December 2014 
This document was prepared at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 
It was prepared by the Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems (ASSESS) activity, a 
partnership of the United States Department of Agriculture/Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA/FAS), the 
University of Rhode Island (URI), Delaware State University (DSU), and Kwame Nkrumah University of Science 
and Technology (KNUST).
EVALUATION 
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the West Africa
Fertilizer Program (WAFP)
2
December - 2014
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Award Number: AID-624-P-14-00004
USAID Cognizant Technical Office: West Africa Regional Agriculture Office
3
ACRONYMS
AFAP : African Fertilizer and Agribusiness Partnership
AGRA : Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa
ASPRODEB : Association Sénégalaise pour la Promotion de Développement a la Base
ASESCAW : Association Socio-Educative, Sportive et Culturelle des Agriculteurs du Walo
ASSESS : Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems
CAADP : Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
DCA : Development Credit Authority
ECOWAP : Regional Agriculture Policy for West Africa
ECOWAS : Economic Community of West African States
EGO : Economic Growth Office
FEPRODES : Fédération des Groupements et Associations de femmes productrices de Saint-Louis
FDP : Fertilizer Deep Placement
FPA : Fédération des Périmètres autogérés
ICS : Industries Chimiques du Sénégal
IFDC : International Fertilizer Development Center
IPs : Implementing Partners
ISRA : Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles
M&E : Monitoring and Evaluation
MOA : Ministry of Agriculture
MOFA : Ministry of Food and Agriculture
NGO's : Non-Governmental Organizations
PRIME : Produire Riz Moins d’engrais
SWOT : Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
UDP : Urea Deep Placement
US : United States
USAID : United States Agency for International Development
WA : West Africa
WACFC : West Africa Committee for Fertilizer Control
WAFP : West Africa Fertilizer Program
WAPP : West Africa Productivity Program
WASP : West Africa Seed Program
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .....................................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................7
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................13
1.1. The West Africa Fertilizer Program.....................................................................................................................13
1.2. WAFP Intended Results, Approach and Beneficiaries......................................................................................14
2. EVALUATION PURPOSE, QUESTIONS AND METHODS................................................16
2.1. Evaluation Purpose and Scope..........................................................................................................................16
2.2. Evaluation Questions..........................................................................................................................................16
2.3. Methodology, Sampling Frame and Review of Documents.......................................................................17
2.4 Limitations of Methods......................................................................................................................................20
2.5. Team Composition .............................................................................................................................................21
3. FINDINGS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................22
3.1. The Cohesiveness of WAFP’s regional approach........................................................................................22
3.1.1. Regional Program Focus...........................................................................................................................22
3.1.2. Impact on Availability of Affordable Quality Fertilizer......................................................................22
3.1.3. Interaction of regional and national programs....................................................................................23
3.1.4. Existence of specific opportunities or innovations............................................................................23
3.2. WAFP’s Results and Performance to Date...................................................................................................24
3.2.1. Accomplishments to date.........................................................................................................................24
3.2.2. Sufficiency of evidence to meet audit standards.................................................................................29
3.2.3 Factors hindering or enabling achievements and corrective actions..................................................29
3.3. Effectiveness of WAFP’s Private Sector and Access to Finance Approaches.......................................30
3.3.1. Appropriateness of IFDC’s private sector approach for a regional program .............................30
3.3.2. Leveraging the right group of partners, additional approaches for private sector investment 
and access to credit .....................................................................................................................................................31
3.3.3. Promising Areas of Investments.............................................................................................................32
3.3.4. Position of DCA Strategy.........................................................................................................................32
3.4. WAFP’s Compliance with FtF Cross-Cutting Issues..................................................................................33
3.5. Capacity, Knowledge and Skills of Staff..........................................................................................................33
4. CONCLUSION AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................35
5. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................40
5
6. ANNEXES..................................................................................................................................42
Annex 1: SWOT Analysis WAFP-IFDC ......................................................................................................................42
Annex 2: WAFP FtFMS Data Entry Status Report....................................................................................................44
Annex 3: Evaluation Design Matrix...............................................................................................................................50
Annex 4: Tools for data collection ...............................................................................................................................54
Annex 4.1. Interview Questions – USAID Bilateral Missions......................................................................54
Annex 4.2. Interview Questions – Regional Level Stakeholders e.g. ECOWAS ....................................56
Annex 4.3. Interview Questions – Government Agencies & National level Stakeholders...................58
Annex 4.4. Interview Questions – Research Institutions.............................................................................60
Annex 4.5. Interview Questions – Private Sector Stakeholders................................................................. 62
Annex 5: List of persons/organizations met...............................................................................................................64
Annex 6: The Evaluation Scope of Work....................................................................................................................68
Annex 7: Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations....................................85
6
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The ASSESS team would like to express its gratitude, first to the USAID West Africa Regional Office for 
guidance and orientation on the Fertilizer Program. Thanks also go to USAID bilateral Missions for 
answering our many questions.
It is important to recognize the West African Fertilizer Program in Accra, IFDC offices in the host 
countries, AFAP, and AGRA offices for taking time to share valuable information on the Fertilizer program.
Thanks to the ECOWAS Commission in Abuja, Nigeria for spending time to explain the state of policy 
regulation for fertilizers in the region. The ASSESS team would also like to thank the various Government 
Ministries in the countries of Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Liberia for the time taken to supply the team 
with information and explanations on the Fertilizer Program.
Recognition goes to the private sector actors in these focus countries, as well as Togo for the information 
supplied to assist the team to develop its report. Equal appreciations are directed to the various Statistics 
Departments of various Government Ministries and Research Institutions. 
However, accountability for any misrepresentations or faults in the document rests on the ASSESS team 
members.
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID West Africa’s mission-wide goal is to improve the social and economic wellbeing of West Africans. 
The Feed the Future (FtF) regional and country programs contribute to this goal by increasing agricultural 
productivity and production of key staples and food crops as indicated. However, efforts to increase crop 
and livestock yields are constrained by a number of factors including low quantity and quality of fertilizer 
use. The amount of fertilizer used in FtF countries is less than ten times the targeted amount proposed 
(50kg per hectare per annum) by ECOWAS in 2006. Not only is the quantity of fertilizers used low, but 
there is also significant concern about the quality of fertilizers sold in the region.
To respond to this critical challenge, USAID West Africa in alignment with the Comprehensive Africa 
Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), and the sub-regional ECOWAS Agriculture Plan (ECOWAP), 
designed and awarded the West African Fertilizer Program (WAFP) to the International Fertilizer 
Development Center (IFDC) in June 5th 2012. WAFP is an integral part of USAID West Africa’s strategy to 
achieve the U.S. Feed the Future (FtF) goals to increase regional availability of appropriate and affordable 
fertilizer. WAFP is well aligned to the Mission’s Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RDCS), 
Economic Growth Objectives (RDCS-REGO) and it is directly contributing to enhancing regional 
integration and increased agricultural productivity, under RDCS Intermediate Results as follows: (IR 2:1) 
Increased regional supply and distribution of selected fertilizers by the private sector; (IR: 2, 3 & 4) 
Increased use of improved fertilizers; Improved efficiency of regional market transactions; and improved 
enabling environment for fertilizer policy and regulatory framework development.
IFDC is the lead implementer of WAFP, with additional technical support provided through the African 
Fertilizer and Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) and local public and private sector institutions in the 
targeted countries. WAFP is a regional project but activities are concentrated primarily in the region’s FtF 
focus countries: Ghana, Senegal, Mali, and Liberia.
The 5-year WAFP which began on June 5, 2012 and will end on May 31st 2017 is at its halfway point, and 
USAID West Africa has subsequently commissioned the Analytical Support Services and Evaluation for 
Sustainable Systems (ASSESS) project to conduct the mid-term evaluation to help the Mission better 
understand the program’s progress to date and determine whether the interventions and team are properly 
oriented to achieve the program’s goal or not. Specifically, the evaluation addresses the following areas: 1) 
cohesiveness of WAFP’s regional approach, 2) results and performance to date, 3) effectiveness of private 
sector and access to finance approaches, 4) compliance with FtF cross-cutting issues, and 5) capacity of 
IFDC’s mobilized resources for the program implementation.
The ASSESS team participated in a number of remote consultations, and reviewed annual and quarterly 
reports and other project documents. The team conducted fieldwork in Ghana, Nigeria, Mali and Senegal, 
and held meetings with USAID/WA/RAO, the IFDC/WAFP team, AFAP, private and public sector 
institutions. 
Examination of WAFP’s achievements to date was based on review of the four intermediate results: 1) IR-1. 
Increased regional supply and distribution of selected fertilizers by the private sector; 2) IR-2. Increased use 
of improved fertilizers; 3) IR-3. Improved efficiency of regional market transactions; and 4) IR-4. Improved 
enabling environment for fertilizer policy and regulatory framework development which showed a low level 
of performance.
The ASSESS evaluation team found that IFDC had not achieved WAFP objectives as expected at the time of 
evaluation. IFDC has failed to build a well-structured regional program with a clear vision and mission and 
to put in place a strategy and tactical approaches to address the challenges facing them. The WAFP 
program had faced changes in staff that negatively influenced the consistency in the program’s progress. The 
West Africa Fertilizer Regulatory Policy is progressing towards adoption at country level but is not yet 
adopted by all ECOWAS countries. 
8
Despite some efforts at the field level, WAFP activities have neither increased the supply of fertilizer
regionally nor increased use of quality fertilizers. There was no evidence of increase in efficiency of fertilizer
use, in spite of the slight improvement in the enabling environment fostered through the marginal 
improvement in infrastructure, and private sector involvement. Private sector engagement was low and 
investment funds leveraged were less than anticipated. There has not been establishment of a credit 
program through the Development Credit Authority (DCA) strategy. 
The ASSESS team made observations and recommendations by answering these questions: 
 Is the program focused on a clear set of regional activities?
The program does not focus on a clear set of regional activities because the collaborating and implementing 
partners, WAFP, ECOWAS and AFAP, did not work together from the start and had separate activities. 
Recommendations:
 WAFP should set up a working group involving IFDC, the sub-grantee AFAP, and programs such as 
WAPP and WASP to provide essential support services to the program. In addition WAFP should 
bring together ECOWAS representatives at the country level (National Assembly) to assist in the 
institutionalization and the implementation of the fertilizer regulation on quality control. WAFP 
should develop MOU’s with all Ministries of regional governments involved in the project and keep 
them informed of the WAFP progress and their role in project success.
 Will it impact on availability of affordable quality fertilizer?
While IFDC promotes the improved use and methods of fertilizer application, the overall collective support 
of WAFP to this activity is weak. There need to be regulation enforcement to improve the quality and 
quantity of fertilizer on the market. 
Recommendations:
 For good and standardized fertilizers with the right amounts of nutrients to be made available to 
farmers throughout the region, regulation should be enforced. This will encourage private sector 
participation in the program, increase famer use of fertilizer, and will have a definite impact on the 
countries’ agriculture. 
 How should the program interact with regional and national programs?
An effort was made to bring the ministries and high ranking government officials together in November 
2012 but there is an absence of follow-up activities, regular networking and exchanges between national 
and regional programs for fertilizer quality assurance. There are no common goals and operational 
procedures developed for laboratories, input suppliers, warehousing and fertilizer storage operators to 
work together to satisfy in some way the project objectives.
Recommendations:
 The regional program should interact with the national programs through joint activities developed 
during workshop participation and networking. WAFP could take the initiative to connect 
Ministries of Agriculture of the various countries to cooperate on ECOWAS policy regulations. 
 What specific opportunities or innovations exist to enhance effective program 
implementation and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant 
bilateral USAID programming), and to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach 
of the program?
9
Opportunities and innovations exist for the increase in fertilizer use. Among these are: Important 
phosphates mines in West Africa; On-going national government initiatives; USAID bilateral programs are 
already implementing activities in all visited countries: Finally, there is a large regional fertilizer deficit that 
can stimulate increases in market demand and supply. 
Recommendations:
 WAFP should build on existing institutions and organizations: Opportunities exist at institutions 
such as ECOWAS, AFAP, AGRA, and programs (WAPP, WASP) to introduce the WAFP in 
countries where initial penetration may have been difficult. The same organizations could also serve 
to include visibility of WAFP. WAFP should work closely with WAPP and WASP to develop joint 
programs and policies, to endorse the use of good seeds and fertilizers in order to enhance crop 
and farm productivity.
 What has been accomplished to date? Which results have sufficient evidence to meet 
program audit standards?
WAFP did not meet most of its targets during the first two years. The expected percent change in volume 
of fertilizer sold over the two years did not occur, and WAFP has not gained visibility. The following 
observations under each Intermediate result support are made:
- IR.1- Increased regional supply and distribution of selected fertilizers by the private sector: 
WAFP provided assistance to many private enterprises, but did not meet the targets. Over the two years 
WAFP did not assist any private fertilizer related firms operating at import, blender and wholesale levels. 
WAFP provided assistance to MSMEs including farmers to access loans but most of them did not take 
advantage of the DCA. Only 2% (600) of public and private fertilizer stakeholders received fertilizers and 
market information through WAFP support compared to the two years’ target of 30,000 stakeholders.
- IR.2 – Increased use of improved fertilizers
The WAFP program facilitated the formation of Fertilizer Recommendation Task Forces in Ghana, Liberia, 
Mali and Senegal to coordinate work on soil testing and modeling, leading to fertilizer recommendations. 
Almost 56% of technologies (Fertilizer granulation and deep fertilizer placement) were promoted and made 
available to the farmers. The accummulated percentage of rice fertilizer use per targeted area is 48.4%, 
compared to 65.5% for maize and 48.03% for seed-cotton. Hence the intermediate results of increased 
fertilizer use was under achieved.
- IR.3 - Improved effficiency of regional market transactions
The value of new private sector investment in agricultural sector or food chain leveraged by FtF 
implementation was only 7.47 percent achieved. There was no progress made with the number of private 
fertilizer related firms operating at the import, blender, and wholesale levels in USG assisted countries, 
infrastructure development experienced an 83.3 percent increase; the number of loan application 
documents submitted to commercial banks and micro-finance institutions increased.
- IR.4 - Improved enabling environment for fertilizer policy and regulatory framework development
WAFP provided technical assistance to partners to improve the policy and regulatory environment for 
fertilizer production, trade and quality control and only 28.57% of the policy and regulatory framework 
procedures were developed over the two years.
Recommendations:
 WAFP should make its program visible. The branding should be included in all stipulated 
communication messages. There should be a clear distinction between WAFP and other IFDC in￾country programs. WAFP should revise its program targets and focus on policy and regulatory 
development mainly on the regional activities including improving the business and harmonization of 
the fertilizers. 
10
 After two years of activities, WAFP should re-examine its strategy of inclusion of national 
governments in the program. Joint MOU should be developed with each of them and should be 
made to understand the importance of the program; that is, to strengthen but not to replace 
national initiatives that are in place.
 WAFP should not be promoting the development of technologies such as Fertilizer Granulation and 
Deep Fertilizer Placement directly to the farmers. WAFP assistance should be provided through 
local institutions including governments’ entities, NGOs and IFDC projects that can work closely 
with farmers and producer organizations.
 Sufficiency of evidence to meet audit standards:
WAFP results outlined in its annual reports do not meet audit standards.
Recommendations:
 WAFP should implement a strong program monitoring system that can meet USAID reporting 
requirements. USAID and IFDC should discuss and revise indicators as needed.
 What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder the achievement 
of the program’s expected outcomes and what corrective actions and/or areas for 
improvement are needed?
Two key factors, human resources and organizational structure help or hinder the achievement of WAFP 
expected outcomes. 
- WAFP has a weak leadership as illustrated by a lack of building a common vision and missions with all 
participating countries;
- WAFP has been unable to put an appropriate governance model to develop a structure and timetable 
to measure achievements.
Recommendations:
 WAFP needs to have a Chief of Party (COP) who can ensure strong leadership. WAFP needs to 
have a strong policy analyst at the headquarters to promote regional policies and to provide 
support and direction to the WAFP program.
 WAFP needs to have a strong Agri-business Specialist with interest oriented towards the private 
sector.
 WAFP needs to have a dynamic and well-rounded Communication Specialist to: promote activities 
such as branding, developing a communication plan; promote the program and results throughout 
the region and increase its visibility. 
 Is the current DCA strategy, that emphasizes coordination with bilateral Missions for 
smaller investments, correctly positioned? Is there a clear strategy for achieving the large 
investments needed for regional results?
There is confusion between the concept of line of credit and the DCA guarantee mechanism. The DCA 
mechanism appears to have some limitations to adequately cover large investments particularly medium and 
long term investments. There is no clear strategy for WAFP to encourage large business enterprise 
financing. 
Recommendations:
 WAFP needs to develop a clear strategy with AFAP on how best to use the limited resources 
under the DCA to fund farmers and enterprises. 
11
 WAFP needs to work closely with ECOWAS to identify, promote and place large business 
enterprises.
 WAFP must explore the possibility to convene meetings with AFAP and local and regional banks to 
present to the banks the opportunities that exist in using the DCA to fund limited resource 
farmers and investors in the fertilizer business.
 Is the program leveraging the right group of partners? What additional approaches are 
needed to encourage sufficient private sector investment and access to credit? What are 
the most promising areas of investment?
The project is meeting the right type of partners (input suppliers, traders, banks, producers organizations), 
but has not developed the strategy for maintaining the agri-business firms interest over a sustainable period 
of time to adequately promote the type of network that would encourage investment in the fertilizer value 
chain.
Recommendations:
 WAFP should develop a strategy to encourage national governments, NGOs and private sector 
involvement into the program and to participate in the activities that will increase the production 
and use of fertilizers.
 WAFP should also develop a solid working relationship with WAPP or WASP in order to provide 
accompanying technologies to the private sector and farmers. Finally, WAFP should develop a joint 
policy with ECOWAS to bring together the private sector to participate effectively.
In spite of WAFP’s failure to leverage large business investments, there are promising areas where small 
and medium businesses are likely to make a difference in the fertilizer industry. These include:
- Identification of regional fertilizer markets for development.
- Development of electronic directories of targeted farmers in subsidy programs and information 
sharing - this is being piloted in Ghana by an implementing partner and entrepreuner. 
- The employment and use of soil tool kit tests on a larger scale by local entrepreners is especially 
interesting when combined with an electronic directory previously discussed. 
Recommendations:
 Development of a regional alliance for the promotion of fertilizer equipment and tools. 
 Development of regional laboratories for fertilizer quality control in selected ECOWAS countries.
 Composting with the application of additional inorganic nutrients.
 To what extent are the project interventions addressing cross-cutting issues such as 
gender and climate-smart agriculture?
- All projects include programs for women and youth. WAFP is providing technical assistance to 
FEPRODES (Federation des groupements et association de femmes productrices de Saint-louis) in 
Senegal, which has 40,000 women members.
WAFP has not adequately addressed climate smart agriculture. However in few countries, CSA issues are 
being incorporated.
- In Mali and Senegal a resilience program is in place at the national level to address climate change (by 
using improved seeds and prudent water management).
- With respect to research, efforts have been made to examine micro-dose use on millet, sorghum and 
corn by ISRA in Senegal. 
- The IFDC prime project in Senegal has studied the effects of supplementary irrigation to minimize the 
negative effects of plant stress.
12
Recommendations:
 WAFP should increase women’s access to fertilizers, farm and business resources through 
increased collaborative ventures and information dissemination.
 WAFP should move beyond its environmental compliance to include comprehensive and regional 
activities on climate change patterns on agriculture and environment (DPU, micro-dose, 
complementary irrigation).
 Does the core staff have the right skills, knowledge and capacity needed to achieve the 
work at hand? If not, can they get it from other IFDC resources and/or their sub-grantees? 
WAFP staff meets the basic qualifications to run the project. They have solid technical background and field 
experience, but strong leadership is missing. However, WAFP/IFDC is constrained by an excessive 
bureaucratic structure that slows down the implementation of program activities. WAFP does not have the 
right mix of expertise among the field staff. A strong Policy Analyst, an Agri-Business Specialist (this is a 
recently recruited position) and a dynamic Communication Specialist are required to strengthen the team. 
The policy analyst should be working hand-in-hand with the project Chief of Party (COP). 
Way forward
WAFP requires a viable and vibrant senior management team led by a strong leader with great skills in 
advocacy and relationship building at all levels, especially regionally. WAFP has not been successful in 
meeting its targets. Most of the achievements noted were during the second year; hence the poor level of 
achievement at mid-term. The project must speed up its activities in order to attain some measure of 
success.
WAPF should strengthen engagement/collaboration with existing stakeholders at all levels: regionally with 
ECOWAS, UEMOA etc., nationally with the ministries/departments of Agriculture and the private sector. 
This will enhance and clarify the mission of the program to stakeholders and promote ownership of the 
program’s objectives. 
WAFP as a regional program should be more focused and should work to promote the regional visibility of 
its activities through effective communication, advocacy and collaboration, leveraging common platforms for 
information sharing and dissemination.
To promote access to finance and explore new financial mechanisms which will attract the full private 
sector participation in the program, WAFP should strengthen its engagement with the sub-grantee AFAP, 
expanding its scope to undertake the private sector initiatives and work closely with the SMEs in-country 
and regionally. WAFP should find a way to encourage the private sector to utilize the funds available 
through the DCA.
13
I. INTRODUCTION AND 
BACKGROUND 
1.1. The West Africa Fertilizer Program
Agriculture is the pillar of economic advancement in West African states. About 65 percent of the 
population depends on agriculture as their primary source of livelihood. This sector contributes 30-40 
percent of the region’s gross domestic product (GDP), over 15 percent of regional export earnings, and 
employs on average 50 to 60 percent of the workforce. However, the sector has experienced relative 
stagnation in the last decade when compared to other developing areas such as Asia and Latin America. The 
sector’s growth is hampered by low agricultural productivity, lack of small holder farmer integration into 
markets and poor access to services and agro-inputs. 
Fertilizers, combined with accompanying technologies, are essential elements to increase agricultural 
productivity, production and to stimulate agribusiness development. Unfortunately, average fertilizer 
application across Sub Saharan Africa has remained low, only between 5 and 10 kg/hectare since the 1990s, 
which is less than 10% of the world’s average, and far below the 50kg/hectare target set by the African 
Union’s Abuja Declaration on Fertilizer in June 2006. Currently total fertilizer consumption in West Africa 
is the lowest in the world and the fertilizer distribution chain is characterized by a wide array of 
constraints. Constraints include but are not limited to: policies that restrict or exclude competitive 
participation in the market, credit risks for suppliers, underdeveloped distribution networks and output 
markets, along with insufficient infrastructure at various points in the value chain. Additional limitations are 
high fertilizer costs, lack of market information and failure of supplies to reach farmers at the appropriate 
time during the growing season. Despite these challenges, West Africa is well positioned to increase 
fertilizer use and agricultural productivity due to increasing policy and regulatory coherence and agricultural 
investments.
In response to these challenges and in alignment with the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development 
Program (CAADP), and the sub-regional ECOWAS Agriculture Plan, (ECOWAP), USAID/ West Africa 
designed and awarded WAFP to IFDC in June 2012. WAFP is an integral part of USAID West Africa’s 
strategy to achieve U.S. Feed the Future (FtF) Initiative goals and increase regional availability of appropriate 
and affordable fertilizer. WAFP aligns with the Mission’s Regional Development Cooperation Strategy, 
Economic Growth Objectives, and it is directly linked to enhancing regional integration and increased 
agricultural productivity, which are RDCS Intermediate Results (IR 2:1 and 2 to 4).
IFDC is the lead implementer of WAFP, with additional technical support provided through the African 
Fertilizer and Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP), and local public and private sector institutions in the 
targeted countries. WAFP is a regional project with activities concentrated primarily in the region’s FtF 
focus countries, Ghana, Senegal, Mali, and Liberia. However, in areas such as fertilizer market collaboration, 
fertilizer policy and regulatory framework development, the project provides assistance to all 15 ECOWAS 
countries. 
The regional scope applies to an enabling environment, regulatory harmonization and quality control, and 
fertilizer subsidy policy. Target beneficiaries for WAFP are primarily producers, agro-input dealers, 
agricultural enterprises, private sector actors involved in fertilizer production, distribution and blending, 
research institutions/laboratories, as well as government and regulatory bodies responsible for creating and 
maintaining an enabling environment for a dynamic fertilizer sector.
14
1.2. WAFP Intended Results, Approach and Beneficiaries
The West Africa Fertilizer Program (WAFP) is designed to contribute to the overall goal of “Improved 
Sustainable Agricultural Productivity”. Through an analysis of the critical challenges and issues 
impacting sustainable agricultural productivity at the ECOWAS regional level, IFDC believes that four key 
elements are necessary to ensure the attainment of WAFP’s Strategic Objective (SO) of “Increased 
Regional Availability and Use of Appropriate and Affordable Fertilizer”, including i) regional supply 
and distribution, ii) knowledge and use of improved technologies and methods, iii) efficiency of market 
transactions, and iv) an enabling policy environment.
WAFP’s development hypotheses are: (1) public-private partnerships are essential to achieve food security 
through increased fertilizer use; and (2) the private sector is more effective in supplying and distributing 
fertilizers than the public sector. WAFP aligns with the Mission’s Regional Development Cooperation 
Strategy Economic Growth Objectives and it is directly linked to increasing regional integration and 
increased agricultural productivity, which are RDCS Intermediate Results (IR 2:1 and 2-4). 
Based on this, IFDC developed the WAFP Results Framework that recognizes the necessity to focus on 
these key areas to respond to the problems of inadequate access and the use of appropriate and affordable 
fertilizer by smallholder farmers (Figure 1). 
 Figure 1 : WAFP Results Framework
Goal: Improved Sustainable Agricultural Productivity
Strategic Objective: Increased regional availability and use of appropriate and affordable fertilizer
Indicator 1: Percentage change in yield per hectare of targeted crops in USG assisted areas
Indicator 2: Percentage in fertilizer available for agricultural use in USG assisted areas
Intervention Areas : 1) Private Sector Investments in the Value Chain 2) Fertilizer Demand Creation 
through ISFM and other technologies 3) Policy Environment and ECOWAS Regulations
4) Capacity Building 5) Cross Cutting Issues
IR 1: Increased regional 
supply and distribution of 
selected fertilizers by the 
private sector
IR 2: Increased 
knowledge and use of 
improved agricultural 
technologies and 
methods
IR 3: Improved 
efficiency of 
regional 
market 
transactions
IR 4: Improved 
enabling 
environment for 
fertilizer policy and 
regulatory 
framework 
Sub IR 1.1: Expanded use of storage, development
blending, distribution, packaging and 
labeling technology; 
Sub IR 1.2: Increased management 
and marketing capabilities of private 
sector fertilizer importers, blenders 
and distributors; Sub-IR 1.3: 
Improved fertilizer product packaging 
and labeling: Sub IR 1.4: Increased 
access to market information
Sub IR 2.1: Improved 
regional fertilizer 
recommendations
Sub-IR 3.2 Increased imports of 
fertilizers in USG assisted areas; Sub IR 
3.2: Effective (policy) advocacy to 
support regional free trade zone; Sub 
IR 3.3: Effective enforcement of 
fertilizer quality systems
Sub IR 4.1: Effective 
regional fertilizer 
stakeholders forum 
established; Sub IR 
4.2: Government￾endorsed fertilizer 
subsidy program 
study
WAFP’s Results Framework outlines the program and is created as part of the program’s design and 
performance management plan (PMP). Along with the results framework, five assumptions are identified: (1) 
PPP as a tool to contribute to the efficiency of the fertilizer value chain and to support policy changes; (2) 
ECOWAS will put in place a regulatory framework for fertilizer quality control; (3) member countries will 
implement ECOWAS regulatory framework; (4) ECOWAS fertilizer regulations will contribute to reduce 
fertilizer costs; (5) there is a large and unmet effective demand from farmers in West Africa for timely and 
15
affordable fertilizers of the correct type tailored to their specific soil types and crop varieties in 
appropriately sized units.
IFDC is the lead implementer of the WAFP with additional technical support provided through AFAP and 
local public and private sector institutions in the targeted countries. AFAP which is a WAFP sub-grantee, 
provides technical expertise on financing, political strategy and private sector development to the program. 
ECOWAS plays an important role by promoting and driving policy development and regulatory consistency. 
It ensures the enactment of the new standards and provides some regional financial and technical support 
through IFDC to ensure harmonization at the country level. IFDC recently signed an MOU with ECOWAS 
and an Action Plan for the establishment of the West Africa Committee for Fertilizer Control (WACFC). 
The MOU and the Action Plan are currently in force. IFDC as the lead facilitator to set up and 
operationalize the WACFC; and national committees tasked to enforce fertilizer control-(IFDC, 2013). 
Other main stakeholders include producers, agro-input dealers, agricultural enterprises, private sector 
actors involved in fertilizer production, distribution and blending, research institutions, government and 
regulatory bodies responsible for creating and maintaining an enabling environment for a dynamic fertilizer 
sector.
WAFP’s activities are concentrated primarily in the region’s FtF focus countries, Ghana, Senegal, Mali, and 
Liberia; however, the broader regulatory, enforcement and private sector initiatives which cover all 
ECOWAS countries, have a regional scope that applies to the enabling environment, regulatory 
harmonization and quality control, and fertilizer subsidy policy. Within the target countries, WAFP focuses 
on specific commodity value chains such as maize and rice. Given the market driven nature of fertilizer for 
high value crops, WAFP also works with cotton, vegetables, and cocoa (although to a minor extent).
WAFP’s intervention areas include the establishment of the West Africa Fertilizer Forum and Trade 
Association, the development of a Fertilizer Market Information System, technical assistance to help 
countries harmonize and implement regional fertilizer regulations, policy assistance on subsidy 
elimination/efficiency, private sector financing linkages and technical assistance, and promotion of new 
technologies (such as Urea Deep Placement (UDP) and specialized blends). These activities are conducted 
within the context of crosscutting issues, which include gender, access to finance, and safe environmental 
practices.
16
2. EVALUATION PURPOSE, 
QUESTIONS AND METHODS
2.1. Evaluation Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to assess the performance of WAFP, funded by USAID West 
Africa, to evaluate the program’s progress to date and to determine whether the program interventions 
and staff are properly oriented to achieve the stated goals. The evaluation team was required to make 
recommendations for program improvement after a little over two years of project implementation, 
including identification of gaps and areas for expanded partnership. In addition to evaluating progress, 
ASSESS was also tasked to provide "specific conclusions and recommendations on ways to keep the 
momentum, boost the program, and/or make the most suitable modifications to the program.”
The results will be used to improve the performance during the second half of program implementation and 
make necessary adjustments to enhance the measurement of outcomes when the program is complete. The 
evaluation is also expected to be useful to other USAID missions, donors, NGOs, and host country 
governments working to address similar aspects of agriculture productivity through improved fertilizer 
quality and use.
2.2. Evaluation Questions
The evaluation team responded to the following questions raised by USAID West Africa which are grouped 
under five sections: a) Cohesiveness of WAFP’s regional approach, b) WAFP’s results and performance to 
date, c) Effectiveness of WAFP’s private sector and access to finance approaches, d) WAFP’s compliance 
with FtF cross-cutting issues, e) Capacity of IFDC mobilized resources for WAFP’s implementation.
a) Cohesiveness of WAFP’s regional approach
1. Is the program focused on a clear set of regional activities? Will it impact the availability and use of 
affordable, high quality fertilizer? How should the regional program interact with national programs?
2. What specific opportunities or innovations exist to enhance effective program implementation and 
sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming), 
and to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program?
b) WAFP’s results and performance to date
1. What has been accomplished to date? Which results have sufficient evidence to meet program audit 
standards?
2. What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder the achievement of the 
program’s expected outcomes and what corrective actions and/or areas for improvement are needed?
c) Effectiveness of WAFP’s private sector and access to finance approaches 
1. Is the IFDC private sector approach appropriate for a regional program?
2. Is the program leveraging the right group of partners? What additional approaches are needed to 
encourage sufficient private sector investment and access to credit? What are the most promising areas 
of investment?
3. Is the current DCA strategy, that emphasizes coordination with bilateral Missions for smaller 
investments, correctly positioned? Is there a clear strategy for achieving the large investments needed 
for regional results?
17
d) WAFP’s compliance with FtF cross-cutting issues
1. To what extent are the project interventions addressing cross-cutting issues such as gender and 
climate-smart agriculture? 
e) Capacity of IFDC mobilized resources for WAFP’s implementation
1. Does the core staff have the right skills, knowledge and capacity needed to achieve the work at hand? If 
not, can they get it from other IFDC resources and/or their sub-grantees? 
2.3. Methodology, Sampling Frame and Review of 
Documents
Consistent with USAID’s Automated Directive System (ADS) 203.3.1.6 guidance on evaluation 
methodologies, ASSESS team used both qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection and analysis 
(Mixed-Method). ASSESS team systematically gathered comprehensive information on the program, 
analyzed and triangulated information gathered to provide accurate and valid responses to the evaluation 
questions. ASSESS team also referred to the Mixed-method Evaluation guideline developed by USAID (June 
2013) and other relevant evaluation approaches (DAC, OECD) to fine-tune its methods for this evaluation. 
The ASSESS team developed corresponding tools and instruments including documentation review 
checklists, SWOT analysis tools, semi-structured questionnaires tailored to the different categories of 
stakeholders: IPs, USAID bilateral programs, private sector actors, producers’ organizations, government 
agencies and regional institutions. 
The team employed multiple sampling techniques that were commensurate with the level of detail required 
to provide a comprehensive response to each of the evaluation questions. In particular, the team ensured 
the selection of representative samples that provide an accurate reflection of the variations and diversity of 
the WAFP stakeholders identified through an initial beneficiary and partners mapping conducted by the 
team in collaboration with USAID/WA RAO and IFDC. Sampling techniques employed in this evaluation 
include purposive, convenient and quota sampling.
Data collection tools and instruments were pre-tested and validated through initial consultations with 
WAFP IPs, key stakeholders and/or beneficiaries. Additionally, the data collection tools were fine-tuned 
progressively during field work and this approach was critical in ensuring that contextual variances were 
appropriately addressed in all countries covered by the evaluation. In the data collection phase of the 
evaluation, ASSESS team conducted field work in four countries (Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal) in 
addition to remote consultations with core stakeholders in Liberia and Togo. 
The evaluation team progressively and systematically analyzed data gathered, employing scientific approach 
and analytical techniques including SWOT. Triangulation of the evaluation information was conducted from 
three different perspectives ensuring adequate verification of information for accuracy and validity prior to 
drawing findings and conclusions in respect of the evaluation questions. ASSESS team engaged in several 
brainstorming sessions and consulted additional relevant consultations and literature review in the 
assessment of the feasibility and practicability of recommendations, taking cognizance of activities’ 
relevance, available program resources including time and finance.
Sampling frame
A cross sectional group of individuals at the administrative levels of all representative groups were selected. 
A representative sample of the key actors of the fertilizer value-chain distribution network, participated in 
this evaluation. The sampling frame was based on those individuals contacted who were willing and ready to 
be interviewed. In addition, the team identified key informants and purposively sampled them to provide in￾depth information relevant to providing accurate responses to the evaluation questions. Using the 
technique of quota sampling, the team further ensured that for each of the identified categories of 
18
stakeholders, the sample was to a large extent representative. The team conducted interviews and focus 
group discussions with the identified stakeholders. A total of 83 persons participated in the evaluation. The 
sampling procedure and the question answered is seen in annex table 5 section 4. The sample size was 
constrained by the level of resources and geographical considerations.
Review of documentation
The evaluation team conducted desk studies and reviewed WAFP program documents shared by USAID 
and IFDC. The team also consulted additional documentation relevant to the evaluation. The 
documentation review provided valuable information on substantive program issues that enhanced the 
team’s understanding and consequent appreciation of the evaluation questions including appropriate tools 
and methods for generating findings.
Documents consulted in the conduct of this evaluation include:
• USAID-IFDC/WAFP Co-operative Agreement No. AID-624-12-000022 dated 02/24/2012 
• WAFP Program documents including quarterly and annual reports, Data Quality Assessment reports, 
work plan and Monitoring and Evaluation Manuals (Original and Revised) and two working papers.
• Specific component documents including USAID Senegal Economic Growth project (PCE) documents 
analysis on fertilizers and subsidies.
• Documents including the fertilizers regulations and policies for controlling quality in the member states 
of the ECOWAS region, other documents related to policy and marketing of fertilizers in West Africa.
• The team reviewed documents on the marketing of fertilizers, including the various reform policies in 
the fertilizer industry in Senegal and West Africa. The document on ‘USAID/PCE, 2011: Rapport de 
synthèse: Analyse de la filière engrais au Sénégal et de son évolution sur la période 2000 à 2010’; 
USAID/PCE, 2011: Plan d’action pour l’accompagnement des reformes et initiatives en faveur du sous￾secteur des engrais chimiques au Sénégal. December 2011 and “USAID/PCE, 2011; Accompagnement 
des reformes et initiatives en faveur de la filière des engrais chimiques. Juin 2011’ provided information 
on the marketing network of fertilizers in Senegal and the various reforms that affected the value chain 
of fertilizers during the period from 2000 to 2011.
• The publications dealing with the subsidy programs in the various countries included ‘USAID/PCE, 
2011 : Diagnostic approfondi du dispositif de Cession des Engrais subventionnes, December 2011 and 
USAID/WAFP FY 2013 Working paper N˚ 1: Fertilizer subsidy program in West Africa: lessons 
learned and implications for the West Africa Fertilizer Program, Kofi Debrah and K.M. Alognikou’. 
• There was one publication reviewed on manufacturing and blending of fertilizers in West Africa, 
USAID/WAFP FY 2013 Working paper N˚ 2: Fertilizer Production and Blending Capacities and 
Fertilizers Business and Directory of West Africa: Patrice Annequin and Japhet Lartey assistant’.
• The other project documents ‘USAID/WAFP FY 2012, June to September 2012 Quarterly Report, 
IFDC, September 2012’; ’USAID/WAFP FY 2013: First Annual West Africa Fertilizer Stakeholders: 
Main Conclusions, recommendations and Perspectives. Accra September 18-19, 2013’; ‘USAID/WAFP 
FY 2013 Annual Report, IFDC, October 2013’; ‘USAID/WAFP FY 2014 Work-plan, IFDC, May 2014’; 
‘USAID/WAFP FY 2014 Annual Report, IFDC, October 2014’ gave a general overview and detailed 
information on WAFP activities and progress.
• An assortment of documents published by IFDC and related sources.
19
Fieldwork and data analysis
The evaluation team embarked on field visits to four countries, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal. The 
ASSESS team interacted with stakeholder groups including IFDC country offices, USAID bilateral programs, 
input-dealers association, and national government ministries. The strategy for field work consisted of 
interviews and focus group discussions with the stakeholders and working sessions of the evaluation team 
aimed at analyzing progressively the data gathered.
Interviews and FGDs with Stakeholders (In all, ASSESS team interacted with 83 persons across the 
implementing countries): The evaluation team classified the stakeholders into 5 categories namely regional, 
government, USAID bilateral programs, private sector partners and the core implementing partners. 
Interviews and FGDs were accordingly targeted using specific questionnaires or interview guides to probe 
and elicit responses. The interactions with core implementing partners IFDC and AFAP focused on the 
program’s achievements to date, capacity of program staff, the private sector approach, the DCA and 
related challenges as well as the program’s approach for addressing the FtF cross-cutting issues of gender 
and climate change. 
Interviews and discussions with the private sector partners included input dealer associations, suppliers and 
distributors. The discussions focused on the program’s private sector and access to credit approaches and 
how they can be strengthened to achieve greater investments at the regional level. The interviews and 
discussions held with USAID bilateral programs centered on the program’s private sector approach, the 
DCA and the interaction of the WAFP with the bilateral programs. 
In relation to the interviews with regional bodies such as ECOWAS, discussions focused on the program’s 
performance, cohesiveness of the program’s regional approach and how to better position the WAFP to 
leverage greater investments at the regional level. At the interaction with the national agencies such as 
Ministries of Agriculture, discussions focused on the cohesiveness of WAFP’s regional approach, program 
performance and the private sector approach. 
In Ghana, the team interviewed USAID/RAO staff, IFDC/WAFP staff, two core IPs (AFAP, Africa 
Fertilizer.org), three government departments (PPRSD, CSD both of MoFA, GSS, ), two research 
institutions (SRI in Kumasi, ENVASERV in Accra) one regional private sector organization (AGRA) and five
private sector organizations including one each from Kumasi and Tema. In Nigeria, the team interviewed 
staff from the ECOWAS commission, staff from IFDC-Nigeria, staff from Market II, staff from one 
government department (FMARD) and one private sector organization (FESPAN).
Interviews in Mali involved staff from IFDC/C4CP/FDPMD/DDB together, staff from government 
department (DNA), staff from banking institution Coris and staff from private sector organizations 
(APCAM, TOGUNA and Syngenta). Interviews in Senegal involved staff from USAID/ECO, 
USAID/Yaajeende, USAID/PCE, IFDC, one regional body (CORAF), one government department 
(DA/MAER), one research institute (ISRA), one national private sector organization (ICS) and staff from 
four private sector organizations from Dakar and the regions. 
In addition to the direct consultations in the countries visited, the evaluation team conducted remote 
interviews for one government ministry (Agriculture) and one USAID contractor (DAI) in Liberia. Togo 
interviews were conducted with staff from private sector organizations (Agro-Input Suppliers, 
WABCOCOTIA and ETD). 
Working Sessions 
The evaluation team organized working sessions in each of the countries visited. The working sessions 
afforded the team the opportunity to progressively analyze the data gathered through the interactions with 
the different stakeholders. In the case of the data gathered from remote consultations, the working sessions 
were held in Ghana to analyze and organize findings. 
20
Debriefing Sessions
The team had a debriefing session with IFDC and USAID separately. The meeting with IFDC was organized 
to provide opportunity for verifying and validating information gathered through interactions with the 
program stakeholders in the different countries. With respect to the meeting with USAID, the team 
provided first draft of findings and recommendations. 
2.4 Limitations of Methods
The ASSESS team began its data collection with a desk study of existing documents and information, 
followed by consultations with key stakeholders in the region to further refine tools and techniques for 
data collection and analysis. These were followed by interviews of partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries 
in the program’s target countries.
Several approaches, desk study, consultations, individual interviews and focus group discussions were 
employed to conduct the evaluation of WAFP. Each approach has its strengths and limitations. The ASSESS 
team used personal interview techniques and tools to limit to the maximum extent possible bias linked to 
the approaches’ weaknesses. The table below gives a list of strengths and limitations of each approach.
Table 1. List of strengths and limitations of methods and approaches
Methods Strengths Limitations
Desk study • Provide valuable information on substantive 
issues and generate a list of questions including 
key stakeholders that can be used in other 
methods.
• Help to focus efforts and prioritize issues and 
gaps
• Time consuming
• Depends on resource availability
• Lack of consistent data collection
• Limited quality performance data
Consultations • Provide valuable information on substantive 
issues and generate a list of questions including 
key stakeholders that can be used in other 
methods.
• Provide greater depth and insights and general 
surveys
• Depends on availability of key 
stakeholders
• Quality/reliability of data
Individual 
interviews
• Potentially data rich, detailed answers • Might need to interview through 
translators (possible loss of meaning and 
data richness)
• Might have informants’ bias
Focus group 
discussion
• Can generate a range of ideas and responses. 
• Can include a greater number of participants in 
less time and result in rich discussion.
• Might need to conduct discussion 
through translators (possible loss of 
meaning and data richness)
• Some respondents may dominate in 
answering, Informant bias
 
21
2.5. Team Composition 
In the conduct of this evaluation, ASSESS put together a four-member team of consultants with approval 
from USAID WA for the WAFP mid-term evaluation. The team of experts were supported with technical 
assistance by the ASSESS staff in Accra. The evaluation team-members are:
• Dr. Curtis Jolly, Team Leader, is an Agricultural Economist and a Performance Evaluation Expert 
with many years of evaluation experience across the globe and especially in West Africa. Dr. 
Aminata Niane Badiane, Deputy Team Leader, is a Fertilizer Specialist with demonstrable 
experience having worked in various capacities on USAID funded projects in Senegal for the past 30 
years. Guy Francis Fievez, Team Member, is an Agribusiness Specialist with demonstrable 
experience in Performance Evaluation in the Africa region. Ababacar KANE, Team Member, is an 
Agro-Economist and a Performance Evaluation Specialist. The ASSESS technical support staff provided 
coordination, supervision and technical and administrative backstopping. ASSESS COP, M&E Specialist 
and Activity Manager participated in the field visits in order to reinforce the quality of data collection 
and analysis and to ensure high quality deliverables. 
• The COP, Abdourahmane BA, was responsible for overall technical coordination and supervision 
as well as communication among the key stakeholders including the USAID/WA, RAO, IFDC and 
government representatives in the beneficiary countries. The M&E Specialist, Barbara Arthur, 
provided technical assistance to the evaluation team with respect to the development and 
administration of evaluation data collection tools and analysis techniques. The Activity Manager, 
Emmanuel Fletcher, coordinated and facilitated field visits of the evaluation team by scheduling 
appointments with the stakeholders to be reached for information via Focus Group Discussions 
(FGDs), interviews, brainstorming sessions and workshops. The GIS Specialist, Kofi Seyram LOH
provided support to the team.
 
22
3. FINDINGS AND GENERAL
RECOMMENDATIONS 
3.1. The Cohesiveness of WAFP’s regional approach
Question 1: Is the program focused on a clear set of regional activities? Will it impact the 
availability and use of affordable, high quality fertilizer? How should the regional program interact 
with national programs?
3.1.1. Regional Program Focus 
Findings 
The program does not focus on a clear set of regional activities because the collaborating and implementing 
partners (i.e. IFDC, ECOWAS and AFAP) did not work together from the start and had separate activities
that did not align with the overarching goal of the program. The evaluation team was unable to confirm
while in the field the presence of a coordination mechanism responsible for developing common strategies 
and framework for effective project implementation. As outlined in the program documents, the 
development of key project papers including the logical framework and the work plans should have been 
done through a participatory process involving all the partners. However, this was not realized partly in 
view of the fact the respective partners joined the program at different times. The implication is that these
partners could not identify readily with the documents, and thus severely constraining program 
coordination and implementation especially at the regional level. The set of planned activities in the various
work plans (FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 215) were too ambitious and not lucid except the ECOWAS 
regulation policy on fertilizer quality control to which every participating country contributed to or were 
aware of the statement. On that aspect, WAFP played a major role in assisting to promote the policy at 
national government levels.
Recommendations
IFDC, ECOWAS and AFAP need to set up a working group of program partners that provide essential 
support services to WAFP. The working group should include regional programs such as WASP, WAPP 
that can work closely with WAFP programs in a number of West African countries to ensure the success 
of fertilizer provision and distribution. This voluntary support group will help WAFP elaborate 
communication strategies, plan forums meetings and review work plans. In addition WAFP needs to bring 
together ECOWAS representatives at the country level (National Assembly) to assist in the 
institutionalization and implementation of the fertilizer regulation on quality control.
3.1.2. Impact on Availability of Affordable Quality Fertilizer
Findings 
Extensive fertilizer market research in five ECOWAS member countries showed that 0.3% of the fertilizer 
on the market were adulterated (IFDC, 2013). Fifty-one percent of the 106 samples of 15:15:15 blended 
were out of compliance with the newly adopted ECOWAS tolerance limits for nutrient deviation content 
while 86 percent of the 90 samples of the 20:10:10 blend, 12 percent of the 30 samples of the 6:20:10 blend 
and 96 percent of the 27 samples of the 15:10:10 blend were out of tolerance limits (Sanabria et al. 2013). 
Meanwhile, it has been noted that the promotion of quality fertilizer improves yields. For instance, the deep 
planted granular urea (UDP) reduced rice production costs by 40 percent and resulted in a net revenue 
gain to farmers of more than 20% in Senegal (confirmed by the following WAFP partners: ISRA, 
USAID/Yaajeende, USAID/PCE, FEPRODES women group, Beydounde NGOs). The discussions made 
23
remotely with the Togo and the Liberia team led to the same conclusion. While IFDC promotes the 
improved use and methods of fertilizer application, the overall collective support of WAFP to this activity is 
weak.
Recommendations
If the regulation is enforced, good and standardized fertilizers with the right amounts of nutrients would be 
made available to farmers throughout the region. The purchase of fertilizers with the correct ingredients 
and weight will lower cost per unit of fertilizer and make it more affordable to farmers. This will encourage 
the private sector’s participation in the program, famer use and application of fertilizer will increase, and 
will have a definite impact on the countries’ agriculture. WAFP should ensure that the regulations governing 
standards proposed by ECOWAS are enforced. Hence, WAFP should encourage country representatives 
to ECOWAS to advocate for and to work through the West Africa Committee for Fertilizer Control 
(WACFC) to have their governments put in place policy measures to ensure enforcement of the 
regulations within a given time table.
3.1.3. Interaction of regional and national programs 
Findings 
An effort was made to bring the ministries and high ranking government officials together in November 
2012, however, there is an absence of follow up activities, regular networking and exchanges between 
national and regional programs for fertilizer quality assurance. The laboratories in the region do not have a 
common mission and vision for the development of unified working procedures with other participating 
countries. Input suppliers, warehousing and fertilizer storage operators do not have harmonized working 
relationships and methods of making transactions. Each market participant adheres to his national custom. 
This complicates matters of product transfers, especially when different currencies are involved in regional 
fertilizer business transactions. There is a need to put together regional fertilizer data bases on market 
participants’ transactions but these ideas are still at the embryonic stages. Market information linkages 
between regional and national offices are still not in existence.
Recommendations
The regional program should interact with the national programs through joint activities developed by 
workshop participation and networking. The WAFP could assist in the establishment of a platform where 
the ECOWAS country representatives could meet with the country leaders charged with fertilizer quality 
control to accelerate the process in putting in place the fertilizer quality control policy. WAFP could 
develop a platform to bring together the national laboratories to focus and participate in activities to 
develop laboratory guides for testing fertilizers. It is important to develop alliances that would promote the 
program at the national level. WAFP could take the initiative to connect Ministries of Agriculture of the 
various countries to cooperate on ECOWAS policy regulations.
Question 2: What specific opportunities or innovations exist to enhance effective program 
implementation and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant 
bilateral USAID programming), and to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of 
the program?
3.1.4. Existence of specific opportunities or innovations
Findings 
Opportunities and innovations exist for the increase of fertilizer use. Among these are: 
Important phosphates mines in West Africa: According to the WAFP working paper N˚2 dated 
December 2013, a total blending and granulation capacity of 4,236,500.00 tons is installed in West Africa 
based on annual nominal capacities of 22 plants listed in 8 countries. Nigeria alone accounts for 54% of this 
24
total (12 plants) with TAK Agro & Chemicals LTD Company claiming a total capacity of 1million tons in its 
plants. The 10 other plants are located in the seven countries including Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Togo, 
Cote d’Ivoire, Niger and Senegal.
On-going national government initiatives are already in place: During the evaluation team￾members’ field visits to the respective countries, it was observed that governments were putting in place in￾country national initiatives to boost economic growth through a strong focus on agricultural production 
with the support of various stakeholders. In addition, a strong private sector and functional laboratories 
were in existence in countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Mali and Senegal.
USAID bilateral programs are already implementing activities in all visited countries: DCA, FtF 
programs and strong private sector initiatives. But WAFP linkages with USAID FtF bilateral programs are 
weak. WAFP has not yet figured out how to work with the DCA to increase the access of private funds to 
limited resource farmers and entrepreneurs. WAFP failed to capitalize on the potential to select large 
producer organizations in Senegal like FPA (Fédération des Périmètres Autogères, FPA), ASPRODEB 
(Association Sénégalaise pour la Promotion du Développement a la Base) and ASESCAW (Association 
socio-éducative, sportive et culturelle des agriculteurs du Walo) that could help the program to implement 
the regulation on fertilizer quality control. 
Existence of large regional fertilizer deficit: At a suggested application rate of 50kg/ha, West Africa 
requires 3,412,233 Mt of fertilizer annually but only uses 682,446 Mt at a current rate of 10 kg/ha leaving 
annual deficit of 2,729, 788 Mt. This deficit is an opportunity for private sector involvement to foster the 
required market demand.
Recommendations
WAFP should build on existing institutions and programs: opportunities exist at institutions such 
as ECOWAS, AGRA, and programs such as WAPP and WASP to provide an introduction to the WAFP 
program in countries where initial penetration may have been difficult. For example, WAFP participated in a 
program with the USAID PCE to create awareness on fertilizer quality control in Senegal. WAFP 
complements the WAPP and WASP programs. They should work together to increase the use of a quality 
product. In addition, WAFP should develop strong linkages with other USAID FtF projects at country level. 
WAFP should work closely with WAPP and WASP to develop joint programs and policies, to endorse the 
use of good seeds and fertilizers in order to enhance crop and farm productivity. WAFP can develop this 
activity by encouraging the formation of a voluntary group of leaders of WASP, WAPP and AFAP to 
develop a network to guide the efficient dissemination of ideas that will promote the increase in agricultural 
productivity through the correct adoption of the agricultural recommendations guiding fertilizer and input 
use. This idea stems from the objectives of all participating programs. 
3.2. WAFP’s Results and Performance to Date
Questions 1: What has been accomplished to date? Which results have sufficient evidence to 
meet program audit standards?
3.2.1. Accomplishments to date 
Table 2. Summary Project Status Performance June 5 2012 to September 30 2014
Objective Indicator
Level of 
Achievement 
(Midterm target 
Vs Achievement- 
%)
Status Comment
Increase regional 
availability and use 
Rice yield 48.24 Underachieved All achievements during 
the second year.
25
Objective Indicator
Level of 
Achievement 
(Midterm target 
Vs Achievement- 
%)
Status Comment
of Fertilizer Maize yield 65.56 Partially 
achieved
All achievements during 
the second year
Seed Cotton yield 48.03 Under achieved All achievements during 
the second year
Value of new private sector 
investment in agricultural 
sector or food chain
7.47 Underachieved All achievements during 
the second year
Regional supply and 
distribution of selected 
fertilizers by the private 
sector
35.40 Underachieved Low performance during 
the second year
IRI.I Expanded use 
of storage, 
blending, bagging & 
labelling 
technology
Number of fertilizer related 
infrastructure facilities 
constructed as a result of 
USG assisted resources
50.00 Partially 
achieved
All achievements during 
the second year
IRI.2 Increased 
management and 
marketing 
capabilities of 
private sector 
fertilizer importers
Ind. 1.2.1 Number of 
individuals who have 
received USG support short 
term agricultural sector 
productivity or food 
security.
11.00 Underachieved Very low performance 
during the second year
Ind. 1.2.3 Number of 
MSMEs including farmers 
receiving business 
development services from 
USG assisted resources
73.14 Partially 
achieved
Reduced performance 
during the second year
Ind. 1.2.4. Number of 
MSMEs including farmers 
receiving USG assistance to 
access loans
34.00 Low 
achievement
Low performance during 
the second year
Ind. 1.25. Number of loan 
application documents 
submitted to commercial 
banks and micro-finance 
institutions by the targeted 
MSME including farmers as 
a result of USG assistance
83.00 High 
achievement
Low achievement during 
the first year; but 
exceeded expectations 
during the second year
Ind.12.6 Value of loans 
received from commercial 
banks and microfinance 
institutions by the targeted 
MSME including farmer 
organizations as a result of 
USG assistance
6.00 Underachieved Poor achievement in 
first and second year
IR2. Increased 
knowledge and use 
of improved 
agricultural 
technologies and 
methods
IR.2.1. Number of new 
technologies of/or 
management practices in 
one of the following phases 
of development
50.00 Partially 
achieved
Poor achievement 
during the second year.
26
Objective Indicator
Level of 
Achievement 
(Midterm target 
Vs Achievement- 
%)
Status Comment
Ind. 2.1.1 Number of 
farmers and others who 
have applied improved 
technologies of 
management practices as a 
result of USG assistance
17.66 Low 
achievement
All achievements in the 
first year
IR3.2 
Effective(policy) 
advocacy to 
support regional 
free trade zone
Ind. 3.2.1 Number of 
fertilizer stakeholders 
consultations leading to the 
alignment of national 
law/regulations/admin 
procedures to regional 
policy
70.0 Partially 
achieved
Marked improvement 
during the second year
Ind. 4.1. Number of 
polices/regulations/admin 
procedures in each of the 
following stages of 
development as a result of 
USG assistance 
28.57 Poor 
achievement
Low performance during 
the first and second 
year.
IR.4 Increased 
access to fertilizer 
market information
In.d.4.1 Number of public 
and private fertilizers 
stakeholders who have used 
fertilizer market 
information as their 
decision making tool as a 
result of USG assistance
0.00 Nothing 
achieved
No achievement
Ind. 4.2.Number of public 
and private fertilizer 
stakeholders who have 
received fertilizer market 
information
2.00 Underachieved Nothing achieved during 
the first year.
IR4.1. Effective 
regional fertilizer 
stakeholder forum 
established
Ind. 4.1. Number of 
country-level sensitization 
campaigns organized by 
fertilizer stakeholders to 
disseminate regional and 
national fertilizer policies
62.50 Partially 
achieved
Low performance during 
the second year
Findings 
On September 30, 2014, WAFP total expenditure was $5,476,183 that represents 47.67% of the total 
project budget of the first two years ($11,486,200). Based on the two annual reports and information 
gathered during the field trip visits in the various countries, the evaluation team found that overall the 
WAFP program did not meet most of its targets during the first two years (see annex 2). The expected 
percent change in volume of fertilizer sold over the two years were below target. In addition, the WAFP 
program is not visible. The evaluation team encountered a lot of difficulties to make distinctions between 
WAFP activities and those carried out under local IFDC programs. 
The following observations under each Intermediate result support the team’s general findings:
27
- IR.1- Increased regional supply and distribution of selected fertilizers by the private 
sector.
During the first two years, WAFP had many meetings and fora including the WAFP preliminary work on 
mapping and profiling fertilizer production and blending, and fertilizer storage capacities in West Africa 
presented at the first stakeholders’ forum held in Accra in September 2013. WAFP also sponsored 19 
micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) from various countries including Burkina Faso, Liberia, 
Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal to participate in and to explore business opportunities at the 2014 Argus FMB 
Africa Fertilizers conference in Marrakech, Morocco.
Over the two years, WAFP facilitated new private sector investment worth USD 54,560 both in Ghana and 
Senegal, and that only represents around 7% of the targets of USD 730,319. In addition for the same period 
WAFP facilitated USD 112,787 of loans to micro-finance institutions, which represents only 6% o of USD 
2,039,700 target. WAFP also facilitated 3 project MOU agreements with Ghana EPA, Presbyterian 
Agricultural Service (PAS) and Accra Compost and Recycling Plant (ACARP). However effective PPPs are
yet to be put in place. WAFP provided assistance to 35% of private enterprises (involved in the program). 
WAFP did not assist any private fertilizer firms operating at import, blender and wholesale levels. Only 11% 
of farmers received short term support in agricultural sector productivity training. Furthermore, WAFP did 
not meet the targets to provide business development services to MSMEs including farmers.
WAFP provided assistance to MSMEs including farmers to access loans but most of them did not take 
advantage of the DCA. They used their own resources to finance their investments. Example, Envaserv 
Research Consult (ERC) in Ghana invested $970.000 own funds to expand its facility.
Only 2% (600) of public and private fertilizer stakeholders received fertilizers and market information 
through WAFP support compared to the targets of 30,000.
- IR.2 – Increased use of improved fertilizers
Achievements in this result area contribute to promoting effective use of fertilizer for increased agricultural 
productivity in West Africa, while maintaining a focus on fertilizer recommendations and Integrated Soil 
Fertility Management (ISFM). 
The WAFP program facilitated the establishment of Fertilizer Recommendation Task Forces in Ghana, 
Liberia, Mali and Senegal to coordinate work on soil testing and modeling, leading to fertilizer 
recommendations. Sub-grants were awarded to install demonstration plots on ISFM in Senegal and Ghana. 
The technology packages included different combinations of inorganic fertilizers and organic compost 
applications in rice, maize and seed cotton production. This activity was highly appreciated by various 
stakeholders in all participating countries including Nigeria, Togo, Liberia, Senegal, Ghana and Mali. Almost 
56% of technologies (Fertilization granulation and deep fertilizer placement) were promoted and made 
available to the farmers. The accumulated percentage of rice fertilizer use per targeted area is 48.4%, 
compared to 65.5% for maize and 48.03% for cotton. Hence, the intermediate results of increased fertilizer 
use was under achieved.
- IR.3 - Improved effficiency of regional market transactions
This result contributes to promoting efficiency in regional transactions through access to accurate and 
timely fertilizer statistics for decision making, free trade and fertilizer quality enforcement. It includes the 
provision of short-term agricultural sector productivity training for individuals working on food security 
including fertilizer inspectors and statisticians in West Africa; 12 fertilizer inspectors and one head of the 
fertilizer quality control were trained in Mali. IFDC and its sub-grantee AFAP conducted stakeholders 
consultation on business needs and obstacles to increased fertilizer trade. WAFP just signed an agreement 
with AFAP to participate in investment and credit management. The value of new private sector investment 
in agricultural sector or food chain leveraged by FtF implementation was only 7.47 percent achieved. There 
was no progress made with the number of private fertilizer related firms operating at the import, blender, 
and wholesale levels in USG assisted countries (Annex Table 2).
28
- IR.4 - Improved enabling environment for fertilizer policy and regulatory framework 
development
WAFP provided technical assistance to partners to improve the policy and regulatory environment for 
fertilizer production, trade and quality control and only 28.57% of the policy and regulatory framework 
procedures were developed over the two years. 
Technical assistance included:
• Finalization of a desk review of existing subsidy programs in West Africa. 
• Assistance to the Ministy of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) in Ghana to validate and finalize the 
draft Ghana fertilizer Policy and the Fertilizer Analytical Manual.
• Assistance to the ECOWAS legal services, in collaboration with the IFDC’s MIR + project, for the 
adoption of the Regulation C/REG 13/12/12 relating to the fertilizer quality control in the 
ECOWAS region at the 69th ordinary session of the council of the Ministers in Abidjan, Cote 
d’Ivoire in November 2012.
• Partnered with ImageAD and the Crop Service Departments (CSD) of MOFA to pilot the USAID 
WAFP Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT) platform to track the nation-wide 
implementation of the 2013 Ghana fertilizer subsidy program. It was successful.
• Partnered with ImageAD and the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Department (PPRSD) of 
the Ghana MOFA, to use the program’s ICT platform to pilot the digitization of the Ghana 
fertilizer regulation administrative forms, to track compliance of with the regulation including 
recommendations on fertilizer rates and pricing throughout the country. The tracking of level of 
fertilizer used by crop has been facilitated and the information on farmers satisfaction with fertilizer 
quality and access are employed to enforce the fertilizer regulations.
Recommendations
WAFP should make its program visible. The branding should be included in all stipulated communication 
messages. There should be a clear distinction between WAFP and other IFDC in-country programs. WAFP 
should revise its program targets and focus on policy and regulatory development mainly on the regional 
activities including improving the business and harmonization of the fertilizers. 
WAFP should allow AFAP to shoulder the responsibility of increasing the role of the private sector 
participation in the regional fertilizer supply and distribution. Since AFAP does not cover all countries 
where IFDC works there can be flexibility in meeting the needs of countries where AFAP is not present. 
This can be done through the formalization of an MOU to perform this responsibility.
After two years of activities, WAFP should re-examine its strategy of inclusion of national governments in 
the program. Joint MOU should be developed with each of them and should be made to understand the 
importance of the program; that is, to strengthen but not to replace national initiatives that are in place. 
The national government should be invited to participate in joint endeavors with the local IFDC and private 
sector to promote the use of low cost and high quality fertilizers to farmers. This will help WAFP meet 
some of its targets. Each country government must implement this regional legislation in order to 
harmonize objectives and activities of the fertilizer subsidy policy, also control fertilizer quantity and quality.
WAFP should not be promoting the development of technologies such as Fertilizer Granulation and Deep 
Fertilizer Placement directly to the farmers. WAFP assistance should be provided through local institutions 
including governments entities, NGOs and Iocal IFDC that can work closely with farmers and producer 
organizations.
WAFP also should work closely with the WAPP and WASP to develop joint programs and policies
including the endorsement of the use of high quality seeds and fertilizers in order to enhance crop and farm 
productivity. 
29
3.2.2. Sufficiency of evidence to meet audit standards 
Findings 
WAFP results outlined in its annual reports do not meet audit standards in view of reasons listed below: 
• The examination of the various reports indicate that there are some discrepancies and 
inconsistencies between the PMP, the annual reports and quarterly reports.
• The baseline study was obtained from a survey conducted only in Ghana and Senegal. These two 
countries cannot be used as a model for the rest of the participating countries.Data Quality 
Assessment (DQA) was done for some indicators which showed that for a number of indicators 
there was inadequate data, or data were not accurate. Most of the data presented in the FtFMS are 
not reported in the given annual reports. For about 30 percent of the indicators data were still 
being reviewed by USAID and IFDC for accuracy.
• Some indicators presented in the first year were removed during the second year (for example four 
set of indicators reported in FY13 were removed in FY14). Other indicators were added. The 
targets were also revised upward; thus increasing the difficulties in evaluating the project.
In conclusion, WAFP does not have sufficient data to meet audit standards.
Recommendations
Based on available data obtained from the annual reports and PMP, the evaluation team recommends that 
WAFP should implement a strong program monitoring system that can meet USAID reporting 
requirements. USAID and IFDC should discuss and revise indicators as needed. FtF indicators should be 
prioritized and followed by a set of customized indicators that can be well manageg and followed up by the 
WAFP team.
Question 2: What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder the 
achievement of the program’s expected outcomes and what corrective actions and/or areas 
for improvement are needed?
3.2.3 Factors hindering or enabling achievements and corrective actions 
Findings 
The WAFP evaluation team has considered two key factors such as human resources and organizational 
structure that help or hinder the achievement of WAFP expected outcomes. 
The main findings are as follows:
• WAFP has a weak leadership as illustrated by a lack of capacity to build a common vision and 
missions shared by all participating countries.
• WAFP has been unable to put in place an appropriate governance model to help develop a 
structure and timetable to achieve results.
Recommendations
The evaluation team recommends the following important changes necessary to achieve results:
• WAFP needs to have a COP who can ensure strong leadership by building a common vision and 
mission with all participating countries, developing a common strategy, approach and tactical 
techniques to work with diverse country programs, developing a structure and timetable to measure 
achievements (objectives, targets and results).
• WAFP needs to have a strong policy analyst at the headquarters to promote regional policies and to 
provide support and guidance to the WAFP program.
30
• WAFP needs to have a strong private sector specialist with interest on agri-business to: engage the 
private sector both at the national and regional level to develop partnerships and joint ventures, 
mobilize finance and investment, ensure that credit is available. Or private sector activities could be 
assigned to AFAP, as an alternative option.
• WAFP needs to have a dynamic and well rounded communication specialist to: promote activities such 
as branding, developing a communication plan, promote the program and results throughout the 
region and increase its visibility.
• IFDC should provide adequate backstopping assistance in regional strategy and policy development.
The external factors that could facilitate the achievement of results include :
• Increase in interest by the private sector, large cooperation and donor agencies in buying local 
products to source their raw material demand. A demand for raw material fosters a derived demand 
for fertilizers to enhance crop yields. An example is an increase in the demand for rice from 
‘Federation des groupements et association de femmes productrices de Saint-louis’ (FEPRODES). The 
increase in multinational firms such as Uniliver, SABMiller and Nestle that show interest in sourcing 
raw products locally.
• Fertilizer is a high priority on the ECOWAS and member governments agenda, so WAFP should 
strengthen its engagement with ECOWAS to optimize their full potential to facilitate achievement of 
regional targets.
3.3. Effectiveness of WAFP’s Private Sector and Access 
to Finance Approaches 
Question 1: Is the IFDC private sector approach appropriate for a regional program?
3.3.1. Appropriateness of IFDC’s private sector approach for a regional 
program
Findings
There are a lot of existing opportunities but a strategy is not in place to bring together the private sector 
to act. Because of a lack of strategy, WAFP has not encouraged buy-ins from the national governments or 
research institutions but depend on the national IFDC offices to run the programs.
There is a lack of vision in all WAFP efforts as noted in the SWOT analysis table. There is no follow-up on 
activities after multiple fora (confirmed by partners in the visited countries). AFAP is listed as a project 
collaborator but its assistance in the development of the private sector was only engaged on September 
2013 when AFAP approached WAFP with a proposal to perform such activities. There is diversity of 
initiatives at the regional level but WAFP has not yet developed a strategy to involve and strengthen the
private sector.
WAFP has the right partners (input suppliers, traders, banks, producer organizations), but there are no 
follow-up actions. WAFP does not have a joint policy with ECOWAS to bring together the private sector 
to participate in joint activities. WAFP has not developed solid working relationships with WAPP or WASP 
that provide accompanying technologies to the private sector and farmers. In addition, the evaluation team 
concluded that WAFP has not developed and consolidated strong ties with important private companies 
such as CHEMICO and YARA in Ghana, NOTORE Chemical industries and Dangote Urea plant in Nigeria. 
Other private companies buying and blending fertilizers such as ETD and WABCOCOTIA in Togo do not 
have any relationship with WAFP. The absence of a shared business vision and relationship has negatively 
affected the program.
31
Recommendations
WAFP should develop a strategy to encourage the private sector involvement in the program and should 
better leverage AFAP’s expertise to develop a private sector alliance to promote the private sector 
approach of the program. WAFP should work with the private sector to:
• Formalize the estimation of existing fertilizer demand, and disseminate the information to potential 
investors.
• Identify the commodity buyers that are likely to increase their purchase and consumption of products 
that require fertilizers for increasing yields. 
• Develop enterprise budgets for commodities to show the net benefits to be derived from the use of 
the right type of fertilizers by crops and ecological zones and make them available to farmers and 
agricultural enterprises via various electronic media. 
• Ensure effective follow up visits or meetings after each forum and/meetings with the various 
stakeholders. 
• Work with ECOWAS to promote the development and distribution of fertilizer business plans to
share with large enterprises. 
Questions 2: Is the program leveraging the right group of partners? What additional 
approaches are needed to encourage sufficient private sector investment and access to 
credit? What are the most promising areas of investment?
3.3.2. Leveraging the right group of partners, additional approaches for private 
sector investment and access to credit 
Findings 
The project is meeting the right type of partners (input suppliers, traders, banks, producers organizations)
but has not developed the strategy for maintaining the agri-business firms interest over a sustainable period 
of time to adequately develop the type of network that would encourage investment in the fertilizer value 
chain. It is apparent that WAFP cannot undertake all tasks alone, but should instead leverage partners in 
the Ministries of Governments, Research Institutions, NGO and the private sector to buy into the program. 
Recommendations
WAFP should develop a strategy to encourage national governements, NGO’s and private sector 
involvement and participation in the program: 
• Mapping of stakeholders and formalizing the existing demand of fertilizer; 
• Enhancing capacity building, for instance, training the private sector to develop business plans; 
• Strengthening the capacity of the private sector would include the development of electronic 
templates for business plans that could be adapted for several types of enterprises at various regional 
locations.
• Identifying opportunities for facilitating the access to credits (working closely with DCA implemented 
by USAID Bilateral Mission).
• Leveraging investments funding for national and regional projects.
• Identifying key laboratories for fertilizer quality control for improvement (private or public sector) 
• Developing regional alliances for the promotion of fertilizers, equipment and tools
WAFP should also develop a solid working relationships with WAPP or WASP in order to provide 
accompanying technologies to the private sector and farmers. Finally, WAFP should develop a joint policy 
with ECOWAS to bring together the private sector to participate in fertilizer investment and trade.
32
3.3.3. Promising Areas of Investments 
Findings
In spite of WAFP’s failure to leverage large business investments, there are promising areas where small 
and medium businesses are likely to make a difference in the fertilizer industry. These include: 
• Identification of regional fertilizer markets for development - there is an expansion in the private 
sector linking farmers to agro-industry which is of investment interest. Storage and logistics are also 
receiving investment priority by credit and banking agencies. 
• Development of electronic directories of targeted farmers in subsidy programs and information 
sharing - this is being piloted in Ghana by an implementing partner and entrepreuner. The 
entrepreneur is engaged in the development of an electronic directory that follows farmers who 
participate in the government subsidy program. The entrepreneur plans to scale up this technology in 
Togo and neighboring countries.
• The employment and use of soil tool kit tests on a larger scale by local entrepreners is especially 
interesting when combined with an electronic directory previously discussed. As the demand for 
fertilizers increases, so too will the demand for soil analyses; hence this is a promising area for 
entrepreneurs.
Recommendations
• Development of a regional alliance for the promotion of fertilizer equipment and tools is of 
importance. At present, interest in fertilizer briquettes and Urea Deep Placement (UDP) is high, but 
farmers do not possess the accompanying tools and equipment to take advantage of these new 
technologies. As research information is diffused, interest in the development and sale of tools is likely 
to increase, thus the need to establish regional industries to produce the tools and equipment for 
applying the new fertilizer technologies.
• Development of regional laboratories for fertilizer quality control in selected ECOWAS countries 
(example Ghana and Nigeria already have modern, well equiped and functioning laboratories). 
• Composting with the application of additional inorganic nutrients. The mixture of compost and 
fertilizers is expected to stimulate the demand for more inorganic fertilizers. As soil fertility improves 
so too do crop yields.
Questions 3: Is the current DCA strategy that emphasizes coordination with bilateral 
Missions for smaller investments, correctly positioned? Is there a clear strategy for achieving 
the large investments needed for regional results?
3.3.4. Position of DCA Strategy
Findings 
There is confusion between the concept of line of credit and the DCA guarantee mechanism. The DCA 
mechanism appears to have some limitations to adequately cover large investments particularly medium and 
long term investments. There is no clear strategy for WAFP to encourage large business enterprise 
financing.
Recommendations
• WAFP needs to develop a clear strategy with AFAP on how best to use the limited resources under 
the DCA to fund farmers and enterprises. 
33
• WAFP needs to work closely with ECOWAS to identify, encourage and place large business 
enterprises. 
• WAFP must explore the possibility to convene meetings with AFAP and local and regional banks to 
present to the banks the opportunities that exist in using the DCA to fund limited resource farmers 
and investors in the fertilizer business.
3.4. WAFP’s Compliance with FtF Cross-Cutting Issues 
Question: To what extent are the project interventions addressing cross-cutting issues such 
as gender and climate-smart agriculture? 
Findings 
In all visited countries, the evaluation team found out that while WAFP is making an effort to address 
gender and youth issues but is not adequately integrating CSA approaches: 
• Through the collaboration of ECOWAS, AFAP, AGRA and national government programs, all projects 
include programs for women and youth. WAFP is providing technical assistance to FEPRODES 
(Federation des groupements et association de femmes productrices de Saint-louis) in Senegal, which 
has 40,000 women members. 
• WAFP has not really addressed climate smart agriculture, but in a few countries visited such as Mali 
and Senegal a resilience program is in place at the national level to address climate change (by using 
improved seeds and prudent water management). On the research side, efforts have been made to 
examine micro-dose use on millet, sorghum and corn by ISRA in Senegal. The IFDC prime project in 
Senegal has studied the effects of supplementary irrigation to minimize the negative effects of plant 
stress.
Recommendations:
• WAFP should increase women’s ownership of farm and business resources.
• WAFP should move beyond its environmental compliance to include comprehensive and regional 
activities on climate change patterns on agriculture and environment (DPU, micro-dose, 
complementary irrigation).
3.5. Capacity, Knowledge and Skills of Staff
Question: Does the core staff have the right skills, knowledge and capacity needed to achieve 
the work at hand? If not, can they get it from other IFDC resources and/or their sub-grantees? 
Findings 
WAFP staff meet the minimum qualifications to run the project. They have solid technical background and 
field experience, but strong leadership is missing. However, WAFP/IFDC is constrained by an excessive 
bureaucratic structure that slows down the implementation of program activities. IFDC has a portfolio 
management system that attempts to manage similar projects. The placement of a project in a given cluster 
is not scientifically determined, but is based on given project similarities and hence used for management 
purposes. WAFP is placed in a cluster with four other projects. The manager of the cluster overseas the 
general management of the project and the Chief of Party (COP) reports to this individual. The manager of 
the cluster serves as an added rung on the managerial ladder to which the COP must report and obtain 
permission for expenditures beyond certain limits. In many cases the COP has to divide invoices in two 
parts to obtain spending permission. This process absorbs much management time and effort. 
34
WAFP staff meet the basic qualifications to run the project. They have solid technical background and field 
experience, but strong leadership is missing. However, WAFP/IFDC is constrained by an excessive 
bureaucratic structure that slows down the implementation of program activities. IFDC has a portfolio 
management system that attempts to manage similar projects. The placement of a project in a given cluster 
is not scientifically determined, but is based on given project similarities and hence used for management 
purposes. WAFP is placed in a cluster with four other projects. The manager of the cluster overseas the 
general management of the project and the Chief of Party (COP) reports to this individual. There is also a 
spending approval threshold of $15,000 for the COP. Beyond this, permission must be obtained from the 
portfolio manager who also has to report to the West African project manager who in turn has a spending 
threshold of $25,000. Hence the COP of the WAFP has two in-country persons to which his request must 
go before being able to make a given expenditure. This poses extra restrictions on the COP making direct 
decisions. This process absorbs much management time and effort. 
WAFP does not have the right mix of expertise among the field staff. A strong Policy Analyst, an Agri￾Business Specialist (this is a recently recruited position) and a dynamic Communication Specialist are 
required to strengthen the team. The policy analyst should be working hand-in-hand with the Chief of Party 
(COP).
IFDC is a well-known organization that can provide experienced human resources to WAFP. However, 
IFDC home office (headquarters does not provide a technical specialist to support the COP in decision 
making or to ensure that there is strong, periodic and sustained backstopping in WAFP areas of need). In 
the meantime, IFDC home office is providing support to WAFP upon the request of the COP. Given the 
nature of the project this is insufficient. While the COP must report to the regional office, the regional 
office provides limited support to the project. However, there are in the region, TA specialist teams from 
which the COP can call upon to assist in certain functions.
Recommendations
WAFP needs to have a COP who can ensure strong leadership by building a common vision and mission 
with all participating countries, developing a common strategy, approach and tactical techniques to work 
with diverse country programs, developing a structure and timetable to measure achievements (objectives, 
targets and results).
WAFP needs to have a strong policy analyst at the headquarters to promote regional policies and to 
provide support and guidance to the WAFP program.
WAFP needs to have a strong private sector specialist with interest on agri-business to engage the private 
sector both at the national and regional level to develop partnerships and joint ventures, mobilize finance 
and investment, ensure that credit is available. Or private sector activities could be assigned to AFAP, as an 
alternative option.
WAFP needs to have a dynamic and well rounded communication specialist to: promote activities such as 
branding, developing a communication plan, promote the program and results throughout the region and 
increase its visibility.
USAID should request IFDC to provide adequate backstopping assistance in regional strategy and policy 
development. 
35
4. CONCLUSION AND SPECIFIC 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The report makes numerous conclusions and recommendations based on the information the team has 
been able to extract from annual reports, project documents from USAID, IFDC, AFAP, information 
gathered during field work in the visited countries (Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal), and remote 
consultations made with stakeholders from Liberia and Togo. The team has attempted to answer the 
following questions oulined in the CA: . 
 Is the program focused on a clear set of regional activities?
The program does not focus on a clear set of regional activities because the collaborating and implementing 
partners, WAFP, ECOWAS and AFAP, did not work together from the start and had separate activities. 
Recommendations: 
 WAFP should set up a working group involving IFDC, the sub-grantee AFAP, and programs such as
WAPP and WASP to provide essential support services to the program. In addition WAFP should 
bring together ECOWAS representatives at the country level (National Assembly) to assist in the 
institutionalization and the implementation of the fertilizer regulation on quality control. WAFP 
should develop MOU’s with all Ministries of regional governments involved in the project and keep 
them informed of the WAFP progress and their role in project success.
 Will it impact on availability of affordable quality fertilizer?
While IFDC promotes the improved use and methods of fertilizer application, the overall collective support 
of WAFP to this activity is weak. There need to be regulation enforcement to improve the quality and 
quantity of fertilizer on the market. 
Recommendations: 
 For good and standardized fertilizers with the right amounts of nutrients to be made available to 
farmers throughout the region, regulation should be enforced. This will encourage the private 
sector’s participation in the program, increase famer use of fertilizer, and will have a definite impact 
on the countries’ agriculture. 
 How should the program interact with regional and national programs?
An effort was made to bring the ministries and high ranking government officials together in November 
2012 but there is an absence of follow-up activities, regular networking and exchanges between national 
and regional programs for fertilizer quality assurance. There are no common goals and operational 
procedures developed for laboratories, input suppliers, warehousing and fertilizer storage operators to 
work together to satisfy in some way the project objectives.
Recommendations: 
 The regional program should interact with the national programs through joint activities developed 
during workshop participation and networking. WAFP could take the initiative to connect 
Ministries of Agriculture of the various countries to cooperate on ECOWAS policy regulations. 
 What specific opportunities or innovations exist to enhance effective program 
implementation and sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant 
bilateral USAID programming), and to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach 
of the program?
36
Opportunities and innovations exist for the increase in fertilizer use. Among these are: Important 
phosphates mines in West Africa; On-going national government initiatives; USAID bilateral programs are 
already implementing activities in all visited countries: Finally, there is a large regional fertilizer deficit that 
can stimulate increases in market demand and supply. 
Recommendations:
 WAFP should build on existing institutions and organizations: Opportunities exist at institutions 
such as ECOWAS, AFAP, AGRA, and programs (WAPP, WASP) to introduce the WAFP in 
countries where initial penetration may have been difficult. The same organizations could also serve 
to include visibility of WAFP. WAFP should work closely with WAPP and WASP to develop joint 
programs and policies, to endorse the use of goods seeds and fertilizers in order to enhance crop 
and farm productivity.
 What has been accomplished to date? Which results have sufficient evidence to meet 
program audit standards?
WAFP did not meet most of its targets during the first two years. The expected percent change in volume 
of fertilizer sold over the two years did not occur, and WAFP has not gained visibility. The following 
observations under each Intermediate result support are made:
- IR.1- Increased regional supply and distribution of selected fertilizers by the private sector: 
WAFP provided assistance to many private enterprises, but did not meet the targets. Over the two years 
WAFP did not assist any private fertilizer related firms operating at import, blender and wholesale levels. 
WAFP provided assistance to MSMEs including farmers to access loans but most of them did not take 
advantage of the DCA. Only 2% (600) of public and private fertilizer stakeholders received fertilizers and 
market information through WAFP support compared to the two years’ target of 30,000 stakeholders.
- IR.2 – Increased use of improved fertilizers
The WAFP program facilitated the formation of Fertilizer Recommendation Task Forces in Ghana, Liberia, 
Mali and Senegal to coordinate work on soil testing and modeling, leading to fertilizer recommendations. 
Almost 56% of technologies (Fertilizer granulation and deep fertilizer placement) were promoted and made 
available to the farmers. The accummulated percentage of rice fertilizer use per targeted area is 48.4%, 
compared to 65.5% for maize and 48.03% for cotton. Hence the intermediate results of increased fertilizer 
use was under achieved.
- IR.3 - Improved effficiency of regional market transactions
The value of new private sector investment in agricultural sector or food chain leveraged by FtF 
implementation was only 7.47 percent achieved. There was no progress made with the number of private 
fertilizer related firms operating at the import, blender, and wholesale levels in USG assisted countries, 
infrastructure development experienced an 83.3 percent increase; the number of loan application 
documents submitted to commercial banks and micro-finance institutions increased.
- IR.4 - Improved enabling environment for fertilizer policy and regulatory framework development
WAFP provided technical assistance to partners to improve the policy and regulatory environment for 
fertilizer production, trade and quality control and only 28.57% of the policy and regulatory framework 
procedures were developed over the two years. 
Recommendations:
 WAFP should make its program visible. The branding should be included in all stipulated 
communication messages. There should be a clear distinction between WAFP and other IFDC in￾country programs. WAFP should revise its program targets and focus on policy and regulatory 
development mainly on the regional activities including improving the business and harmonization of 
the fertilizers. 
37
 After two years of activities, WAFP should re-examine its strategy of inclusion of national 
governments in the program. Joint MOU should be developed with each of them and should be 
made to understand the importance of the program; that is, to strengthen but not to replace 
national initiatives that are in place.
 WAFP should not be promoting the development of technologies such as Fertilizer Granulation and 
Deep Fertilizer Placement directly to the farmers. WAFP assistance should be provided through 
local institutions including governments’ entities, NGOs and IFDC projects that can work closely 
with farmers and producer organizations.
 Sufficiency of evidence to meet audit standards:
WAFP results outlined in its annual reports do not meet audit standards.
Recommendations:
 WAFP should implement a strong program monitoring system that can meet USAID reporting 
requirements. USAID and IFDC should discuss and revise indicators as needed.
 What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder the achievement 
of the program’s expected outcomes and what corrective actions and/or areas for 
improvement are needed?
Two key factors, human resources and organizational structure help or hinder the achievement of WAFP 
expected outcomes. 
- WAFP has a weak leadership as illustrated by a lack of building a common vision and missions with all 
participating countries;
- WAFP has been unable to put an appropriate governance model to develop a structure and timetable 
to measure achievements.
Recommendations:
 WAFP needs to have a Chief of Party (COP) who can ensure strong leadership. WAFP needs to 
have a strong policy analyst at the headquarters to promote regional policies and to provide 
support and direction to the WAFP program.
 WAFP needs to have a strong Agri-business Specialist with interest oriented towards the private 
sector.
 WAFP needs to have a dynamic and well-rounded Communication Specialist to: promote activities 
such as branding, developing a communication plan; promote the program and results throughout 
the region and increase its visibility. 
 Is the current DCA strategy, that emphasizes coordination with bilateral Missions for 
smaller investments, correctly positioned? Is there a clear strategy for achieving the large 
investments needed for regional results?
There is confusion between the concept of line of credit and the DCA guarantee mechanism. The DCA 
mechanism appears to have some limitations to adequately cover large investments particularly medium and 
long term investments. There is no clear strategy for WAFP to encourage large business enterprise 
financing. 
Recommendations: 
 WAFP needs to develop a clear strategy with AFAP on how best to use the limited resources 
under the DCA to fund farmers and enterprises. 
38
 WAFP needs to work closely with ECOWAS to identify, promote and place large business 
enterprises. 
 WAFP must explore the possibility to convene meetings with AFAP and local and regional banks to 
present to the banks the opportunities that exist in using the DCA to fund limited resource 
farmers and investors in the fertilizer business.
 Is the program leveraging the right group of partners? What additional approaches are 
needed to encourage sufficient private sector investment and access to credit? What are 
the most promising areas of investment?
The project is meeting the right type of partners (input suppliers, traders, banks, producers organizations), 
but has not developed the strategy for maintaining the agri-business firms interest over a sustainable period 
of time to adequately promote the type of network that would encourage investment in the fertilizer value 
chain.
Recommendations:
 WAFP should develop a strategy to encourage national governments, NGOs and private sector 
involvement into the program and to participate in the activities that will increase the production 
and use of fertilizers.
 WAFP should also develop a solid working relationship with WAPP or WASP in order to provide 
accompanying technologies to the private sector and farmers. Finally, WAFP should develop a joint 
policy with ECOWAS to bring together the private sector to participate effectively.
In spite of WAFP’s failure to leverage large business investments, there are promising areas where small 
and medium businesses are likely to make a difference in the fertilizer industry. These include:
- Identification of regional fertilizer markets for development.
- Development of electronic directories of targeted farmers in subsidy programs and information 
sharing - this is being piloted in Ghana by an implementing partner and entrepreuner. 
- The employment and use of soil tool kit tests on a larger scale by local entrepreners is especially 
interesting when combined with an electronic directory previously discussed. 
Recommendations:
 Development of a regional alliance for the promotion of fertilizer equipment and tools. 
 Development of regional laboratories for fertilizer quality control in selected ECOWAS countries.
 Composting with the application of additional inorganic nutrients.
 To what extent are the project interventions addressing cross-cutting issues such as 
gender and climate-smart agriculture?
- All projects include programs for women and youth. WAFP is providing technical assistance to 
FEPRODES (Federation des groupements et association de femmes productrices de Saint-louis) in 
Senegal, which has 40,000 women members.
WAFP has not adequately addressed climate smart agriculture. However in few countries, CSA issues are 
being incorporated. 
- In Mali and Senegal a resilience program is in place at the national level to address climate change (by 
using improved seeds and prudent water management).
- With respect to research, efforts have been made to examine micro-dose use on millet, sorghum and 
corn by ISRA in Senegal. 
- The IFDC prime project in Senegal has studied the effects of supplementary irrigation to minimize the 
negative effects of plant stress.
39
Recommendations: 
 WAFP should increase women’s access to fertilizers, farm and business resources through 
increased collaborative ventures and information dissemination. 
 WAFP should move beyond its environmental compliance to include comprehensive and regional 
activities on climate change patterns on agriculture and environment (DPU, micro-dose, 
complementary irrigation).
 Does the core staff have the right skills, knowledge and capacity needed to achieve the 
work at hand? If not, can they get it from other IFDC resources and/or their sub-grantees? 
WAFP staff meets the basic qualifications to run the project. They have solid technical background and field 
experience, but strong leadership is missing. However, WAFP/IFDC is constrained by an excessive 
bureaucratic structure that slows down the implementation of program activities. WAFP does not have the 
right mix of expertise among the field staff. A strong Policy Analyst, an Agri-Business Specialist (this is a 
recently recruited position) and a dynamic Communication Specialist are required to strengthen the team. 
The policy analyst should be working hand-in-hand with the project Chief of Party (COP). 
Way forward
WAFP requires a viable and vibrant senior management team led by a strong leader with great skills in 
advocacy and relationship building at all levels, especially regionally. WAFP has not been successful in 
meeting its targets. Most of the achievements noted were during the second year; hence the poor level of 
achievement at mid-term. The project must speed up its activities in order to attain some measure of 
success.
WAFP should engage in internal restructuring to increase its effectiveness. WAFP should have in place 
strong Policy/Agribusiness Specialist and Communication Specialist (the program has recently recruited a 
communication specialist and an agribusiness specialist and a bit of time is required to fully integrate them 
into the program).
WAPF should strengthen engagement/collaboration with existing stakeholders at all levels: regionally with 
ECOWAS, UEMOA etc., nationally with the ministries/departments of Agriculture and the private sector. 
This will enhance and clarify the mission of the program to stakeholders and promote ownership of the 
program’s objectives. 
WAFP as a regional program should be more focused and should work to promote the regional visibility of 
its activities through effective communication, advocacy and collaboration, leveraging common platforms for 
information sharing and dissemination.
To promote access to finance and explore new financial mechanisms which will attract the full private 
sector participation in the program, WAFP should strengthen its engagement with the sub-grantee AFAP, 
expanding its scope to undertake the private sector initiatives and work closely with the SMEs in-country 
and regionally. WAFP should find a way to encourage the private sector to utilize the funds available 
through the DCA.
40
5. REFERENCES
Documents from USAID/WA/REGO
• USAID-IFDC/WAFP Co-operative Agreement No. AID-624-12-000022 dated 02/24/2012
• USAID/PCE, 2011: Rapport de synthèse: Analyse de la filière engrais au Sénégal et de son évolution sur 
la période 2000 a 2010.
• USAID/PCE, 2011. Accompagnement des reformes et initiatives en faveur de la filière des engrais 
chimiques. Juin 2011.
• USAID/PCE, 2011: Diagnostic approfondi du dispositif de Cession des Engrais subventionnes, 
December 2011.
• USAID/PCE, 2011: Plan d’action pour l’accompagnement des reformes et initiatives en faveur du sous￾secteur des engrais chimiques au Sénégal. December 2011
Document from ECOWAS
• Fertilizer regulations and policies for controlling quality in West African States in the ECOWAS Region, 
ECOWAS Commission (2013). 
• Stratégie Régionale de Promotion des Engrais en Afrique de l΄Ouest, Abuja Publisher by ECOWAS 
(2006) 
• Policy and marketing of fertilizers included in ‘Rapport National de Diffusion des Textes de la CEDEAO 
sur le contrôle de le qualité des engrais
Document from WAFP/IFDC
• USAID/IFDC, FY, 2014, Scaling up for Results and Regional Impact: A refocused West Africa Fertilizer 
Program (WAFP), October 2014 to May 2017.
• USAID/ASSESS, Mid-term evaluation work plan, October 2014
• USAID/WAFP FY 2014 Annual Report, IFDC, October 2014. 
• USAID/WAFP FY 2014 Work plan, IFDC, May 2014.
• USAID/WAFP FY 2013 Annual Report, IFDC, October 2013.
• USAID/WAFP FY 2013: First Annual West Africa Fertilizer Stakeholders: Main Conclusions, 
recommendations and Perspectives. Accra September 18-19, 2013.
• USAID/WAFP FY 2013 Working paper N˚ 1: Fertilizer subsidy program in West Africa: lessons learned 
and implications for the West Africa Fertilizer Program, Kofi Debrah and K.M. Alognikou
• USAID/WAFP FY 2013 Working paper N˚ 2: Fertilizer Production and Blending Capacities and 
Fertilizers Business and Directory of West Africa: Patrice Annequin and Japhet Lartey assistant
• USAID/WAFP FY 2012, June to September 2012 Quarterly Report, IFDC, September 2012. 
• Circulaire fixant les prix de cession des intrants subventionnés pour la campagne agricole 2014/2015. 
Direction de l’Agriculture du Sénégal by MAER (2013).
• Comite Nationale de Réflexion sur l’engrais et la fertilité des sols. Direction de l’Agriculture du Sénégal 
by MAER (2003).The documents consulted included fertilizer regulations and policies for controlling 
quality in West African States in the ECOWAS Region, ECOWAS Commission (2013). Stratégie 
Régionale de Promotion des Engrais en Afrique de l’Ouest, Abuja Publisher by ECOWAS (2006).The 
other documents related to policy and marketing of fertilizers included in ‘Rapport National de 
Diffusion des Textes de la CEDEAO sur le contrôle de la qualité des engrais. Comite Nationale de 
Réflexion sur l’engrais et la fertilité des sols. Direction de l’Agriculture du Sénégal by MAER (2003) and 
Circulaire fixant les prix de cession des intrants subventionnés pour la campagne agricole 2014/2015. 
Direction de l’Agriculture du Sénégal by MAER (2013).
• Other Documents
41
• IFDC, 2013. IFDC/ECOWAS Study: Tighter Regulation Key to Ensuring Fertilizer Quality in West 
Africa; Printed in IFDC Volume 38, No. 4. 
• Sanabria, J., G. Dimithe and E.K. M. Alognikou; 2013. The Quality of Fertilizer Traded in West Africa: 
Evidence for Stronger Control; a joint ECOWAS, UEMOA and IFDC report; International Fertilizer 
Development Center,
42
6. ANNEXES 
Annex 1: SWOT Analysis WAFP-IFDC
FACTORS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
INTERNAL
STRENGHTS
a) PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCE
• IFDC as an international implementing 
organization possesses experienced human 
resource base. Specifically, IFDC has:
• Solid technical background in 
agricultural/food security interventions
• Strong field experience in fertilizers at 
country levels especially Nigeria, Ghana and 
Mali 
• Private sector technical support from AFAP
b) FINANCIAL RESOURCES 
• Availability of funds
• Credit and investment possibilities through 
the DCA mechanism 
c) STRUCTURE 
• Strong in –country presence
• Provision of analytical and logistical support 
to the program. 
• Strong institutional reputation 
WEAKNESSES
a) PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES
• Ineffective leadership: The COP is weak in strategic 
direction and relationship building with key actors 
(such as ECOWAS) at the regional level. 
• The policy and communication specialists are weak 
with respect to their roles on the program. For 
example, in communications WAFP has low 
visibility among the stakeholders, in majority of the 
countries. 
• Inappropriate mix of key personnel
• Rapid turnover of personnel
b) FINANCIAL RESOURCES
• WAFP/IFDC is not leveraging the DCA 
• Poor collaboration between WAFP and banks on 
the DCA mechanism
• Lack of awareness on the credit facility among 
private sector stakeholders
c) STRUCTURE
• Inability to mobilize existing IFDC structure to the 
advantage of WAFP. 
• Inability to address regional and macro issues
• Lack of clarity of WAFP objectives For instance 
although WAFP is a regional program, it is being 
implemented mainly as country level program.
EXTERNAL
OPPORTUNITIES
• WAFP can collaborate with many existing 
institutions such as ECOWAS, NARES, 
MOA, MOFA, USAID bilateral project 
mission to strengthen its capacities and to 
achieve its goals
• Existence of regional fertilizer policy 
framework e.g. regulation on fertilizer 
quality control
• Institutions in place
• Regional policy framework
• Strong demand for fertilizer
• Strong domestic government initiatives: 
There are many local government initiatives 
on increasing agriculture productivity in 
place in most of the countries.
• Strong private sector engagement; for 
example fertilizer suppliers, blenders, 
distributors and producers and importers in 
most of the countries. (WAFP has 
numerous partners in fertilizer production 
THREATS
• Conflict between national and regional policy 
ECOWAS has in place a regulation on fertilizer 
policy quality control by all member states, 
however some countries (eg. Ghana) believe they 
still have to make some amendments to that 
regulation before implementing. 
• The likelihood of change in national policies
• Changes in economic and financial stability in which 
cost of fertilizer could be prohibitive in the world 
market and possible fluctuations in the local 
currency which could adversely affect the fertilizer 
market in West Africa
• Environment and climate change Using fertilizers in 
harsh conditions (lack or excess of rainfall will 
always affect fertilizers efficiencies);
• Changes in global economic and financial conditions
• High interest rates affecting DCA implementation.
43
FACTORS POSITIVE NEGATIVE
and blending such as Toguna in Mali; ICS in 
Senegal). 
• Supporting research institutions
• Inter professional bodies within the 
ECOWAS countries in the major value 
chain such as rice, cocoa, and maize serving 
as fertilizer market for the program. E.g. the 
Rice Inter Professional Body in Ghana.
• Supply chain management where WAFP 
could help the private sector intervene in all 
sector of the fertilizers industries present in 
the ECOWAS member states from fertilizer 
processing, distribution and transportation.
• Financial linkage and networking at both the 
regional and country-level
• Existence of a regional platform for 
technology transfer e.g. Network of 
Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ 
Organizations of West Africa 
• Buy-in from other organizations such as 
AGRA, FAO and private sector
• Local government cost share and buy-in. 
WAY FORWARD
• WAFP requires a viable and vibrant senior management team led by a strong leader with great 
skills in advocacy and relationship building at all levels, especially regionally. WAFP has not 
been successful in meeting its targets. Most of the achievements noted were during the 
second year; hence the poor level of achievement at mid-term. The project must speed up its 
activities in order to attain some measure of success.
• WAFP should engage in internal restructuring to increase its effectiveness. WAFP should have 
in place strong Policy/Agribusiness Specialist and Communication Specialist (the program has 
recently recruited a communication specialist and an agribusiness specialist and a bit of time is 
required to fully integrate them into the program).
• WAPF should strengthen engagement/collaboration with existing stakeholders at all levels: 
regionally with ECOWAS, UEMOA etc., nationally with the ministries/departments of 
Agriculture and the private sector. This will enhance and clarify the mission of the program to 
stakeholders and promote ownership of the program’s objectives. 
• WAFP as a regional program should be more focused and should work to promote the 
regional visibility of its activities through effective communication, advocacy and collaboration, 
leveraging common platforms for information sharing and dissemination.
• To promote access to finance and explore new financial mechanisms which will attract the full 
private sector participation in the program, WAFP should strengthen its engagement with the 
sub-grantee AFAP, expanding its scope to undertake the private sector initiatives and work 
closely with the SMEs in-country and regionally. WAFP should find a way to encourage the 
private sector to utilize the funds available through the DCA.
Annex 2: WAFP FtFMS Data Entry Status Report
Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline 
Year Baseline Value
2014 2015 2016 2017
Target Actual Target Target Target
4.5.1(24): (OLD) Numbers of 
Policies/Regulations/Administrative Procedures in each 
of the following stages of development as a result of USG 
assistance in each case: (Stage 1/2/3/4/5)
 10 4 4 10 
Sector 10 4 4 10 
Inputs 10 4 4 10 
Disaggregates Not Available 
Stages of development 10 4 4 10 
Stage 1 of 5 Number of policies / regulations / administrative 
procedures analyzed 0 
Stage 2 of 5 Number of policies / regulations / administrative 
procedures drafted and presented for public/stakeholder 
consultation
 0 
Stage 3 of 5 Number of policies / regulations / administrative 
procedures presented for legislation/decree 0 
Stage 4 of 5 Number of policies / regulations / administrative 
procedures prepared with USG assistance passed/approved 0 
Stage 5 of 5 Number of policies / regulations / administrative 
procedures passed for which implementation has begun 10 4 4 10 
Disaggregates Not Available 
45
Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline 
Year Baseline Value
2014 2015 2016 2017
Target Actual Target Target Target
4.5.2(11): Number of food security private enterprises 
(for profit), producers organizations, water users 
associations, women's groups, trade and business 
associations, and CBOs receiving USG assistance
 840 36 
Type of organization 840 36 
Private enterprises (for profit) 168 32 
Producers organizations 336 4 
Water users associations 17 
Women's groups 168 
Trade and business associations 126 
Community-based organizations (CBOs) 25 
Disaggregates Not Available 
New/Continuing 840 36 
New 384 36 
Continuing 456 0 
Disaggregates Not Available 
4.5.2(12): Number of public-private partnerships formed 
as a result of FTF assistance 3 0 3 4 4 
Agricultural production 3 0 2 3 3 
46
Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline 
Year Baseline Value
2014 2015 2016 2017
Target Actual Target Target Target
Other 0 1 1 1 
Disaggregates Not Available 
4.5.2(2): Number of hectares under improved 
technologies or management practices as a result of 
USG assistance
 150 0 90 110 
Technology type 150 0 90 110 
soil-related fertility and conservation 150 0 90 110 
total w/one or more improved technology 150 0 90 110 
Sex 150 0 90 110 
Male 100 0 63 77 
Female 50 0 27 33 
4.5.2(30): Number of MSMEs, including farmers, 
receiving USG assistance to access loans 150 82 
Size of MSME 150 82 
Micro 45 20
Small 75 60 
Medium 30 2 
Sex of owner 150 82 
Male 105 43 
Female 30 10 
Joint 15 29 
47
Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline 
Year Baseline Value
2014 2015 2016 2017
Target Actual Target Target Target
4.5.2(37): Number of MSMEs, including farmers, 
receiving business development services from USG 
assisted sources
 250 42 250 300 350
Size of MSME 250 42 250 300 350
Micro 75 2 100 120 140
Small 125 39 100 120 140
Medium 50 1 50 60 70
MSME Type 250 42 250 300 350
Agricultural producer 25 2 75 90 105
Input supplier 150 30 100 120 140
Trader 75 50 60 70
Non agriculture 10 
Other 25 30 35
Sex of owner 250 42 250 300 350
Male 150 41 125 150 175
Female 75 1 50 60 70
Joint 25 75 90 105
4.5.2(38): Value of new private sector investment in the 
agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF 
implementation
2014 3,000,000.00 500,000.
00 54,560.00 4,000,000.
00 5,000,000.00 6,000,000.00
48
Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline 
Year Baseline Value
2014 2015 2016 2017
Target Actual Target Target Target
4.5.2(39): Number of technologies or management 
practices in one of the following phases of development: 
(Phase I/II/III)
 
Phase 3 Number of new technologies or management practices 
made available for transfer as a result of USG assistance 10 1 2 4 
4.5.2(5): Number of farmers and others who have 
applied improved technologies or management practices 
as a result of USG assistance
 12,880 0 9,186 11,530 14,290
Producers 12,880 0 1,350 1,500 
Sex 12,880 0 1,350 1,500 
Male 7,728 0 1,080 1,200 
Female 5,152 0 270 300 
Technology type 12,880 0 1,350 1,500 
soil-related fertility and conservation 0 1,350 1,500 
total w/one or more improved technology 12,880 0 1,350 1,500 
Disaggregates Not Available 
Others 7,836 10,030 14,290
Sex 7,836 10,030 14,290
Male 6,269 8,024 11,432
49
Indicator / Disaggregation Baseline 
Year Baseline Value
2014 2015 2016 2017
Target Actual Target Target Target
Female 1,567 2,006 2,858
Technology type 7,836 10,030 14,290
other 7,836 10,030 14,290
total w/one or more improved technology 7,836 10,030 14,290
4.5.2(7): Number of individuals who have received USG 
supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or 
food security training
 46,000 417 18,372 23,060 28,580
Type of individual 46,000 417 18,372 23,060 28,580
Producers 18,400 36 2,700 3,000 3,500
People in government 13,800 238 15,630 20,000 25,000
People in private sector firms 13,800 143 30 40 50
People in civil society 0 12 20 30
Sex 46,000 417 18,372 23,060 28,580
Male 27,600 365 14,698 18,448 22,864
Female 18,400 52 3,674 4,612 5,716
50
Annex 3: Evaluation Design Matrix
QUESTION APPROACH DATA COLLECTION 
METHOD
DATA 
COLLECTION 
TOOL
DATA SOURCE/ 
STAKEHOLDERS 
(RESPONDENTS)
SAMPLING
1) Is the program 
focused on a clear set of 
regional activities? Will it 
impact the availability and 
use of affordable, high 
quality fertilizer? How 
should the regional program 
interact with national 
programs?
a. Assess the program's alignment to 
regional initiatives (eg. ECOWAP), 
identify the linkages to existing 
regional/global initiatives and targets. 
Determine the extent to which 
program components & activities are 
linked to objectives and targets of 
regional interventions 
b. Assess the program theory of 
change and effectiveness of 
implementation approach to cause the 
expected impact (increased availability 
and use of improved fertilizers). 
Review planned vs. actual 
implementation strategy, identifying 
modifications and their implications on 
the achievement of the expected 
program impact
c. Assess the current synergy between 
the program and national initiatives? 
Identify existing gaps and suggest 
recommendations for improving upon 
the interaction at the national level
a. Documentation review, 
Interview with ECOWAS 
fertilizer program 
managers
b. Documentation review 
of WAFP documents 
(PIP, PMP, TOC, activity 
reports, annual reports 
etc.), interview program 
managers, program 
officers/staff at both 
regional and local levels 
[local level IPs are 
relevant for verifying the 
actual implementation 
approach]
c. Documentation review, 
interview with National 
Agricultural program 
managers/staff
a. Program synergy 
review checklist 
Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for 
stakeholders) 
b. Program component 
review checklist, Semi￾structured questionnaire 
(for Core IPs) 
c. Program synergy 
review checklist
Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for 
Stakeholders)
a. Program documents 
(Cooperate agreement, 
TOC, PIP, Work plans), 
ECOWAS 
documentation eg. 
Regional fertilizer policy
IFDC-WAFP program 
managers/staff, 
ECOWAP Managers
b. Program documents 
(TOC, PMP, Results
Framework, activity 
reports, and annual
reports.
IFDC-WAFP program 
staff
c. Program documents 
(Cooperate Agreement, 
activity reports, work 
plans) 
Government agencies - 
Ministry of Agriculture, 
managers of national 
agricultural programs 
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
51
2) What specific 
opportunities or 
innovations exist to 
enhance effective program 
implementation and 
sustainability at the regional 
level (in particular in 
relation to relevant bilateral 
USAID programming), and 
to further strengthen the 
regional cohesive approach 
of the program?
Review program reports and conduct 
a SWOT analysis to identify program 
strengths and opportunities in relation 
to program success and sustainability. 
Identify existing linkages and 
interactions between WAFP and 
other relevant USAID programming in 
the region
Documentation review, 
SWOT assessment
Interview with core IPs
Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for IPs), 
Program review 
checklist 
Program documents 
(Activity & annual 
reports)
SWOT assessment 
tool,
ECOWAP, USAID 
bilateral programs
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
3) What has been 
accomplished to date? 
Which results have 
sufficient evidence to meet 
program audit standards?
Review reports, program deliverables, 
studies etc. as well as the indicator 
tracking table and identify achieved 
results compared to what was 
planned. Subject selected (or all) 
achievements to a quality assessment 
based on a defined criteria 
emphasizing accuracy, reliability, 
validity, timeliness and integrity of 
achieved results. Interview IPs
Documentation review, 
data quality assessment 
of selected KPIs, 
Program results review 
checklist, Data Quality 
assessment tool, 
Program documents 
(PMP, KPI matrix), 
FTFMS Platform
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
4) What factors (both 
internal and external to the 
program) help or hinder the 
achievement of the 
program’s expected 
outcomes and what 
corrective actions and/or 
areas for improvement are 
needed?
Review program reports for 
documented challenges and successes. 
Review program log frame and assess 
proposed strategies to mitigate risks. 
Interact with core IPs 
Documentation review of 
program reports, SWOT, 
log frame analysis, risk 
and assumptions analysis 
& context analysis. 
Interview core IPs 
SWOT assessment tool, 
Context assessment tool 
Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for IPs) 
Program documents 
(Activity & annual 
reports)
Core IPs (IFDC, AFAP) 
and key stakeholders - 
private sector partners, 
regional, government 
agencies 
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
5) Is the IFDC private 
sector approach 
appropriate for a regional 
program?
a. In-depth review of the private 
sector approach in relation to 
recommended approaches or best 
practices for achieving impact at the 
regional level, followed by interactions 
with key actors identified in IFDC's 
approach. 
Documentation review 
Interviews with private 
sector IPs and 
beneficiaries as well as 
regional program 
managers
Program review checklist
Semi-structured 
questionnaire 
Program documents 
(Private Sector 
Strategy), 
Private sector IPs - 
Agro-input dealers, 
producer organizations, 
fertilizer supplier 
associations etc.
ECOWAP Managers
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
52
6) Is the program leveraging 
the right group of partners? 
What additional approaches 
are needed to encourage 
sufficient private sector 
investment and access to 
credit? What are the most 
promising areas of 
investment?
a. Assess the institutional strengths 
and weaknesses of IPs identified in 
IFDC's approach and in relation to 
promoting private sector investments. 
b. Based on gaps identified, interact 
with key stakeholders and review 
relevant literature on recommended 
approaches for achieving increased 
investments in the private sector and 
access to credit
c. Review literature, explore the stock 
market and interact with relevant 
private sector institutions, available 
agri-business agencies and micro￾credit facilities (both WAFP & non￾WAFP beneficiaries)
 
a. Institutional capacity 
assessment involving IPs
at all levels i.e. regional, 
national
b. Literature review, 
Interview staff of private 
sector IPs
c. Literature review, 
Interview managers/staff 
of agri-business agencies 
and micro-credit facilities 
a. SWOT assessment 
tool, 
b. Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for 
stakeholders & private 
sector IPs) 
c. Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for 
agribusinesses & micro￾finance institutions
a. IFDC, AFAP, other 
key partners (both 
national & regional eg. 
ECOWAP) 
b. Literature (eg. 
success stories, best 
practices) on fertilizer 
related interventions & 
similar regional 
projects.
Private Sector IPs 
c. Literature, Stock 
market
Microfinance 
Institutions
Agri-business agencies 
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
7) Is the current DCA 
strategy which emphasizes 
coordination with bilateral 
Missions for smaller 
investments correctly 
positioned? Is there a clear 
strategy for achieving the 
large investments needed 
for regional results?
a. Assess how USAID's Development 
Credit Authority (DCA) strategy is 
being operationalized and determine 
whether the implementation of the 
strategy is ensuring better leverage of 
small investments at the different 
country levels. 
B. Assess and determine whether 
IFDC has a clearly-defined strategy 
(proposed/in place) for achieving 
larger investments at the regional 
level. 
a. Documentation review, 
SWOT and policy 
analyses
b. Interview core IPs and 
stakeholders
a. Program component 
review checklist, SWOT 
assessment tool
b. Semi-structured 
questionnaire (for IPs & 
stakeholders)
a. DCA background 
documents, program 
documents (activity and 
annual reports)
 
b. IFDC-WAFP 
managers/staff
AFAP managers/staff
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
8) To what extent are the 
project interventions 
addressing cross-cutting 
issues such as gender and 
climate-smart agriculture?
Review implemented activities and 
planned program components to 
ascertain how the program is 
promoting climate-smart approaches 
and gender issues including youth 
involvement in the private sector at 
the local or national level. 
Documentation review 
and Interview with 
Stakeholders. Conduct 
gender mainstreaming 
analysis and climate-smart 
agricultural innovations 
review
Program component 
review checklist, Semi￾structured questionnaire 
(for stakeholders)
Program documents 
(Activity & annual 
reports)
IFDC, ECOWAP, 
government agencies
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
53
9) Does the core staff have 
the right skills, knowledge 
and capacity needed to 
achieve the work at hand? If 
not, can they get it from 
other IFDC resources 
and/or their sub-grantees?
Identify core program staff, conduct a 
capacity assessment 
Capacity assessment of 
core staff
Staff capacity and skills 
assessment tool
IFDC - WAFP staff
AFAP staff
Convenient, 
quota, 
purposive
Annex 4: Tools for data collection
Annex 4.1. Interview Questions – USAID Bilateral Missions 
Name of interviewer
Name of interviewee
Organization
Country
Position
Date of interview
Start time
End time
Status of interview
☐ Completed 
☐ Incomplete 
☐ Participant declined interview 
☐ No usable information 
Interview method
☐ Face to face 
☐ Phone 
☐ Skype 
Comments 
Evaluation Section Questions 
Cohesiveness of WAFP’s 
regional approach
1. What will you say are the key contribution of WAFP to the achievement of 
USAID and FtF overarching goals in West Africa?
2. How will you describe the current relationship between WAFP and the USAID 
bilateral program [specify name of program] 
a. How should this interaction be strengthened for improved results?
3. How can USAID and its partners improve upon the WAFP to respond to the 
regional fertilizer program?
4. What are the existing opportunities for WAFP to increase interactions with 
the national and regional programs such as ECOWAP? 
WAFP Program Results 1. How will you describe the performance of the WAFP since its inception?
55
and Performance to 
date
2. In your view, is the WAFP implementation approach and level of interaction 
with the national fertilizer program adequate for improving availability and use 
of affordable high quality fertilizer? 
a. If yes, what specific features or aspects of the WAFP approach are 
contributing or has the potential to enhance availability and use of 
affordable high quality fertilizer? [Probe for all positive/enhancing 
factors]
b. If no, what aspects or components of the approach are limiting or has 
the potential to inhibit availability and use of affordable high quality 
fertilizer? [Probe for all negative or inhibitory factors]
3. For a regional program that aims to increase availability and use of affordable 
high quality fertilizer, what approach would you recommend in order to 
achieve success?
4. What additional opportunities exist for WAFP to strengthen its linkages with 
the national fertilizer program(s)?
5. What specific opportunities exist to enhance sustainability of the WAFP at the 
regional level? 
Effectiveness of WAFP’s 
private Sector and 
access to finance 
approaches
1. How will you describe the participation of the private sector organizations 
both at the country and the regional level on the WAFP? 
2. In your opinion, which level of participation (country or regional) is more 
effective?
Please explain why and provide examples. 
3. What is your impression of WAFP’s approach to engaging with the private 
sector at the regional and bilateral levels?
4. How have similar USAID programs at the regional or national level engaged 
with the private sector in the past? 
a. Were these approaches effective? In other words, did these 
approaches help to improve the fertilizer system? 
b. Did these approaches encourage sufficient private sector investment in 
fertilizers? 
6. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to promote investments in 
this area?
7. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to enhance access to credit 
facility to SMEs at both national and regional levels?
8. The Development Credit Authority (DCA) is a mechanism aimed at ensuring 
access to credit facilities to SMEs. What are your thoughts on the functioning 
of the DCA in leveraging resources for the SMEs on WAFP? 
9. What are some of the key constraints in implementing the DCA as part of the 
WAFP strategy for resources mobilization for SMEs?
10. What are some of the ways you think the private sector at the both regional 
and national levels can adopt to increase their participation and effectiveness 
on the program?
11. What new ideas /strategies will you recommend to the regional level to ensure 
that program interventions are well harmonized with country implementation 
of the program?
12. Working at the regional level could prove very difficult. What 
recommendations do you have for ensuring regional cohesion of the program?
13. What recommendations do you have to ensure sustainability of the program at 
the regional level?
WAFP’s compliance 
with FtF cross-cutting 
issues
1. On this program, how will you assess the participation of women and the 
youth in the fertilizer trade-supplies, distribution and usage? 
2. In your opinion, is the WAFP approach to engaging with private sectors 
encouraging women and youth involvement in fertilizer investments? 
56
3. What are some of the effective ways you propose to encourage women 
and youth involvement in the fertilizer program at both the regional and 
national levels?
4. Climate change is affecting every aspects of life especially in agriculture. 
How will you describe the impact of climate change on fertilizer utilization 
at both the national and regional levels? 
5. To what extent is WAFP adopting approaches that are climate friendly? 
6. In your opinion, what strategies should WAFP adopt to make its activities 
at all level climate smart? 
Annex 4.2. Interview Questions – Regional Level Stakeholders e.g. 
ECOWAS
Name of interviewer
Name of interviewee
Organization
Country
Position
Date of interview
Start time
End time
Status of interview
☐ Completed 
☐ Incomplete 
☐ Participant declined interview 
☐ No usable information 
Interview method
☐ Face to face 
☐ Phone 
☐ Skype 
Comments 
Evaluation Section Questions 
Cohesiveness of WAFP’s 
regional approach
1. What fertilizer programs or initiatives are being implemented at the regional 
level? 
2. How do the objectives of the regional level program [e.g. ECOWAP] compare 
with these national programs? 
3. From your (regional program) perspective, how relevant are the WAFP 
activities to the national fertilizer program? 
4. How is WAFP contributing to the achievement of the regional program 
objectives? OR To what extent are the WAFP activities helping to achieve the 
objectives of the regional fertilizer program(s)?
57
5. Describe the current relationship between the regional program (name the 
program) and the USAID WAFP? OR What is the level of interaction between 
the regional program(s) and USAID WAFP? [Probe for linkages, convergence in 
objectives, etc.] 
6. In your opinion, what should USAID and its implementing partners (e.g. IFDC, 
AFAP) do to better position the WAFP as a regional program? 
7. How can USAID and its partners improve upon the WAFP to respond to the 
regional fertilizer program?
8. What are the existing opportunities for WAFP to increase interactions with 
the regional programs? [Probe for recommendations etc.] 
WAFP Program Results 
and Performance to 
date
1. How will you describe the performance of the WAFP program since its 
inception?
2. In your view, is the WAFP implementation approach and level of interaction 
with the regional fertilizer program adequate for improving availability and use 
of affordable high quality fertilizer? 
a. If yes, what specific features or aspects of the WAFP approach are 
contributing or has the potential to enhance availability and use of 
affordable high quality fertilizer? [Probe for all positive/enhancing 
factors]
b. If no, what aspects or components of the approach are limiting or has 
the potential to inhibit availability and use of affordable high quality 
fertilizer? [Probe for all negative or inhibitory factors]
3. For a regional program that aims to increase availability and use of affordable 
high quality fertilizer, what approach would you recommend in order to 
achieve success?
4. What additional opportunities exist for WAFP to strengthen its linkages with 
the regional fertilizer program(s)?
5. What specific opportunities exist to enhance sustainability of the WAFP at the 
regional level? 
6. What are some of the factors you believe are helping the program to achieve 
its expected objectives and/or outcome?
7. In your opinion, what are some of the major constraints you find as preventing 
the program from achieving its objectives?
Effectiveness of WAFP’s 
private Sector and 
access to finance 
approaches
1. How will you describe the participation of the private sector organizations at 
the regional level on this program? 
2. What is your impression of WAFP’s approach to engaging with the private 
sector at the regional level?
3. How have similar programs in the region engaged with the private sector in the 
past? 
a. Were these approaches effective? In other words, did these approaches 
help to improve the fertilizer system? 
b. Did these approaches encourage sufficient private sector investment in 
fertilizers? 
4. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to promote investments in 
this area?
5. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to enhance access to 
credit?
6. To what extent is the current WAFP approach encouraging investments in 
fertilizer and other agro-inputs? [Probe for evidence] 
7. In your opinion, what are the challenges and constraints in the program’s 
engagement with the private sector?
58
8. What approaches should USAID and its partners (IFDC & AFAP) adopt in the 
WAFP implementation to achieve large investments at the regional level? OR 
What are some of the strategies to adopt to increase participation of the 
private sector at the regional level. 
9. Working at the regional level could prove very difficult. What 
recommendations do you have for ensuring regional cohesion of the program?
10. What recommendations do you have to ensure sustainability of the program at 
the regional level?
WAFP’s compliance 
with FtF cross-cutting 
issues
1. In your opinion, are the WAFP activities promoting or integrating climate￾smart agricultural practices? 
2. Please explain why and provide examples 
3. What approaches and strategies can you recommend to the program to ensure 
integration of climate-smart agriculture? 
4. In your opinion, what strategies should WAFP adopt to make its activities in 
the region climate smart? 
Annex 4.3. Interview Questions – Government Agencies & National level 
Stakeholders
Name of interviewer
Name of interviewee
Organization
Country
Position
Date of interview
Start time
End time
Status of interview
☐ Completed 
☐ Incomplete 
☐ Participant declined interview 
☐ No usable information 
Interview method
☐ Face to face 
☐ Phone 
☐ Skype 
Comments 
Evaluation Section Questions 
Cohesiveness of WAFP’s 
regional approach
1. What national fertilizer programs or initiatives are being implemented in your country? 
2. How do the objectives of the WAFP compare with these national programs? 
3. From your (national program) perspective, how relevant are the WAFP activities to the 
national fertilizer program? 
4. How is WAFP contributing to the achievement of national program objectives? OR To what 
extent are the WAFP activities helping to achieve the objectives of the national fertilizer 
program(s)?
59
5. Describe the current relationship between the national program (name the program) and the 
USAID WAFP? OR What is the level of interaction between the national programs and 
USAID WAFP? [Probe for linkages, convergence in objectives, etc.] 
6. In your opinion, what should USAID and its implementing partners (e.g. IFDC, AFAP) do to 
better align the WAFP to the existing national programs? OR How can USAID and its 
partners improve upon the WAFP to respond to the national fertilizer program?
7. What are the existing opportunities for WAFP to increase interactions with the national 
programs? [Probe for recommendations etc.] 
WAFP Program Results 
and Performance to date
1. How will you describe the performance of the WAFP program since its inception?
2. In your view, is the WAFP implementation approach and level of interaction with the national 
fertilizer program adequate for improving availability and use of affordable high quality 
fertilizer? 
3. If yes, what specific features or aspects of the WAFP approach are contributing or has the 
potential to enhance availability and use of affordable high quality fertilizer? [Probe for all 
positive/enhancing factors]
4. If no, what aspects or components of the approach are limiting or has the potential to inhibit 
availability and use of affordable high quality fertilizer? [Probe for all negative or inhibitory 
factors]
5. For a regional program that aims to increase availability and use of affordable high quality 
fertilizer, what approach would you recommend in order to achieve success?
6. What additional opportunities exist for WAFP to strengthen its linkages with the national 
fertilizer program(s)?
7. What specific opportunities exist to enhance sustainability of the WAFP at the regional level? 
Effectiveness of WAFP’s 
private Sector and 
access to finance 
approaches
1. How will you describe the participation of the private sector organizations both at the 
country and the regional level on this program? 
2. In your opinion, which level of participation (country or regional) is more effective?
3. Please explain why and provide examples
4. What is your impression of WAFP’s approach to engaging with the private sector in your 
country?
5. How have similar regional programs in this country engaged with the private sector in the 
past? 
a. Were these approaches effective? In other words, did these approaches help to improve 
the fertilizer system? 
b. Did these approaches encourage sufficient private sector investment in fertilizers? 
6. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to promote investments in this area?
7. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to enhance access to credit?
8. To what extent is the current approach encouraging investments in fertilizer and other agro￾inputs? [Probe for evidence] 
9. In your opinion, what are the challenges and constraints in the program’s engagement with 
the private sector?
10. What are some of the ways you think the private sector at the regional level can adopt to 
increase their participation and effectiveness on the program at:
a. Country/national level?
b. Regional level
11. What new ideas /strategies will you recommend to the regional level to ensure that program 
interventions are well harmonized with country implementation of the program?
12. Working at the regional level could prove very difficult. What recommendations do you have 
for ensuring regional cohesion of the program?
13. What recommendations to you have to ensure sustainability of the program at the regional 
level?
WAFP’s compliance with 
1. In the WAFP program, how do you see the participation of women and the youth in the 
fertilizer trade-supplies, distribution and usage? 
60
FtF cross-cutting issues 2. In your opinion, is the WAFP approach to engaging with private sectors encouraging women 
and youth involvement in fertilizer investments? 
3. How can the program encourage women and youth participation at country level? OR What 
are some of the best ways to encourage women and youth involvement in the fertilizer 
4. Climate change is affecting every aspects of life especially in agriculture. How will you 
describe the impact of climate change on fertilizer utilization in your country? 
5. To what extent is WAFP adopting approaches that are climate friendly? 
6. In your opinion, what strategies should WAFP adopt to make its activities in the country 
climate smart? 
Annex 4.4. Interview Questions – Research Institutions 
Name of 
interviewer
Name of 
interviewee
Organization
Country
Position
Date of interview
Start time
End time
Status of 
interview
☐ Completed 
☐ Incomplete 
☐ Participant declined interview 
☐ No usable information 
Interview 
method
☐ Face to face 
☐ Phone 
☐ Skype 
Comments 
Evaluation 
Section
Questions 
1. How long have you been involved in the program?
Effectiveness of 
WAFP’s private 
sector and access 
to finance 
approaches
1. How will you describe your level of engagement and participation in the WAFP 
program?
2. What kind of support have you received under the program?
3.
4. How relevant is this support to your existing program sustainability?
5. How could your lab play a major role at the regional level?
6. What measures have you taken to participate in the WAFP?
61
7. What should the program do to increase the participation and effectiveness of 
farmers and private sector organizations to observe the program regulation in force? 
8. In your opinion, what should the USAID and its partners do to increase participation 
and effectiveness of the regulatory program? 
9. How have similar regional programs engaged with your program in the past? 
a. Were these approaches effective? In other words, did these approaches help to 
improve the fertilizer system? 
b. Did it encourage sufficient private sector investment in fertilizers? Please explain 
and provide examples.
10. In your opinion:
a. How should WAFP interact with the private and public sector to enhance 
adoption of regulatory polices?
b. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to promote those policies?
11. What are some of the challenges and constraints in the program’s engagement with 
the private sector?
12. What are some of the adjustments you had to make to adopt the regulatory polices?
13. Are you satisfied that WAFP has done sufficient effort to promote the regulatory 
policies? If not what are some of the steps should WAFP take to promote the 
policies? 
14. What are the constraints in the current system? 
15. What can USAID and its implementing partners (IFDC, AFAP) do to improve 
visibility and adoption of the program? 
16. How should the program be improved to better meet beneficiary needs? What 
changes or improvements can you recommend to enable the program achieve 
increased participation of the private sector? 
17. What are the existing opportunities for WAFP to increase interaction with the 
national program?
62
Annex 4.5. Interview Questions – Private Sector Stakeholders 
Name of 
interviewer
Name of 
interviewee
Organization
Country
Position
Date of 
interview
Start time
End time
Status of 
interview
☐ Completed 
☐ Incomplete 
☐ Participant declined interview 
☐ No usable information 
Interview 
method
☐ Face to face 
☐ Phone 
☐ Skype 
Comments 
Evaluation 
Section
Questions 
18. How long have you been involved in the program?
19. How did you learn about WAFP?
20. Have you attended a forum organized by WAFP?
Effectiveness of 
WAFP’s private 
sector and access 
to finance 
approaches
21. How will you describe your level of engagement and participation in the WAFP 
program?
22. Can you describe the support you received under the program?
23.
24. How important is this support to your business development, growth and 
sustainability?
25. Would you encourage other private firms to participate in WAFP?
26. What should the program do to increase the participation and effectiveness of private 
sector organizations in the program? 
27. Can you describe the support you received from AFAP? 
28. In your opinion, what should be done to increase participation and effectiveness of 
the private sector in the WAFP program? 
63
29. Can you describe your participation in similar regional private sector programs? 
30. In your opinion:
a. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to enhance access to credit?
b. How should WAFP interact with the private sector to promote investments in 
this area?
31. What are some of the challenges and constraints you have encountered in your 
engagement with WAFP?
32. Do you think that the WAFP could do to assist in fertilizer marketing program?
33. Are you satisfied with the current program arrangement and systems for accessing 
financial support? 
34. How could the program arrangement and system be improved to support the private 
sector?
35. What are the constraints faced by the current system in meeting the needs of the 
private sector?
36. What can USAID and its implementing partners (IFDC, AFAP) do to improve upon 
this system to better meet your organizational needs? 
64
Annex 5: List of persons/organizations met
SN Name Organization Country Contact
1 Elizabeth Brown USAID West Africa Ghana ebrown@usaid.gov
2 Shirley Kore USAID West Africa Ghana skore@usaid.gov 
3 Matthew Udziela USAID West Africa Ghana mudziela@usaid.gov
4 Collins Osae USAID West Africa Ghana (233)302741315
cosae@usaid.gov
5 Binta Ceesay Etim Africa Fertilizer Agribusiness 
Partnership (AFAP) Ghana
6 Kofi Debrah IFDC Ghana kdebrah@ifdc.org
7 Joshua Adjoteye IFDC Ghana
8 Japhet Lartey IFDC Ghana
9 Martin Drevon IFDC Ghana mdrevon@ifdc.org
10 Djimasbe Ngaradoum* IFDC Ghana dngaradoum@ifdc.org
11 Emmanuel Asante Krobea Crop Services Department, MOFA Ghana (233)30265066/208127765
krobeasant@yahoo.com 
12 Felicia Ansah-Amprofi Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Department, MOFA Ghana (233)02990404/244951912
fampronge@yahoo.com 
13 Ernest Osei Assibe Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Department, MOFA Ghana
14 Samuel Nana Siaw Okere Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Department, MOFA Ghana 
15 Lawrence Alato Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Department, MOFA Ghana
16 Eric Dzimado Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Department, MOFA Ghana
17 Adisatu Iddrisu Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Department, MOFA Ghana 
18 Lloyd ALLOTEY ENVASERV Research Consult Ghana (+233)268-53-1612
lallotey@envaservconsult.com
19 Kwame BENTIL Image - AD Ghana (+233)264-38-4557
kwame@imagead.net
20 Matilda AKANDOH Pure and Perfect Ent. Ghana (+233)202-42-6367
Tillyakanor81@yahoo.com
21 Antonina Bawuah IFDC-AfricaFertilizer.org Ghana (+233)261-51-3747
abawuah@ifdc.org
22 Gyasi Fred IFDC-AfricaFertilizer.org Ghana (+233)243-03-0004
fgyasi@ifdc.org
23 Michael Padi Tuwor Accra Compost & Recycling Plant Ghana (+233)269-19-6952
mtuwor@acarpghana.com
24 Francis Tetteh (Dr) Soil Research Institute (Kwadaso) Ghana (233) 244622124
fmarthy2002@yahoo.co.uk
25 Gabriel Quansah Soil Research Institute (Kwadaso) Ghana
65
26 Mr Appiah AMG-West Africa/Anipa fertilizer Ghana (233) 244 417767
enepa77@yahoo.com 
27 Mr Banga AMG-West Africa/Anipa fertilizer Ghana 
28 Diallo Asseta AGRA Ghana (+233)540-11-6737
adiallo@agra.org
29 Pierre Brunache AFAP Ghana (+233)265-38-5350
pbrunache@afap.partnership.org
30 Francis DZAH Ghana Statistical Service Ghana
(+233)206-37-0354
GSS, P.O. Box 1098, Accra. 
f.dzah2002@gmail.com
31 Andre de Jager IFDC Ghana (+233)544-33-5621
adejager@ifdc.org 
32 Ekwe Jean DOSSA IFDC Ghana (+233)247-02-5280
edossa@ifdc.org 
33 Osho Akinbolawa Federal Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural (FMARD) Nigeria
+2348065488780
oluoshoakia@gmail.com
34 Akudinobi Love Chinyere Federal Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural (FMARD) Nigeria
+2348033334911
loveakus@yahoo.com
35 Ishaku A. Buba Federal Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural (FMARD) Nigeria
+2348033165177
katus1966@yahoo.com
36 Henry Ekpiken IFDC Nigeria Nigeria +2348035950812
ehenry@ifdc.org
37 Mario de Matos IFDC Nigeria Nigeria +2348144080932
mdematos@ifdc.org
38 Onyeri Ndubuisi Federal Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural (FMARD) Nigeria
+2348060648069
nconyeri@yahoo.com
39 Gideon Neguda Fertilizer Suppliers Association of 
Nigeria (FEPSAN) Nigeria
+2347039856665
negedu@hotmail.com
40 Sy Alain Traore ECOWAS Commission Nigeria +2348032596602
satraore@ecowas.int
41 Tchemi T. W. Aurelien ECOWAS Commission Nigeria 
+2348169118005
wtchemi@yahoo.com
42 Felix Nwoche IFDC – MARKETS II Nigeria +2348062334177
fnwoche@ifdc.org
43 Fasoranti Adetunji IFDC – MARKETS II Nigeria +2347061054633
afasoranti@ifdc.org
44 Makama Danjuma IFDC – MARKETS II Nigeria +2348172233123
dmakama@ifdc.org
45 Mohammed Salasi Idris IFDC – MARKETS II Nigeria +2348170199333
sidris@ifdc.org
46 Jean Parfait Dako DNA Mali (+223)66-727-681
parfaildako@yahoo.fr
47 Hemidou Coulibaly Mali (+223)73-331-260
hamcoul3@yahoo.fr
48 Sarah Drave Toure CORIS Mali (+223)66-743-354
sdrave@coris-banty.com
49 Aly Coulibaly IFDC/Project FDPMD Mali (+223)39-977-7767
acoulibaly@ifdc.org
50 Amadou B. Odadidie IFDC/C4CP Mali (+223)76-234-042
aouadidje@ifdc
66
51 Amadou Gakou IFDC/DBB Mali (+223)79-091-871
agakou@ifdc.org
52 Adama Yaya Diarra DNA Mali (+223)79-041-871
adamaydiarra@yahoo.fr
53 Seydou Sanogo DNA Mali (+223)76-120-681
seikoun@yahoo.fr
54 Jean Parfait Dako DNA Mali (+223)66-727-681
perfaitodako@yahoo.fr
55 Momrru Camara DNA Mali (+223)76-476-368
camara_mon@yahoo.fr
56 Daouda Mallé DNA Mali (+223)76-377-949
daoudamalle@gmail.com
57 SIDIBE Ibrahim APCAM Mali (+223)76-076-502
ibrahis70@yahoo.fr
58 Ouman Miaugado Faudafiau symguife Mali (+223)77-330-431
ouman.miaugado@symguifa.ca
59 Dr Yahaya Kane APCAM Mali (+223)76-233-090
sidiyaya59@yahoo.fr
60 Hamal Macinoi TOGUNA-AI Mali (+223)76-235-550
macima@groureloguna.com
61 Anne williem USAID/ECO Senegal (+221)33-879-4004
Ambassade Etats Unis, Dakar
62 Papa Nouline Diego USAID/ECO Senegal (+221)77-635-0869
Ambassade Etats Unis, Dakar
63 Moustapha LY USAID/ECO Senegal (+221)77-639-7313
Ambassade Etats Unis, Dakar
64 Ibrahima Dieme DA/MAER Senegal
(+221)77-537-9214
Directeur de l'Agriculture, iv. 
Aval.Guede, Dakar
65 Todd V. Crosby USAID/Yaajeende office, Dakar Senegal
(+221)77-333-4001
Private Sector and DCA 
approach
66 Dr Yacine Ndour Badiane ISRA Senegal (+221)77-554-8821
yaune.ndani@ud.sn
67 Mme. CISSE Peinda Guèye FEPRODES Senegal (+221)77-630-6454
peindag@yahoo.fz
68 Babacae Papa Gueye Alliance Beydounnde Senegal (+221)77-637-3693
labacarg2006@gmail.com
69 Abdourahmane Ndiaye AGRITECH Senegal (+221)77-632-2187
a_malick_nd@yahoo.fr
70 Eldadzi Dioume AGROPHYTEX Senegal (+221)773-33-2882
elhadzidioum@agrophytex.com
71 Matar Gaye USAID/PCE Senegal (+221)775-46-0859
mgaye@pce.sn
72 Dr DIAGANA, Bocar IFDC Senegal (+221)775-13-9234
IFDC Senegal /Dakar
73 SADIBOU Gueye IFDC Senegal (+221)775-69-0775
ICS/NBAO
74 Anta Diack Diouf ICS Senegal (+221)775-69-0775
ICS/Senchim office, Dakar
75 Ernest Assah Asiedu CORAF/WECARD WAFP Senegal
(+221)773-10-2745
6 Avenue Burguba, B.P. 48 
Dakar, Senegal
67
76 Paul K. Jallah Ministry of Agriculture (Liberia) Liberia +231 886471166
Paul.jallah@yahoo.com
77 Boima Bafaie DAI Liberia +231 886 550 599
boima_bafaie@dai.com 
78 Mrs A. Adèle Lawson 
Agouze-Amouzou Agro-inputs Suppliers Association Togo (228) 90 09 72 76/22 20 74 07
ade_agouze1@yahoo.fr 
79 Tekentou Tchepan Agro-inputs Suppliers Association Togo (228) 90 05 33 82
afito1997@yahoo.fr 
80 Countou TOURE WABCOCOTIA Togo (228) 90340638
exploitation@wabcocotia.com 
81 Yann PRONOST WABCOCOTIA Togo (228) 90574723
exploitation@wabcocotia.com 
82 Komi Abitor ETD (Entreprises, Territoires et 
Développement) Togo (228) 90027145
kabitor@etd-ong.org 
68
Annex 6: The Evaluation Scope of Work
I. Background
Agriculture is the main engine of economic growth in West Africa, with roughly 65 percent of the 
population depending on agricultural activities as their principal source of livelihood. This sector 
contributes for 30-40 percent of the region’s gross domestic product (GDP) and over 15 percent of 
regional export earnings. The agricultural sector is best positioned to drive sustained and rapid poverty 
reduction in West Africa. However, the sector is hampered by low agricultural productivity and lack of 
smallholder farmer integration into markets and poor access to services and agro-inputs. 
Increasing fertilizer use is a critical element in raising agricultural production and productivity and in 
realizing the potential of agribusiness opportunities. Despite this fact, average fertilizer application across 
Sub Saharan Africa has remained only between 5 and 10 kg/hectare since the 1990s, which is less than 
10% of the world average and far below the 50kg/hectare target set by the African Union’s Abuja 
Declaration on Fertilizer in June 2006. Currently total fertilizer consumption in West Africa is the 
lowest in the world and the fertilizer distribution chain is characterized by a wide array of constraints. 
Constraints include but not limited to: policies that restrict or exclude competitive participation in the 
market, credit risks for suppliers, underdeveloped distribution networks and output markets, along with 
insufficient infrastructure at various points in the chain.
Additional limitations are high fertilizer costs, lack of market information and failure of supplies to reach 
farmers at the appropriate time during the growing season. Despite these challenges, West Africa is well 
positioned to increase fertilizer use and agricultural productivity due to increasing policy and regulatory 
coherence and agricultural investments.
In response to these challenges and in alignment with the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture 
Development Program (CAADP), and the sub-regional ECOWAS Agriculture Plan, (ECOWAP), USAID/ 
West Africa designed and awarded WAFP to IFDC in June 2012. WAFP is an integral part of USAID 
West Africa’s strategy to achieve U.S. Feed the Future (FtF) Initiative goals and increase regional 
availability of appropriate and affordable fertilizer. ECOWAS has shown regional leadership in fertilizer, 
and in December 2012, ECOWAS passed harmonized regional fertilizer regulations. In May 2013, 
ECOWAS designated IFDC to facilitate harmonization efforts in member states and to establish the 
West Africa Fertilizer Control Committee (WAFCC) as a regional coordinating body for 
implementation of the regulations. These factors have propelled fertilizer issues to the forefront and 
have given West Africans the opportunity to make significant progress on chronic input challenges.
IFDC is the key Implementing Partner (IP) responsible for technical management of the fertilizer 
program. In addition, IFDC partners with AFAP, the African Fertilizer and Agribusiness Partnership, to 
increase private sector investment, financing linkages and coordinate fertilizer Forum and trade 
association activities through a sub-grant. AFAP is a non-profit initiative funded by the Alliance for a 
Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) that catalyzes private sector investment with seed grants and credit 
guarantees that increase storage and distribution. IFDC and AFAP work together as technical partners 
on a continental level to complement their respective areas of expertise. In addition, USAID 
Washington has an MOU with AFAP that supports collaboration on fertilizer related private sector and 
policy work.
Now that the project is halfway through implementation, USAID/West Africa is seeking the service of 
the Analytical Support Services and Evaluation for Sustainable Systems (ASSESS) project to conduct the 
midterm evaluation of WAFP. ASSESS is a USAID funded activity implemented by USDA and its 
partners (US and Africa Universities partners) that conducts evaluations of USAID REG Portfolio 
programs and strengthens IP monitoring and evaluation capacity. The outcome of this evaluation will 
help the Mission better understand the program’s progress and determine if the interventions and staff 
69
are properly oriented to achieve program goals for improved decision making process in achieving 
USAID objectives in the region.
II. WAFP intended results, approach and beneficiaries
WAFP’s development hypotheses are: (1) public-private partnerships are key to achieving food security 
through increased fertilizer use; and (2) the private sector is more effective in supplying and distributing 
fertilizers than the public sector. WAFP aligns with the Mission’s Regional Development Cooperation 
Strategy Economic Growth Objectives and it is directly linked to increasing regional integration and 
increased agricultural productivity, which are RDCS Intermediate Results (IR 2:1 and 2:4).
The five-year WAFP’s four Intermediate Results are:
• Increased regional supply & distribution of selected fertilizers by the private sector,
• Increased use of improved fertilizers,
• Improved efficiency of regional market transactions,
• Improved enabling environment for fertilizer policy & regulatory framework development.
WAFP’s Results Framework outlines the program and was created as part of the program’s design and 
performance management plan (PMP).
IFDC is the lead implementer with additional technical support provided through the African Fertilizer 
and Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) and local public and private sector institutions in the targeted 
countries. While AFAP is a sub-grantee within the agreement, they are an equal partner and have a 
strong relationship with USAID Washington. AFAP contributes technical expertise on financing, political 
strategy and private sector development.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) plays an important role by driving policy 
and regulatory consistency with the new standards and will also provide some regional financial and 
technical support through IFDC to ensure harmonization at the country level. IFDC recently signed an 
MOU with ECOWAS and an Action Plan for the establishment of the West Africa Fertilizer Control 
Committee. 
Other main stakeholders include producers, agro-input dealers, agricultural enterprises, private sector 
actors involved in fertilizer production, distribution and blending, research institutions, government and 
regulatory bodies responsible for creating and maintaining an enabling environment for a dynamic 
fertilizer sector.
WAFP is a regional project but activities are concentrated primarily in the region’s FtF focus countries, 
namely Ghana, Senegal, Mali, and Liberia. The regional scope applies to enabling environment work 
on regulatory harmonization and quality control, and fertilizer subsidy policy. Within the target 
countries, WAFP focuses on specific commodity value chains such as maize and rice. Due to the 
market driven nature of fertilizer for high value crops, WAFP also works with cotton, vegetables, and 
cocoa (although to a minor extent).
Target beneficiaries for WAFP are primarily small and medium private sector fertilizer businesses, public 
regulatory officials, agriculture research center staff, and extension agents. Secondary beneficiaries are 
small farmers operating within targeted value chains and other entrepreneurs and workers who derive 
their livelihoods from those value chains. WAFP does not work directly at the farm level but 
partners with bilateral Mission and other projects that reach down. The project is 
expected to benefit farmers, but does not directly intervene at the farm level. 
WAFP’s intervention areas included the establishment of the West Africa Fertilizer Forum and Trade 
Association, the development of a Fertilizer Market Information System, technical assistance to help 
70
countries to harmonize and implement regional fertilizer regulations, policy assistance on subsidy 
elimination/efficiency, private sector financing linkages and technical assistance, and promotion new 
technologies (such as Urea Deep Placement (UDP) and specialized blends). These activities are 
conducted within the context of crosscutting issues, which include gender, access to finance, and safe 
environmental practices.
III.Scope of Work
The proposed Commissioned Activity is to conduct a Mid Term Performance Evaluation of the West 
Africa Fertilizer Program (WAFP), to assess the program’s progress to date and to determine if the 
program’s interventions and staff are properly oriented to achieve goals. ASSESS is required to make 
recommendations for the program improvements after three years of implementation including 
identification of gaps and areas for expanded partnership. 
1. Evaluation purpose
The mid-term evaluation will be used to improve the performance of the second half of the program 
and make necessary adjustments to enhance the measurement of outcomes when the program is 
complete. The evaluation is also expected to be useful to donors, NGOs, host country governments, 
and other USAID missions working to address similar aspects on improved agriculture productivity and 
food security. 
The scope of the mid-term performance evaluation must encompass all the key activities that contribute 
to the achievement of the WAFP program’s overall goal and objectives. ASSESS must provide evidence 
in support of the evaluation findings.
2. Audience and intended users
USAID, IPs, IFDC, AFAP, ECOWAS and participating host country government agencies are the primary 
stakeholders for the evaluation. Bilateral USAID Missions in Ghana, Senegal, Mali, and Liberia, 
USAID/Washington and Missions with similar programs will take a particular interest in any lessons for 
success and opportunities for collaborative gains. NGOs and multilateral organizations operating in this 
sphere would also benefit from reviewing evaluation results, which may help identify implementation 
challenges and best practices.
This table summarizes how these audiences will or could use the evaluation results.
Evaluation Tasks Principle Information Users
1) Assess progress to date towards agreed program objectives 
and intermediate results
USAID/West Africa, IPs, participating host 
countries, bilateral USAID Missions
2) Identify implementation challenges, assess if the realignment 
steps correctly focus the program, specify additional corrective 
actions if needed and/or areas for improvement
USAID/ West Africa, IPs, participating host 
countries, bilateral USAID Missions
3) Recommend specific opportunities to strengthen programmatic 
effectiveness at the regional level and leverage bilateral impacts 
through partnerships
USAID/ West Africa, IPs, NGOs, bilateral 
USAID Missions, participating host country 
partners, and other Missions with similar 
programs
71
3. The evaluation questions
ASSESS should provide responses to the following questions in the evaluation: 
1) Is the program focused on a clear set of regional activities? Will it impact the availability and use of 
affordable, high quality fertilizer? How should the regional program interact with national programs?
2) What has been accomplished to date? Which results have sufficient evidence to meet program audit 
standards?
3) Is the IFDC private sector approach appropriate for a regional program?
4) Is the program leveraging the right group of partners? What additional approaches are needed to 
encourage sufficient private sector investment and access to credit? What are the most promising 
areas of investment?
5) Is the current DCA strategy which emphasizes coordination with bilateral Missions for smaller 
investments correctly positioned? Is there a clear strategy for achieving the large investments 
needed for regional results?
6) What factors (both internal and external to the program) help or hinder the achievement of the 
program’s expected outcomes and what corrective actions and/or areas for improvement are 
needed?
7) What specific opportunities or innovations exist to enhance effective program implementation and 
sustainability at the regional level (in particular in relation to relevant bilateral USAID programming), 
and to further strengthen the regional cohesive approach of the program?
8) To what extent are the project interventions addressing cross-cutting issues such as gender and 
climate-smart agriculture?
9) Does the core staff have the right skills, knowledge and capacity needed to achieve the work at 
hand? If not, can they get it from other IFDC resources and/or their sub-grantees?
IV. Evaluation design and approach
1. Evaluation design
ASSESS is required to strategically gather information on the program, analyze results and data, and 
provide responses to the key evaluation questions.
Additional sub-questions for each of the main evaluation questions will be provided for consideration 
and further discussion. ASSESS’s approach used to answer these questions must focus on examining 
actual results and expected targets, key informant interviews, site visits, and consultations with relevant 
stakeholders.
ASSESS will examine the current and past performance of WAFP from the start of the agreement 
through the evaluation period. While the evaluation should address past performance, ASSESS must 
also provide recommendations on possible strategies for improving the second half of the program, 
particularly in light of the recent “regionalization” realignment.
ASSESS’s team will work in conjunction with staff at the Regional Agriculture office to plan and 
implement the proposed evaluation. USAID/ West Africa and the evaluation team will be involved with 
design, planning, and limited logistical support. Consultants are expected to provide leadership and 
direction, as well as having the final responsibility for all evaluation duties and deliverables.
72
2. Data collection and analysis methods
ASSESS team will evaluate this multi-faceted program in a timely manner across countries in the region, 
focusing mainly on Ghana, Senegal and Mali. Data requirements, collection methods, and required 
analyses will be determined by ASSESS, coordinating with USAID/ West Africa but under the direction 
of ASSESS’s team leader. Consistent with USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) 203.3.1.6 
guidance on evaluation methodologies, a combination of quantitative (when applicable) and qualitative 
methods for data collection and analysis must be employed by ASSESS in the process. Details on final 
datasets, collection methods (including interview questions, questionnaire guidelines and key informants 
to be interviewed), and analytical framework(s) will be approved by the AOR as part of initial work plan 
approval. 
ASSESS must disaggregate data by sex, where relevant and level of intervention (regional, country where 
available). Country level data will be particularly important for the countries where WAFP is 
focused in order to ensure that regional efforts are synergistic and adding value to the 
bilateral FtF programs. 
ASSESS will begin its data collection with a desk study of existing documents and information, followed 
by consultations with key stakeholders in the region to further refine the implementation approach. This 
will be followed by interviews of partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries in the program’s target 
countries mostly in Senegal, Mali and Ghana, and potentially other countries remotely as appropriate. 
Details on these illustrative approaches and the evaluation questions they are anticipated to help answer 
are as follows: 
• Desk study: Review existing documents and information listed above. Work with USAID/ 
West Africa to acquire additional documents and information as needed, and prioritize primary 
data collection where gaps remain. 
• Internal Consultations: Meet or conference call with key stakeholders in West Africa for 
recommendations on specific areas of consideration. This is separate from the survey or 
interview process by which data may be collected among some of the same stakeholders.
• External interviews and focus group discussions: In-person interviews and focus group 
discussions with program IPs, collaborating partners, program beneficiaries, and USAID bilateral 
missions will allow for a range of perspectives and give depth to the evaluation. Such 
consultations will be limited to individuals and organizations in the program’s target region, to 
be prioritized based on Mission and other stakeholder consultation, drawing from the range of 
stakeholders the program is engaged with. USAID/ West Africa and IFDC will provide a 
preliminary list of stakeholders to the evaluation team that ASSESS will complete after 
documentation review. Stakeholders may include but are not limited to: (a) IP headquarter and 
field staff; (b) cooperating country government staff, focusing on the three target countries and 
those directly involved; (c) staff and IPs of USAID/ West Africa and other USAID missions and 
programs which have engaged in WAFP; (d) fertilizer related businesses participating in Program 
activities such as Forums or business fairs; (d) staff of multilateral organizations and development 
partners; (f) national and local NGOs and community representatives. The decision on whether 
to conduct an interview or focus group depends on a variety of factors including the type of 
questions and analyses planned, individual and cultural norms and preferences, and efficiency. 
Where a focus group is suitable, it may be appropriate to separate by gender or specific groups, 
or participants from different countries and/or organizations. Different types of questions will be 
tailored to the specific target stakeholder group. The data will be analyzed by using transcription 
73
and/or coding methods as appropriate. Targeted follow-up phone calls with stakeholders 
outside the priority geographic region may also be utilized.
o Surveys may be conducted with businesses/public regulatory officials/ scientists and 
other beneficiaries of technical assistance and market information. 
o Site visits to areas of WAFP activities will enable the evaluation team to meet with and 
interview direct program beneficiaries, verify activity outputs and outcomes, and 
observe first-hand program outcome.
Each approach has its strengths and limitations, ASSESS team must come-up with techniques and tools 
to limit at maximum bias linked to approaches weaknesses.
Methods Strengths Limitations
Desk study • Provide valuable information on 
substantive issues and generate a list 
of questions including key 
stakeholders that can be used in 
other methods.
• Help to focus efforts and prioritize 
issues and gaps
• Time consuming
• Depends on resource availability
• Lack of consistent data collection
• Limited baseline data
Consultations • Provide valuable information on 
substantive issues and generate a list 
of questions including key 
stakeholders that can be used in 
other methods.
• Provide greater depth and insights 
and general surveys
• Depends on availability of key 
stakeholders
• Need to consider time zone difference.
• Quality/reliability of data
Individual interviews • Potentially data rich, detailed answers • Might need to interview through 
translators (possible loss of meaning 
and data richness)
• Might have informants’ bias
Focus group 
discussion
• Can generate a range of ideas and 
responses. 
• Can include a greater number of 
participants in less time and result in 
rich discussion.
• Might need to conduct discussion 
through translators (possible loss of 
meaning and data richness)
• Some respondents may dominate in 
answering
• Informant bias
3. Existing Data 
Varieties of program-related documents are available and will be provided to ASSESS: 
• WAFP cooperative agreement and program description
• WAFP annual work plans (FY12, FY13, FY14)
• Performance Management Plan (PMP) 
• Quarterly and Annual reports
• WAFP Newsletters and Fertilizer Price Bulletins
• Reports and Newspapers on CAAPD and Abuja Declaration on Fertilizer
• Baseline report for the fertilizer program
74
• USAID reports on field trips/site visits
• Minutes/reports of stakeholder meetings and consultations
• Data Quality Assessment Records (DQA)
• National data sources
In September 2013, USAID/ West Africa undertook a data quality assessment of key standard indicators 
being used to monitor the performance across WAFP. Most indicator DQA criteria: Validity, Integrity, 
Precision, Reliability and Timeliness responses were acceptable. However, since this was the first DQA 
for the WAFP program, some of the indicators did not have enough data or program activity to achieve 
results. ASSESS team should use at maximum existing information and data at PIs level and M&E systems.
V. Deliverables, evaluation activities and timeline
1. Deliverable 1: Work-plan, Methodology and tools for data collection and 
analysis 
A detailed evaluation work plan and timeline will be prepared in consultation with USAID/West 
Africa, RAO. The consultation for the final work-plan and revised timeline will start immediately after 
the approval of the CA SOW and budget. ASSESS team will interact directly with the designated 
USAID/WA RAO evaluation team or committee. This step will not necessitate travels in Ghana for the 
ASSESS team, remote consultations will be organized, the ASSESS team must complete the 
documentation revue before the consultations to better identify in relation with USAID/WA key 
stakeholders that are relevant to consult in the finalization of the timeline and work-plan. This 
deliverable is core and will be the basis to orient and perform the next steps.
In line with the approaches described above, ASSESS will develop a detailed data collection and 
analysis approach and tools based on the evaluation questions and sub-questions, aligned with 
USAID regulations and directives for performance evaluation. Tailored questionnaires, interview forms 
and guidelines will be developed by the ASSESS team. ASSESS will map the evaluation questions and sub￾questions with the core evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, institutional 
and implementation arrangements strategy and partnerships at regional level) and stakeholders, and then 
create relevant groups of thematic and observation units to better tailor data collection tools and 
instrument. As required, gender and categories of groups and organization will be taken properly into 
account by the ASSESS team at levels where relevant.
75
Activities Strategy Timeline
Documentation and literature 
review 
Review of documentation shared by USAID/WA RAO, 
documentation on Fertilization program collected 
through other source of information by all ASSESS 
team members.
D0 + 3 days
Consultations with core 
stakeholders and tests of tools
Remote consultation with core stakeholders 
USAID/WA first and then in the core countries.
SWOT analysis of the program institutional 
arrangements and achievements based on reports 
review and information gathered with stakeholders. 
This SWOT analysis will help/guide the direct 
consultation and the development of sub-evaluation 
questions
D3 + 3 days
Development and submission of 
revised Work-plan and timeline 
including tools for data collection 
and analysis
Working session of the team in West Africa to finalize 
the report for this deliverable, interaction with 
USAID/WA RAO and submission of the report
D6 + 2 days
2. Deliverable 2: Draft Executive summary and recommendations for briefing 
session
After the validation of the Methodology and tools report and in line with the approved timeline, ASSESS 
team will start meetings and interviews with the program stakeholders and organization partners and 
beneficiaries. The meetings will focus on the selected partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries lists 
approved prior by USAID/WA RAO. The approach will be participatory and will include capitalization of 
best practices, analysis of threats and weaknesses. Data collected through reports and M&E documents 
will reinforce primary data gathered through focus groups and individual face-to-face meetings, different 
actors will be selected for the interviews and triangulation of information will be at the center of this 
qualitative approach to better ensure quality of collected information. 
ASSESS team will interview and discuss with stakeholders at different levels including USAID/WA, IPs, 
IFDC, AFAP, ECOWAS and participating host country government agencies, bilateral USAID Missions in 
Ghana, Senegal and Mali. In each country ASSESS intends to visit, a list of core stakeholders will be 
established. The ASSESS team will visit essentially four countries to ensure a better coverage of the 
program in the region: Ghana, Mali, Senegal and Nigeria (Abuja, ECOWAS). Data analysis will be 
disaggregated by country, component, type of stakeholder, gender (where applicable) and, most 
important, the analysis will be consolidated in a regional perspective to better understand and evaluate 
the value addition and outcome of the program in the FtF implementation in the region at country level.
In each country, ASSESS team will have brainstorming sessions to consolidate information gathered and 
start analysis. The data analysis process will be integrated and ASSESS team will make sure that specific 
data analysis at country and stakeholders levels is made progressively so as to better prepare the 
analysis and findings at regional level. Immediately after the visits of different countries, ASSESS team will 
76
organize in Accra working sessions with the principal IP and USAID/WA ROA, and an internal ASSESS 
team two days brainstorming that will aimed at producing the draft report for the Briefing session on 
the evaluation main issues and recommendations.
77
Activities Strategy Timeline
Meetings with core stakeholders in 
Accra (USAID WA, ASSESS team, 
IPs)
Consultation and discussions on the evaluation work￾plan and tools for data collection and analysis
Discussions on the program objectives and 
achievements
D12 + 1 days
Interviews of IPs, other stakeholders 
and working sessions in Ghana
Focus group interviews of groups and/individuals, 
surveys, site visits
Working sessions, barnstorming, progressive data 
analysis
D13 + 3 days
Interviews of IPs, other stakeholders 
and working sessions in Senegal
Focus group interviews of groups and/individuals, 
surveys, site visits
Working sessions, barnstorming, progressive data 
analysis
D16 + 3 days
Interviews of IPs, other stakeholders 
and working sessions in Mali
Focus group interviews of groups and/individuals, 
surveys, site visits
Working sessions, barnstorming, progressive data 
analysis
D19 + 3 days
Interviews and discussions with core 
stakeholders in Abuja, ECOWAS, 
AFAP, etc.
Focus group interviews of groups and/individuals, 
surveys, site visits
Working sessions, barnstorming, progressive data 
analysis
D24 + 2 days
Working sessions in Accra, Ghana 
and debriefing USAID/WA RAO 
and first recommendations
ASSESS team mini workshop in ASSESS office in Accra, 
consultation with USAID/WA RAO
A 2 hours debriefing in ASSESS Main conference room, 
restitution of findings and first recommendations to the 
RAO
D26 + 2 days
3. Deliverable 3: First draft evaluation report
ASSESS must take into account feedbacks from the debriefing session and pursue the analysis process 
for all questions or sub-questions to improve findings and recommendations. ASSESS team will then 
develop a draft evaluation report.
The evaluation report must follow the guidelines stated in the USAID Evaluation Policy 
(http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/policy). Specifically, the report must adhere to the following quality 
criteria for the preparation of evaluation reports, as outlined in Appendix I of the Evaluation Policy.
• 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.
78
• 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
• Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the 
evaluation such as questionnaires.
• Evaluation findings will assess outcomes 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.
• 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.
• 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.
Activities Strategy Timeline
Elaboration of draft evaluation 
report
Internal Working sessions of ASSESS team
Data analysis, verification and triangulation of 
information
Analysis of the relevance of findings and practicability 
of recommendations
D31 +4 days
Submission of draft evaluation 
report
ASSESS team will ensure that the draft evaluation 
report is consistent and meets USAID evaluation 
guidelines and directives before submission
D35 + 2 days
USAID/West Africa will provide written comments on the draft evaluation report based on the agreed 
time. An improved second draft will be submitted by the ASSESS team for Technical Evaluation and 
Monitoring Squad (TEAMS) peer review.
4. Deliverable 4: Final evaluation report and raw evaluation data set
ASSESS will pursue consultations on the draft evaluation report with USAID/WA RAO and integrate all 
observations in a final report. The final evaluation report should follow the basic layout outlined in the 
USAID Evaluation Report Template (http://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-template). All 
checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report. Sources of information 
need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.
The final report must be organized using the following sections:
1. Executive summary (No longer than 2 pages) 
2. Table of contents 
3. Evaluation purpose and questions (About 2 pages)
4. Project background (About 1-2 pages)
5. Methods and limitations (About 1-2 pages)
79
6. Findings (about 12 pages)
7. Conclusions (no more than 8 pages)
8. Recommendations (About 3-5 pages)
9. References
10. Annexes, including but not limited to the evaluation statement of work, detailed description of 
the evaluation design and methods, copies of data collection tools, a list of information sources 
(including documents reviewed, sites visited, and key informants), and disclosure of any conflict 
of interest by evaluation team members.
The final version of the report must be submitted to USAID/West Africa electronically in Microsoft 
Word. The report must be no longer than 40 pages (excluding table of contents, references 
and annexes), written in English, single-spaced in Gils Sans MT, size 11 type font. All data 
and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. 
Activities Strategy Timeline
Elaboration of final evaluation 
report
Internal Working sessions of ASSESS team
Integration of USAID/WA RAO comments
Technical Evaluation and Monitoring Squad (TEAMS) 
peer review, comments
D38 + 5 days
Submission of evaluation final report 
to USAID/WA RAO
ASSESS team will ensure that the final evaluation report 
is consistent and meets USAID evaluation guidelines and 
directives before submission
D43 + 3
5. Summary of evaluation timeline (Total of 41 days including USAID review)
Deliverable 1: Work-plan, Methodology and tools for data collection and analysis, 10 
days
• D0: The first day (day 0) of the evaluation is proposed for November 6, 2014
• D0 + 3 days: Documentation and literature review
• D3 + 3 days: Consultations with core stakeholders and tests of tools
• D6 + 2 days: Development and submission of revised Work-plan and timeline including tools for 
data collection and analysis
USAID/WA review and validation, 2 days
Deliverable 2: Draft Executive summary and recommendations for briefing session, 14 
days
• D12 + 1 day: Meetings with core stakeholders in Accra (USAID WA, IPs, etc.)
• D13 + 3 days: Interviews of IPs, other stakeholders and working sessions in Ghana.
Team members travel to Senegal (Dakar), 1 day
• D16 + 3 days: Interviews of IPs, other stakeholders and working sessions in Senegal.
Team members travel to Mali (Bamako), 1 day
80
• D19 + 3 days: Interviews of IPs, other stakeholders and working sessions in Mali.
Team members travel to Nigeria (Abuja), 1 day
• D24 + 2 days: Interviews and discussions with core stakeholders in Abuja, ECOWAS, AFAP, etc.
Team members travel to Ghana (Accra), 1 day
• D26 + 2 days: Working sessions in Accra, Ghana and debriefing USAID/WA RAO and first 
recommendations.
Deliverable 3: First draft evaluation report, 10 days
Team members travel back home, 1 day
• D37 + 4 days: Elaboration of draft evaluation report.
• D41 + 2 days: Submission of draft evaluation report.
USAID/WA review and validation, 4 days
Deliverable 5: Final evaluation report and raw evaluation data set, 7 days
• D31 + 4 days: Elaboration of final evaluation report.
• D35 + 2 days: Submission of evaluation final report to USAID/WA RAO.
6. Sharing findings with partners
ASSESS will assist USAID/WA RAO in sharing the evaluation findings with core stakeholders and 
partners. A half day workshop will be organized in the ACE Center. This events is not budgeted in this 
CA SOW. USAID/WA RAO will use the formal channel established with ACE and RTIO to request the 
event organization in the Center. ASSESS will then assist technically USAID/WA RAO and facilitate the 
event preparation and implementation.
VI. Proposed team.
The proposed ASSESS team for this evaluation is based on the requirements of the SOW and the 
findings after USAID/WA RAO and ASSESS meeting in July 2014. ASSESS proposes for this evaluation a 
team composed by high level Experts from two LGU in US (URI,DSU) and 1 LPU I Africa (KNUST). The 
team is composed by: 1) Economist, Performance Evaluation Specialist, team leader, 2) Agricultural 
economist, Fertilizer Specialist, 3) Agribusiness economist, performance evaluation Specialist, 4) 
Agricultural Economist, Performance evaluation Specialist.
1. Dr Curtis Joly, Chair, Alumni Professor Auburn University, Auburn and Charles 
Barkley Endowed Professor, Agricultural Economist. Performance Evaluation Expert.
a. Role: Team Leader, Agricultural Economist, Performance Evaluation Specialist. He will lead the 
team for the WAFP Midterm evaluation. His role is to provide technical insights in fertilizers trade 
issues and backstop the team work, ensure the different deliverables are consistent and well 
consolidated to reach USAID requirements. His core specific tasks are as follows: 
 Lead the team for the WAFP Midterm evaluation. Provide technical insights in fertilizers 
policies, strategies and other issues and backstop the team work. Lead the documentation of 
the evaluation report writing and finalization in accordance with USAID requirements. Lead all 
briefing and restitution sessions with USAID WA RAO.
 Lead the review of documentation shared by USAID/WA RAO, organize and provide for the 
team’s review additional documentation on Fertilization program collected through other 
81
source of information. Will consolidate team members’ inputs and finalize the list of core 
stakeholders for interviews and will cross-check if the list of needed information is 
comprehensive to answer all evaluation questions.
 Coordinate site visits of evaluation team, conduct interviews and focus group discussions with 
program IPs and other stakeholders.
 Based on analysis, recommend best practices for improving enabling environment for fertilizer 
policy and regulatory framework development and private sector roles. Assess progress made 
to date on the WAFP and determine whether implementation of program activities is focused 
and on track to enable the project achieve its goals and objectives
 Lead all working session of the team in West Africa to finalize the report for this deliverable, 
facilitate team’s interaction with USAID/WA RAO and ASSESS team in Accra. Submit reports 
the ASSESS for final review along with all the tools for data collection and analysis 
documentations.
a. Expertise and qualifications specific to the West Africa Fertilizer Project/ASSESS effort: Dr. 
Curtis Jolly is Alumni Professor and The Charles Barkley Endowed Professor of the Agricultural 
Economics and Rural Sociology Department at Auburn University. Dr. Jolly has served as a Farming 
Systems Economist at the Institut Senegalais des Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) from 1982 to 1985 
and a Farming Systems Economist at the Institut de l’Economie Rurale (IER) in Mali from 1986 to 
1987. 
Dr. Jolly has more than 30 years’ experience working on agricultural development issues and has 
evaluated USAID projects in Chad, Cameroon, Senegal, Benin, Sierra Leone, Ghana and DRC 
(Zaire) among others. Dr. Jolly is a native English speaker and is fluent in French.
Dr. Jolly possesses demonstrable skills in research, evaluation including performance and impact 
evaluation, capacity building and high quality report writing in the areas of Agriculture, Economics
and development studies. 
He has conducted a number of assessments including consumer preference studies and provided 
technical assistance for evaluating the marketing efficiency of peanuts and other agricultural 
products. Recently in 2014 Dr. Jolly led a team of experts from the USAID-funded ASSESS project 
to review the baseline methodology of the West Africa Trade Hub and the African Partnership 
Network (THAPN) project.
Among his rich experience, Dr. Jolly has served in different capacities including as team leader and 
member for a number of agricultural and social development interventions in Africa. For instance, 
he served as the Team Leader and a Representative of the Auburn University on a USAID funded 
project for the evaluation of the Agricultural Sector Studies project in the former Zaire (now 
Democratic Republic of Congo). He equally led a team to evaluate the quality of analysis for the 
Division of Strategy and Planning for the DRC Ministry of Agriculture for the DRC.
In 1994, Dr. Jolly was the Agricultural Marketing Economist for the evaluation of a $16 million 
USAID/World Bank/European Union Coffee marketing project in Cameroon as well as the 
Economist on the evaluation of a USAID funded project in Chad. Additionally, he provided 
technical support to the Auburn/USAID funded project in Rwanda with the mandate to prepare 
data collection instrument and design for a marketing study.
2. Dr. Aminata Niane Badiane, Agicultural /Natural Resource Management Specialist. 
b. Role in this activity: Deputy Team Leader, Technical Expert, Fertilizer Specialist. Will 
provide additional technical support to the evaluation team as well as support elaboration and 
finalization of different deliverables. The core roles and responsibilities are as follows:
82
 Provide technical support to the evaluation team. Provide leadership and continuity to build 
internal team capacity for the mid-term evaluation of the Fertilizer project. Provide technical 
inputs and analysis for in Fertilizer issues in West Africa. Co-lead the evaluation report 
finalization and participate in briefing and restitution sessions with USAID WA RAO.
 Participate in the review of documentation shared by USAID/WA RAO and additional 
documentation on WAFP. Will collect all information related on the program performance in 
improving fertilizer system in West Africa and contribution to the FtF achievement at 
regional level. Identify all relevant stakeholder in this area and prepare list of necessary 
information to collect to address evaluation questions.
 Participate in working sessions of the team to finalize the inception report. Will provide 
technical guidance and inputs in all aspect related to Fertilizer system and the program 
approach to deliver its objectives in this area. Will develop tools for data collection and 
analysis in this regard.
 Provide technical direction and for finalizing the evaluation methodology and tools for data 
collection and analysis including advising the team on appropriate sampling techniques to 
adopt.
 Provide technical input to the evaluation team to assess the opportunities or innovations that 
exist to enhance effective program implementation and sustainability at the regional level 
particularly how they relate to relevant bilateral USAID programming; as well as provide 
insights on recommended approaches for strengthening the regional cohesive approach of 
the program.
 Provide timely input and to team leader on member’s specific sections contributed to the 
report as well as participate in the review of the final evaluation report, prior to submission 
to USAID.
c. Expertise and qualifications specific to the West Africa Fertilizer Project/ASSESS effort: Dr. 
Aminata Niane Badiane has been engaged in agriculture project development, environmental 
studies and collaborative research for the past 33 years. She has an extensive experience in 
program evaluation. Her career has included extensive agriculture research, program development, 
technology generation, soil fertility studies and natural resource management. 
For the past 10 years, she has served as Agricultural Natural Resource Management specialist at 
USAID/Senegal. She was the AOTR/COR of many USAID/Senegal programs; the total net worth of 
these projects is $ 150 million. She served as the Acting USAID Economic Growth office Director 
for more than one year with a portfolio of 30 million US dollars per year.
She was the Co-Principal Investigator (PI) of the NRM Intercrsp project 1997-2002 on Improving 
and Sustaining food and raw material Production in West Africa: Reversing soil acidification, loss of 
organic matter and Erosive Runoff in Food Production systems. In collaboration of the University of 
Hawaii, Virginia Tech university, Blacksburg, Virginia, the NARS of Gambia (NARI), Mali (IER), Cap￾Vert (INIDA). She was from 1995 to1997 the PI for Transfer of technology involving use of organic 
matter (composting in rural areas of northern Central Part of Senegal: Thiès, Bambey, Diourbel and 
Kaolack) in participatory approach with NGO’s such as Rodale, Africare and Winrock International 
and farmer’s organization with the collaboration of NRBAR/USAID/ISRA project and Oregon State 
University. 
She conducted the assessment of social benefits for introducing biogas energy use in the rural areas 
of the basin groundnut of Senegal. She was the PI and Project leader from 1986 – 1995 for the 
Biological Nitrogen fixation (BNF) on grain legumes (groundnut and cowpeas) under two projects 
83
with the collaboration of the IAEA and the FAO and emphasis on phosphorus and inoculation 
impact on BNF and soil fertility.
3. Guy Francis FIEVEZ, Agribusiness-Agricultural Economist Specialist, Evaluation 
Expert.
a. Role in this activity: Technical Expert, Agricultural economist, Agribusiness Specialist for the 
West Africa Fertilizer Project midterm assessment: Provides technical support to the team for the 
mid-term evaluation of the Fertilizer project in the sub region. Core specific tasks are as follows:
 Provides technical support to the team for the mid-term evaluation of the Fertilizer project 
in the sub region and analyses private sector roles in the Fertilizer system and trade in the 
region. Analyses WAFP achievement and performance in enhancing fertilizer trade and 
regulations within the region.
 Participate in the review of documentation shared by USAID/WA RAO and additional 
documentation on WAFP and will collect all information related to agribusiness, roles of 
private sector and the program achievement and performance on fertilizer trade. Identify all 
relevant stakeholders in this area.
 Provide technical input for assessing whether activities of private sector are correctly oriented. Based 
on analysis, recommend approaches for encouraging private sector investment. Lead the analysis to 
determine the most promising areas of investment and suggest corrective actions for increasing the 
efficiency of regional market transactions on fertilizer.
 Lead the analysis to assess and advice WAFP in relation to the current positioning of the DCA 
strategy, etc.
b. Expertise and qualifications specific to WAFP assessment/ASSESS effort: Guy Francis Fievez 
has 38 years of experience in agricultural cooperation, food security rural development, agro￾industrial manufacturing and processing. He is a senior consultant with Value Engineer and has 
worked significantly in project identification, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. He has 
provided consultancy services in agro-industry and has proven experience in the auditing and 
monitoring of technical assistance for agricultural sector programs including in Asia and Africa. He 
has also managed large scale rural projects in both the public and private sectors. 
He is knowledgeable in international development programs and has extensive experience in 
project formulation, mid-term and impact evaluations and has participated and led on evaluation 
assignments in the agricultural and rural sector, farming, livestock production, fisheries and forestry 
programs. 
He has extensive experience working in West Africa and has participated in the Midterm review of 
the “Outgrowers Plantation Project” in Ghana financed by AFD and KfW. In addition, He 
participated in the evaluation of the “Ecole d’agriculture pratique” training program and extension 
agricultural development in Cameroon. Mr. Fievez also participated in the final evaluation of the 
Rubber program in Thailand. He has provided technical assistance, institutional support and led 
evaluation missions to support decentralized cooperation in the area of food security as well as in 
the diversification of agricultural food policies in developing countries. He is multi-lingual and very 
fluent in both French and English languages.
4. Ababacar Kane, Agro-economist, Performance evaluation Specialist
a. Role in this activity: Technical Expert, performance evaluation expert on strategy, policy analysis and 
institutional arrangements assessment. Will support the team leader in the implementation of the 
84
mid –term evaluation of the West Africa Fertilizer Project. Evaluation Specialist for the West Africa 
Fertilizer Project midterm assessment. His core tasks are as follows:
 Support the team in the implementation of the mid –term evaluation of the WAFP and
provides technical analysis in Fertilizer strategies, policies and institutional arrangement in the 
region and WAFP contribution to environment enabling for Fertilizer system in the region.
 Participate in the review of documentation shared by USAID/WA RAO and additional 
documentation on Fertilization program collected through other source of information. Will 
address policy, strategy and institutional issues. Will review information and documentation on 
IFDC institutional arrangements and approach for the WAFP preparation, implementation and 
monitoring and evaluation.
 Analyze and assess existing opportunities and innovations for enhancing effective program 
implementation and sustainability at the regional level particularly and include an analysis of 
how they relate to relevant bilateral USAID programming.
 Analysis the institutional arrangement for the program implementation. Develop a deep review 
of IFDC approaches and capacities to achieve the program objectives at regional level and its 
contribution to the FtF initiative.
 Provide an analysis and recommend approaches for strengthening the regional cohesive 
approach of the program.
b. Expertise and qualifications specific to the West Africa Fertilizer Project/ASSESS effort: Ababacar Kane is 
an Agro-Economist Engineer with significant years of experience managing projects and programs 
particularly in the Agricultural Sector. He is the founding president of MGP-Afrique; a center, 
specialized in strategic planning, program formulation, implementation of projects and programs. 
He has over 18 years of experience in the formulation and evaluation of sectorial and regional 
policies and has provided research and evaluation support for projects and programs implemented 
under the partnership between Governments in West Africa and development partners including 
USAID, ADB, IFAD, UNDP and the World Bank. 
He has worked in several strategic and organizational audit assignments on economic development 
policies and programs and provided technical advice for strengthening the impact of these 
programs. He has conducted several researches and evaluations studies including assessing the 
economic impact of Agricultural Development Projects, evaluation of fisheries agreements between 
the EU and Senegal Government as well as evaluation of the GEOMAR project for the Agricultural 
and Tourism Sectors etc.
Additionally, he has conducted formative researches, feasibility studies of agro-industrial products 
and provided capacity building support as part of the implementation of the World Bank-funded 
program “Reducing Poverty through Food Security and Agricultural Growth”. As a former advisor 
at the presidency and a Project Director at the Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Kane provided technical 
direction for the implementation and management of Agricultural Support programs and has a 
wealth of experience conducting program assessments and analysis for programs in the forestry, 
livestock, and fertilizer. He is a native French speaker and fluent as well in the English Language.
85
nnex 7: Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations
86
87
88
89