base to continue either activity on their own or support a Secretariat such as the role that Zim-ACP fills currently. Alternate financing would be needed to support such an umbrella organization. Further, successful advocacy work remains dependent upon the continued willingness of the GoZ to participate fully in the dialogue. Conclusion: Given that beneficiaries have received a package of training, inputs and market linkages, most will be able to continue. However, the farmers need support from outside for updating of farming practices and inputs, with the exception of the contract farmers who may receive updates from the buyers. Few institutions being groomed have shown the capacity to provide this support to farmers after the project ends. Zim-ACP has supported commodity associations to provide services to their members and they may continue to update members with the latest information but the resources available to these associations for these kind of services after the project end is questionable. What is clear is that the projects are winding down before farmers can walk alone. 50 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 51 CHAPTER THREE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OVERALL PERFORMANCE USAID began the project at a time of severe economic crisis in the country with grave challenges in the agricultural sector. Particularly vulnerable were the undertrained smallholder farmers. USAID effectively identified immediate interventions for the country context at the time. Phase I activities addressing immediate systemic constraints were appropriate for country conditions in 2009-2011; Phase II used the experience from Phase I partners and carried successful programs forward. The transition between the two phases was well managed, with Phase I lessons learned, successes and findings being considered in the design of Phase II programs. The Mission agricultural strategy (CDCS and DO2 POD) and approaches that emerged were well aligned to address the agriculture growth and food security challenges. The key expected outcomes of the projects - improving the ability of vulnerable households to meet food needs, expanding staple food and cash crop production, increasing incomes, generating rural employment, improving access to markets and increasing access to credit were achieved. The Mission’s strategy and approach are well aligned with the Agency’s FTF Initiative’s strategies and goals of reducing hunger and improving nutrition. All programs have achieved or nearly achieved their targets. There has been significant traction in establishing systems (production, market linkages, credit, enabling environment), however, none are fully sustainable and will need continued support for several more years. The portfolio is innovative because it is introducing changes in systems and mindsets about the agricultural sector at multiple levels: farmers, bankers, association leaders, government and private sector players, and policy makers. The lessons learned can be useful beyond these projects when the sector normalizes. APPROPRIATENESS OF PORTFOLIO DESIGN The mix of portfolio activities was and remains appropriate to address the two major challenges the agricultural sector continues to confront — creating an enabling environment and improving productivity — given the current policies of the GOZ. Existing projects as a whole address all the issues in agricultural growth; nutrition in food security and resilience are addressed by Title II activities, although resilience is improved through many aspects of the EG program. Policy reform, market efficiency, and business development are essential components of FTF and are included in the strategy and project activities. The strategy documents discuss targeted communities, commodities, and vulnerable communities. Current EG projects, designed prior to the CDCS and PAD, are not focused geographically nor by crops (staple and cash crops). Project documents do not adequately address why and how these are selected and how they will contribute to food security. Intended geographic coverage is not clear in the project documents, whereas the USAID documents, especially the PAD, emphasize geographic target areas. 52 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Critical Assumptions Three critical assumptions were reviewed for their effect on the project; the analysis follows the assumption. (1) The national elections would result in a change of leadership and allow for changes in the project design. With the elections results, short term national planning in agriculture is expected to continue on the same course. (2) The inability to work directly with the GOZ would introduce constraints. The political environment remained tense and the lack of trust among key stakeholders caused project start-up delays, postponing implementation. As implementation progressed, stakeholder engagement increased and their engagement has contributed significantly to achieving results. (3) Funding for the EG Programs would remain constant or increase. Funding for the EG program was reduced by 45% in FY 2013. Programs are not likely to be fully funded which has implications for focusing activities ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED OBJECTIVES Improved Household Food Security The project is meeting the DO2 food security objective for recipients of project assistance as project activities are contributing to increased food security for beneficiaries. While it was not possible to determine with precision the degree to which food insecurity has declined in the sampled households (due to lack of baseline data), the findings indicate that food insecurity in project areas has decreased as a result of project activities and that a majority of the participants are considerably less vulnerable to hunger. Twenty percent of the beneficiaries remain subject to food insecurity. Participants in the project’s targeted areas are less vulnerable to food insecurity as a result of the projects. Most of the beneficiaries perceive that their food security situation and household nutrition have improved due to project support. Project studies, HWA’s baseline and mid-term evaluation being an example, have shown improved food security within their project population. Production has increased, households’ income has increased, and families have access to food. The current agricultural portfolio projects are not actively promoting nutrition in the community nor was the evaluation tasked to look at the Health Office portfolio to assess nutrition activities in targeted areas. Increased Productivity and Production, Income and Employment Significant increases in productivity, volume and value of marketed surplus were revealed, based on comparisons from the baseline to present. The project stakeholders and beneficiaries corroborated these statistics from their experiences, showing some variance by project. Two factors were identified as playing a decisive role in increasing productivity and production: training and capacity building, introduced by all implementing partners in all aspects of the value chain, and introduction of new ideas and technologies that were adopted by the farmers. Farmers are generating higher incomes than at the start of the project and they are investing in both productive assets, such as farm equipment, and social assets, with school fees commanding highest priority. Impact of Capacity Building and Training Given the inexperience of the smallholder farmers and their need for basic and updated agricultural knowledge, capacity building and training was one of the most successful achievements of all the interventions. Training was incorporated into nearly all the Phase I and Phase II activities and projects. Practical training, through approaches such as Zim-AIED’s demonstration plots and lead farmers, and Zim￾ACP’s capacity building work with farmers’ associations, was instrumental in changing farmers’ behavior and attitudes towards farming as a business. Training of non-farm actors throughout the value chains is a success, USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 53 at the individual, association, to the national level. “Farming as a Business” was a fundamental concept taught in all projects, overcoming the donor dependency attitude that had arisen. In Phase II, a large portion of the training was provided by a private institution, Sustainable Agricultural Technology (SAT) as part of a subcontract under Zim-AIED. However, the training was not supported systemically by a GoZ institution. In order to ensure training programs are sustained when the project ends, ZIM-AIED should ensure that all the training modules are properly documented and archived with USAID in order to facilitate moving the training to local institutions. Implementation Gaps Gaps in implementation were present. Inputs were late from actors supported by the project (agro dealers as well as project implementers), some sub-partners’ participation was uneven, and support service providers were relatively inexperienced. Specific issues were identified by project. Many investments, particularly the banana plantations, for example, were not insured against loss. In the dairy project, support for the dairy farmers was uneven, with some farmers reporting excellent service and others reporting problems with the quality of the cows. Further, the insurance program was weak, as companies did not pay the farmers when livestock died. Focus group respondents identified sub-partners who continue to be weak, such as agrodealers who did not continue serving smallholder farmers after they received project loans from banks. The partners are critical to sustainability which is highly dependent on the selection of partners who can deliver the services to which they have committed. Agritex extension workers, including para-vets, who are part of the government’s service delivery system for farmers and partners, were relatively inexperienced in real-world farming operations. Zim-AIED provided well-experienced extension workers who were positive partners with the Agritex extension agents at the local level. Their cooperation was based on relationships built by IPs, not through a formal institutional relationship with the GOZ. Impact on Women Beneficiaries Women have been consciously incorporated into and are deriving real benefits from the project. All interventions introduced activities to tackle the gender issues. Projects monitoring and evaluation systems tracked results disaggregated by men and women, although some data collection began in later years of projects and some gender indicator data is missing for current projects. Women have participated nearly equally in the training, increased their incomes, and have access to productive assets. Social relationships in the family and the community are changing as women have gained economic power. Women continue to face serious barriers to access credit. The loan disbursement rate for Zim-AIED’s AgriTrade credit facility is low, with a small percentage (31%) of loans going to women. The beneficiaries presented the same concern. The value of the loans, disaggregated by men and women, reveals that 14% of the value of the loans is disbursed to women. As documented in previous crises, opportunities for change and breaking with traditional behavior are often created in situations of turmoil. During this period of economic crisis in Zimbabwe, women were often the principal farmers and they may have been able to avail themselves of opportunities provided by the projects in ways not possible previously. With the conscious attention paid by USAID/Zimbabwe in putting the agency’s gender policy into practice, women in Zimbabwe have made significant gains and realized significant benefits from project interventions. 54 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Effective Enabling Environment and Policy Reform Zim-ACP’s capacity building work on policy reform, market efficiency, and business services through farmers’ representative association. Zim-ACP’s Component 1- for farmer associations to advocate on behalf of the sector to government - is performing well. The objective to support national and regional associations to become skilled in advocating for policy reforms is being met. The agribusiness associations and farmers’ unions have successfully analysed and prepared draft legislation.  Five new laws were passed and implementation has begun. The impact of the new legislation should begin to appear in 2014.  Twenty draft legislation/decrees have been presented for consideration and 35 were presented for public/stakeholder consultation. Government is increasingly more interested in learning what the association are working on and discussing, although the project still does not directly work with GoZ. Components 2 (increasing efficiencies in agricultural markets) and 3 (enhancing the capacity of business service providers to deliver quality trainings) are lagging. Farmers’ associations face challenges in attracting critical membership numbers and smaller associations that depend on one or two leaders are organizationally vulnerable. Most of the market infrastructure and institutions are in the public domain and the current US policy does not allow Zim-ACP to work directly with them. Component 3 was integrated into Components 1 and 2 and is no longer a separate component. The activities of Components 2 and 3 were still being carried out at the time of the evaluation and it may be too early to judge their outcomes and impacts. The groundwork laid by the project to date is likely to lead to accelerated progress towards achievement of targets. Agricultural Production Systems and Market Linkages Significant progress was made to reestablish fundamental trust among the actors and repair broken systems: access to basic agricultural inputs, production, market linkages for sales, credit, enabling environment. Although they are not yet fully independent of the projects nor fully sustainable, specific groups of farmers and commodity groups (banana and specialty crops, restored tea plantations, and reconstructed irrigation systems) are showing potential for sustainability. Some commercial banks have started lending to the agriculture sector (traders, processors and exporters and farmers) through activities sponsored by the project. Borrowers and lenders are building experience, transactions and relationships. The elements of cost share, training, and technical assistance were particularly important for Zimbabwe since there was no longer a connection between the farmers and commercial enterprises. They needed to rebuild the trust between agri-business and farmers. By working with commercial enterprises (the standard Fintrac approach), activities are more likely to carry on past the project end date. The cost share component of the activity is the most significant factor in assuring sustainability after Fintrac leaves. Access to financing has reached a relatively small number of individual farmers indicating the project has not yet provided sufficient support in this area. Nevertheless, compared with the availability of credit for smallholder farmers at the outset of the project, progress is being made. Two major structural challenges confront AgriTrade. While the project has addressed these issues, as noted above, the supply of appropriately structured credit can be limited for smallholder agriculture from Zimbabwe’s financial and commercial banking institutions and banks lack complete information to assess creditworthiness of nontraditional borrowers USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 55 Coordination While ad hoc opportunities arose for collaboration among the project’s implementers, few mechanisms for planned coordination were observed beyond the periodic meetings convened by USAID. The coordination that has happened is on studies and workshops but not on delivery of support to farmers or beneficiaries. Coordination is key to achieving DO2 and increasing efficiencies in a resource constrained environment. USAID/Zimbabwe has addressed the explicit need to coordinate activities of the two portfolios in its CDCS by identifying the two programs as contributors to achieving the results of DO 2. RECOMMENDATIONS APPROPRIATE PORTFOLIO DESIGN  Given reduced funding, USAID will need to reconsider the focus of the current portfolio to determine which innovations can be moved forward.  The team recognizes that the programs were designed before the CDCS and DO2 PAD were finalized and prior to FTF. Hence gaps exist between the portfolio and the FTF guidance. The Mission can either realign or add components to the existing projects if applicable, or design new projects to minimize the operational gaps. ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED OBJECTIVES  Farmers need support from outside for updating of farming practices and inputs, with the exception of the contract farmers who may receive updates from the buyers. Few institutions being groomed have shown the capacity to provide this support to farmers after the project ends.  Sustainability of the training is critical to continuing to upgrade the systems and the farmers but depends upon identifying institution(s) to continuously provide the training, be they government extension services, or other committed institutions. First, capture and catalog the training courses conducted by the Implementing Partners.  Begin to build institutional support outside the projects and coordinate with Zimbabwean organizations to continue the training. While the national agricultural extension system would be the best institutional base, given the USG policy restrictions, commodity associations, farmers’ unions, and extension worker training institutions can play a role in continuing the training. Farmers’ organizations, especially the unions, should be encouraged to provide extension services to their members.  Consider including other players to support these training activities, such as Agricultural Finance Houses that can build some of the courses (Farming as a Business, Record Keeping) into their support package for farmers. Make it a requirement for first time borrowers to go through the training modules.  All the recommendations on training require an overhaul of the extension system - move it away from extension for subsistence needs towards extension for commercial goals. ZIM-ACP can facilitate this paradigm shift.  Encourage more collaboration among projects on technically proven approaches to engage households, such as tools developed in home gardening, food fortification, farming as a business training, and commodity selection, creating a core set of approaches that are appropriate for both programs and specialized techniques.  Assess the selection process to identify sub-partners and tighten the selection of sub-partners to avoid short changing the farmers. Some local partners or actors supported by project to provide inputs and services have not meet the expectation. 56 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Continue to improve the capacity of local organizations. While institutional training was provided, some institutions continue to be fragile and need additional support. They ultimately determine the long-term sustainability of interventions.  Include farmers in development and design of activities at the local level, not only in farming practices, but also in seeking their advice on service providers. This increases trust among the parties and increases sustainability by sharing ownership.  Potential activities that could be scaled up are Zim-AIED’s model of value chain approach and the market linkage approach in high value cash crops, such as banana and paprika. POLICY REFORM  To increase effectiveness, there is need for maximum cooperation with government. Successful advocacy work remains dependent upon the continued willingness of the GoZ to participate fully in the dialogue.  Alternate financing will be needed to support a secretariat or umbrella organization to carry on the work of Zim-ACP. The farmer associations are expected to carry forward the work done under Zim-ACP. However, few have the revenue base to continue activities on their own or support a secretariat to carry on the role that Zim-ACP fills currently.  Information, training and other services should be provided through these associations on a fee basis and the type of services available from the associations could be broadened to make them active and sustainable. Zim-ACP should transition the associations to this process and bring them to a stage where these associations continue to do at least the basic minimum analysis. ACCESS TO FINANCING  Continue work to increase access to financing for women. For Agritrade, given the low uptake of loans by women beneficiaries, the program can consider a special loan facility for women beneficiaries.  Consider an insurance component for farmers’ investments, to ensure that when farmers pay for insurance coverage, the companies honor the contracts. A local company (Econet) has introduced Ecofarmer which has an insurance component for maize production. USAID could consider engaging Ecofarmer and other players, to create suitable tailor-made products to suit the farmers and value chains they are supporting. COORDINATION  Given that USAID/Zimbabwe’s resources have been diminishing, the program should consider strategies to increase the overall impact of the portfolio through increased coordination and collaboration among USAID offices.  Achieving DO2 would be easier if there were closer programming integration between the Humanitarian Assistance Office and Economic Growth Office.  The discussions already underway to discuss how best to develop synergies and complementarities between the two programs should continue between the EG and HA offices. A common thread clearly exists between the approach of targeting HA resources and the market-led, value chain-based approach of EG agricultural growth activities. Ample opportunities exist to complement and supplement each other’s efforts and share best practices, technical knowhow, relationships and build on success.  Consider increased geographic targeting to continue the type of collaboration undertaken in the PRIZE program. In terms of geographic collaboration, both programs could work in the same geographic location where EG programs involve the vulnerable yet viable households and HA programs engage the most vulnerable ones. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 57  The Economic Growth Office should also consider increased coordination among the partners, i.e. between the major EG programs, Zim-ACP and Zim-AIED, and potentially HWA and HA partners. The programs are complementary to each other and should work together.  As part of the increased coordination, the offices should consider discussing the value of focusing on fewer partners and in fewer value chains in order to work more deeply, as opposed to working broadly. Having a geographic and commodity focus will allow the Mission to provide more FTF-related interventions and also provide more needed support to actors in a commodity value chain that will better strengthen the selected value chain.  USAID should initiate and lead the partner coordination by creating a stronger forum/platform for implementing partners to share experiences and integrate programs. One strategy that has been successful for similar programs is to have periodic food security implementing partner meetings to share progress and identify and plan activities with each other to realize synergies needed to integrate projects in a geographic region POLICY AND ENABLING ENVIRONMENT ZIM-ACP  Attention should be given to ensure smallholder issues are considered in the policy process. Policy issues are being advocated by the associations at the national level, with members from regional associations contributing as well. This is just a caution note that care should be taken to include small holders issues as most of the association office holders are generally larger and influential farmers and smallholder issues may get neglected in the process if they are not made part of it.  Zim-ACP should collaborate with other agricultural programs to prioritize synergy activities. For example, if Zim-AIED is working with maize and bananas in a certain district, Zim-ACP should include the representative organization of those commodities from that district in their capacity-building activities and facilitate their representation in policy dialogues. 58 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 59 SUCCESS STORIES During the course of the field work, the evaluation team identified several households where significant changes had occurred as a result of the interventions. The work plan noted that the common expectation was that interventions would cause positive changes (positive deviance) or no change, but there was the possibility that an intervention may have caused a negative effect (negative deviance). In fact, no cases of negative deviance (negative changes occurring as a result of participating in the project) were observed. The households presented below were identified during interviews for the household survey and from focus group participants. As an interview unfolded and the family was identified as a potential case, the enumerators would probe for additional details, as well as observe the physical and social environment of the household. Seven stories are included from both Phase I projects (LOL, RSAPZ, STAMP) and Phase Two projects (Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP). 60 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Loans Help Entrepreneurs USAID Agri-trade loan facility helps ensure success of family-owned business. Tariro Maposa and his family own Zebrine Enterprises, which comprises a butchery, pen fattening facility, and a small supermarket at the outskirts of Gwanda, the provincial capital of Matabeleland South in Zimbabwe. Through USAID’s Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development Project, Tariro learned of the Agri￾trade loan facility administered through Micro King and saw an opportunity. Planning to increase his livestock base and grow the butchery business in the process, he applied for a $100,000 loan. Tariro was approved for a $25,000 loan at 18% interest per annum, lower than the 20-25% charged by other banks. Having constructed a large cattle-holding facility, Tariro partnered with the Gwanda Rural District Council to purchase cattle from farmers who have been losing livestock at alarming rates to the droughts that have plagued the region for close to seven years. Typically, these farmers would have sold their cattle at lower prices through the middlemen paying low prices. Though working with only a limited number of farmers so far, Tariro has 78 cattle in the pen fattening facility, slaughters an average of 20 per week, and buys an equal number to replenish his stocks. He is using the profits to construct an abattoir at the pen fattening facility, which is almost complete. Zebrine Enterprises, according to Tariro, showcases the perfect value chain for cattle, from the purchase of cattle at reasonable prices to the sale of beef and by-products. Tairo has only one installment left to pay on his loan and is very grateful to the Agri-trade loan facility. In his words, “my business has grown to an amazing level as a result of [it]” and “if it were not for the loan that I got, I could have not been able to tap on the readily available beef market in the town and I could not have had gotten money to build an abattoir.” Tariro still dreams big. He plans to get a loan for $100,000 in 2014 and is convinced he has the necessary collateral this time. Beyond allowing him and his family to further grow the business, this will mean that more farmers will earn higher profits than if trading through middlemen. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 61 Supporting Banana Plantations Targeted training for cash-crop production raises incomes. Photo Credit: Felix Tete Banana harvest. Mrs. Agnes Phiri switched to growing bananas as a result of USAID financial assistance and training. Since 2010, USAID's Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development Program (Zim-AIED) has been working to increase incomes, employment, and food security for 180,000 rural Zimbabweans. Mrs. Agnes Phiri, who lives in Mutema (a village in the Chipinge District) with her husband and three children, is one of the beneficiaries of Zim-AIED. Working with a private company called Matanuska, Zim-AIED is supporting 238 farmers with a total of 59.5 hectares of banana plantations Zim-AIED trains farmers in cash crop production across all facets of the business (for example planting, fertilization, financial management, input sourcing, irrigation, and grading and packing) and, through Matanuska, provides capital of about $2,800 per farmer at a 0% interest rate over two years. Agnes switched to producing bananas rather than beans when she learned from Zim-AIED that they were a more viable crop because of the soil quality in Mutema as much as the availability of markets. She also adopted better management practices taught by the project, such as record keeping and more focused teamwork. While this was her first time growing bananas, Agnes achieved an average yield above 60t/ha for her first crop, and 70t/ha for her second. She now fills a transport truck with her produce alone. She is also one of the lead farmers charged with providing extension support to fellow farmers. Increased profits from planting bananas allowed Agnes and her family to move out of their simple hut and into a two-room house. They were also able to keep their three children in school. Agnes now plans to extend banana planting to all of her land and is hoping that Zim-AIED will provide additional assistance beyond the 0.25ha it supports per farmer. 62 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID trains farmers and helps create economic opportunities. Assistance Increases Crop Yields The farmer lives with his wife, two sons and one daughter on a 10-hectare farm in Dzingire, a village in the Chimanimani District. He bought the farm in 1990, under the “old resettlement scheme.” He described himself as a Chemical Engineer by profession. After retiring in 2006 he began farming and started growing bananas on a .5ha plot (he now owns 5ha). Running the farm, he said, we are three - my son, wife and myself who are actively running the farm. The others are employed elsewhere in town, but live with us on the farm. The farmer received training from the Smallholder Technology and Access to Markets Program (STAMP) in areas such as banana tissue culture, herbicide usage, fertilizer application, and chemical handling and applications, to list a few. Under STAMP, he also received technical advice on banana production and was taught how to mulch bananas so as to conserve moisture, as well as basin making, crop management, harvesting and handling of the bananas. He also said he had received training from Agritex and ZFU. Project assistance in the form of trainings allowed him to strengthen his banana crop yields. He said that his yield grew from a monthly average yield of .75 tons in 2006 to 3.5 tons in 2010-2013. He was also able to purchase a refrigerated room in Kwekwe (4 tons X 3) at a cost of USD$50,000 where he can store his produce without it going bad. The farmer described a number of shocks that have affected him, his family and his community in the last three years since the project started, including a Joint Venture company which was linked to them as a buyer by STAMP which failed to make payments to them and external factors outside the control of the project, including drastic changes in weather patterns and very low temperatures in 2012 which burnt the bananas. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 63 USAID support helps resuscitate smallholder tea plantations in Zimbabwe Revitalizing Smallholder Tea Plantations Farmer harvesting tea. Photo Credit: Felix Tete USAID funded the Revitalization of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe (RSAPZ) project from October 2010 through June 2012. RSAPZ resuscitated smallholder coffee and tea production in the Honde Valley area of Manicaland, some 300km east of the capital, Harare. The project aimed to increase production, income, and employment of 1,700 smallholder farmers by improving access to inputs, provisioning extension services, reclaiming overgrown tea, developing a revolving credit fund, providing training, and strengthening the producer group. RSAPZ was private-sector driven and followed a value chain development approach which focused on bringing coffee and tea from farm processes to final consumption. Mr. Ashley Munetsi, who lives in Zindi village (Mutasa district), is one of the beneficiaries of the project. He managed to return his long abandoned tea plantation, which he had established in 1960 but abandoned in 2000 due to economic hardship, to a productive, working farm. The support he received included: (i) training on basic tea agronomy, farming as a business, and collective bargaining and organizing, (ii) provision of mechanical tea harvesters, (iii) recovery and pruning exercises, and (iv) transportation assistance for green leaf sales. Most training was delivered using the farmer field school approach, which enabled him to immediately apply what he learned. The project also helped farmers to establish a relationship with the large-scale Eastern Highlands Tea Plantation for the marketing of their green tea. Mr. Munetsi noted that the introduction of mechanical tea harvesting technology has lessened the burden on pregnant women, breastfeeding women, widows, and old women, as they are now able to easily harvest tea by using bush cutters that require less energy. The project’s support has proven useful. Mr. Munetsi doubled his production, and income from tea sales rose nearly threefold compared to prior years. Through improved collective bargaining, the price of harvested tea increased from 6c/kg to 16c/kg. Mr. Munetsi can now meet all his food requirements and support his children. He has managed to renovate and re￾furnish his house. The increased income has also enabled him to diversify into apiculture and banana production. 64 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID teaches evidence-based advocacy Zim-ACP Supports Poultry Producers Association Mr. Enock Mbendani, chairperson of the Manicaland Poultry Producers’ Association (MPPA) started off as a smallholder poultry farmer. After learning about the USAID-funded Zimbabwe Agriculture Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP) at a poultry training course, he spearheaded the formation of the MPPA in May 2012. Since July 2012, Mr. Mbendani and his association have benefited from Zim-ACP’s capacity building activities, including training on farming as a business, leadership and good governance, lobbying and advocacy, gender relations, and marketing and e-trade. With 203 members, of which 65% are women, the association is thriving. Supported by Zim-ACP, MPPA formed Manicaland Poultry Producers (Pvt.) Ltd. (MPP), which incorporated in July 2013. While MPP negotiated an agreement with Surrey Abattoir in Marondera under which farmers are paid $2.15 per kg of live poultry, Mr. Mbendani believes that his members will realize higher prices once MPP finishes building its own abattoir on a 7.2ha parcel of land it purchased in Mutare. The association’s long-term goal is to develop a grower base of at least 100 farmers, producing at least 10,000 birds/week on a five to six-week cycle, in each of Manicaland’s seven districts. Mr. Mbendani cited several impacts of Zim-ACP support in the association’s services to its members. For example, MPPA managed to lobby the government for a 75% share of the local poultry market, as 65% of national chick sales are to smallholder farmers. The association has also been lobbying the government to ban imported GMO chickens which threaten the viability of the Zimbabwean poultry industry. Support from Zim-ACP has also helped MPPA become an active advocate for its members. It is now one of two associations representing smallholder poultry producers in the Zimbabwe Poultry Association Council. In addition, MPPA participated in the SADC Poultry Liaison Forum in December 2013 and facilitated networking with other SADC participants. MPPA has also created market linkages with companies such as Nutrition for Africa (stock-feeds) and Granite Chemicals. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 65 USAID helps increase incomes and improve quality of lives Increased Income Changes Lives Photo Credit: Felix Tete Mr. Manjeni, a dairy farmer from Gokwe Manjeni of Nemangwe 1 in Gokwe has been a beneficiary of the Land O’ Lakes (LOL) project on Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe for nearly two years. Manjeni is a married father of four children. All four are in school: two in high school, one in the sixth grade, and the last in preschool. The project has changed the life and status of Manjeni’s family. The business approach it has brought to the way he manages his dairy and other farm projects has improved his productivity and profitability. Training received from LOL included business planning, pricing and costing, among other courses. Product costing and pricing has helped the family calculate profit before the product is put on the market or sold. They subsequently realized an increased milk yield and income from the sales, which enabled Manjeni to pay school fees and buy school supplies for all his children. Proceeds from the past two years were also invested in a new piggery and broiler poultry endeavor. At the time of the evaluation, Manjeni had two sows – one with a litter of 10, the other was about to give birth. Thanks to his new record-keeping skills, Manjeni can calculate when the piglets will arrive. 100 broilers are raised at a given time. He manages his piggery and broiler stock on a rotational basis. Broilers are bred at the farm and the chicks are ready for sale within six weeks of hatching. Manjeni’s newfound skills in marketing have allowed him to be proactive in identifying markets for his produce; the poultry and pigs are sold at restaurants and butcheries at the Gokwe Business Service Centre. As a result of the project, Manjeni knows when to sell and when to hold his product in response to price fluctuations. He had this to say, “If one sells their produce while they are in the field, the market is flooded, and they get a low price, but if one waits until when the produce is getting scarce, then they fetch a higher price.” The family’s quality of life has improved overall. They built a four-room house with a living room that has standard furniture. They now own two TV sets, a stereo, and audio equipment. Other buildings are constructed with concrete and cement with thatched roofs; Manjeni also built standard cement/concrete pig and poultry housing. 66 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Early USAID initiatives in agriculture financing Early USAID Initiatives Supported Contract Farmers Before the Zim-AIED AgriTrade facility was available, USAID provided agriculture financing to Standard Chartered Bank which, in turn, loaned money to small scale farmers through Northern Farming. Mr. Rinus Petraus Grau of the Agribusiness Division of Standard Chartered Bank said the bank became involved with USAID in 2009, early in USAID’s work in the sector and at a time when the country’s liquidity constraints limited the ability of banks to lend money to the agricultural sector. USAID agreed to support the bank with a 50/50 matching arrangement. The initial fund was $20M, split equally between the bank and USAID. The bank identified five clients who were involved in contract farming with farmers. Some were large￾scale sugarcane producing plantations (Hippo Valley Estates and Triangle Ltd., working with out-grower sugarcane farmers); two (National Foods and Pro-groups, and Northern Farming) were working with small scale growers, though not exclusively. Northern Farming operates an out-grower scheme in the Mashonaland region. The company has worked with Standard Chartered for the past four seasons, providing support for wheat, maize, soya beans and sugar beans. Mr. Lance Kennedy, a Director of privately held Northern Farming, noted that they began with 200 small-scale grower units (a group of farmers, following a group lending scheme) averaging 1.5ha for each farmer, for a total area of 2,000ha. In the last four years, the number of small-scale commercial (SSC) farmers has grown fivefold to 700, covering 10,500ha. Women beneficiaries account for 35-40% of the total beneficiaries. Supply inputs are provisioned by purchase order at 13% interest per annum. Inputs include seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, diesel fuel and a cash allowance for operational costs and are generally less expensive compared to open market prices. Northern Farming also charges a management fee. Large-scale commercial farmers (LSCs) pay 6% of gross output, SSCs pay 2.5%. Their biggest success, he said, was with wheat. The support Northern Farming received enabled farmers to produce 50% of Zimbabwe’s national annual wheat production. For reference, the country produced approximately 12,000 tons in 2009, USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 67 18,000 tons in 2010, 23,000 tons in 2011 and 17,000 tons in 2012 (source: US Department of Agriculture). Each farmer (farm size ranged from 0.5ha – 15ha) received a loan of $500 – $800; inputs received were 20-30% of the total value of the produce. The farmers were only obliged to deliver Northern Farming an amount equal to the value of the inputs (upon harvest), and were allowed to market the remainder as they wished. Through the group lending approach, side marketing was minimal. Repayment statistics indicate that defaults, while low, rose during the first three years, from four percent to 20 percent. The highest defaulters are young male farmers. The group was responsible for following up on defaulters and Northern Farming is moving toward group lending as a way to reduce loan defaults. REPAYMENT STATISTICS Year of Loan Full Repayment (Rate %) Part Repayment (Rate %) No Repayment (Rate %) 1 92 4 4 2 84 6 10 3 70 10 20 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Stanchart was not one of the three Zim-AIED banks invited to work with the Agri-trade facility. However by all accounts, it is a strong bank with deep experience dealing with agriculture financing. Standard Chartered Bank has a high fixed cost component. The bank demands 100% security and is highly geared. The only thing missing was a stronger focus on the smallholder sector, however, their relationship with Northern Farming would have been a good starting point to realign their agribusiness strategy. 68 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 69 ANNEXES 70 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 71 ANNEX A. SCOPE OF WORK 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Overview of Statement of Work This performance evaluation is a portfolio evaluation that will enable USAID/Zimbabwe Economic Growth Office to evaluate whether the portfolio design was appropriate and whether projects have and are achieving the desired results. It will also help inform the remaining implementation of on-going projects and future project design for follow-on activities. B. Development Context Twelve years ago Zimbabwe was considered the breadbasket for Southern Africa. Before the financial and food security crisis of2000-2009, Zimbabwe was the third largest exporter of tobacco in the world, the largest beef exporter in Africa, and a major producer of milk, sugar, fruit and horticultural products. Agriculture was the mainstay of the economy, including the manufacturing sector, given the huge demand for processing of agricultural products. The forward and backward linkages that agriculture had to manufacturing and services were the engines of growth for the economy. Agriculture in 2000 represented 51% of total export earnings; however, this fell to 29% in 2008. Production similarly declined, by 79% between 2002 and 2008. Presently, agriculture directly contributes less than 20% to overall GDP (World Bank, 2009). The steady decline in the agricultural sector has had devastating impact on the country, given that agriculture is the main source of livelihoods for Zimbabweans. From 2000 - 2009, Zimbabwe suffered through a series of economic, political, and social shocks resulting in the loss of livelihoods, increasing poverty, food insecurity, and dislocation of people. The formal economy all but ground to a halt. Gross domestic product fell by a cumulative 40% between 2000 and 2007; it plunged a further 14% in 2008. Inflation is estimated to have peaked at over 300 billion per cent in September of the same year, destroying purchasing power and eliminating Zimbabwe dollar-denominated financial assets and liabilities. The credibility of the Zimbabwe dollar was completely destroyed, causing the markets to reject it as a unit of exchange. Consequently, the Government of Zimbabwe officially moved to a multi-currency regime in early 2009, formally recognizing the market reality. The hyperinflation, resulting financial and food security crisis, and donor responses collectively dealt a terrible blow to the market-oriented agricultural institutions and businesses. Many agricultural enterprises ceased to operate as a result of the lack of liquidity, lack of credit, lack of buyers for inputs, and lack of supply in the market. In addition, a number of international donors, as well as the Government of Zimbabwe, instituted various programs to provide agricultural inputs at highly subsidized prices or at no charge in rural areas which mostly bypassed the agro-dealer network. This further exacerbated the problems experienced by the agro-dealers. It also fostered a mindset within the smallholder farmers that inputs should be provided for free and loans do not need to be repaid. The 2008/2009 crop year saw the country's worst crop failure in history due to economic mismanagement, political violence and uncertainty, lack of access to seeds and fertilizer, and uneven rainfall. As a result, humanitarian agencies provided emergency food assistance to about seven million people at the peak of the hunger season in early 2009. Humanitarian aid organizations and remittances kept Zimbabwe from complete collapse. NGOs augmented- or outright replaced-government health and social services and society thus lost confidence in and respect for once-capable government institutions. Favorably distributed rainfall resulted in better cereal production in 2009/2010. Still, shortages and delays in deliveries of inputs limited the area planted and constrained yields, and estimates indicate that cereal imports of nearly 700,000 MT, including 72 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT about 190,000 MT of international food aid, were needed to meet national requirements for the 2009/2010 consumption year. Full donor re-engagement for development was conditioned upon Zimbabwe's new leadership taking meaningful steps toward a transition to a more stable and enabling environment. That assistance depended on tangible evidence that Zimbabwe's leaders had made progress in meeting the benchmarks collectively prescribed by donors. In the interim period, USAID supported the unity government by providing transitional assistance, which was largely humanitarian in scope. Key policy changes in early 2009 in the Budget Statement and the Monetary Policy Statement had a profoundly positive impact on the economy. They include the legalization of a multi- convertible currency regime, price liberation, a free-floating exchange rate, and the removal of exchange controls. These created an opening for the recovery of Zimbabwean agriculture and agribusiness. However, until resolution of land tenure and compensation is put to rest, Zimbabwean agriculture will continue to be constrained. The agricultural sector has been severely affected by an exodus of entrepreneurs, management and skilled labor due to forced evictions, more favorable opportunities in other countries, and lack of profitability and business incentives. Agricultural input producers, including suppliers of fertilizer, chemicals, and feed, are operating well below capacity because of the collapse of the sector. Also, agricultural output processors are hampered by low availability of inputs because agricultural production levels are so low, making their products less competitive against imports. There are ready markets for many cash crops such as coffee, tea, sugar, cotton, poultry, dairy and horticulture. On the other hand, there is very limited access to finance, poor infrastructure (roads, electricity and water), as well as high transportation and other transaction costs. Information about, and access to, market opportunities for producers is imperfect and limited, and the market for inputs is constrained by lack of capital for farmers and agro-businesses. Against this backdrop, from 2009 to 2011 USAID implemented 11 short-term (18 month) Livelihood Activities which were initially designed to rapidly promote the recovery of the agricultural sector, provide rapid improvements in household income and food security, and test a variety of concepts to determine which were worthy of further investment. Most of those cooperative agreements were given no-cost extensions due to delays in startup and implementation. In addition, the cooperative agreement with Land O’ Lakes for the development of the livestock and dairy sub-sector was further extended and expanded in geographic scope due to the promising nature of that activity. As the economic recovery was starting to take root, USAID began to transition from a focus on short-term recovery to long- term development. In October 2010, two contracts were initiated with Fintrac (Zim-AIED) and Development Alternatives Inc. (Zim-ACP) to take the lessons learned from the Livelihoods programs and, on a broader scale, promote the longer-term development of agricultural income, employment, and the policy and regulatory enabling environment. In addition, these two projects were designed to respond to the Feed the Future Initiative, and address the key issues of food Availability and Access. (Note: the nutrition component is being addressed via programs managed by the Humanitarian Assistance and Population, Health, and Nutrition offices.) These short-term recovery and long-term development activities are described briefly below, and in more detail in Annex A. C. Description of the Portfolio Within the Mission's new Transition Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) the Economic Growth Office (EG) and Humanitarian Assistance Office (HA) share responsibility for Development Objective 2, "Food Security in Target Areas Increased". Intermediate Results for D02 are as follows: USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 73  IR2.1: Enabling environment for food security is improved  IR2.2: Productivity of households and small and medium-sized enterprises in target areas is increased  IR2.3: Resilience of vulnerable households and communities in target areas is increased Intermediate Results 2.1 and 2.2 are primarily programmed by the EG Office and Intermediate Result 2.3 is programmed by the HA office. While the strategy document, development hypothesis, and development objectives are new, the development hypothesis, Development Objective (D02), and the Intermediate Results (IR2.1-2.3) reflect the Mission's working hypotheses and strategy over the past several years; they are implicitly incorporated into much of the Mission's livelihoods and development programming. The Mission's Zim-ACP activity is designed to achieve IR 2.1, while Zim-AIED, along with the various livelihoods activities, is designed to achieve IR2.2. The development hypothesis underpinning all activities related to D02 can be summarized as follows: If access to markets is improved, staple food and cash crop production expanded, rural employment generated, if vulnerable households are better able to meet their food needs, and if poverty is reduced, incomes increased, under-nutrition mitigated, then food security will be increased and Zimbabweans will be less vulnerable. This development hypothesis is based on the Feed the Future (FTF) Results Framework. Additional details can be obtained by reading the Mission's Transition CDCS. A table summarizing key information for each of the EG portfolio activities related to IR 2.1 and 2.2 is included below. See Annex A for more detailed summaries of each of the activities. D. Existing Data A broad range of useful background documents is available for each project included in the scope of this evaluation. In addition, there are several analysis, strategy, and evaluation documents that span the entire portfolio which should be reviewed. It should be noted that a few of these documents are considered Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) and should be treated as such. These include:  Project SOWs,  Annual work plans,  Monitoring and Evaluation Plans,  Quarterly and annual reports.  Feed the Future Implementation Plan -will provide important contextual information and assist in understanding the FTF objectives which were set for the portfolio. It is important to note that Zimbabwe was designated as an FTF Aligned Country only after the livelihood and agricultural development activities were designed and implementation of certain activities had started.  Internal Review of Phase 1 Livelihood Activities - will provide useful background information and an analysis of the performance and effectiveness of the first seven livelihoods grants. (SBU)  Market Assessment  Financial Sector Assessment  Gender Assessment  Political Economy Analysis of the Agriculture and Food Security Sectors in Zimbabwe - will provide useful background information and an analysis of the political factors and nuances affecting the agricultural sector during the implementation period of the relevant agricultural programs. (SBU) 74 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Baseline survey of 1,362 households - completed in 2010/11 for the Zim-AIED project.  ZimVAC study on vulnerable households, as well as other external data related to agricultural production. In March 2013, USAID received approval of a new Transition Country Development Cooperation Strategy; the approved strategy will be extremely useful for development of forward-looking recommendations. In addition, an external evaluation of the PRIZE program was completed in April 2013. The results and final report of that evaluation will be made available to the evaluation team for review. USAID will provide the evaluation team with a package of briefing materials including each of the above listed items. 2. EVALUATION RATIONALE A. Evaluation Purpose USAID's portfolio can be divided into two phases. Phase I is defined as the start-up of USAID agriculture activities in 2009, as a direct response to the establishment of the Government of National Unity; and opportunities that opened up as a result of trade liberalization and dollarization. During this phase, the majority of other donors to the sector remained focused on the delivery of humanitarian assistance and food aid. Phase II is defined by the start-up of USAID's larger, more comprehensive markets, productivity and enabling environment activities, under an FTF strategic framework. The external evaluation will look at the planning, implementation and outcomes from each phase and pay special attention to USAID's and implementing partners' management of the transition from Phase I to Phase II. This external evaluation comes at the mid-point of the Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP projects, near the end point of the Dairy Development Project being implemented by Land O’ Lakes, and after completion of the other Livelihood cooperative agreements. It is a mid-term, comprehensive evaluation of the EG Office's agricultural portfolio. Broadly speaking, the objectives are to assess the appropriateness of the livelihood and development activities to their respective phases of recovery and long-term development, and their effectiveness in achieving FTF and project-level objectives. More specifically, the objectives are to assess (1) whether the overall portfolio design was and remains appropriate given FTF objectives and conditions on the ground; (2) whether USAID and its implementing partners have effectively implemented portfolio activities to achieve intended objectives (recovery of the agricultural sector, improved food security, increased household income, and increased rural employment); (3) whether modifications to the designs and implementation approach of Zim- AIED and Zim-ACP are needed to more effectively achieve the stated FTF and project objectives; and (4) what lessons can be learned from a review and evaluation of USAID's portfolio which should inform the design of future sets of activities in FY2014. B. Audience and Intended Uses The audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Zimbabwe Mission, and specifically the Economic Growth Office; the Africa Bureau; the Bureau for Food Security; and the implementing partners. USAID will use the report to make design changes (as appropriate) and mid-course corrections to its current strategy, and to share lessons learned with key stakeholders and donors. The Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP implementing partners will also learn about their strengths and weaknesses and adjust their projects accordingly. Finally, lessons learned from this evaluation will inform follow-on portfolio activities to be designed in FY 2014/15 for implementation beginning in FY2015. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 75 C. Evaluation Questions The evaluation questions below address key issues of portfolio design, implementation effectiveness, impact, sustainability, and lessons or best practices that are relevant for both the remainder of the two existing projects and the design of future programming. While the questions need to be considered at the level of the individual activity/project, the evaluation should focus at the portfolio level for each of the two phases, as described above, and for the transition period between the two phases. 1. Appropriateness of Portfolio Design: a Were Phase I and Phase II portfolio designs appropriate, given the political and economic conditions that existed in 2008/2009 and 2010? b Given varying levels of coordination and collaboration between USAID development and humanitarian assistance programming, as well as with other donor programs, were/are the mix of Economic Growth activities sufficient and appropriate to meet USAID's objectives? c Which critical assumptions held and which did not for each phase? If some critical assumptions did not hold, which assumptions did not hold, why, and what effect did that have on achievement of project objectives? 2. Achievement of intended objectives under each phase: a To what extent did household food security, household agricultural incomes, and agricultural productivity increase in the targeted geographic zones? b To what extent were women beneficiaries adequately incorporated into and deriving real benefit from interventions? c How well has USAID programming established sustainable agricultural production systems; market linkages between input suppliers, farmers, and buyers; credit financing systems; and an effective policy and regulatory enabling environment? For those Phase 2 development activities which are still under way, how well are they creating the right conditions for long-term sustainability? d How and how well did USAID programming adapt to changing conditions on the ground, addressing challenges and taking advantage of opportunities presented? e What modifications to the design of phase two portfolio activities (Zim-AIED, HWA and Zim￾ACP) are needed to more effectively achieve the stated FTF and long-term sector development objectives? 3. Transition Management: a Was the transition between the recovery phase and the development phase managed effectively by USAID and its implementing partners? To elaborate further, this question includes how well lessons learned during implementation of the livelihoods grants were incorporated into the designs and early implementation activities of Zim-AIED and Zim-ACP. These lessons learned include (but are not limited to) which crops to include, what buyers and other economic actors in the agricultural sector provide appropriate opportunities for collaboration, which communities of smallholder farmers are most ready to seize opportunities provided by the project activities, etc. b USAID assumes that a second transition period (political transition) will evolve during FY2013 (following the next election cycle). For example, if the elections lead to a more democratic and transparent regime, the second transition may be characterized by relaxed USG policy restrictions and an increase in funding for programming focused on creation of employment opportunities, primarily in the agricultural sector. What key activity/programming components should USAID 76 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT consider and what elements of the phase II portfolio should be strengthened to ensure that the next transition period is effectively managed? 3. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A. Evaluation Design and Data Collection Methods The contractor shall recommend in its proposal the most appropriate evaluation design and methodology based upon the goals and questions of the evaluation. The contractor is expected to complete the evaluation using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analytical methods. Evaluation methods should use sex-disaggregated data and incorporate attention to gender relations in areas such as the participation of women in leadership roles in commodity associations, farmers' unions, irrigation management committees, and other relevant associations or groups, as well as household decision making and control of resources. The contractor should work with the program CORs and AORs to ensure that the methods and the final report are consistent with USAID's Evaluation Policy and the USAID Forward Quality Evaluation criteria (See Section F.4 Reports and Deliverables). As indicated above, the contractor is expected to propose the most appropriate evaluation and data collection methods based upon the stated objectives and questions of the evaluation. However, at a minimum, the following data collection methods are expected to be utilized by the evaluation team:  Review of project baseline survey data (where it exists), PMPs, quarterly and annual reports, M&E databases, Political Economy Analysis of the Agriculture and Food Security Sectors in Zimbabwe, Internal Review of Phase I Livelihood Grants, and any other relevant reports.  Structured interviews of key project technical and administrative staff, at least 20 private-sector partner staff, and at least 6 other donors (i.e., UKAID/DFID, the European Commission, Germany's GIZ, AusAID, the World Bank, the FAO, etc.).  Focus group discussions with at least 300 farmer beneficiaries from at least 30 sites to ensure demographic, geographic, and crop diversity, and representativeness of the sample across the total population of beneficiaries. In addition, the contractor will ensure that women beneficiaries are well￾represented in the sample to gauge the effectiveness of the program in achieving greater gender parity.  Data collected from secondary sources (e.g., national and provincial agricultural statistics, income and poverty statistics, etc.) B. Data Analysis Methods The Contractor is responsible for determining the most appropriate data analysis methods given the selected evaluation methodology and the goals and questions of the evaluation. While qualitative data from interviews and focus groups may form a significant portion of the evaluation team's observations, it is expected that, wherever possible, quantitative data will be used to substantiate the qualitative data and support conclusions and recommendations. The proposal should clearly describe the methodology that will be used by the implementing partner, and the rationale for that methodology. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES The following are deliverables required of the Contractor under this Task Order:  Initial meeting of COR, USAID/EG technical staff, and USAID/Program Office staff with Evaluation Team Leader and Senior Agriculture Analyst/Agricultural Economist. At the initial meeting, USAID will USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 77 provide the evaluation team with a packet of briefing materials. In addition, logistical details such as number and location of interviews, interview and meeting scheduling, etc. will be discussed.  Project Plan (due five business days after the initial meeting). The team will provide to USAID/Zimbabwe's EG and Program Offices a Project Plan which will include a detailed work plan, a projected timeline, a detailed description of the evaluation methodology and data collection and analysis methods which will be used (including draft interview questions and data collection tools). This Project Plan will be reviewed and approved by the COR within 5 business days.  Briefings (two weeks and four weeks after the Initial Meeting). The Evaluation Team Leader will meet with the COR and representatives from the EG and Program Offices to provide an update on status, key issues affecting project implementation, and any initial findings/tentative conclusions. In addition, the team will provide to the COR weekly email updates on status and key issues in the alternating weeks between the semi-monthly briefings.  Presentation (due within six weeks after the Initial Meeting). The evaluation team will make a PowerPoint presentation of preliminary findings and conclusions to USAID/Zimbabwe and key stakeholders on the main findings of the evaluation.  Draft Report (due five business days after the Presentation). The contractor will submit a draft written report in English within five days of the Presentation. The report should clearly describe findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and should incorporate comments and questions raised during the Presentation. An electronic version of the report will be provided to the COR for dissemination among relevant Mission staff for review and comment. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within two weeks of submission.  Submission of all raw and processed data, which becomes the property of USAID/Zimbabwe.  Final Report (due within five working days after receiving written comments from USAID). The team will submit a Final Report in English that incorporates all Mission comments and feedback. The format will include an executive summary, table of contents, methodology, findings, and recommendations. See below for an outline of the final report.  Both an electronic version and five copies of a written version will be provided to the COR for dissemination among relevant Mission staff and stakeholders. The evaluation team leader shall submit one electronic copy of the Final Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse at http://dec.usaid.gov or M/CIOIKM, RRB MOl, USAID, Washington, DC 20523 after final approval. The Final Report will have the following contents:  Table of Contents (1 page);  Executive Summary – concisely state the most salient findings and recommendations (2 pages);  Introduction – Purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 page);  Background – Brief overview of development context and problem, USAID strategy and activities implemented in response to the problem (agricultural development and livelihoods program in Zimbabwe), purpose of the evaluation (2-3 pages);  Methodology – Describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1 page);  Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations – For each objective area (17-20 pages);  Issues – Provide a list of key technical and/or administrative issues, if any (1-2 pages);  Success Stories – Individual success stories which illustrate how USAID project activities have improved household food security, increased incomes or created employment. 78 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  Annexes – Document the evaluation methods; schedules; bibliography of documents reviewed; list of meetings, interviews and focus group discussions, and SOW - all materials should be succinct, relevant and readable. 5. TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will include one expatriate consultant Team Leader, a Senior M&E Specialist, a Zimbabwean Senior Agricultural Analyst /Agricultural Economist, and additional local interviewers and support staff as required by the methodology and scope of work. Requirements for key personnel are indicated below. For each position below, none of the personnel should have previously worked as an employee or contractor for the specific USAID projects included in the scope of the evaluation. Expatriate Position - Team Leader Qualifications should include:  A minimum of a Master's Degree in agriculture, economics, international relations, monitoring and evaluation, or related field.  Ten years of professional experience in implementing and/or monitoring and evaluating agricultural, food security and/or rural development programs in developing countries, particularly in Africa.  Minimum of five years professional experience as a Team Leader of development projects.  Strong background in social and cultural issues affecting rural development, including gender.  Demonstrated written communication skills, especially in drafting evaluations, assessments and reports, is required.  Prior experience on USAID activities or evaluations strongly preferred.  Familiarity with USAID Evaluation Policy and high quality evaluation standards and requirements. The Team Leader will provide overall leadership for the team and be the principal liaison with USAID. S/he will develop the work plan and budget, coordinate activities, arrange and lead periodic meetings, consolidate individual input from team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendations into a high-quality document. S/he will write the final report in concert with the Senior M&E Specialist. S/he will also lead the preparation and presentation of the key evaluation findings and recommendations to the USAID/Zimbabwe team and other stakeholders. Expatriate Position - Senior M&E Specialist Qualifications should include:  A minimum of a Master's Degree in monitoring and evaluation, research methodology, or related field.  Ten years of professional experience in implementing, monitoring and evaluating development programs in developing countries, particularly in Africa - preferably with experience on USAID economic growth evaluations related to agricultural development projects.  Strong background in social and cultural issues affecting rural development, including gender.  Strong qualitative and quantitative analysis skills.  Demonstrated written communication skills, especially in drafting evaluations, assessments and reports, is required.  Prior experience on USAID activities or evaluations strongly preferred.  Familiarity with USAID Evaluation Policy and high quality evaluation standards and requirements. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 79 The Senior M&E Specialist will provide technical leadership for the team in areas of evaluation design, statistics, survey design, analysis of results, etc. He/She will finalize the evaluation design, coordinate evaluation activities, and assist with assembling the final findings and recommendations into a high-quality document. S/he will assist the Team Leader in writing the final report. Zimbabwean Specialist - Senior Agriculture Analyst/Agricultural Economist  Qualifications should include:  A minimum of a Master's Degree in agricultural economics, agribusiness, or related agricultural field.  At least ten years' experience in Africa developing, managing, and/or evaluating agricultural value chain projects.  Knowledge of the social and cultural factors in agricultural development projects.  Extensive experience managing agriculture sector programs through donor or NGO-funded activities.  Experience designing and implementing a wide range of evaluation tools in developing countries.  Knowledge of, and experience with, gender issues in a developmental context.  Prior experience on USAID activities or evaluations preferred.  Fluency in English is required. Zimbabwean Specialists - Four Focus Group Facilitators Qualifications should include:  A minimum of a Bachelor's Degree, preferably in marketing or communications  At least five years' experience in consumer market research or related fields.  At least two years' experience in facilitating focus groups, conducting interviews, etc. Individuals should be highly skilled in interviewing subjects from a lower socio economic background and drawing out information.  Knowledge of the social and cultural factors in agricultural development projects.  Prior experience on USAID activities or evaluations preferred.  Fluency in English and Shona and/or Ndebele required. Zimbabwean Specialist - One Interviewer (Key Informant Interviews) Qualifications should include:  A minimum of a Bachelor's Degree, preferably in communications, sociology or marketing.  At least five years' experience in consumer market research or related fields.  At least two years' experience in facilitating focus groups, conducting interviews, etc. Individuals should be highly skilled in interviewing subjects drawing out information.  Knowledge of the social and cultural factors in agricultural development projects.  Prior experience on USAID activities or evaluations preferred.  Fluency in English and Shona and/or Ndebele required. 80 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 6.EVALUATION MANAGEMENT A. Logistics USAID/Zimbabwe will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify and provide copies of key documents, and assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of the evaluation, and advising USAID/Zimbabwe prior to each of those meetings. Implementing partners will assist the evaluation team in arranging meetings with beneficiaries. The evaluation team is also responsible for arranging vehicle rental and drivers as needed for site visits within Zimbabwe; for procuring its own office space, internet access, printing, and photocopying; and to arrange and make their own payments for travel, office and other supplies. 7. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OFTHE EVALUATION REPORT  The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not, and why.  Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.  The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical officer.  Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail, and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.  Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.  Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).  Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people's opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.  Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.  Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.  Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 81 ANNEX B. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation employed a design that included a mix of methods to collect the secondary and primary data for the evaluation, including a desk review of secondary literature, a mini-household survey, focus groups, key informant interviews, case studies/success stories/positive deviance, and observation. They were implemented in five distinct phases: (i) preparation that included in-depth desk review of project documents and initial meetings with USAID and key stakeholders; (ii) finalization of the detailed evaluation design and plan, and logistics after the inception meeting; (iii) fieldwork that included focus group discussions, key informant interviews, mini-surveys, positive (and negative) deviance inquiry, and observations; (iv) synthesis, analysis and preparation of the draft report; and (v) final report submission. It is envisaged that the results of this evaluation will provide USAID/Zimbabwe and its partners with information and recommendations that will be valuable to the remaining implementation of ongoing projects, and the future project design of follow-on activities. These five evaluation methods were implemented simultaneously; results are consolidated into the final report. The evaluation approach was based on the scope of work, approved task order and the dTS technical proposal, and was also in line with the USAID Evaluation Policy (January 2011, Section 4) which stipulates that, ‘Given the nature of development activities, both qualitative and quantitative methods yield valuable findings, and a combination of both often is optimal...’ The different evaluation tools allowed stronger triangulation to increase the reliability and credibility of findings. The tools were designed to capture the varied nature of interventions being implemented. The evaluation team conducted a desk review of a large set of documents from USAID/Zimbabwe, including the USAID/Zimbabwe Transitional Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2013-15 and the DO2 PAD. The team members also reviewed documents from Phase I and Phase II implementing partners, including baseline reports, evaluation reports, annual and quarterly reports and work plans related to their livelihood activities. The team also read a number of specific studies carried out by the projects themselves. Additional information was reviewed from World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and other international sources. 82 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Annex Figure 1: The dTS Evaluation Team at Work USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 83 EVALUATION METHODS Roles and Responsibilities of the Research Team. To facilitate collecting the information from the field through implementing partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries, the evaluation fielded two sub-teams. Initially, the evaluation plan called for one team to cover the entire country. However, after the inception meeting and learning about the breadth of the project by reading the various documents from IPs, the team determined that it was imperative to field two sub teams so as to allow covering the geographic spread within the planned field work time frame. Sub-team A, which covered interventions in Manicaland, Masvingo and Mashonaland East Provinces, was led by Agricultural Economist, Dr. Lighton Dube, who was assisted by one facilitator and one Key Informant Interviewer. Sub-team B, covering interventions implemented in Midlands, Matabeleland North and South Provinces, was led by experienced Senior M&E Specialist, Mr. Felix Kambombonda Tete, who was assisted by two facilitators and one Key Informant Interviewer. The facilitators and interviewers were assigned to sub￾teams based on their familiarity with the locations where the teams worked, and also on their proficiency in the local dialect. The two sub-teams were supported by Team Leader, Ms. Janet Kerley. Ms. Kerley is an experienced evaluator who has conducted research and evaluation in several African countries. She participated in four days of field work with each sub-team before returning to Harare to interview implementing partners and other stakeholders. Ms. Kerley was in constant daily contact with field teams via email, telephone and text messages. Further support was received from the dTS US Home Office Project Management Team, composed of senior evaluator/project director, Paula Bilinsky; program manager, Immanuel Wolff; and Senior Feed the Future Expert, Surendra Bhatta. The Home Office team participated in document review and evaluation plan design. Ms. Grace Mahachi provided logistical and data management support in Harare. The evaluation envisaged that Sub-team A would cover 14 wards, while Sub-team B covered 15. The leader of sub-Team A moderated FGDs with one facilitator responsible for note taking. One Key Informant Interviewer was responsible for implementing KIIs. All three team members in Sub-team A were responsible for administering the mini-survey to non-focus group participants of ongoing projects and to farmers in wards where projects have been closed. The Sub-team B leader moderated FGDs with one facilitator taking notes. The other facilitators were responsible for administering the mini-survey to non-focus group participants of ongoing projects. The sub-team leader also interviewed some key informants, and the FGD note-taking facilitator administered mini-survey questionnaires at times. The Team Leader conducted interviews with implementing partners and stakeholders in Harare prior to conclusion of field work by the sub-teams. Upon completion of the field work, the Agricultural Economist also participated in the interviews with implementing partners, USAID and stakeholders that were conducted by the Team Leader. The Team Leader held two debriefing sessions with the Economic Growth’s Mission Office while field work was occurring. The team participated in the final presentation to the Mission. Field activities were the direct responsibility of the Team Leader; further oversight of evaluation design and quality control was provided by the dTS Home Office Project Management Team. Limitations of the Evaluation Data. Three major challenges arose during implementation which affect the quality of the data and are considered limitations to the data. The first was finding participants from closed projects. Team members had difficulty tracking down and gathering data from past project participants, thereby introducing a positive bias to the evaluation. The second came as a result of a reluctance on the part 84 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT of some provincial and regional officials to speak with the evaluation team. Finally, data collection took place quite close to planting season, which restricted access to farmers. Key Informant Interviews. The evaluation proposed conducting 198 key informant interviews drawn from implementing partners, community leaders, government departments, local authorities, community leaders, farmer organizations and beneficiaries of Agri Trade and Zim-ACP interventions. Key informants were asked to reflect on program interventions they were most directly involved with between 2008 and 2013. Ultimately, the team conducted 113, for reasons outlined in the limitations section, and explained in detail below. In order to facilitate the interviews with key informants, the team designed an interview guide for the different categories of interviewees. The interview guide responded to evaluation questions in the SOW and some of the anticipated outcomes from the evaluation. The guidelines varied by stakeholder. The guideline provided a general framework for the discussions and helped to keep the interviews focused. Information that was generated from these in-depth interviews was consolidated and analyzed by evaluation question. When the evaluation team designed the key informant sample, it was assumed that interventions were known to provincial and district stakeholders. In many cases, district officials were not aware of the projects, causing some intended key informants to be removed from the list, or interviews to be abandoned, Focus Group Discussions. Twenty-eight focus groups were conducted out of the proposed 30. Three women-only FGDs were facilitated. For the remaining FGDs, evaluators achieved an average minimum of 50% female participation. The shortfall in focus groups was experienced for the following reasons: (i) One HWA supported group exercise was cancelled in Gwanda at the request of the implementing partner; (ii) A second group was compromised as a result of challenges in identifying farmers from closed projects supported by CNFA and Technoserve in Matebeleland and Midlands; (iii) Matters were exacerbated by the cancellation of field work in Mashonaland Central Province; and, (iv) State security would not sanction the intended field work for groups supported by Africare, CLUSA and Technoserve. Focus group discussions were guided by a predesigned guide that allowed for digression through probing to following up on critical program information. The guide followed the thematic areas of the research questions in the SOW. Information obtained from the FGDs was consolidated and analyzed by thematic area. Responses from FGDs that related to the same thematic area or addressed similar issues were consolidated by different categories and analyzed for general conclusions. Annex Table 1: Survey Respondents by Marital Status Marital Status Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Single 3.2% 3 Married 76.6% 72 Separated 13.8% 13 Widowed 6.4% 6 Total Number of Completed Surveys 94 Annex Table 2: Survey Respondents by Sex Sex of Beneficiary: Category Response Percent Response Count Male 44.7% 42 Female 55.3% 52 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 85 The team made an attempt to conduct focus groups for both current and closed projects. However, challenges were faced in mobilizing beneficiaries of closed projects to participate in the focus groups. Where focus groups were conducted for closed projects, it was because some of the closed projects had transitioned into the current phase. Staff from closed projects was absent in the field and staff of current projects did not know the beneficiaries nor have the registers for the beneficiaries of these closed projects. The focus groups substantially informed the study’s findings and conclusions. On average, each focus group lasted for an hour as a way of ensuring active participation. Since the exercise was conducted in the rainy season, taking an hour for the exercise meant that farmers’ productive activities suffered less disruption. Mini Household Survey. The targeted number of mini-surveys (household survey) was 100 households; 94 participated. The shortfall was experienced due to reasons articulated above, where: (i) It was difficult to identify farmers who benefited from closed projects; and, (ii) Cancellation of planned HWA field work in Gwanda and activities in Mashonaland Central Province. Households participating in the mini-survey were different from those of focus group discussions, but drawn from the same wards. The quantitative data from this survey is complemented by qualitative data collected in focus groups and key informant interviews This sample was arrived at using Rao sample size software70 . The evaluation team used 150,000 beneficiaries who were supported by Zim-AIED to determine the sample size. On average, the evaluation administered four mini-survey questionnaires per ward. Respondents were randomly selected from the implementing partners’ registers when available. The majority (64%) of the participants in the household survey were from current Phase II projects, with the largest number from current participants in Zim-AIED activities. Some 36% were from four Phase I projects. Due to the difficulty in locating participants in closed projects, participants from other Phase I projects were not included. The one individual listed as Zim-ACP is likely a mistake, as Zim-ACP did not work directly with farmers. Observation. During FGDs and mini-survey administration, the entire team made observations about changes brought about by the interventions at both the household and community level, and their 70 https://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html Annex Table 3: Survey Respondents by District Respondents by District Districts Response Percent Response Count 11 Chimanimani 5.4% 5 65 Umguza 1.1% 1 32 Mutoko 6.5% 6 33 Goromonzi 3.2% 3 12 Chipinge 10.8% 10 13 Mjutare 7.5% 7 14 Mutasa 3.2% 3 15 Nyanga 4.3% 4 21 Gutu 6.5% 6 31 Murewa 9.7% 9 41 Bindura 0.0% 0 42 Guruve 0.0% 0 43 Shamva 0.0% 0 51 Gokwe South 8.6% 8 52 Gweru 5.4% 5 61 Binga 4.3% 4 62 Bulawayo 1.1% 1 63 Hwange 7.5% 7 64 Nkayi 4.3% 4 71 Gwanda 4.3% 4 72 Unmzingwane 6.5% 6 86 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT sustainability. These observations focused on women’s participation and visible improvements. Some were captured on a template form, while others were captured on mini-survey questionnaires. Positive Deviancy Cases/Success Stories. The evaluation documented six positive deviance cases for households that were positively impacted and changed by the interventions. These cases were identified during focus group discussions. Generally, interventions caused positive changes that cannot be considered highly or extremely impactful to households. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE Facilitators and interviewers performed daily preliminary data analysis to ensure data quality. Errors, lack of clarity in responses, or other questions related to data collected were discussed and resolved by the team. Other outstanding questions were addressed by the Team Leader. Data collection forms were checked and stored with the sub-team leader. The Team Leader was in constant communication with both teams to ensure they collected data in an identical fashion. Completed mini-surveys were sent by courier to the Team Leader in Harare for quality control and to capture responses in a Survey Monkey database that was customized by the Home Office support team. Sample (Size, Province, Districts and Wards). Field visits were made to project sites in 16 districts. The evaluation plan envisaged visits to a specified number of districts and wards, with a predetermined number of FGDs and KIIs per site by project, described in Annex Table 4 below. Adjustments required by the limitations previously discussed caused the planned number to differ. The actual number of visits made by districts and wards, and number of FGDs and KIIs conducted is described in Table 5 below. One of the 16 districts (i.e., Mutoko) was not in the initial field plan, but was visited to compensate for the elimination of Guruve, Shamva and Bindura districts. The evaluation design had proposed evaluation visits in 18 districts. Three in Mashonaland Central Province could not be visited as proposed due to reasons highlighted above. Visited districts are located across seven provinces: Manicaland (five districts), Matebeleland North (four districts), Matebeleland South (two districts), Midlands (two districts), Masvingo (one district), and Mashonaland East (two districts). Selection Method: The provinces, districts and wards were randomly selected from a list of all beneficiary wards provided to the evaluation team by the USAID office in Harare. Selected wards cover all interventions that were implemented by the various implementing partners, as well as interventions implemented under the emergency phase, and those currently being implemented under the recovery phase. The principal criterion for selecting locations was representativeness across projects and group. Locations were also selected to maximize efficiencies by visiting areas where multiple livelihood activities and/or projects had been or are currently, operating. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 87 Annex Table 4: Tentative Distribution of Selected Evaluation Wards Planning Schedule Current Implementing Partners & Organizations (FG Discussions, Mini Survey, KIIs) Implementing Partners & Organizations for Closed Projects (Mini Survey, KIIs) Total Wards per district Day District Zim￾AIED Land O’ Lakes Zim-ACP71 HWA ACDI/ VOCA Africare CARE World Vision STAMP CLUSA CNFA CRS IRD Mercy Corps Technoserve Team A 1-2 Mutasa 3 3 Coffee/Tea Associations - - - - 3 Coffee/Tea Associations - - - - - - - 1 3 Nyanga 12 - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - - 1 4-5 Mutare 22 22 MPPA - - - - - - - - - 21 - - 2 6-7 Chimanimani - - - 8 8 - - - 13 - - - 4 - - 3 8-11 Chipinge 3 9 - 3 - - - - 9 - - - 3 - - 2 12 Gutu 25 - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - 1 13-14 Murehwa 11 11 MAPA/DOHA - - - - - - - - - - 11 - 1 15-16 Guruve 12 1 - - - 15 - - - 15 - - - - - 4 Team B 1-2 Gokwe South 12 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - 2 3-4 Gweru 8 - - - - - 8 - - - 8 - - - - 1 5 Bulawayo MABC/KEZI 5-6 Umzingwane 5 5 - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - 1 7-8 Gwanda 1 - - 15 - - - - - - 2 15 - - - 3 9 Nkayi 21 - - - - - - - - - 22 - - - - 2 10-11 Hwange 20 - - 3 - - - - - - 20 - - - - 2 12 Binga - - - 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 13-14 Shamva - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 1 15 Bindura 9 1 Total wards per Intervention 13 7 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 5 1 3 1 1 29 NB: Note that the totals on the right column show totals wards selected in a given district while the totals on the bottom row show the total wards per intervention. There are 29 wards for the 18 districts. Within those 29 wards, 47 different project interventions are covered. The difference is as a result of the overlaps caused by different interventions being implemented in the same ward. For Zim-ACP, although there were only two associations, focus groups will be done with one of those groups. KIIs will also be done with association leadership. KEY: Numbers populated in the cells denote wards in which sampling for the various interventions will be done, while for Zim-ACP the focus will be on farmer organizations (named in the cell) and not wards. Summary Tool Application for Beneficiaries  25 mixed gender Focus Group Discussions each with 10 households per group. In addition 5 special Focus Groups will be done for Female Headed Households (de jure or de facto) alone. This brings to 30 Focus Groups for a total of 300 households currently engaged in interventions.  The Mini Survey for households will cover 100 households. This translates to an average of 4 household interviews per ward.  3 Key Informant Interviews will be done per intervention in the selected 47 intervention wards. The total interviews will be 141. Of these, 10 will be focused specifically on Agritrade beneficiaries.  6 Positive deviance inquiries will be conducted. 71 Only Key Informant Interviews were conducted with representatives of the farmer organizations indicated. 88 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Annex Table 5: Distribution of Actual Evaluation Wards Visited Implemented Schedule Current Implementing Partners & Organizations (FG Discussions, Mini Survey, KIIs) Implementing Partners & Organizations for Closed Projects (Mini Survey, KIIs) Total Wards per district Day District Zim￾AIED Land O’ Lakes Zim-ACP72 HWA ACDI/ VOCA Africare CARE World Vision STAMP CLUSA CNFA CRS IRD Mercy Corps Technoserve Team A 1-2 Mutasa 3 3 (Used Ward 17) Coffee/Tea Associations - - - - 3 Coffee/Tea Associations - - - - - - - 1 3 Nyanga 12 - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - - 1 4-5 Mutare 22 22 (A) MPPA - - - - - - - - - 21 - - 2 6-7 Chimanimani - - - 8 8 (A) - - - 13 (A) - - - 4 (A) - - 3 8-11 Chipinge 3 9 - 3 - - - - 9 - - - 3 (A) - - 2 12 Gutu 25 - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - 1 13-14 Murehwa 11 11 (A) MAPA/DOHA (B) - - - - - - - - - - 11 - 1 15-16 Goromonzi 11 1 Mutoko 25 10 2 Team B 1-2 Gokwe South 12 1 - - - - - - 1 (C) - - - - - 2 3-4 Gweru 8 - - - - - 8 - - - 8 (D) - - - - 1 5 Bulawayo MABC/KEZI 5-6 Umzingwane 5 5 - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - 1 7-8 Gwanda 1 - - 15(E) - - - - - - 2 15 - - - 3 9 Nkayi 21 - - - - - - - - - 22 - - - - 2 10-11 Hwange 20 - - 3 - - - - - - 20 - - - - 2 12 Binga - - - 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 13-14 Shamva - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 1 15 Bindura 9 1 16 Umguza 10 1 Total wards per Intervention 13 7 5 1 2 2 1 3 2 5 1 3 1 1 29 Legend: (A) Failed to identify farmers; (B) Failed to identify respondent; (C) Failed to identify CLUSA contacts; (D) Failed to identify CNFA contacts; (E) There were no active projects in the ward. 72 Only Key Informant Interviews were conducted with representatives of the farmer organizations indicated. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 89 Annex Table 6: Ward Sampling Intensity by IP Name of IP or IO Number of wards covered by IPs’ or IOs’ Intervention Number of wards sampled Name of IP or IO Number of wards covered by IPs’ or IOs’ Intervention Number of wards sampled ACDI/AVOCA 12 Mercy Corps 8 Africare 20 WVI 8 1 CLUSA 57 Technoserve 7 CARE 27 Zim AIED 109 15 CNFA 64 HWA 35 3 CRS 153 Land O’ Lakes 36 5 STAMP 29 1 Zim ACP KIIs for Tree Association & other stakeholders (including farmers’ unions) IRD 26 Total 591 25 wards for the 16 districts Field Procedures. The evaluation team obtained contact details and locations for groups, then randomly selected focus group participants, mini-survey households and key informants, taking into account the need for gender balance. A district and community level protocol to facilitate smooth field work was prepared in advance by the various implementing partners’ field teams. For the mini survey, the procedure was as follows: 1. In instances where the head of the household was present, the interviewer first sought consent from him/her or from a senior member of the family in the event that the head of the household was not present (the senior family member had to be at least 18 years and above) 2. Consent was obtained after the interviewer introduced themselves and the objectives of the interview, data collection methods, and the risks and benefits of the study 3. In all cases, consent was granted. Then, the enumerator(s) asked to interview household members in a private space within the household. 4. Interviews were conducted in the interviewee’s indigenous language of choice. All interviewees were guaranteed confidentiality of the data they shared. The key informant interviewers and facilitators participated in a two-day tool and process orientation training that culminated in a one-day field testing of the tools and skills of the team. The training included how to list Annex Table 7: Percentage of Respondents by Project Phase I Land O’ Lakes 21.0% Stamp 7 IRD 5 World Vision 2 TOTAL 35.7 Phase II Fintrac-Zim-AIED 48% HWA 15 ZIMACP 1 TOTAL 64% 90 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT and identify beneficiaries from group registers; how to obtain consent to conduct an interview; how to conduct interviews and note observations; interviewing techniques; and generating notes for evening discussions. The evaluation team remained professional in all circumstances with high security detail requirements and complied with district protocol requirements. The team respected local cultural and religious practices, which resulted in rescheduling field work that had been planned for weekends. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 91 ANNEX C. EVALUATION TOOLS TOOL 1: MINI SURVEY FOR FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS / NON-FOCUS GROUP FARMERS Introduction for FG Participants: Thank you for taking time to participate in the focus group today. We would like to ask a few additional questions to you in this survey. Would you be willing to answer these additional questions which should take about 20 minutes? Your participation is entirely voluntary and, as in the focus group, all information we will get from you is confidential and in no way will your name be disclosed to anyone or associated with your responses. These additional questions provide another basis for evaluating the performance of the agricultural portfolio. Furthermore your participation will contribute in establishing future interventions that would address concerns of agricultural support at household level. Introduction for Non-FG Farmers: Greetings in local language!!!!! Good morning / afternoon! I am ……………..... & I am working for dTS, who has been contracted by USAID to evaluate the performance of the USAID/Zimbabwe Agricultural Portfolio that USAID funded through …………………… (name of organization) that has been supporting households in your community. Your household has been randomly chosen for this conversation as a beneficiary of this support. Would you allow me to have a conversation for about 20 minutes with the beneficiary of the said intervention? Your participation is entirely voluntary. However, all information that we will get from you is confidential and in no way will your name be disclosed to anyone or associated with your responses. Your participation would be very helpful as it would provide a basis for evaluating the performance of the agricultural portfolio. Furthermore your participation will contribute in establishing future interventions that would address concerns of agricultural support at household level. Would you be willing to have a discussion with me? If NO, mark here and end interview. If YES, mark here to acknowledge that consent for respondent was given. QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS Questionnaire Number: _______/________ Name of Enumerator : __________________ Date of Interview: ____/_____/_____ dd mm yyyy Name of Supervisor/Team Leader________________ Checked by Supervisor: ___/_____/_____ dd mm yyyy A HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION A1. Name of beneficiary: ________________________________________________________ A2. Sex of beneficiary: 1. Female [ ] 2. Male [ ] (Tick applicable) A3. Marital status: 1. Single [ ] 2. Married [ ] 3. Separated [ ] 4. Widowed A6. Ward: __________________________________________________________ A7. District Code: _______ (Choose from Codes below) A8. Province Code: _______ (Choose from Code below) A9. Project Code: _______________________________ A10. Implementing Organization Code: ______________________________________________ 92 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Province and District Codes Code Province Code District 1 Manicaland 11 Chimanimani 12 Chipinge 13 Mjutare 14 Mutasa 15 Nyanga 2 Masvingo 21 Gutu 3 Mashonaland East 31 Murewa 4 Mashonaland Central 41 Bindura 42 Guruve 43 Shamva 5 Midlands 51 Gokwe South 52 Gweru 6 Matebeleland North 61 Binga 62 Bulawayo 63 Hwange 64 Nkayi 7 Matebeleland South 71 Gwanda 72 Unmzingwane Project and Implementing Organization Codes Project Code Implementing Organization Code 01-Restoring Livelihoods-Strengthening Value Chains (Revalue) 1-International Relief & Development (IRD) 02-Restoring Economic Agricultural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe (REALIZ) 2-ACDI/VOCA 03-Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes & New Markets (RAIN) 3-Mercy Corps 04-Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe/ 4-Land O’ Lakes 05-Zimbabwe Restoring Livelihoods Project (ZRLP) 5-CARE 06-Zimbabwe Agricultural Production & Agribusiness Development Project (ZAPAD) 6-CLUSA 07-Mashonaland Livelihoods Restoration Project (MLRP) 7-Africare 09-Agro-dealer Strengthening Project-Zimbabwe (APS-Z) 9-CNFA 10-Smallholder Technology & Access to Markets Project (STAMP) 10-FINTRAC 11-Revalitilizing Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector 11-Technoserve 12-Revitalization of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe (RLR) 12-World Vision 13-Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) 13-CRS 14-Developing Underutilized Plants 14-HWA - Zimbabwe 15-Zim-AIED 15-FINTRAC 16-Zim-ACP 16-DAI USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 93 B – KNOWLEDGABILITY OF THE PROJECT/INTERVENTIONS CS –Communication System about the project B-1. Have you ever heard of a program to support agriculture here in the ward? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable B-2. Have you ever heard of a program that supports harvesting& use of wild plants? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable B-3. Which organization (s) has supported your household in B-1 & B-2? See codes above B-4. What support has your household received from the organizations you mentioned in B-3 above? See codes below(ACCEPT MULTIPLE Responses)) 1 2 3 4 5 WRITE IN THE CODES Codes for B-4 :Activities /Interventions 1. Market linkages 2. Linkages with input supply 3. Market information 4. Contract negotiation 5. Linkages with produce buyers 6. Construction of a local marketing facility 7. Agriculture Financing 8. Provision of agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers, chemicals) 9. Support in accessing technologies (irrigation, improved seeds, agro-processing) 10. Livestock 11. Staple Food crops (maize, beans, ground nuts and root crops such as Irish and sweet potatoes 12. Cash Crops (groundnuts tomatoes, onions, leafy vegetables, paprika) 13. Plantation crops (tea, coffee, Inputs: Seed, banana 14.Commercializing targeted irrigation schemes 15. Non Timber Forest Products processing 16.Crop production training 17. Animal health & Management 18. Horticultural production 19.Basic record keeping and accounting 20. Others: Specify:______________________ B-5. How did you get to know about organization(s) in B-3 1.Awareness meeting held by organization 2. At a village meeting 3. From neighbor 4. A relative or friend outside the village 5. Community was involved in the needs assessment and formulation of the project 6. Other (specify) _____________________ 96. Don’t know DO NOT READ OUT THE OPTIONS GIVEN Circle the applicable responses B-6. What kind of support did you and your household receive from the organization? 1. Agricultural productivity 2. Marketing 3. Agricultural inputs 4. Credit Circle the Applicable Response B-7. What was the time period in which your household received support? Start date (MONTH/YEAR): End date (MONTH/YEAR): CAN BE APPROXIMATE DATE 94 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT C- Achievement of Intended Objectives C-1. Has the project brought about any of the following changes? 1. Nearness &Easiness to buy inputs for agriculture 2. More technology available to increase production 3. Easy access to markets to sell agricultural products 4. Easy access to sell non timber produce 5. increased disposable income to pay for medical bills 6. Reduced school drop outs 7. Easiness of access to financial services (credit, loan) 8. Increased agro-based employment in the community 9.Increased knowledge in crop production, animal health, horticulture, processing of non-timber forest produce 10. More and more involvement of women in community development (i.e. employment, other income generating initiatives, control of resources - proceeds from sales, landownership and inheritance) 11. Improved food security 12. Improved community based processing of produce 13. Value addition of produce 14. Linkages with processors 15. Input supply 16. Linkages with buyers 17. Market & production information 19. Product price 20. New agro industries 21. New employment creation at household level 22. New employment creation community level 23. Other (specify)__________________________ Read out options Circle the appropriate responses C-2. Has the project brought about any negative impact to your household or community? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable C-3. If yes, what are these negative impacts? ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ C-4 What is your perception about the support? Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response C-5. If not satisfied, please give reasons. ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ C-6 Did your household adopt any new ideas or |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 95 technologies as a result of this support? C-7 How have you used the extra income realized from the project? Nature Approximate Value of improvement Improving the homestead Improving the farm Paying for healthcare Paying for school fees and buying school provisions Buying household furniture & equipment Investing in livestock Repayment of loans Kitchen utensils Other D– HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY D-1.How many months per year were you self-sufficient with food from your own harvest before the project started? 10 and above 6 to 9 months 3 to 5 months 2 months and less |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response D-2. How many months per year are you now self-sufficient? 10 and above 6 to 9 months 3 to 5 months 2 months and less |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response D-3 Does your family rely on food aid annually? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable D-4. If yes, mainly from what sources? Government Relatives International NGOs. Local NGOs Others (Specify): ………………………………… Circle the appropriate response D-5. How many months per year did you receive food aid prior to being involved with the project? 10 and above 6 to 9 months 3 to 5 months 2 months and less None |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response D-6. How many months per year do you now rely on food aid? 10 and above 6 to 9 months 3 to 5 months 2 months and less None |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response 96 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT D-7. How many meals per day did your family consume prior to being involved in project activities? One meal per day Two meals per day Three meals per day |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response D-8. How many meals per day does your family consume now? One meal per day Two meals per day Three meals per day |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response How often has the following 3 events been experienced in last 12 months? D-9. No food at all in the house Never Rarely Sometimes Often |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response D.10. Went to bed hungry. Never Rarely Sometimes Often |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response D-11. Went all day and night without eating. Never Rarely Sometimes Often |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the appropriate response E – WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT E-1 What is the involvement of women in the community associations managing this project? Leadership Ordinary member Members of management committee Chair/deputy chair Secretary/vice Treasurer E-2. How has the project addressed specific concerns for women? ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ E-3. Are you happy with the way the project considers issues that concern women? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable E-4. Do women hold leadership positions in the project committees? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable E-5. How has the project contributed to the development of women leaders in the project _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 97 _____________________________________________ E-6. How has the project affected the status of women in the community? *adapted from FTF Women’s Empowerment Index 01 = Women have input into production decisions 02 = Women make their own decisions about what to produce 03 = Women may own productive assets 04 = Women may purchase, sell, or transfer assets 05 = Women have acquired agricultural skills 06 = Women have control over their income from agriculture 07 =Women have control over their workload 08 = Women have control over their leisure activities 09 = Women can apply for loans in their own names Circle the appropriate responses E-7. Has the project affected relations between men and women in your community? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable E-8. If yes, how? __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ F – HOUSEHOLD EMPOWERMENT Do you belong to any of the following groupings in your community? F-1. Farmer’s Club |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable F-2. Farmers’ Association |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable F-3. Agro Dealer Marketing |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable F-4. Community Based Organization |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable F-5. Any other committees? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No (If yes, specify)____________________________ |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable Using the given Codes, rank the 3 most important benefits you derive from your membership in the said groupings? 01 = Access financial resources. 02 = Safety net. 03 = Access to Agri-inputs. 04 = Price negotiations. 05 Access to information and knowledge. 06 = Access to agro markets |___| 96 = Don’t know Rank up to 3 main reasons in order of significance. F-6. First |___|___| F-7. Second |___|___| F-8. Third |___|___| G. PROJECT DESIGN & LESSONS LEARNT G-1. Did your household receive any support from another organization which was facilitated by this USAID project? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know Tick applicable 98 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT G. PROJECT DESIGN & LESSONS LEARNT G-2. If yes, what kind of organization was it? Government institution Private extension NGO Donor Others: Specify Circle all applicable responses G-3. What was the nature of support provided by this organization? Conservation agriculture Value addition Market information Access to technology Access to agricultural finance Access to agricultural inputs Improved cultural practices Linkages to agro processors Circle all applicable responses G-4 If yes, specify Irrigation Improved breeds or varieties Conservation agriculture Improved practices, Agro-processing Circle all applicable responses G-5 How satisfied are you with the project? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Not satisfied 4. Not so sure |___| 96 = Don’t know Circle the Applicable Response G-6. If you were asked to choose the most important aspects or things to improve your farming practices the future, what would be your 3 first choices. ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ G-7 In your opinion how would you rate the impact of the activities in relation to total agricultural production, productivity, household income, food security, household nutrition and employment creation? Low Null High Total Production Productivity Household income Food Security Household Nutrition Employment Creation G-9. In general do you think you will be able to maintain the activities in the absence of support from the project? |___|1. Yes |___|2. No |___| 96 = Don’t know G-10. If no, why? 1. Support no relevant to my needs 2. Need more time and support to get established 3. Support inadequate to get established 4. Lack of ability without support 5. Not motivated in the current activities being supported 6. Others: specify___________________________________ END OF QUESTIONNAIRE USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 99 TOOL 2: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Hello, Thank you for agreeing to participate in this group discussion. We are __________and are working with dTS and have been contracted by USAID to do an evaluation for the project that you are implementing. Your household has been randomly chosen to participate in this study. We are trying to learn more about how families and communities are making their living to overcome poverty. The names of the participants in this discussion will be kept confidential and your name will not be disclosed anywhere. Please feel free to participate fully and provide your candid opinions. Name of Group: ___________________________ Intervention: _____________________ Year Started: _______ Village: _________________________ Ward: ________________________ District: _____________________ Implementing org: _____________________________________ # of project members (in group): ______: F _____ M______ # Participating in the FGD: ______ F_______ M_____ Evaluation Question Focus Group Questions/Probes Follow up & Observations Appropriateness of Portfolio Design Were Phase I and Phase II portfolio designs appropriate given the political and economic conditions that existed in 2008/2009 and 2010? Which projects are active in this Ward? What do they do? Crops. Livestock, wild plants processing, marketing, tree associations? Is your group and family benefiting or has it benefited from such interventions? Since when have you been benefiting? What project is your group implementing & which organization is supporting the project? What is the support that you have been receiving from the project? How did you come to know about this project and how were you chosen to be a project beneficiary? Are the interventions appropriate to the needs of families, the group and the community? How? Was the support provided on time and enough to meet your needs? How well has USAID programming established agricultural production systems; market linkages between input suppliers, farmers, and buyers; credit financing systems; and an effective policy and regulatory enabling environment? For those Phase II development activities, which are still under way, and how well are they creating the right conditions for long-term sustainability? Has the project helped to create any linkages between smallholder farmers and supporting organizations, such as markets input suppliers and other service providers, agribusinesses extension departments at national and implementation levels? Have you been able to sell your produce? Where do you sell your produce and are you satisfied with the prices you receive? How and what are these linkages? How effective and beneficial are these linkages? Can 100 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Evaluation Question Focus Group Questions/Probes Follow up & Observations you quantify the benefits of the linkages? Any likely long term impact? How has the project contributed to the development of agro based businesses at household and community levels? How has the project contributed to financing of small holder farmer activities? What evidence is there? What are your achievements in the regard? What evidence of mechanisms and systems are in place to finance small householder farmers that are supported and targeted by the project? What agricultural production & marketing systems & market linkages are in place that could contribute to the project in attaining desired impact & success? Which other private and public sector partners has the project helped you to work with? How are you working with these organizations and what benefits are you getting from working with these? Have you shared what you learned with others? If the projects were to end, would you continue to practice what you learned? Achievement of Intended Objectives under Each Phase To what extent did household food security, household agricultural incomes, and agricultural productivity increase in the targeted geographic zones? In your view how effective has been the project’s assistance given to households? How has the project affected your community? In your view, is the assistance relevant to your community? In your community what activities have you benefited from? Has the project contributed to household and community food security? Has the project contributed or changed household crop or livestock productivity? How and what are the results that have been achieved? What positive or negative changes in the community have been caused by the project? What have been the changes that have been established/ observed? ( e.g. income, expenditure patterns, reduced school drop-outs, payment of school fees & buying other school provisions, payments of medical fees, increase in household assets both non-productive and productive, new & better houses & other USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 101 Evaluation Question Focus Group Questions/Probes Follow up & Observations structures at homesteads, relying less on food handouts, buying own inputs, paying off debts) To what extent were women beneficiaries adequately incorporated into and deriving real benefit from interventions? Has the project addressed concerns of women in the community? If so, how has this been done and what evidence do you have regarding this assistance? To what extent has the project changed the status of women in your community & what evidence is there? What evidence is there? How effective has support been? What has the assistance resulted in? How has the project facilitated financing of women’s enterprises? What evidence is there? How are the women involved in the project? Transition Management What key activity/programming components should USAID consider and what elements of the Phase II portfolio should be strengthened to ensure that the next transition period is effectively managed? What recommendations could you make to improve project implementation at the community level? What are the main lessons that can you share that you have learnt for your implementation or involvement in this project? I.e. both good and bad. What key activity/ programming components should USAID consider and what elements of the Phase II portfolio should be strengthened to ensure that the next transition period is effectively managed? Did the project address your needs as a group or needs of households? If yes how? If not why? What should the project have addressed and how? Are you happy with the way the project was implemented? Why and how? Do you think the project needs to improve on its performance? How and why? Were there any problems with the projects? What and how can the projects improve their performance? 102 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT TOOL 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Name of Organization: _______________________________________ Name of Interviewee(s): ________________________________________________________ Location: ____________________________________ Date: __________________________ Question Background: Brief organizational background & relationship with USAID. Also comment on the interventions of your organization under this funding Support to small holder farmers: What support has your organization given to small holder farmers that you are supporting? Effectiveness: Results achieved in respective communities through implementation of project activities. (Increases in targeted production, productivity, income, outputs and sales, quality of service and life and employment opportunities created) Please quantify the achievements. How do you foresee results and outcomes achieved contributing to long term household livelihood recovery (i.e. food security, contribution of agriculture to HH incomes, increased cropping and livestock productivity)? Enabling environment: What factors have contributed to the status of project achievement? How has your project contributed to reforms in agricultural sector policy? Which organizations have do you support? What are the achievements in this regard and do you foresee these as having a long term impact? Promoting agro-based business: How has your organization contributed to development of agro based businesses at community level? How has your project facilitated financing of small holder farmer activities? What evidence is there? What are your achievements in the regard? What mechanisms and systems are in place to finance small householder farmers & institutions that are supported and targeted by the project? What agricultural production & marketing systems & market linkages are in place to contribute to project in attaining desired impact & success? Gender: Did your project address gender issues in its design? If so, how was this factored into the design? What results have been achieved under this intervention? To what extent has the project changed status of women (females) and men (males) in respective communities & what evidence is there? Have women participated and benefited from the project? What recommendations can you make to increase women participation? Sustainability: Are your interventions and support to farmers sustainable? What strategies are in place to achieve and maintain sustainability at institutional and community levels? How and to what extent has the project contributed to sustainable capacity building, knowledge transfer, and improvement of scientific-technical potential at community HHs levels? What impact have your interventions had on the environment? What could have been done in a better way in implementation of this project at donor, implementing and farmer level? Given an opportunity, what would you do better to make the project more impactful? Cross cutting issues: Do you have a strategy that addresses environmental issues? If yes, can you give details of the strategy? Have your interventions had any impact on the environment in the communities that you are operating in? If yes, how? USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 103 TOOL 4: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR BENEFICIARY COMMUNITY KEY INFORMANTS Name of KI: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________ District: _________________________ Ward:_____________________ IP Operating in the Ward: __________________________________________________________ Intervention: _______________________________________________________ Greetings in local language! Good morning / afternoon! I am ……………..... & I am working for dTS, who has been contracted by USAID to evaluate the performance of the USAID/Zimbabwe Agricultural Portfolio that USAID funded through …………………… (name of organization) that has been supporting households in your community. Would you allow me to have a conversation for about 45 minutes with you to understand more about your community and this particular intervention that is or was implemented in your community? 5. Do you know of this particular organization and what work the organization is implementing in your community? What can you say about this organization and its interventions? 6. What changes have you noticed (both positive and negative) that have happened in your community and any particular households as a result of the activities of this organization? (Probe on e.g. expenditure patterns, reduced school drop-outs or school drop outs, household unity or disunity, payment of school fees & buying other school provisions, payments of medical fees, increase in household assets both non-productive and productive, new & better houses & other structures at homesteads, relying less on food handouts, buying own inputs, paying off debts: 7. In your own view, will the effects of the interventions being implemented last longer? Why and how? (e.g. food security or insecurity, contribution or non-contribution of agriculture to HH incomes, increased cropping and livestock productivity changes in household & community dietary diversity, systems and platforms that link farmers with input suppliers and other service providers, building capacities of target families, community, group & local leadership, other partners; systems put in place, linkages if any are visible) 8. Has the project addressed concerns of women and men (females/males) in respective communities & what evidence is there? Can you estimate, what numbers, by gender and sub-group category, have been affected by the project? 9. What would have been the situation in the community without the interventions? 10.Is there evidence that beneficiaries and can carry on without support? What is the target groups’ preparedness & ability to adapt to external changes and shocks? To what extent do you foresee partners in the project providing continuing support? 11. What might threaten sustainability of the project? Why and how can these be mitigated? 12.How has the project interventions impacted on the environment? 104 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT TOOL 5: MEETING GUIDE WITH MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OFFICIALS No. Question Check if responded to 1 What are the government goals, policies and activities with respect to increasing: household food security – household agricultural incomes – agricultural productivity increase in the targeted geographic zones - 2 What challenges are affecting the agricultural sector from the government perspective in meeting these objectives and implementing these activities? household food security: household agricultural incomes: agricultural productivity increase in the targeted geographic zones - 3 What are the priority subsectors for government in agriculture? 4 What plans does the government have for: Irrigation development? Agriculture finance? Agro-dealer development in the country? Contract farming, market and market linkages for both produce and inputs? 5 If there was donor support for small holder agricultural development in the country, what should be the nature of the support? USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 105 TOOL 6: GUIDELINES FOR POSITIVE DEVIANCEANALYSIS BASED ON HOUSEHOLD OPPORTUNITY Name of household: ___________________________________ District: __________________ Ward: ___________________ Village: __________________ 1. Characteristics of this household a Landholdings- Average size, tenure, quality issues, land use management. b Asset base (Social, economic, physical, natural, human, technology, spiritual, political) – Access and control, gender issues). What has the project and its implementing partners contributed to this? c Income sources- types of sources particularly from household and community involvement in some agri-business. What is income from other sources (formal and/or informal, businesses, wage earners, pensioners)? To what extent has the project contributed to improved income and revenue. d Education- Human capital-skills, knowledge relative to household head and other members of the same households. e Household size, numbers of members and composition. 2. Household decision making by different members of household a How has the project contributed to empowerment of women and improvement of household relations and distribution of household roles and responsibilities? Probe on who the head of household is? Role of HH head? Roles of other members? Probe on decision making processes, who decide which crops to sell, how livestock are kept and disposal of assets, investment decision, saving decisions. 3. What shocks have affected you and our family and this community in the last 3 years since the project started? a Type and nature of shocks (Economical, environmental, social). Was it a slow or rapid onset? (Magnitude, impact on households, Number of people affected in the community, frequency one time or recurring shocks/disasters). b How have been the activities that you are implementing impacted the environment? 4. What would have been different in the effect and managing the shocks if the interventions introduced by the project had not been there? (e.g. Risk reduction, risk mitigation, risk coping mechanisms, which strategies were more effective in the coping & why? any key lessons learnt. 5. What has the project helped you to achieve which you could not have achieved without the project (probe on increase crop yields, increased income, capacity building etc.) 6. Capacity to sustain the impacts of the interventions a What opportunities did the project bring that you feel and see as a contributory factor to your household sustaining the gains you achieved so far? Probe on improved farming methods and technologies, marketing and market linkages, improved human capital throw capacity building) b What behavior or practice that that make your household unique? Please explain. In what way did the project contribute to your uniqueness or the practice? c What are some of the enabling factors for your household to become resilient? Probe Institutions, structures, processes, extension approaches etc. NB: Observe to validate and generate more information Name(s) of interviewer: ___________________________________ 106 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Tool 7: Observation Guide Name of Household/Community Observed: _________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________ Village: _______________________________________ Ward: ______________________________ District: _______________________________________ Province: ____________________________ Observer’s name: _______________________________ Observable Variables Observations Visible evidence of project activities at household, community and project centre. Evidence of household, group, and/or community participation in the project. Evidence of business activity at household and community or project centre e.g. agro-based industries, employment creation, Marketing (infrastructure, linkages, marketing calendars) & production services (such as credit, input supply) Evidence of contributions of interventions to household economic empowerment (productive assets procured, new housing structure). State and condition of sanitary facilities Evidence of food security & crop productivity (e.g. food storage facilities). Livestock productivity (housing, handling facilities, manure management and use, land preparation). Positive or negative impact of project activities on the physical and natural environment Gender dynamics at household, group, and community levels. Farm records on participation in intervention, productivity, income, management of interventions. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 107 Observable Variables Observations Other changes brought about by the project interventions Partnerships established by project interventions within community Condition of fields, crops, vegetable gardens, tree plants, wild plants Health issues within family and community. Health records from health facility in the community Observations will be done when administering the mini survey, key informant interviews and focus group discussion 108 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT TOOL 8: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR AGRITRADE LOAN RECIPIENTS Greetings! Good morning / afternoon! I am ……………..... & I am working for dTS, who has been contracted by USAID to evaluate the performance of the USAID/Zimbabwe Agricultural Portfolio that USAID funded through …………………… (name of organization) which has been supporting communal households and businesses in the country. Your /your organization has been randomly chosen for this conversation as a beneficiary of this support. Would you allow me/us to have a conversation for about 60 minutes with you to establish your perceptions/views about this intervention? Business Name: ______________________________________________ Name of Respondent: _________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Venue: ____________________________________ What business is your organization involved in? What is the background of your organization’s working relationship with the bank that is giving you financial support? How often have you obtained loans from this bank and do have any outstanding loans with the bank? Can you please explain the terms and conditions of the loan you have accessed with the bank? (include collateral and loan application requirements and how did you manage all the terms and conditions?). How consistent & similar are these terms and conditions to those offered by other finance houses? Have you had cases in your business sector where pledged collateral has been taken by the bank? How did you know about the loan facility and how did you arrange for this? Who initiated the contacts? What has the loan facility achieved or helped you achieve in your business/life? Can you please quantify achievements of the loan to your organization / household? Has the loan helped you to start a business or expand your business? Did your organization / household put the loan to the use that you had applied for? Have you been able to pay-back the loan in time? Is the interest charged by the bank reasonable or too high as compared to other sources? Would you recommend the loan facility to any other person that may want to get a loan and why? In addition to receiving the loan, where you provided any training or technical assistance to help you with the loan process e.g. development of a business plan, book keeping and financial management. If technical assistance was given to you was it helpful? If technical assistance was not given to you, would that have been useful? In addition to receiving the loan have you been provided any production technical assistance from any other project, NGO or AGRITEX to help with your farming or business activities? Had you not been able to obtain from this bank, what financing alternatives would have been available to you? Would these other financing alternatives been more or less expense that the loan from this bank? USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 109 After you repay your current loan, will you be able to operate your business with your own resources or will you need additional bank financing? Will you be able to obtain financing by yourself? Has the loan had any impact on your business activities in terms of increased sales, increased income, increased earnings, increased employment and increased productivity? Did your partner/spouse participate in the loan process? If so, what was their role? How often do you have contact with bank officers? Are they readily accessible when you need them? Have the bank been able to respond to your questions or request timely? 110 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT TOOL 9: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE – PROVINCIAL AND DISTRICT LEVEL Organization: __________________________________________ Name of Interviewee(s): ___________________________________________________ District: ____________________________________ Date: ____________________ Evaluation Question Question Responses Appropriateness of Portfolio Design Were Phase I and Phase II portfolio designs appropriate given the political and economic conditions that existed in 2008/2009 and 2010? Do you know of the activities of …………. that are being implemented in this province/district by ……………..? When and how did you come to know about the organization and its activities? What are the activities about? Provide a brief background of your organization and its relationship with ….. ... What is the role of your organization in implementing these activities? How has your organization benefited from any of these activities and/or your relationship with the organization……………? Are the activities relevant and appropriate to the needs of the beneficiary farmers and the country given the current economic and operating environment? Achievement of Intended Objectives under Each Phase Has the USAID assistance resulted in increased availability, dissemination and adoption of improved technologies by the farmers? Has this assistance resulted in increased agricultural productivity? Has this assistance helped to increase agricultural sales? Has this assistance helped to increase farm household income? Has this assistance helped to increase access to agricultural finance? Has this assistance helped to increase farmers’ access to and use of technology? Has this assistance helped to bring about agricultural sector policy reforms? Has this assistance helped to create public￾private partnerships? Has this assistance resulted in increased food security and household nutrition? In your own view, what has been the greatest impact of this assistance on agriculture? On a scale of 1-10 (10 highest) how would you rate this assistance in terms of effectiveness and importance to the beneficiary farmers and the country? To what extent were women beneficiaries adequately incorporated into and deriving real benefit from interventions? Have the activities addressed the concerns of women and other vulnerable groups in the target communities? If so, how has this been done and what evidence do you have regarding this assistance? To what extent has the activities changed the status of women and other vulnerable sub groups in the target communities? What evidence have you seen of this? USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 111 Evaluation Question Question Responses Have these activities had any impact specifically related to women? How well has USAID programming established agricultural production systems; market linkages between input suppliers, farmers, and buyers; credit financing systems; and an effective policy and regulatory enabling environment? For those Phase II development activities, which are still under way, and how well are they creating the right conditions for long-term sustainability? Have these activities helped to link beneficiary farmers to input suppliers, produce buyers, agro￾processors, credit suppliers or other service providers? In your own view and your organization’s perspective, how effective has this support been in creating linkages? What have been the results of the assistance so far? What agricultural production and marketing systems and market linkages has the project put in place? How has the project facilitated financing of beneficiary farmer operations? What evidence is there? What do you think will happen when the project ends? How sustainable are the project’s interventions? How sustainable are the economic advances made by the beneficiary farmers? How sustainable is the adoption of improved agricultural technologies? Given varying levels of coordination and collaboration between USAID development and humanitarian assistance programming, as well as with other donor programs, were/are the mix of Economic Growth activities sufficient and appropriate to meet USAID’s objectives? Are you aware of any relationship between the activities provided under this project and those of other donors, development NGOs, or other development organizations? Have you seen coordination between USAID agricultural projects and projects implemented by other donors, developmental NGOs, or other developmental organizations? Transition Management What key activity/programming components should USAID consider and what elements of the Phase II portfolio should be strengthened to ensure that the next transition period is effectively managed? What could be improved in the implementation of this project at the community level? What are the main lessons learned from the implementation of the USAID projects that could be used for future projects? (Positive as well as negative). In your view, what are the main limiting factors to agricultural development in Zimbabwe, and what should be done in order to overcome them? 112 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 113 ANNEX D. DESCRIPTIONS OF PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO PROJECTS PHASE ONE PROJECTS Annex Table 8: List of Phase One Projects by Implementing Organization Project Code Implementing Organization Code 1-Restoring Livelihoods-Strengthening Value Chains (Revalue) 1-International Relief & Development (IRD) 2-Restoring Economic Agricultural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe (REALIZ) 2-ACDI/VOCA 3-Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes & New Markets (RAIN) 3-Mercy Corps 4-Zimbabwe Restoring Livelihoods Project (ZRLP) 4-CARE 5-Zimbabwe Agricultural Production & Agribusiness Development Project (ZAPAD) 5-CLUSA 6-Mashonaland Livelihoods Restoration Project (MLRP) 6-Africare 7-Agro-dealer Strengthening Project-Zimbabwe (APS-Z) 7-CNFA 8-Smallholder Technology & Access to Markets Project (STAMP) 8-FINTRAC 9- Revitalizing Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector 9-Technoserve 10-Revitalization of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe (RLR) 10-World Vision 11-Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) 11-CRS 12-Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe 12-Land O’ Lakes Project Parameter Detail Restoring Livelihoods- Strengthening Value Chains (REVALUE) Implementing Partner International Relief and Development (IRD) in partnership with Africa University, Cornell University, I-Train and Evaluate Center (i-TEC) and REDAN ProFoods. Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2009 to May 2011 in four districts of Manicaland Province: Buhera, Mutare, Chimanimani and Chipinge. Number of Beneficiaries 7,871 farmers Value Chains Groundnuts, sesame, sugar beans and paprika Activities IRD implemented REVALUE following a three pillar strategy. IRD worked in collaboration with Zimbabwean private and public sector groups for the design and implementation of project activities. First, IRD’s objective was to re-establish and revitalize the fading agro-dealer activity through the implementation of a voucher scheme and linkages between agro-dealers and agricultural input companies, and banks for the provision of credit. The implementers also worked with commodity agro dealer companies for the commercialization of farmers’ output. Second, IRD’s objective was to increase farmers’ crop yields through extension work, training workshops, consultations, seminars and public meetings. Third, IRD’s goal was to facilitate the rapid growth of commercialization activities with the introduction of 114 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Project Parameter Detail new private sector entities in the target areas, encouraging competition and higher prices for small holder farmers. Restoring Economic Agricultural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe (REALIZ) Implementing Partner ACDI/VOCA in partnership with the LEAD Trust, a Zimbabwean NGO. Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2009 to June 2012 (26 months) in Mashonaland East and Manicaland Provinces Number of Targeted Beneficiaries Unknown Value Chains Vegetables and horticulture Activities The goal of the $2 million REALIZ program was to strengthen the ability of vulnerable but viable farmers to support themselves by increasing incomes and food security. REALIZ had a market-driven approach that was value chain oriented and emphasized partnerships between smallholder farmers and the private sector. The program also helped build the capacity of buyers and farmers, and put sustainability at the center of program design by minimizing the use of distortive subsidies. REALIZ also worked to ensure the right incentives were in place for buyers and farmers to increase value chain competitiveness and mutually￾rewarding benefits. Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN) program. Implementing Partner Mercy Corps Period of Performance and Geographic Location November 2009 to May 2011 in Murewa District. Number of Targeted Beneficiaries Unknown Value Chains Horticulture Activities RAIN aimed to improve the livelihoods of small-scale horticulture farmers. Zimbabwe Restoring Livelihoods Program (ZRLP) Implementing Partner CARE Period of Performance and Geographic Location Number of Targeted Beneficiaries Value Chains Nutrition gardens and sweet potatoes Activities The overall goal was to restore rural livelihoods in targeted locations through increased income generated through the agricultural sector. CARE Zimbabwe worked towards achieving this goal through the following immediate objectives (specific results): Rural farmers have increased production for both consumption and marketing through improved agricultural practices Rural farmers have increased cereal seed security through improved retention of and access to seeds and other inputs. Rural households increase income through improved market access and internal savings and lending. A knowledge base is developed on restoring rural livelihoods in today’s Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Agricultural Production and Agribusiness Development (ZAPAD) USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 115 Project Parameter Detail Implementing Partner CLUSA with assistance from the Zimbabwean development agency, SAFIRE. Period of Performance and Geographic Location November 2009 to July 2011 (21 months Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 10,000 farmers Value Chains/project emphasis Sesame, agricultural service providers, business training Objectives To accomplish its goals, the project had the following objectives:  Increase agricultural production and productivity by promoting conservation agriculture and other technologies:  Improve farmer access to inputs and markets. Under this objective, CLUSA had the agro dealer program and market linkage initiatives  Build a network of Agricultural Veterinary Service Providers (ASPs)  Strengthen farmer organizations to increase their capacity to participate effectively in key crop value chains  Implement a gender strategy (as of July, 2010) in order to engage more rural women in the project Mashonaland Livelihoods Restoration Project (MLRP) Implementing Partner Africare in partnership with Practical Action and Zambuko Trust Period of Performance and Geographic Location December 2009 to October 2011 in Bindura and Guruve districts (extended by 5 months to March 2012) Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 5,500 smallholder farmers Value Chains Soya, sunflower and rabbits Activities The goal of the project was to restore livelihoods of people in Mashonaland Central Province, by addressing food and income security. Activities focused on increasing income and employment opportunities through increased agricultural production, focusing on provision of farm inputs, crop and livestock extension systems, agro processing, market linkages and increased access to finance through savings schemes and linkages to microfinance institutions. Agro-dealer Strengthening Project-Zimbabwe (APS-Z) Implementing Partner CNFA Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2010 to March, 2012 (extended by 6 months to September 2012) in Masvingo, Midlands, Matabeleland North and South provinces Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 125,000 households to benefit from increased access to improved inputs and services; achieved: 82,921 Value Chains N/A. Agro-dealer strengthening program Activities The APS-Z program was one of several USAID-pilot projects aimed to determine best practice programming in assisting the recreation of a vibrant agricultural sector in Zimbabwe following the turmoil of the preceding decade. The project aimed to increase households’ access to high-quality agricultural inputs, productivity, and farm incomes. APS-Z provided training in business management, proper and safe input use, and – via agro-dealer-hosted demonstration plots – best practice planting, cultivation, and harvesting techniques. In addition, the project aimed to increase access to finance through a $100,000 credit guarantee facility to partially cover the risk of participating input suppliers. Finally, APS-Z also engaged in local institutional capacity building for national and regional associations. 116 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Project Parameter Detail Smallholder Technology and Access to Markets Program (STAMP) Implementing Partner FINTRAC Period of Performance and Geographic Location August 2010 to July 2012 (22 months) Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 5,718 rural families Value Chains Bananas, paprika, proteas, potatoes (high-value horticultural crops) Activities STAMP’s goal was to increase the food security of smallholder farmers by expanding market access and increasing productivity and thus increasing their household incomes. STAMP’s mission was to increase smallholder sales and incomes from the production and marketing of high-value horticultural crops and products using environmentally-friendly farm technologies and good agricultural practices. The program had a deliberate bias towards addressing the health and nutrition status of rural communities, and encouraging women and youth participation. Revitalizing Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector Implementing Partner TechnoServe Zimbabwe in partnership with Spancode Investments, Eastip Abattoir, Sondelani Ranching Pvt Ltd, Development Aid from People to People in Zimbabwe (DAPP), and the Zimbabwe Poultry Association (ZPA) Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2010 to December 2012 (15 months) in Goromonzi, Zvimba, Matobo, Shamva, Bulawayo districts Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 3,000 farmers Value Chains Poultry Activities The goal of the project was to develop and demonstrate an impactful and replicable model of engaging small farmers in the formal poultry sector to revitalize the industry. Its objectives were to (1) pilot 2-3 out-grower models linking 70 small poultry farmers to processors; (2) boost productivity and incomes of over 3,000 feed grain producers, enabling them to profitably supply the Zimbabwean feed industry; and (3) capture and disseminate learning throughout the poultry industry, determining actions required to ensure the competitiveness of the Zimbabwean poultry industry. Revitalisation of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe (RLR) Implementing Partner World Vision International in Zimbabwe (WVZ) Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2010 to March 2012 (18 months) in the Honde Valley (extended by three months to June 2012) Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 1,700 farmers Value Chains Tea and coffee Activities The overall goal of the project was to revitalize smallholder agricultural production through increased financial viability of commercially-oriented tea and coffee farmers who had sustained significant losses in previous years. Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) Implementing Partner CRS, in partnership with CARE and ACDI/VOCA Period of Performance and Geographic Location July 2010 to June 2012 (extended by 12 months to June 2013) in Bulilima, Mangwe, Matobo, Gwanda, Mberengwa, Beitbridge, Mudzi, Rushinga districts USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 117 Project Parameter Detail Number of Targeted Beneficiaries Unknown. Value Chains NA – Food for Peace (Title II Food Aid) program Activities The program’s goal was to reduce chronic hunger and food insecurity in rural districts, support recovery, and build resilience of vulnerable populations. It focused on improving physical assets that support drought relief, although food aid was distributed in the project’s first year of operation. Activities included food for assets (FFA) to improve dip tanks, paddocks, and grazing areas; targeting vulnerable households with food aid rations; promoting more appropriate drought￾tolerant staple crops (sorghum and millet); supporting market access for farmers; and implementing preventive, disaster risk management practices. Other activities included agriculture-related training for farmers, and village savings and loan programming. Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe – Zimbabwe Livestock and Dairy (ZLD) Project Implementing Partner Land O’ Lakes in partnership with the Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers (ZADF), Tillers International, International Relief & Development (IRD) and MicroKing Period of Performance and Geographic Location January 2010 to April 2011 (Phase I, 16 months), May 2011 to November 2013 (Phase II 30 months) in Gokwe South, Guruve, Murehwa, Mutoko, Goromonzi, Murehwa, Sek, Makoni, Mutasa, Hwedza, Chikomba, Chipinge, Masvingo, Umzingwane. Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 1,258 farming households Value Chains Dairy and livestock Activities ZDL aimed to build the livelihoods and promote food security of farmers through interventions in the livestock and dairy value chains. The project focused on assisting vulnerable households, particularly women-lead households, to increase milk production; rebuilding the cattle and dairy herds through pass-on schemes; improving rangeland/fodder flow management and preventative animal health services; stimulating market linkages between value chain actors; building profitable livestock and dairy businesses; and promoting the use of donkey draught power in dairy production. PHASE TWO PROJECTS Project Parameter Detail Zimbabwe Agriculture Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). Implementing Partner Fintrac, Inc. in cooperation with four subcontractors and grantees: International Relief and Development (IRD); the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA); Sustainable Agricultural Technology (SAT); and CARE International. Other local nongovernmental organizations and commercial companies work with the program as development partners, in some cases co-funded through a cost￾sharing grant facility. The $5 million facility is used to leverage technical support for farmers through conventional grants, and also to fund purchases of essential inputs and new technologies on a cost-recovery basis. Zim-AIED also includes a $10 million revolving loan fund – AgriTrade – managed by three local banks that provide matching funds and loans on competitive commercial terms. Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2010 to February 2015 in low-income and food-insecure areas 118 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Project Parameter Detail Value of the Contract $36 million Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 150,000 households Value Chains Staples and High Value Cash Crops Activities Zim-AIED is providing technical assistance to improve food security and increase incomes and employment of rural households by providing training and technical assistance; facilitating linkages between farmers and markets; and facilitating access to credit to increase household incomes throughout Zimbabwe. This goal is being reached through the achievement of three intermediate results: Expanded Market Access: measured through change in volume and value of sales of targeted commodities and integration of farmers into out-grower and contract farming schemes for selected cash crops. Increased Agricultural Production: measured through changes in total production and productivity; changes in product mix to include high-value crops; and changes in area under production at the household and national level. The emphasis is on commercially viable production of both food and cash crops. Enhanced Value Addition: measured through change in farm sales of semi￾processed products and crops for processing; new employment generation in value-added products; and investment in processing facilities. The Theory of Change for the Zim-AIED interventions is described in the results framework graph below. Zim-AIED works closely with small-, medium-, and large-scale buyers to raise demand and increase competition for smallholder-grown crops and products. The program directly contributes to food availability and access by concurrently increasing production of food crops and raising incomes of rural households in selected areas, by Raising efficiencies in production systems for an improved combination of cash and food crops Providing access to credit Linking producers to local, national, regional and international buyers Training farmers to adopt good business practices The interventions are focused on specific low-income and food-insecure areas where farmers have the potential to move from subsistence to small-scale commercial agriculture. The program sponsors activities to generate new income streams from employment created in the wider agricultural sector and contribute to improved food security for all beneficiary households. The program is further building demand for a range of Zimbabwean crops and products by linking farmers with local, regional, and international buyers and training growers on productivity, quality, continuity, and cost-competitiveness. It also provides specialized technical support for the production of food crops to increase food availability on a sustainable basis in areas and communities most vulnerable to food insecurity. The focus of Zim-AIED is on profitable livestock, food and cash crop production, new sales and income generation, and employment creation Agriculture Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Implementing Partner Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) Period of Performance and Geographic Location October 2010 to February 2015, at the national and regional levels, working with policy makers and regional associations Value of the Contract $15 million USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 119 Project Parameter Detail Number of Targeted Beneficiaries N/A Value Chains N/A Activities Zim-ACP works to improve the regulatory, policy and business-enabling environment for agriculture, thereby improving competitiveness within the agricultural sector. Zim-ACP is designed to provide support to the farming and agribusiness sector, via representative farmer bodies by enabling the business environment and subsequent economic growth and employment. It aims to do so via three interlocked components: Component 1- supporting and strengthening representative farmers unions, commodity associations and agribusiness associations and assisting them to develop their analytical and advocacy capacity, Component 2 - increasing the efficiencies in agricultural markets, developing and applying improved technologies and enhancing the capacity of market institutions; and Component 3 - enhancing the capacity of business service providers to deliver quality, demand driven trainings and technical assistance at a firm and farmer level. Zim-ACP provides technical assistance to teach partners to become shrewd advocates, using evidence-based arguments and public-private dialogue and to become competent organizations in planning and membership services. The Project provides feasibility studies understand and fill institutional gaps in the market, such as commodity brokerage, warehouse receipts systems and adherence to standards, and promotes them to private investors where viable. It offers training that is vital to the advancement and competitiveness of farmers and firms alike, and provides a link from unions to training firms to members to ensure the uptake of training in business and standards. Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilized Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe Implementing Partner The Hilfswerk Austria International (HWA) consortium is implementing the project. HWA is a public-private partnership between an NGO (HWA), a research organization Bio-Innovation Zimbabwe ((BIZ) and a private company (KAITE Pvt. Ltd.).The project is funded for $1 million over a three year period. Period of Performance and Geographic Location 2011-2014, in natural regions IV and V Number of Targeted Beneficiaries 4000 smallholders who do not have access to irrigation and whose ability to generate income from agriculture is minimal Value Chains Indigenous plant species Activities The project works to commercialize ten indigenous plant species and derivative products, by conducting research on the viability of indigenous plants, teaching farmers how to collect the fruits and marketing the processed fruit. . 120 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Annex Figure 2: Theory of Change for Zim AIED Interventions. Adapted from Zim-AIED Q11Report July 2013. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 121 ANNEX E. LIST OF MEETINGS, INTERVIEWS, AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Annex Table 9: List of Meetings, Interviews, and Focus Group Discussions Type Respondent(s) Date (2013) Project (if applicable) Location FGD Chikwaka Milk Collection Centre (13 Participants) Nov 19 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Goromonzi (Chikwaka) FGD Chipendeke Farmer Group (11 Participants) Nov 07 Zim AIED Mutare FGD Chipo Irrigation Farmer Group (9 Participants) Nov 20 Zim AIED Mutoko (Nyadhire) FGD Conservation Agriculture Farmer Group (11 Participants) Nov 15 Zim AIED Murehwa (Mhembere) FGD Gakamezi (10 Participants) Nov 18 Developing Underutilized Plants (Rosella Production) Binga FGD Gakamezi (10 Participants) Nov 20 Developing Underutilized Plants (Wild Plants Harvesting Technique) Hwange FGD Gwitshi (11 Participants) Nov 15 Zim AIED (Livestock Support) Nkayi FGD High Value Crops, 16 Participants (Banana Production) Nov 10 Zim AIED Mutare (Zindi) FGD Honde Valley Tea (24 Participants) Nov 04 RLR Mutasa FGD Insukamini (11 Participants) Nov 06 Zim AIED (Provision of Agriculture Inputs) Gweru FGD Kanyongo Milk Collection Centre (12 Participants) Nov 20 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Mutoko (Kanyongo) FGD Kushinga (8 Participants) Nov 04 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe (Dairy Cattle Support) Gokwe South (Hofisi) FGD Lukosi (7 Participants) Nov 19 Zim AIED (Provision of Agriculture Inputs) Hwange FGD Murairwa Farmer Group (10 Participants) Nov 15 Zim AIED Gutu (Murairwa) FGD Mutema Banana Irrigation Group (21 Participants) Nov 13 Zim AIED Chipinge (Mutema) FGD Mzinyathi Irrigation (10 Participants) Nov 12 Zim AIED (Provision of Agriculture Inputs) Umzingwane FGD Ndivadzo Farmer Group (7 Participants) Nov 14 STAMP Chipinge (Ndivadzo) 122 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Type Respondent(s) Date (2013) Project (if applicable) Location FGD Nvamaropa Paprika Association (18 Participants) Nov 06 STAMP - African Development Foundation Nyanga FGD Nyamaropa Agricultural Development Association (12 Participants) Nov 06 Zim AIED Nyanga FGD Nyamutumbu Farmer Group (13 Participants) Nov 16 Zim AIED Murehwa (Nyamutumbu) FGD Nyunga Baobab Collection Group (15 Participants) Nov 13 Developing Underutilized Plants Chipinge (Nyunga) FGD Rusitu/Mayfield Milk Collection Centre (13 Participants) Nov 14 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Chipinge (Paidemwoyo) FGD Shingai (11 Participants) Nov 05 Zim AIED / SAT (Provision of Agriculture Inputs) Gokwe South (Hofisi) FGD Tsotso Dairy Farmers Association (14 Participants) Oct 10 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Mutasa (Nyamarira) FGD Tuli Mhakwe (10 Participants) Nov 14 Zim AIED (Provision of Agriculture Inputs) Gwanda FGD Umguza Irrigation (10 Participants) Nov 09 Zim ACP (Training Intervention) Umguza FGD Umzingwane Dairy Centre (10 Participants) Nov 11 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe (Provision of Dairy Support Inputs) Umzingwane KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 06 Zim AIED Nyanga KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 07 Zim AIED Bulawayo KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 07 Zim AIED Bulawayo (Bubi) KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 08 Zim AIED Matobo (Beula) KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 08 Zim AIED Bulawayo KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 14 Zim AIED Chipinge KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 14 Zim AIED Gwanda KII Agritrade Loan Recipient Nov 14 Zim AIED Chipinge (Mutema) KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 05 Zim AIED / STAMP Gokwe South KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 05 Zim AIED / STAMP Gokwe South KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 06 Zim AIED Nyanga KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 07 Zim AIED Mutare USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 123 Type Respondent(s) Date (2013) Project (if applicable) Location KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 07 Zim AIED Mutare KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 08 Zim ACP Mutare KII Beneficiary Community Representative Nov 19 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Goromonzi KII Community Leader Nov 04 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Gokwe South (Nduku) KII Community Leader Nov 05 Zim AIED Gokwe South KII Community Leader Nov 05 Zim AIED / STAMP Gokwe South KII Community Leader Nov 11 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Umzuga KII Community Leader Nov 11 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Umzingwane KII Community Leader Nov 12 Zim AIED Gokwe South (Nhlekiyana) KII Community Leader Nov 14 Zim AIED Gwanda KII Community Leader Nov 14 Zim AIED / STAMP Gwanda KII Community Leader Nov 15 Zim AIED / STAMP Nkayi KII Farmer Organization Nov 07 Zim ACP Bulawayo KII Farmer Organization Nov 08 Zim ACP Bulawayo KII Farmer Organization Nov 08 Zim ACP Bulawayo KII Farmer Organization Nov 12 Zim ACP Umguza KII Farmer Organization Feb 1973 Zim ACP Harare KII Farmer Organization Feb 1962 Zim ACP Harare KII Farmer Organization Feb 1962 Zim ACP Harare KII Government Department (AEW) Nov 08 Mutare KII Government Department (AEW) Nov 12 Umzingwane KII Government Department (AEW) Nov 18 Zim AIED Murehwa KII Government Department (AEW) Nov 19 Goromonzi KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 06 Mutasa KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 06 Nyanga (Nyamaropa) 73 2014 124 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Type Respondent(s) Date (2013) Project (if applicable) Location KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 07 Mutare KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 08 Marange KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 09 Umguza KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 10 Gutu KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 11 Gutu KII Government Department (Agritex) Nov 12 Chipinge (Mutema) KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 05 Umzingwani KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 05 Midlands KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 05 Umzingwani KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 07 Umzuga KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 11 Gwanda KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 13 Zim AIED Chipinge KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 14 Gwanda KII Government Department (DAEO) Nov 18 Binga KII Government Department (Dept. of Irrigation) Nov 12 Chipinge (Mutema) KII Government Department (Environmental Management Agency) Nov 11 Chimanimani KII Government Department (Environmental Management Agency) Nov 20 Hwange KII Government Department (LPD) Nov 04 Gokwe South KII Government Department (LPD) Nov 06 Gokwe South KII Government Department (LPD) Nov 06 Mutasa KII Government Department (LPD) Nov 11 Umzingwane KII Government Department (LPD) Nov 14 Matabeland South USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 125 Type Respondent(s) Date (2013) Project (if applicable) Location KII Government Department (PAEO) Nov 14 Matabeland North KII Implementing Parnter (Africare) - Felix Mutemachimwe Oct MLRP Harare KII Implementing Partner (Africare) - James Tinashe Machikicho Oct MLRP Harare KII Implementing Partner (CARE International) - Levison Zimori Oct ZRLP Harare KII Implementing Partner (DAI) - Godfrey Mudimu, Personal Sithole, Alice N. Mapfiza, Rufaro Mayhera Oct Zim ACP Harare KII Implementing Partner (Fintrac - Zim AIED) Nov 04 Zim AIED Mutare (Zindi) KII Implementing Partner (Fintrac - Zim AIED) Nov 18 Zim AIED Murehwa KII Implementing Partner (Fintrac - Zim AIED) Nov 20 Zim AIED Harare KII Implementing Partner (HWA) Sept 20 Developing Underutilized Plants Harare KII Implementing Partner (International Relief and Development) Nov 07 Mutare KII Implementing Partner (Kaite Pvt Ltd (HWA)) Nov 12 Developing Underutilized Plants Manicaland (Birchenough Bridge) KII Implementing Partner (Land O’ Lakes Inc) - Louise T. Mugweni, Spencer Ngoma Oct Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Harare KII Implementing Partner (Land O’ Lakes) Oct 02 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Harare KII Implementing Partner (Standard Chartered) - Marinus Petrus Grau, Lance Kennedy Oct Harare KII Implementing Partner (World Vision) Nov 05 RLR Hauna KII Local Authority (Rural Development Committee) Nov 18 Binga KII Partner Organization (Matanhuska Pvt Ltd) Nov 07 Zim ACP Bulawayo KII Partner Organization (Chikwaka Dairy) Nov 19 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Goromonzi KII Partner Organization (FAVCO) Nov 04 Zim AIED Mutasa 126 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Type Respondent(s) Date (2013) Project (if applicable) Location KII Partner Organization (Honde Valley Development Company) Nov 05 RLR Mutasa KII Partner Organization (Honde Valley Milk Collection Centre) Nov 05 Rebuilding Livelihoods & Resiliency in Zimbabwe Mutasa KII Partner Organization (Honde Valley Smallholder Development) Nov 04 Zim ACP Hauna KII Partner Organization (Matanhuska Pvt Ltd) Nov 12 Zim AIED Chipinge KII Partner Organization (Matanuska) Nov 09 Zim AIED Mutare KII Partner Organization (Zimbabwe Coffee Mills) Nov 04 Zim ACP Hauna KII Partner Organization (Zimbabwe Coffee Mills) Nov 08 Zim ACP Mutare KII USAID/Zimbabwe (John Macy) Dec 02 Harare KII USAID/Zimbabwe (John Macy, Mary Norris, Snodia Chikanza) Dec 05 Harare USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 127 ANNEX F. QUANTITATIVE DATA TABLES Annex Figure 3: Support Received, FINTRAC Annex Figure 4: Support Received, Land O’ Lakes 100.0% 85.7% 85.7% 85.7% 71.4% 71.4% 57.1% 57.1% 57.1% 42.9% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Market linkages Crop production training Market information Linkages with input supply Cash Crops (groundnuts tomatoes, onions, leafy… Provision of agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers,… Staple Food crops (maize, beans, ground nuts and root… Support in accessing technologies (irrigation,… Commercializing targeted irrigation schemes Animal health & Management What support has your household received from the organizations you mentioned in Question 12 above? (FINTRAC, N=7) 55.0% 55.0% 45.0% 45.0% 40.0% 40.0% 35.0% 25.0% 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Livestock Basic record keeping and accounting Market linkages Animal health & Management Market information Provision of agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers,… Linkages with produce buyers Linkages with input supply Crop production training Other (please specify) Contract negotiation Agriculture Financing Plantation crops (tea, coffee, Inputs: Seed, banana Construction of a local marketing facility Support in accessing technologies (irrigation,… Staple Food crops (maize, beans, ground nuts… Cash Crops (groundnuts tomatoes, onions, leafy… Commercializing targeted irrigation schemes Non Timber Forest Products processing Horticultural production What support has your household received from the organizations you mentioned in Question 12 above? (Land O' Lakes, N=20) 128 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Annex Figure 5: Support Received, HWA Annex Figure 6: Changes Observed, FINTRAC 53.8% 46.2% 38.5% 38.5% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4% 15.4% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% Non Timber Forest Products processing Crop production training Market linkages Market information Contract negotiation Linkages with produce buyers Cash Crops (groundnuts tomatoes, onions, leafy… Basic record keeping and accounting Animal health & Management Other (please specify) Plantation crops (tea, coffee, Inputs: Seed, banana Linkages with input supply Construction of a local marketing facility Agriculture Financing Provision of agricultural inputs (seed, fertilizers,… Support in accessing technologies (irrigation,… Livestock Staple Food crops (maize, beans, ground nuts and root… Horticultural production Commercializing targeted irrigation schemes What support has your household received from the organizations you mentioned in Question 12 above? (HWA, N=13) 85.7% 85.7% 85.7% 71.4% 71.4% 71.4% 57.1% 57.1% 57.1% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% More technology available to increase production Improved food security Reduced school drop outs More and more involvement of women in community… Market & production information Product price Easiness of access to financial services (credit, loan) Nearness &Easiness to buy inputs for agriculture Linkages with processors Improved community based processing of produce New agro industries What Changes Have You Seen? (FINTRAC, N=7) USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 129 Annex Figure 7: Changes Observed, Land O’ Lakes Annex Figure 8: Changes Observed, HWA 76.5% 52.9% 47.1% 47.1% 47.1% 41.2% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 35.3% 29.4% 29.4% 23.5% 23.5% 17.6% 11.8% 11.8% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 0.0% Improved food security Reduced school drop outs Easy access to markets to sell agricultural products Increased disposable income to pay for medical bills Market & production information More technology available to increase production Increased knowledge in crop production, animal health,… More and more involvement of women in community… Value addition of produce Product price New employment creation at household level New employment creation at household level Linkages with buyers New employment creation community level Input supply Improved community based processing of produce Other (please specify) Nearness &Easiness to buy inputs for agriculture Increased agro-based employment in the community Linkages with processors New agro industries Easy access to sell non timber produce What Changes Have You Seen? (Land O' Lakes, N=17) 66.7% 58.3% 58.3% 50.0% 41.7% 33.3% 33.3% 25.0% 25.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Improved food security New employment creation at household level Reduced school drop outs Linkages with processors New employment creation community level Increased knowledge in crop production, animal… Linkages with buyers Product price Value addition of produce Easy access to markets to sell agricultural products Input supply What Changes Have You Seen? (HWA Zimbabwe, N=12) 130 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Annex Figure 9: Number of Months during Which Food Aid Received Annually Before/After Project Annex Figure 10: Number of Meals Consumed Daily Before/After Project 2 0 1 4 44 3 1 7 5 36 0 3 2 3 34 0 2 5 3 32 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 None 2 months and less 3 to 5 months 6 to 9 months 10 and above How many months per year did you receive food aid before and after being involved with the project? (N=94) Female After Female Before Male After Male Before 0 6 46 1 17 33 0 7 35 0 13 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Three meals per day Two meals per day One meal per day How many meals per day did your family consume before vs after being involved in project activities? (N=94) Female After Female Before Male After Male Before USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 131 Annex Figure 11: Number of Months Self-sufficient From Own Harvest: Before/After Project 43 8 0 1 29 13 6 2 32 5 2 2 27 4 8 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2 months and less 3 to 5 months 6 to 9 months 10 and above How many months per year were you self-sufficient with food from your own harvest before and after the project started? (N=94) Female After Female Before Male After Male Before 132 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 133 ANNEX G. QUALITATIVE RESPONSES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONS QUESTION 30: TECHNOLOGIES “Did your household adopt any new ideas on technologies as a result of this support?” Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Additional Answers Rosella production Rosella leaves can make soup Crop fertilization Mulching Market linkages Mulching Record keeping Fertilization and compost making Artificial insemination Silage fodder growing Disease diagnosis Market led production Record keeping and budgeting Post-harvest handling Rosella production Good livestock feed Leaves are edible Contract farming Loans Rosila production Good land preparation Seeing and monitoring what to sell and which products are going faster Mulching Plant spacing Soil and water conservation Record keeping and budgets Market led production Farmer group associations Advanced planting methods Fertilizer application Leadership and irrigation system Methods of spraying Access to agriculture information Book keeping Silage and fodder growing Farming as a business Export marketing Conservation farming Fodder growing Crop rotation Fertilizer soil Conservation agriculture Learnt about artificial insemination Fodder growing Silage making Disease diagnosis Hygiene Water management Crop rotation Spraying Cattle stock feed formulation Animal health Artificial insemination Fodder crops Fodder production Paprika production Fodder growing Management of cows Budget 134 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Additional Answers Manure utilization Market linkages Land preparation for paprika Watering Seed bed preparation Mulching Budgeting Agribusiness Crop production and budgeting Record keeping Fertilization Input supply chain management Marketing Tea production Price negotiation skills Mulching Market led production Crop fertilization Market led production Budgeting Farming based on cropping calendar De-suckering Fertilization of bananas Irrigation cycles Pesticiding [sic] Fertilization Post-harvest handling Cooperative nature in agriculture work Banana fertilization Irrigation agriculture Crop fertilization Processing of sweet potato Post handling of sweet potatoes Land preparation for sweet potatoes Integrated pest and diseases management Crop fertilization Poultry management Pesticiding in sweet potato production Soil and water management Budgeting and record keeping Spraying Farming as a business Contract farming Methods of spraying New pesticide knowledge Budgeting and planning Fertilization of sweet potatoes Land preparation for sweet potatoes Processing of sweet potatoes Budgeting Mulching Organic fertilization Record keeping Planning and purchasing inputs Contract farming Conservation of trees Conservation farming Record keeping Have more interest and knowledge Conservation farming Land preparation Integrated pest and disease management Market linkages Fodder production Silage making Record keeping Paprika production Record keeping and budgeting Market led production Farming as a business USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 135 Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Additional Answers Conservation agriculture Composite making Weaning Dehorning and castrating Disease control e.g. dipping Market led production Irrigation development Record keeping Fertilization of groundnuts Land preparation Compost making Budgeting Contract negotiation Drying and grading Sound economic practices Planting and growing potatoes Usage of fertilizers Importance of cash crops Collecting of baobab fruits Conservation of wild trees Income generation projects Good agronomic practices of banana production Market led production Record keeping Gathering fruits Innovation of seed Harvesting and storage Cutting machines Harvesting Clearing of fields Sanitation Safe handling of chemicals Child labor Handling and harvesting Fertilizer application Planting methods Dosing and treatment of animals Earning a living from cattle Reading and preparation of feeds Importance of record keeping How to keep livestock How to transport milk Cash flow Record keeping Soil analysis Conservation agriculture Cropping on a small portion which has been well prepared-good land preparation Organic manure use Budgeting Fertilization Agronomy Fertilizing Harvesting and handling Training on agricultural conservation Fodder growing Fertilization Harvest and post harvesting handling Market linkages Banana crop production Fertilization Harvest and post-harvest handling Diagnosis of diseases Transport from donkeys Ai training Collection of baobab fruit Nursery establishing baobab tree Selling and marketing 136 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Additional Answers Peanut butter making and now has high income in the family Collecting baobab Nursery tree Livestock husbandry Value addition on milk products Record keeping Dosing cattle Vaccinating Feeding livestock/animal nutrition Rosella production Women empowered Supplementary feeding Improve water quantities for livestock Bull selection Growing paprika Spacing Knowledge Selection of good variety of seed Bean production Uses of devils claw Paprika growing Banana production Medicinal- devils claw Make drink from rosella Its medicinal e.g. malaria cure-devils claw Medicine for livestock e.g. cocidiosis, tick bone Feeding dairy cattle Treatment of dairy cows Keeping dairy cattle Record keeping and budgeting Value addition through milk processing Market led production Food formulation USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 137 QUESTION 47: WOMEN LEADERS “How has the project contributed to the development of leaders in the project?” Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Women have been respected in leadership. Now women can go places without men to learn. Leadership training empowers women on good governance and leadership roles Women occupy leadership positions Attended training Were given equal opportunities Women now take up leadership roles More knowledge Can communicate well with other people Can coordinate with stakeholders Training on how to manage by being respected. Has been exemplary It’s a group of women Lead farmers were dominated by women Women are preferred to be holders of the treasury position as they are trustworthy, generally Training Gender mainstreaming Women are in leadership positions Income increase for households expenses Leadership trainings Women empowered to lead farmer groups Encouraged women into dairy as well as youths Women participated in trainings Leadership skills Training, women participate Training Women appointed to positions of leadership Encouraged women to participate in leadership positions Lead farmers Dairy management is dominated by women Training women on leadership skills Assisting widows Decision making 138 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Have been empowered to lead Received leadership training Gender balance Ownership of productive assets Decision making Provided leadership skills Yes through gender dynamic trainings Gender sensitivity has been mainstreamed Gender equality improved through farmer trainings Financial management of farmer groups is now spearheaded by female farmers Leadership trainings Gender dynamics and trainings There is room for improvement in that regard for males still dominate leadership Women now recognized as equal partners capable as community leaders in development projects A few women occupy leadership posts there is room for improvement in this area Generally farmer groups are women led Gender equality awareness Trainings make it easier for women to lead farmer groups Empowering of women Women leadership Trainings empower women to be able to lead Training provided Look for assistance Participation in decision making Sweet potato project is dominated by women Women are now part of the main committee showing that they are good leaders Empowering women Project believes in equal opportunity between men and women Leadership training Empowerment Gender balance Asset ownership The project is still in its initial stage so there nothing significant USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 139 Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Empowering them to have a voice that is listened to Gender balancing As women there is unity of cooperation to assist one another Nothing significant Decision making Good financial management Training on leadership skills It was a failure The dairy project is women led Training on gender Women are committee members and lead farmers Provided training Women are now capable of leading farmer groups Women proved to be more responsible and good leaders on handling money for farmer clubs Improved income we can employ 2 women to assist in the field They come up with tangible decisions Training Gender dynamic trainings for women leadership Female book keeper 3 committee members are female Training Capacity building Provision of security Trainings Putting them into leadership position Making decisions Providing trainings on leadership skills Women can contribute willingly to contribute to development issues Women occupying leadership positions Women accessing loans Women empowerment [Can] Take over in case of death of a husband Instilled sense of ownership They can make decisions freely They have sense of ownership Women successfully leading with men as equal members Training Trainings 140 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Farmer group are now led by women who are participating more in agricultural activities Farmers groups are now led by women. women now participate in leadership Gender mainstreaming training Lady facilitators Training on leadership Encouraged women participation Training Women now empowered to lead farmer groups By empowering women By allowing women to make decisions Confidence built Empowering women Women given all the support Trained in managerial skills Empowered women through trainings Women have been trained on leadership skills Haven't seen anything Encouraged others to lead Nothing at all. They only come to buy they have no time with us. Improved leadership skills No changes have been noted yet Received training Women are part and parcel of farmer leadership They have been sourcing facilitators to train us on different skills USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 141 QUESTION 48: CONCERNS FOR WOMEN “How has the project addressed specific concerns for women?” Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Women are “self-sustainable, empowered by being in leadership” Improved household income as women become contributors, improved their status at household level Improved purchasing power More household income Women were put in leadership positions Women now contribute towards household income Empowered women By being trained The project is just starting Women gained agricultural skills in conservation farming of cereals Women are now able to procure their own household assets Equal opportunities for men and women More income for household expenses Women now contribute towards household income Women received training Training on gender issues Empowering women Sharing ideas as women Training Women also have leadership roles and some are lead farmers Equal opportunity Training Family budgeting Encouraged to take leadership positions Household nutrition improved as women bring milk products home Livestock management as women Owning livestock Assisting widows Women are encouraged to go field visits No it did not 142 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Paying school fees Women empowerment Supporting widows Household gender equality as women now have improved status with purchasing power Pregnant women and breast feeding women now using bush cutters when harvesting tea Women now own capital assets Improved food nutrition from peanut butter resulting in reduction in child malnutrition Improved house hold income is directly linked to improved status of women Couples day workshops Improve community gender awareness Women now strongly participate in household income with improved status Women have own control of household income Improved participation of women towards household income Women now contribute towards household income Women now have control over their income Provision assistance and brought unity among families Women have control over their income Provision of inputs especially widows and elderly living with orphans Men considering women concerns Women contribute to household income and are now capable of acquiring assets like cows Women have acquired agricultural skills Empowering them by providing inputs especially those could not afford to buy Women have more income USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 143 Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Equal opportunities Gender equality Decision The project is still starting there is nothing significant Providing inputs to women Equal benefits Women now share ideas even outside project issues e.g. child minding Women fight for positions Free to choose crops to put in their plots Skills training to the widows Paprika production was a failure Household food nutrition with milk products Training Women owning livestock Considering widows, single women in benefits Women now commercially employed in agricultural activities and earn income Improved nutrition Readily available oil for relish cooking Women contributing to household income Listening to their suggestions Increase in household income Women now able to harvest locally and participate in contributing to house hold income Household income generation The project has involved more women resulting in financial empowerment Increase in household income Seeds and inputs (fertilizer) Assisted female households Training addressed knowledge to women to grow bananas Allowing women to access loans Provision of startup income to women Decision makers Livelihoods of widows improved Gender balance Involvement of women in decision making at house hold and community level 144 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Providing seeds especially widows and elders Decision makers Women now credit holders More disposable income Women are plot holders Women now participate in household income thus improving their house hold status Women now plot holders for banana plantations with Gender equality No specific items Work for women Income for home increased Project supported mainly women needs Increase in income Improved household income is directly linked to improved household nutrition Women own assets Uplifted status of women especially widows Women own assets like goats, chickens and utensils Assisted the elderly women and widows in addressing food security issues Treated [everyone] the same, widows, vulnerable groups Realized the [they were] widows and they had been given inputs. Women can now decide on what to do on their plots They now buy grocery though not enough Raising income through selling of produce Widows have benefited from the program Nothing significant Raised money to pay groceries though not much Empowering women Targeting elderly and widows to implement program activities USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 145 Answer 1 Answer 2 Answer 3 Women are now owning cattle and skilled to feed dairy cattle contributing to house hold incomes Women now contribute towards household income They now have powers to make decision 146 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT QUESTION 61: IMPROVEMENTS REQUESTED BY FARMERS “If you were asked to choose the most important aspects or things to improve your farming practices in the future, what would be your three first choices?” First Answer Second Answer Third Answer Fourth Answer Credit facilities Group farming Irrigation infrastructure development Credit and contract farming market linkages More farming inputs Adequate water supply for irrigation-water pumps Agricultural chemicals￾herbicides Inputs Transport to ferry milk Agriculture inputs Irrigation water supply Shade with cold room facilities Improve the buying rates Rosella Processing of rosella Input supply Vegetable production Market establishment Restocking livestock and its production Access to loans as individuals Apply for import license Buy products which are profitable Irrigation agriculture (water pumps) Credit facility Agricultural inputs Irrigation schemes Credit facilities Inputs and market linkages Credit from banks with lower rates Replacement of pump Transport to ferry produce to the market Lucrative markets Additional dairy cows to milk during dry period Fencing for paddocks Further cattle rearing trainings Water pump rehabilitation for irrigation Credit facility for agricultural Market linkages Right cow breed Solar panels Repair borehole Inputs provision Pipes for irrigation Market stalls Poultry keeping (layers) Inputs provision Road improvement Low load work projects Additional farming Proper grading Financing (loans) Chicken rearing Small income generating projects Agriculture inputs Full soil analysis Irrigated pastures Using cattle as drought power Inputs To be assisted with heifers Fodder production Dairy heifer and transport Accessibility to water and electricity Inputs Paying for electricity Transport Water Tractors Sufficient inputs Tested seed USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 147 Procurement of inputs Marketing More knowledge Electricity and water bills to be reduced Technical advice on agronomy Irrigation infrastructure development Mechanical harvesters equipment (bush cutters) Mini factory for the tea processing Improved extension service delivery Irrigation infrastructure development Access to credit facilities Market led production Crop fertilization Price negotiations Irrigation development Market led production Irrigation agriculture Budgeting and record keeping Irrigation agriculture Credit facility Market linkages Irrigation infrastructure development Access to credit facility Irrigation agriculture Credit facility Market linkages Irrigation agriculture Market linkages Credit facility Production Financial assistance Tractor Inputs Irrigation water for agriculture Credit loan facility Farmer trainings Cropping green mealies Best methods of preserving vegetables Provided with loans Irrigation infrastructure development Credit loan facility Delivering inputs on time Diversification of projects Provided with inputs Get transport to take our products Establish markets Horticulture gardens Inputs and farm utensils Goat project Poultry project Tractor Input/contract farming Herbicides Provided inputs (groundnuts seed) Transport to markets Provide inputs like seed Provide chemicals for crops Provide tractors Boreholes to irrigate gardens Loans to support gardens Electricity Transport Cattle feed drugs Inputs Knowledge Provision of water Provision of inputs Transport Markets Knowledge Training on crop production Assistance on inputs Training in management 148 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Improved dairy size stock Market led production Milk processing for value addition Provided with inputs Markets Livestock Provide inputs Provide vet kits Credit facility for agriculture inputs Market linkages which are reliable Improved agricultural extension services Fertilizer application Market linkages Input-seed of good quality Enough inputs Increase hectarage Wells to be protected Drilling of boreholes Agriculture inputs Goat rearing project Factory/milling od baobab and linked to markets As beneficiaries you would have assistance of our factory milling of baobab Baobab linked to markets Irrigation infrastructure development Access to credit facility Provision of herbicides Goat project Protective clothing and uniforms Input for agriculture Inputs Training on storage Transport Pruning and harvesting machines Inputs Capacity building Inputs Transport Tractor Increase of cattle Increase market especially in December Provide vet kit Machine for milking Access to more loans Provision of transport Piggery project Poultry project Borehall for adequate supply of water Provided with inputs Chemicals Irrigation infrastructure Rehabilitation Input supply provision Market linkage initiatives Financing Inputs Training more on treatment Loan facilities Water reticulation Irrigation infrastructure development Market linkages Agriculture inputs Irrigation infrastructure set up Market linkages Fertilizers Post-harvest handlings Establishment of milk collection centres and power supply Additional herd Water for irrigation Goat production Baobab fruit processing General agriculture Seed & inputs Goat production Horticulture production USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 149 Dairy infrastructure rehabilitation Dairy inputs Chopper grinder for silage making Inputs Manure Markets Buying price Increase my hectarage Money to hire labour during harvesting Livestock production Cash crop production Market negotiations Potato production Farming skills and bean knowledge Provided with inputs Markets Potato seed Sweet potatoes Growing cash crops Marketing strategies Access to loans Introduce livestock project Vegetable garden project Inputs instead of groceries during cropping season Productive assert support Provision of water for agriculture/farming purposes Trainings Inputs especially fertilizer Provision of tractors Irrigation equipment needed Increase dairy cattle Access to loans Provision of transport to markets or collection center Increase dairy stock size (good breed) Water supply Pasteurizer Access to finance Establish better market Source: Mini-Household Survey, Question 61. 150 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT SURVEY ITEM # 65: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RECORDED BY THE INTERVIEWERS Answer 1 Answer 2 Answers 3 and additional Farmer managed to contract well diggers, thus he now has a deep well at his house for agricultural water and for domestic use. The irrigation scheme is in need of irrigation rehabilitation especially water pumps for adequate irrigation water supply. Need additional cow so that when one stops producing milk we will have something to fall back on. Horticulture production is limited by water supply; there is need to establish irrigated horticulture, for better harvesting, Dry land farming has potential to be supported with irrigation water supply. Market linkages farming lacks transparency between farmers and buyers who do grading of produce on their own. Delays in payment from contractor Kingdom bank collected usd10 from farmers to open account which were never opened. Delay in payment from farmers from the contractor Need additional cattle Irrigation scheme is doing well except for the minor break down at the water pumps for irrigation. Supplied cows were not adaptable to the area No proper coordination with Land O Lake’s officers on the ground HIV affected people to get support More support for child headed households Produced quality of [milk] is low Centers mixed good milk and poor quality milk Improve grading and proper handling at center Farmers have not received their payments from contractors. Not happy I sold my bull because they said they will introduce a1 Business car House Solar panels USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 151 Dry land area which is arable. It is the farmers' wish for assistance on irrigation infrastructure development Tea plantation crops are ideal for long term support 5-10 years as opposed to 11/2 years. Project left farmers in an incapacitated state. Tea plantation crop established in 1960, Farmer has already planted groundnuts o.2ha for the current agricultural season. Farmer producing under dry land, needs provision of irrigation scheme. Community has an existing banana plantation crop under contract farming with matanuska –fintrac. Project area under semi-arid environment hence, there is need for irrigation dire agriculture. Farmers request support for upscaling and replication of the banana project to target neighbors’ farmers who are vulnerable but viable. Project area is in dire need of irrigation agriculture. Project in need of irrigation agriculture. Farmers have initiated savings and lending as a source for farmer group income generating. To be taught methods of preserving vegetables Farmer has bought generator, radio and solar through the sales of his produce. Project area is generally semi-arid and sweet potatoes do well and are a good source of income. No comments More women now participating in the project. No comments Farmers in dire need of irrigation water for crop production. Market linkages is missing in the project implementation. Not happy about paprika 152 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Continue with us for two more years. Input suppliers should come to the schemes. Program came late. No extension officer to provide knowledge. Pricing was not fair If provided with all resources I would like to do paprika again. There is need to improve dairy size stock. Women are lead farmers. Project duration seemed too short for sustainability. V support loan scheme covers only 37 out of 100 farmers ZIMAIED to bring supplier of seed To get loans especially at the banks so that they grow competitive crops like potatoes. Increase produce price. Require inputs on rapoko , beans, groundnuts Protective clothing and uniforms Project area in a semi-arid area prone to drought conditions; irrigation infrastructure development is ideal to save livestock Farmer expanding area under banana plantation project area started with 100 plants now with 400 plants. Need seed Market information Poor yield due to drought Need longer implementation period. Need to involve farmers in identifying needs Farmer lacked knowledge on financial linkages to get loans to finance operations. The farmer benefited in July so he is still constructing the pens. Farmers should be provided with machinery like hay cutter, choppers, grinders. Link farmers to markets would like to make butter, cascades. if dendary can come and collect our milk, esp. in December Averagely furnished house built from farm proceeds. The farmer had already started doing conservation farming on 1 ha prepared land. Farmer cropping under a viable gravity fed irrigation scheme which USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 153 requires minimum rehabilitation works. Area under expansion from 1,5ha to 5ha. Need more training and credit facilities. Banana plantation is under rain fed, farmers are in dire need of irrigation infrastructure development and assistance. Banana crop is well established under rain fed, irrigation water supply is the major limiting factor of production. Poachers from illegal settled farmers affects operations. Not enough support from law enforcement agents, also received cows as the agricultural inputs Need employment Farmer has commercialized. Need permit to build processing machines and needs electricity Asked for inputs and fencing Linkages to banks Increase produce price, protective clothing, employment from Kaite. Grinding mill for silage making. Livestock loans have assisted families to increase their productive base/assets. Hygienic conditions need to be improved when milking. Land O’ Lakes promised a lot on dairy milk collection center infrastructure but little was done. The training program was very beneficial. Did theory only on poultry food process the implementation has not been done Source: Observation Guide completed by the enumerators at the end of an interview 154 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT .Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 155 ANNEX H. PERFORMANCE MONITORING TABLES FOR ZIM-AIED, ZIM-ACP, AND HWA ZIM-AIED INDICATORS Annex Table 10: Zim-AIED Performance Indicator Summary Table. Source: Annual Report. FY2013. October 2013 # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals 1 # of rural households benefiting from USG assistance FTF 4.5.2-13 HH 0 72,831 106,831 122,823 2 Net income per household from target agricultural products Custom (AIED 1) US$ 483 835 1,200 1,062 3 Value of incremental sales attributed to FTF implementation FTF 4.5.2-23 Value of incremental sales - 36,078,172 46,686,333.94 Total Number of direct Beneficiaries 22,038.00 106,831.00 122,823.00 Total Baseline sales (US$) 4,509,936.31 4,509,936.31 4,509,936.31 Total Reporting year sales (US$) 4,509,936.31 40,588,108.00 51,196,270.25 Total Reporting Year Volume of sales (mt) 16,690.80 178,887 116,908.06 Bananas (28,249.00) 5,971,751.00 5,498,508.00 Baseline sales (US$) 28,249.00 28,249.00 28,249.00 Reporting year sales (US$) - 6,000,000.00 5,526,757.00 Reporting Year Volume of sales (mt) 282.49 24,000.00 19,742.25 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 3,440.00 Maize (2,742,980.00) 18,987,020.00 22,343,242.00 Baseline sales (US$) 2,742,980.00 2,742,980.00 2,742,980.00 Reporting year sales (US$) - 21,730,000.00 25,086,222.00 Reporting Year Volume of sales (mt) 13,715.00 72,433.00 80,242.08 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 86,818.00 156 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Paprika (1,130,267.00) 405,733.00 (219,412.00) Baseline sales (US$) 1,130,267.00 1,130,267.00 1,130,267.00 Reporting year sales (US$) - 1,536,000.00 910,855.00 Reporting year Volume of sales (mt) 1,130.27 1,280.00 737.37 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 2,650.00 Beans and pulses - 2,255,205.00 2,870,967.00 Baseline sales 63,195.00 63,195.00 63,195.00 Reporting year sales - 2,318,400.00 2,934,162.00 Volume of sales (mt) 63.20 1,932,000.00 2,425.16 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 25,076.00 Beans, fresh - 3,191.00 5,406.00 Baseline sales 9.00 9.00 9.00 Reporting year sales - 3,200.00 5,415.00 Volume of sales (mt) 0.03 4.00 10.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 20.00 Bird's eye chilis - 35,960.00 59,890.00 Baseline sales 40.00 40.00 40.00 Reporting year sales - 36,000.00 59,930.00 Volume of sales (mt) 0.05 45.00 72.33 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 102.00 Cabbage - 21,108.00 337,665.00 Baseline sales 1,392.00 1,392.00 1,392.00 Reporting year sales - 22,500.00 339,057.00 Volume of sales (mt) 4.64 75,000.00 1,785.51 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 157 # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 1,291.00 Chili Pepper - 186,750.00 150,880.00 Baseline sales 750.00 750.00 750.00 Reporting year sales - 187,500.00 151,630.00 Volume of sales (mt) 1.50 375.00 257.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 331.00 Cowpeas - 70,535.00 87,251.00 Baseline sales 6,265.00 6,265.00 6,265.00 Reporting year sales - 76,800.00 93,516.00 Volume of sales (mt) 7.83 96.00 194.25 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 4,183.00 Groundnuts - 338,779.20 985,421.20 Baseline sales 28,420.80 28,420.80 28,420.80 Reporting year sales - 367,200.00 1,013,842.00 Volume of sales (mt) 47.37 612.00 2,060.50 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 18,963.00 Butternuts – Other - 27,975.00 255,065.00 Baseline sales 2,025.00 2,025.00 2,025.00 Reporting year sales - 30,000.00 257,090.00 Volume of sales (mt) 4.05 60.00 547.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 861.00 Peppers - 11,988.00 16,988.00 Baseline sales 12.00 12.00 12.00 Reporting year sales - 12,000.00 17,000.00 158 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Volume of sales (mt) 0.03 30.00 34.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 55.00 Potatoes - 74,558.49 597,558.49 Baseline sales 5,441.51 5,441.51 5,441.51 Reporting year sales - 80,000.00 603,000.00 Volume of sales (mt) 10.27 160.00 900.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 120.00 Soybeans - 22,112.00 62,476.00 Baseline sales 2,888.00 2,888.00 2,888.00 Reporting year sales - 25,000.00 65,364.00 Volume of sales (mt) 7.22 50.00 131.73 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 8,035.00 Sweet potatoes - 223,191.00 1,028,204.00 Baseline sales 809.00 809.00 809.00 Reporting year sales - 224,000.00 1,029,013.00 Volume of sales (mt) 4.50 560.00 3,040.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 21,558.00 Tomatoes - 251,295.00 2,246,448.00 Baseline sales 423,705.00 423,705.00 423,705.00 Reporting year sales - 675,000.00 2,670,153.00 Volume of sales (mt) 1,412.35 2,250.00 4,728.88 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 22,873.00 Cattle - 7,191,020.00 10,359,776.25 Baseline sales 73,488.00 73,488.00 73,488.00 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 159 # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Reporting year sales - 7,264,508.00 10,433,264.25 Number of animals - - 26,083.00 Number of Direct Beneficiaries - - 17,441.00 4 Volume of production by program beneficiaries Custom (AIED 2) Total volume of production (Tons) 22,369 180,989 148,125 Banana (Tons) 174 24,000 19,742 Paprika (Tons) 72 1,300 737 Maize (Tons) 21,600 144,000 110,104 Beans (Tons) 97,3 2,760 2,653 Bird’s eye (Tons) 0.05 45 72 Cabbage (Tons) 4.64 75 1,950 Chillie Pepper (Tons) 1.50 375 257 Cow Peas (Tons) 21.07 240 235 Groundnuts (Tons) 256.19 2,040 2,831 Butternuts (Tons) 10.97 60 547 Fine Beans (Tons) 0.03 4 10 Peppers (Cherry) (Tons) 0.03 30 34 Potatoes (Tons) 9.52 160 900 Soybeans (Tons) 16.50 100 163 Sweet Potatoes (Tons) 202.07 2,800 3,091 Tomatoes (Tons) 1, 623 3,000 4,799 5 Value of production by program beneficiaries Custom (AIED 3) Total Value of production (US$ ) 4,810,622 40,515,700 50,878,811 Banana (US$ ) 40,000 6,000,000 5,526,757 Paprika (US$ ) 80,000 1,430,000 910,855 160 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Maize (US$ ) 3,880,000 25,920,000 34,422,024 Beans (US$) 97,309 3,312,000 3,210,372 Bird’s eye (US$) 40 187,500 59,930 Cabbage (US$) 1,392 22,500 370,500 Chillie Pepper (US$) 750 187,500 151,630 Cow Peas (US$) 16,857 192,000 113,235 Groundnuts (US$) 153,714 1,224,000 1,393,180 Butternuts (US$) 5,487 30,000 257,090 Fine Beans (US$) 9 3,200 5,415 Peppers (Cherry) (US$) 12 12,000 17,000 Potatoes (US$) 5,045 675,000 603,000 Soybeans(US$) 6,601 50,000 81,307 Sweet Potatoes (US$) 36,372 1,120,000 1,046,541 Tomatoes (US$) 487,034 150,000 2,709,975 6 Area grown per target product Custom (AIED 4) Total Area Grown 16,950 79,741 77,180 Banana (Ha) 100 1,600 1,872 Paprika (Ha) 100 800 689 Maize (Ha) 16,000 72,000 68,057 Beans (Tons) 97.30 2,300 2,312 Bird’s eye (Ha) 0.10 15 16 Cabbage (Ha) 2.55 5 75 Chillie Pepper (Ha) 1 75 75 Cow Peas (Ha) 30.50 300 227 Groundnuts (Ha) 246.30 1,700 2,327 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 161 # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Butternuts (Ha) 2.30 10 60 Fine Beans (Ha) 0.01 1 2 Peppers (Cherry) (Ha) 0.01 5 6 Potatoes (Ha) 3.60 20 60 Soybeans(Ha) 20.37 100 159 Sweet Potatoes (Ha) 121.00 560 655 Tomatoes (Ha) 225.17 250 588 7 Average yields per target product Custom (AIED 5) Banana (tons/ha) 1.74 6.11 15.00 10.55 Paprika (tons/ha) 0.72 1.41 1.60 1.07 Maize (tons/ha) 1.35 1.47 1.94 1.62 Beans (tons) 1 1.20 1.15 Bird’s eye (tons/ha) 0.5 3.00 4.52 Cabbage (tons/ha) 1.82 25.00 26.00 Chillie Pepper (tons/ha) 1.5 5.00 3.42 Cow Peas (tons/ha) 0.69 0.80 1.04 Groundnuts (tons/ha) 1.04 1.20 1.22 Butternuts (tons/ha) 4.65 6.00 9.12 Fine Beans (tons/ha) 3 4.00 5.00 Peppers (Cherry) (tons/ha) 3 6.00 5.67 Potatoes (tons/ha) 2.63 8.00 15.00 Soybeans(tons/ha) 0.81 1.00 1.03 Sweet Potatoes (tons/ha) 1.67 5.00 4.72 Tomatoes (tons/ha) 7.2 20.00 8.16 8 FTF 4.5-16 Maize (US$/ha) 37 225 250 213 162 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals Gross margin per unit of land, kilogram, or animal of selected product Paprika(US$/ha) 416 1,235 1,500 767 Banana(US$/ha) 220 476 1,000 1,834 Beans (US$/ha) 690 1,040 1,046 Bird’s eye (US$/ha) 50 1,600 2,946 Cabbage ((US$/ha) 173 1,000 3,956 Chillie Pepper (US$/ha) 120 1,787 1,303 Cow Peas (US$/ha) 502 540 397 Groundnuts (US$/ha) 362 420 460 Butternuts (US$/ha) 1,172 1,200 3,778 Fine Beans (US$/ha) -50 600 2,439 Peppers (Cherry)(US$/ha) 100 900 880 Potatoes (US$/ha) 502 800 3,135 Soybeans(US$/ha) 36 200 415 Sweet Potatoes (US$/ha) 271 1,900 1,387 Tomatoes (US$/ha) 541 1,100 3,844 9 # of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, CBOs receiving USG assistance FTF 4.5.2-11 Enterprises Organizations Groups Associations 0 689 770 976 10 # of buyer and market￾related firms benefiting directly from interventions Custom (AIED 9) Buyers/ Firms 0 679 140 420 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 163 # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals 11 Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation FTF 4.5.2-38 US$ 0 6,730,000 2,000,000 1,362,366 12 # of firms (excluding farms) or CSOs engaged in agricultural and food security-related manufacturing and services, now operating more profitably because of USG assistance FTF 4.5.2-43 Firms/CSOs 0 14 20 14 13 # of jobs attributed to FTF implementation FTF 4.5-2 FTE 0 1,159 2,160 1,224 14 # of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance FTF 4.5.2-2 New Ha 0 57,589 11,202 25,379 Continuing Ha 0 500 25,804 25,379 Total 58,089 37,006 50,758 15 # of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance FTF 4.5.2-5 Total 0 32,376 45,980 75,178 Continuing 0 11,896 20,480 35,434 16 # of individuals who have received USG supported short term agricultural sector productivity or food security training FTF 4.5.2-7 Individuals 0 58,055 60,000 54,851 164 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals 17 # of private enterprises, producers organizations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and business association & CBOs that applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance FTF 4.5.2-42 Enterprises/ Organizations/ Groups/ Associations 0 649 770 942 18 Value of agricultural and rural loans FTF $ US 790,000 5,380,000 6,000,000 6,023,493 4.5.2-29 19 # of beneficiaries receiving credit Custom (AIED 6) Individuals 1,002 10,758 12,400 6,580 20 Value of cost-sharing with alliance partners Custom (AIED 7) $ million 0 0.71 1 0.13 21 # of individuals receiving training in business skills Custom (AIED 10) Farmers/ Borrowers 0 13,756 10,000 13,245 22 # of MSMEs receiving business development services from USG assisted sources FTF 4.5.2-37 MSMEs 0 73,520 62,197 57,190 23 # of individuals receiving training in (NRM) Custom (AIED 11) Individuals 0 14,563 20,000 16,062 24 Number of lead farmers in assisted programs GNDR 1 Individuals 538 500 538 Females 216 160 216 Males 322 340 322 25 Proportion of female participants in USG￾GNDR 2 Percent 48% 52% 48% Numerator 23,951 23,954 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 165 # Indicator Source Unit Baseline FY2012 FY2013 Actuals Target Actuals assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources Denominator 50,315 50,313 26 Number of project beneficiaries in relevant leadership positions GNDR 3 Participants 455 455 455 Females 159 159 159 Males 296 296 296 27 Proportion of target populations reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have access to social, economic, and political opportunities GNDR 4 Proportion / Percent 79.00% 79.00% 79.00% 28 Number of farmers engaged in Contract farming GNDR 5 Farmers 0 12,000 6,228 Female 0 6,000 2,989 0 6,000 3,239 Male 166 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ZIM-ACP INDICATORS Annex Table 11: Summary of Indicators 4.5.2-43 Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil society Organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security￾related manufacturing and services now operating more profitably (at or above cost) because of USG assistance 0 260 400 251 250 ACP 1 Value of resources leveraged through partnerships with agribusinesses, agribusiness service providers, NGOs etc. 0 367,468 150,000 512,003 200,000 ACP 2 Service delivery to members by representative bodies of farmers, commodity associations and agribusiness organizations 215 841 221 428 276 000 10, 406 280,000 4. 5.1-24 Number of Policies/Regulations/ Administrative Procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USG assistance in each case: Stage 1: Analyzed Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree Stage 4: Passed/approved Stage 5: Passed, implementation has begun Stage 1 1 Stage 1 12 Stage 1 20 Stage 1 0 Stage 1 20 Stage 2 1 Stage 2 21 Stage 2 15 Stage 2 14 Stage 2 12 Stage 3 0 Stage 3 12 Stage 3 8 Stage 3 7 Stage 3 8 Stage 4 0 Stage 4 0 Stage 4 3 Stage 4 0 Stage 4 3 Stage 5 0 Stage 5 2 Stage 5 4 Stage 5 3 Stage 5 3 ACP 5 Representative bodies of farmers and agribusinesses and commodity associations participating in public forums and attending Parliamentary committee meetings 14 68 85 86 105 4.5.2-37 Number of micro, small and medium enterprises receiving business development services from USG-assisted sources 2,389 11,274 4,000 4,174 5,000 4.5.2-28 Number of private enterprises, producer organizations, water user associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations that applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 1,510 260 50 40 50 GNDR-3 Number of project beneficiaries in relevant leadership positions 512 331 Male 181 Female 512 300 Male 212 Female GNDR-4 Proportion of target population reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic and political opportunities 49.62 % 50% ACP 3 Number of clients reached by market facilitation institutions/systems supported by USG assistance 0 0 625 550 400 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 167 4.5.2-11 Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producer organizations, water user associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBO) receiving USG assistance 2 389 288 50 23 50 4.5.2-7 Number of individuals who have received USG-supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training 72 260 120 573 60 ACP 4 Number of market facilitation institutions/systems that, as a result of USG assistance, are in each of the following stages: Stage 1: Undergoing capacity/competency assessment; Stage 2: Undertaking capacity/ competency strengthening; Stage 3: Functional Stage 1 0 Stage 1 42 Stage 1 4 Stage 1 2 0 2 Stage 2 0 Stage 2 0 Stage 2 3 Stage 2 2 Stage 2 2 Stage 3 0 Stage 3 0 Stage 3 3 Stage 3 1 Stage 3 1 Source: Quarterly Report, Q2, YR3 Report 168 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT HWA INDICATORS Annex Table 12: HWA Performance Indicator Summary Table. Source: USAID/Zimbabwe Results Reporting FY 2013 (Q4 Revised) Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR 4.5.2(13): Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 New/Continuing 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 New 0 1,500 289 402 395 258 1,344 1,000 Continuing 0 1,000 2,097 2,097 3,000 Disaggregates Not Available 0 0 0 0 Gendered Household Type 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM) 0 0 0 Adult Male no Adult Female (MNF) 0 0 0 Male and Female Adults (M&F) 0 0 0 Child No Adults (CNA) 0 0 0 Disaggregates Not Available 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 4.5.2(23): Value of incremental sales (collected at farm-level) attributed to FTF implementation 0.00 150,000.00 4,186.00 3,047.38 10,878.34 111,814.46 129,926.18 240,000.00 Total Baseline sales (US$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Reporting year sales (US$) 0.00 150,000.00 4,186.00 3,047.38 10,878.34 111,814.46 129,926.18 240,000.00 Total Reporting Year Volume of sales (mt) 0.00 0.00 13,239.00 1,160.72 4,405.96 0.00 18,805.68 0.00 Wild Collection 0.00 150,000.00 4,186.00 3,047.38 10,878.34 111,814.46 129,926.18 240,000.00 Baseline sales (US$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reporting year sales (US$) 150,000.00 4,186.00 3,047.38 10,878.34 111,814.46 129,926.18 240,000.00 Reporting Year Volume of sales (mt) 13,239.00 1,160.72 4,405.96 18,805.68 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 169 Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Baseline sales (US$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reporting year sales (US$) 0.00 Reporting Year Volume of sales (mt) 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Baseline sales (US$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reporting year sales (US$) 0.00 Reporting year Volume of sales (mt) 0.00 0.00 4.5.2(37): Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving business development services from USG assisted sources 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Size of MSME 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Micro 2,500.00 2,386 402 395 258 3,441.00 4,000 Small 0.00 0.00 Medium 0.00 0.00 Disaggregates Not Available 0.00 0.00 MSME Type 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Agricultural producer 0.00 0.00 Input supplier 0.00 0.00 Trader 0.00 0.00 Output processors 0.00 0.00 Non agriculture 0.00 0.00 Other 2,500.00 2,386 402 395 258 3,441.00 4,000 Disaggregates Not Available 0.00 0.00 Sex of owner 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 170 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Male 1,500.00 861 102 1 71 1,035.00 1,600 Female 1,000.00 1,525 300 394 187 2,406.00 2,400 Joint 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 Disaggregates Not Available 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5.2(38): Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation 0.00 435,000.00 0.00 450,000.00 0.00 0.00 450,000.00 200,000.00 Value (US$) 0 435,000.00 0 450,000.00 0.00 0 450,000.00 200,000.00 4.5.2(5): Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 0 2,500 1,523 416 693 233 2,865 New/Continuing 0 2,500 1,523 416 693 233 2,865 4,000 New 0 1,500.00 92 416 693 233 1,434.00 1,500.00 Continuing 0 1,000.00 1,431 1,431.00 2,500.00 Disaggregates Not Available 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sex of Farmer 0 2,500 1,523 416 693 233 2,865 4,000 Male 1,000.00 423 110 164 67 764.00 1,600.00 Female 1,500.00 1,100 306 529 166 2,101.00 2,400.00 Disaggregates Not Available 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.5.2(7): Number of individuals who have received USG supported short￾term agricultural sector productivity or food security training 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Type of individual 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Producers 0 2,500.00 2,386 402 395 258 3,441.00 4,000.00 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 171 Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR People in government 0.00 0.00 0.00 People in private sector firms 0.00 0.00 0.00 People in civil society 0.00 0.00 0.00 Disaggregates Not Available 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sex of Beneficiary 0 2,500 2,386 402 395 258 3,441 4,000 Male 1,000.00 861 102 1 71 1,035.00 1,600.00 Female 1,500.00 1,525 300 394 187 2,406.00 2,400.00 Disaggregates Not Available 0.00 0.00 0.00 USAIDZIM 1: Number of lead farmers in USG assisted programs 0 0 0 0 73 0 73 Females 0 45 0 45 60 Males 0 28 0 28 GNDR 2: Proportion of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources 64% 65% 70% 70% 60% Age: 10-29 Age: 30 & over Numerator 1525 1825 2219 2406 Denominator 2386 2788 3183 3441 USAIDZIM 2: Number of project beneficiaries in relevant leadership positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 78.00 151.00 Farmer Associations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 78.00 151.00 National Level 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Male 0.00 Female 0.00 172 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Provincial Level 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Male 0.00 Female 0.00 District Level 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 78.00 151.00 Male 28.00 53.00 81.00 Female 45.00 25.00 70.00 80.00 Producer Organisations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 78.00 151.00 Milk Producer Organisations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Male 0.00 Female 0.00 Marketing Associations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Male 0.00 Female 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.00 78.00 151.00 Male 28.00 53.00 81.00 Female 45.00 25.00 70.00 GNDR 4: Proportion of target population reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Number of Men Number of Women Numerator - USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 173 Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Denominator - GNDR 5: Number of farmers engaged in Contract farming 0 0 0 0 0 1144 1144 Females 0 707 707 800 Males 0 437 437 Custom Indicators 3.1.9.-3: Prevalence of households with moderate or severe hunger 23% 21% 17% 17% 17% 18% Household Type Child No Adults (CNA) Female no male (FNM) Male and female (M&F) Male no female (MNF) Disaggregates Not Available New/Continuing Continuing New Disaggregates Not Available 0 0 n/a n/a 17% 17% 0 4-16: Prevalence of Poverty - Percent of people living on less than $1.25/day 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 80% Household Type Child No Adults (CNA) Female no male (FNM) 174 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Male and female (M&F) Male no female (MNF) Disaggregates Not Available 1 1 n/a n/a 100% 100% New/Continuing Continuing New Disaggregates Not Available Number of companies working with smallholders and underutilized plants 4 5 0 0 6 11 7 Disaggregates Not Available Continuing 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 New 2 3 1 0 0 6 6 3 Number of new underutilised species researched and explored 20 20 0 0 0 20 20 Disaggregates Not Available Continuing 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 New 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1.9-16: Prevalence of underweight children from 5 years of age Disaggregates Not Available 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Male Continuing New Female Continuing USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 175 Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR New Shortlist of 10 species (developed and prioritised, based on relevant and well-documented criteria and assessment procedures) 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 Disaggregates Not Available 0 10 Continuing 10 10 10 10 10 10 New 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage of initially shortlisted species ultimately making it through to commercialisation 0 20% 0% 30% 10% 10% 50% 40% Disaggregates Not Available 0 40% Continuing 0% 0% 30% 40% 0% New 20% 0% 30% 10% 10% 50% Number of products researched and successfully launched 0 2 0 0 1 8 9 5 Disaggregates Not Available Continuing 0 0 0 1 0 2 New 0 2 0 0 1 8 9 3 Adoption levels by private sector of products developed through project 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 50% Disaggregates Not Available 0 50% Continuing 0% 0% 0% 0% New 25% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% Tangible evidence of newly created demand of undeutilised products nationally and internationally 40% 25% 0% 5% 10% 40% 80% 176 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Disaggregates Not Available 0 80% Continuing 25% 25% 30% 30% New 0 25% 0% 5% 10% 10% Consumer awareness levels around Zimbabwean underutilised plant products 15% 5% 0% 5% 15% 15% 30% Disaggregates Not Available 0 30% Continuing 5% 5% 10% 10% New 15% 5% 0% 5% 5% 5% Quality of appropriate processing facilities 50% 0% 30% 10% 10% 50% 50% Quality (orginically certified or HACCP) 0 50% 0% 30% 10% 10% 50% 50% Quantity of appropriate processing facilities 3 2 1 1 2 6 5 Disaggregates Not Available 0 5 Continuing 1 2 2 3 4 4 New 2 0 1 1 2 2 Percentage of partcipating households actively involved in internal control systems 60% 60% 10% 0% 0% 70% 80% Disaggregates Not Available 0 80% Continuing 40% 60% 60% 70% 70% 70% New 20% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% Percentage of end products from households meeting acceptable private sector quality standards 50% 75% 0% 0% 0% 75% 90% USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 177 Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline Value 2013 2013 2014 2015 Target Actuals Target Target PPR Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total PPR PPR Disaggregates Not Available 0 90% Continuing 0% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% New 50% 0% 0% 0 0 0% Baseline data collected for relevant participating households 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Disaggregates Not Available 0 1 Continuing 1 1 1 1 1 1 New 0 0 0 0 0 0 All M & E activities conducted on time and to plan 66% 41% 8% 8% 8% 65% 100% Disaggregates Not Available 0 1 Continuing 33% 33% 41% 49% 57% 57% New 33% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Number of hits on relevant websites and media 25% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 50% Disaggregates Not Available 0 50% Continuing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% New 25% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% Results presented at relevant coordination fora 5 12 1 2 3 18 7 Disaggregates Not Available 0 7 Continuing 3 10 12 13 15 15 New 2 2 1 2 3 3 178 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 179 ANNEX I. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Annual Report on Indicator Development: Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.” October 2011 – September 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Baseline Study: Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.” May 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (October 2011 – December 2011): Inclusive PPA￾Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe – ‘Local Plants for Global Markets.’ 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (January 2012 – March 2012): Inclusive PPA￾Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe – ‘Local Plants for Global Markets.’ 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (April 2012 – June 2012): Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe – ‘Local Plants for Global Markets.’ 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (July 2012 – September 2012): Inclusive PPA￾Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe – ‘Local Plants for Global Markets.’ 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (October 2012 – December 2012): Inclusive PPA￾Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.” 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (January 2013 – March 2013): Inclusive PPA￾Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe – ‘Local Plants for Global Markets.’ 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “EG Quarterly Progress Report (April 2013 – June 2013): Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe – ‘Local Plants for Global Markets.’ 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Gender, Environment and Child Protection Study on the project ‘Inclusive PPA￾Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.’” June 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “M&E Framework for the Project ‘Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.’”  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Milestones: Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.” Revision September 28, 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “PMP Performance Monitoring Plan for the Project ‘Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.’” Piloting an Approach to Revitalize Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector and Linking over 3000 Farmers into Viable, Formal Markets  “TechnoServe 2011-2012 Work Plan.” 180 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  “TechnoServe 2013 Work Plan.”  “TechnoServe Cooperative Agreement.” 30 September 2010.  USAID and TechnoServe. “Brazilian Poultry Industry – Lessons for Zimbabwe.”  USAID and TechnoServe. “Report on Study Tour to Nampula Province Mozambique.”  USAID and TechnoServe. “Piloting an Approach to Revitalize Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector and Linking over 3000 Farmers into Viable, Formal Markets: Draft Performance Management Plan.” February 2012.  USAID and TechnoServe. “Piloting an Approach to Revitalize Zimbabwe’s Poultry Sector and Linking over 3000 Farmers into Viable, Formal Markets: Final Report.” Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE)  USAID Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Office of Food for Peace and USAID Mission, Harare, Zimbabwe. “Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) Project: Baseline Study Report.” Catholic Relief Services, USCCB/Zimbabwe, ACDI/VOCA, CARE. January 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Performance Evaluation for Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) Project: Evaluation Report.” Nedico. April 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) Consortium: Agribusiness Strategy, Single-Year Assistance Programs/ Development Activity Programs.” Catholic Relief Services, ACDI/VOCA, CARE. June 2, 2011. Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe  Mugweni, Louise. USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Business Development – Dairy Sector.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. Map - Zimbabwe Livestock and Dairy projects. January 2011.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. Map - Zimbabwe Livestock and Dairy projects. January 2013.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. Map - Zimbabwe Livestock and Dairy projects. September 2013.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Beneficiary Disaggregation.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Changing Attitudes from Subsistence to Sustainability” 2014.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Private Sector Investment Within Small Scale Dairy Sector With Zimbabwe.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Annual Results Report, January – September 2010.” October 2010.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Annual Results Report, October 2010-September 2011.” October 2011.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Baseline Survey.” 2010.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Final Project Survey.” May 2011.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, January 18 – March 31, 2010.” 2010.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, July – September 2010.” October 2010.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, April – June 2011.” July 2011. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 181  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, July – September 2011.” October 2011.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, October – December 2011.” January 2012.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, January – March 2012.” April 2012.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, April – June 2012.” July 2012.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe: Quarterly Report, July – September 2012.” October 2012.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Site Visit to Gokwe Milk Collection Centre: September 26, 2012.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Site Visit to Sangano Milk Collection Centre: 11 March 2011: Background to Zimbabwe Dairy and Livestock Project Components.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Summary of Nutritional Issues.” April 2012.  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Trip Report, September 8, 2010.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Trip Report, December 1, 2010.”  USAID and Land O’ Lakes, Inc. “Trip Report, July 21, 2011.” Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN-Zimbabwe)  USAID and Mercy Corps. “Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN￾Zimbabwe): Baseline Survey Report.” August 2010.  USAID and Mercy Corps. “Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN￾Zimbabwe): Indicator Tracking Table, October 2010.”  USAID and Mercy Corps. “Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN￾Zimbabwe): Semi-Annual Report, November 2009-May 2010.”  USAID and Mercy Corps. “Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN￾Zimbabwe): Semi-Annual Report, June 2010-December 2010.”  USAID and Mercy Corps. “Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets in Zimbabwe (RAIN￾Zimbabwe): USAID Site Visit Report.” Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP)  USAID/South Africa. “Request for Task Oder Proposal (RFTOP): Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program.” July 23, 2010.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Abbreviated Project Appraisal Document (USAID/Zimbabwe Development Objective Two: Increase Food Security in Targeted Areas of Zimbabwe).” August 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Concept Note.”  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Implementation Approach 2011-2012, Concept Note.” 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Components 1 and 2 Implementation Focus and Strategies for FY2012 and FY2013/14.” 16 May 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 1st Quarterly Progress Report (October 2010 – December 2010).” February 6, 2011. 182 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 2nd Quarterly Progress Report (January 2011 – March 2011).” April 30, 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 3rd Quarterly Progress Report (April 2011 – June 2011). July 30, 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Annual Report & 4th Quarterly Progress Report, Year One (September 2010 – October 2011.” September 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 1st Quarterly Progress Report, Year Two (October 2011 – December 2011).” January 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 2nd Quarterly Progress Report, Year Two. (January 2012 – March 2012). April 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 3rd Quarterly Progress Report, Year Two (April 2012 – June 2012). July 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Annual Report & 4th Quarterly Progress Report, Year Two (October 2011 – September 2012). October 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 2nd Quarterly Progress Report, Year Three (January 2013 – March 2013). April 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 1st Quarterly Progress Report, Year Three (October 2012 – December 2012). January 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): 3rd Quarterly Progress Report, Year Three. (April 2013 – June 2013). July 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Annual Workplan – Year One (October 2010 – September 2011). March 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Annual Workplan – Year Three (October 2012 – September 2013). September 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Annual Workplan – Year Two (October 2011 – September 2012). September 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Results Framework and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).” August 31, 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Results Framework and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).” February 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program (Zim-ACP): Results Framework and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).” March 15, 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Sector Assessment.” June 17, 2010. Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED)  Hilfswerk Austria International (HWA). “Proposal: Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe.” USAID/Zimbabwe. 12 August 2011.  Hilfswerk Austria International (HWA). “Proposal: Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe. Attachment A, Program Description.” USAID/Zimbabwe. 25 August 2011. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 183  Hilfswerk Austria International (HWA). “Proposal: Inclusive PPA-Business Model for Developing Underutilised Plants to Improve Food Security in Zimbabwe. Attachment B, Milestone Plan..” USAID/Zimbabwe. August 2011.  Hilfswerk Austria International (HWA). “Top 20 Summaries.”  USAID/Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Agricultural Incomes and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Demand and Supply of Short-term Credit for Zimbabwe’s Smallholder Agricultural Commodity Value Chains.” September 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Task Order: Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim￾AIED).” October 1, 2010.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Annual Report #2, 2012.” October 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Annual Report #3, 2013.” October 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Baseline Survey Report.” November 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan – Including Performance Indicators and Year 1 Work Plan.” October 2010.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (Inclusive of PMP).” February 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.” August 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #1 (October – December 2010).  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #3 (April – June 2011). July 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #4 (Annual Report #1). September 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #2, 2012.” April 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #1, 2012.” January 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #1, 2013.” January 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #2 – FY2013.” April 30, 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Quarterly Report #3 – FY2013.” July 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Agricultural Incomes and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Smallholder Irrigation in Zimbabwe – the current status and Zim-AIED interventions.” 31 March 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Sweet Potato Production in Zimbabwe.” May 2011. 184 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Work Plan 2011.” January 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Work Plan 2011.” April 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Work Plan 2011.” June 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Year 2 Work Plan, 2011-2012.” September 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Year 3 Work Plan, 2012-2013.” Draft, December 14, 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Year 3 Work Plan, 2012-2013.” Draft, January 15, 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Year 3 Work Plan, 2012-2013.” Draft, November 2, 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED) Year 4 Work Plan: 2013-2014.” Draft, August 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED): AgriTrade Monthly Report July 2013.” July 31, 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED): Annual Report #2, 2012. October 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Agricultural Incomes and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Banana Production in Zimbabwe.” May 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Potato Production in Zimbabwe.” 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Export Horticulture in Zimbabwe.” 31 March 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Agricultural Incomes and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Processing in Zimbabwe.” 31 March 2011.  USAID/Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Agricultural Income and Employment Development (Zim-AIED). “Mangetout Peas Production in Zimbabwe.” 31 March 2011. Other Reports  “Goromonzi Field Notes.”  Horticultural Promotion Council Zimbabwe (HPC). “HPC Market Update.” September-October 2012 and September-October 2013. 2013.  Livestock and Meat Advisory Council (LMAC). “LMAC Monthly Livestock Market Update: October 2013.” October 2013.  Mudimu, Godfrey D. and Helene Kiremidjian. “An Approach for Stakeholder Consultation, Dialogue and Advocacy for Improved Business Environment: the Case of USAID’s Zimbabwe Agricultural Competitiveness Program. Application of the CIBER Assessment Tool in Zimbabwe.” February 2012.  “Revitalization of Smallholder Agricultural Production in Zimbabwe (RSAPZ) 2010-2012: End of Evaluation Report.” June 2012. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 185  USAID Capable Partners Program. “NGO Tips: Introducing USAID Solicitation Instruments.” October 2011.  UASID Feed the Future. “Southern Africa FY 2010 Implementation Plan.”  USAID/Southern Africa. “Agricultural Portfolio Evaluation Task Order Executed.” 5 September 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Agriculture and Food Security in Zimbabwe: A Political Economy Analysis.” May 15, 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “USAID/Zimbabwe Development Objective Two: Increase Food Security in Targeted Areas of Zimbabwe, Abbreviated Project Appraisal Document.” August 2013.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “FTF Alignment Proposal.”  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Gender Analysis and Assessment for Feed the Future Programming.” January 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Internal Review of Phase 1 Livelihood Grants.” 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Market Mechanisms to Achieve Food Security Assessment: Final Report.” January 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Transition Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2013-2015.” 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural and Rural Livelihood Financial Market Assessment, Volume I.” February 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural and Rural Livelihood Financial Market Assessment, Volume II.” February 2012.  USAID/Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Sector Market Study: Raise Plus Limited Scope of Work IQC.” June 2010.  World Bank and Government of Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe Agricultural Assessment Study. Final Report.” December 2010. Harare: PricewaterhouseCoopers.  World Bank. “World Development Indicators: Rurual Population (% of total population)”. Access January 2014. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS  World Economic Forum. “The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013.” Edited by Klaus Schwab. 2012.  World Economic Forum. “The Global Competitiveness Report 2013 – 2014.” Edited by Klaus Schwab. 2013.  Zoellick, Robert, Former President, World Bank. “Presentation: In the midst of the financial crisis, women can be agents of change.” March 26, 2009.  Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVac). “ZimVac Interim Rural Food Security Assessment National Report.” August 30, 2008. 186 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Page intentionally left blank. USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 187 188 USAID/ZIMBABWE AGRICULTURE PORTFOLIO EVALUATION FINAL REPORT U.S. Agency for International Development/Zimbabwe One Pascoe Avenue Belgravia, Harare Zimbabwe Tel: +263 4 252 401 Fax: +263 4 252 478 www.usaid.gov/zimbabwe