Agricultural Growth Programme – Agribusiness Marketing 
and Development Project (AMDe), Ethiopia 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
February 2015 
 
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International 
Development. It was prepared independently by Tufts University. The authors of the report are John 
Fox, Amare Ghizaw, Amdissa Teshome and Nigussie Alemayehu. 
Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy Project (AKLDP), Ethiopia 
Agricultural Growth Programme	‐	Agribusiness and Market
Development (AMDe) Project, Ethiopia
EXTERNAL MID‐TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT		
USAID	Contract	Number:	AID-663-C-14-00002
Agriculture	Knowledge,	Learning,	Documentation and	Policy	(AKLDP)	Project	
Implemented	by:	
Feinstein	International	Center	
Friedman	School	of	Nutrition	Science	and	Policy	
Tufts	University	Africa	Regional	Office	
PO	Box	1078	
Addis	Ababa	
Ethiopia	
Tel:	+251	(0)11	618014	
www.agri‐learning‐ethiopia.org		
Disclaimer	
The	views	expressed	in	this	report	do	not	necessarily	reflect	the	views	of	the	United	States	
Agency	for	International	Development	(USAID)	or	the	United	States	Government.
Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................i
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Ethiopia’s	agriculture	sector	....................................................................................................................	1
1.2 Feed	the	Future	and	AMDe	in	Context	..................................................................................................	1
1.3	 The	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	..........................................................................................................................	2
1.4		 Methodology	....................................................................................................................................................	3
2. Evaluation Findings .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1			Progress	made	under	each	of	the	four	major	results	..........................................................................	4
Result	1:	Improved	Competitiveness	of	the	Value	Chains	.....................................................................	4
Result	2:	Improved	Access	to	Finance	and	Investment	.......................................................................	10
Result	3:	Improved	Enabling	Environment	..............................................................................................	11
Result	4:	Stimulate	Innovation	and	Investment	.....................................................................................	13
2.2	 Improvements	in	gender	equity	...........................................................................................................	14
2.3	 Improvements	in	nutritional	outcomes	............................................................................................	15
2.4 Effective	resource	use	..............................................................................................................................	16
2.5 Project	design	and	management	..........................................................................................................	18
2.6	 Sustainability	...............................................................................................................................................	19
2.7 Management	.................................................................................................................................................	21
3. Recommendations...............................................................................................................................21
Annexes
A	set	of	Annexes	were	submitted	as	a	separate	document	to	the	main	report	as	follows:	
Annex	1	Statement	of	Work	
Annex	2	Evaluation	Team	Members	–	Curriculum	vitae	
Annex	3	Conflict	of	Interest	forms		
Annex	4	Work	plan	
Annex	5	Bibliography	
Annex	6	List	of	places	visited	and	people	interviewed	
Annex	7	Tools	used		
List of Tables
Table	1:		 Average	yield	increases	to	December	2014	
Table	2:		 Value	of	incremental	sales	attributed	to	FTF	interventions	
Table	3:		 Progress	against	indicators	and	LOP	targets	for	Result	1	
Table	4:		 Policies,	regulations,	administrative	procedures	by	their	stages	of	development	
Table	5:		 Innovation	grants	awarded	by	region		
Table	6:		 Innovation	grants	awarded	by	value	chain	
Table	7:		 Incentive‐based	women	membership	drive	
Table	8:		 Number	of	jobs	created	
List of Figures
Figure	1:	 Number	of	clients	benefiting	from	financial	services	
Figure	2:	 Budget	use	by	value	chain			
Figure	3:		 Illustration	of	the	collaborative	mechanisms	between	FTF	partners			
Acknowledgements
The	Evaluation	Team	wishes	to	thank	the	staff	of	the	Agribusiness	and	Market	Development	
(AMDe)	Project	for	providing	monitoring	reports	and	related	documentation,	answering	
questions,	arranging	meetings	with	implementing	partners	and	beneficiaries	in	the	regions	and	
Addis	Ababa,	and	commenting	on	the	draft	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	report.			
The	Evaluation	Team	also	wishes	to	thank	the	staff	of	the	Agriculture	Knowledge,	
Learning,	Documentation	and	Policy	(AKLDP)	Project	for	their	insights	into	Ethiopia’s	
agriculture	sector	and	their	support	in	finalizing	the	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	report.	Thanks	also	to	
Tufts	University	Africa	Regional	Office	staff	in	the	Addis	Ababa	office	for	their	logistical	and	
administrative	support.	In	particular,	the	Evaluation	Team	would	like	to	express	their	thanks	to	
Fasil	Yemane,	Tsion	Fisseha,	Yemiserach	Woldearegay,	and	Tewaba	Kehinet.			
The	authors	are	grateful	to	Adrian	Cullis,	Chief	of	Party,	AKLDP,	for	technical	editing	of	
the	draft	report.	
Finally,	the	Evaluation	Team	wishes	to	thank	the	many	representatives	of	federal	and	
local	government,	the	Agriculture	Transformation	Agency,	industry	associations,	Federal	
Cooperative	Agency,	Farmers	Cooperative	Unions,	Primary	Cooperatives,	and	smallholder	
farmers—both	men	and	women—who	gave	of	their	time	so	freely	to	attend	focus	group	
discussions	or	be	interviewed	individually.	Their	perspectives	on	Ethiopia’s	changing	
agricultural	sector	and	on	the	contribution	made	by	the	AMDe	project	have	been	of	particular	
importance	in	the	writing	of	this	report.		This	cooperation	notwithstanding,	the	views	expressed	
in	this	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	are	those	of	the	Evaluation	Team	and	any	mistakes	or	
misrepresentations	are	their	responsibility	alone.
Note on Ethiopia’s administrative structure		
Kebele—the	smallest	administrative	unit	in	Ethiopia.		
Kilil	or	Region—consists	of	a	number	of	zones;	Ethiopia	comprises	eight	main	regions.	
Woreda—equivalent	to	a	district	in	other	countries	and	the	second‐lowest	tier	of	local	
government.		
Zone—consists	of	a	number	of	woredas.
Acronyms		
ACDI/	VOCA	 Agricultural	Cooperative	Development	International/Volunteer	Overseas	
Cooperative	Association	
AGP	 Agricultural	Growth	Programme of	the	Ministry	of	Agriculture	
AKLDP	 Agriculture	Knowledge,	Learning,	Documentation	and	Policy	Project
AMDe	 Agribusiness	and	Market	Development
AMSAP	 Advanced	Maize	Seed	Adoption	Program	
ATA	 Agricultural	Transformation	Agency
ATVETs	 Agricultural	Training	for	Vocational	Extension	Trainers
CAADP	 Comprehensive	Africa	Agriculture	Development	Programme	
CASCAPE	 Capacity	Building	for	Scaling	up	of	Evidence‐Based	Best	Practices	in	
Agricultural	Production	in	Ethiopia	
CIAFS	 Capacity	to	Improve	Agriculture	and	Food	Security
EAB	 Ethiopian	Apiculture	Board
ECEA	 Ethiopian	Coffee	Exporters	Association
ECX	 Ethiopian	Commodity	Exchange
EGTE	 Ethiopian	Grain	Trade	Enterprise
EHBPEA	 Ethiopian	Honey	and	Beeswax	Producers	and	Exporters	Association
EIAR	 Ethiopian	Institute	of	Agricultural	Research
ENGINE	 Empowering	New	Generations	to	Improve	Nutrition	and	Economic	
Opportunities		Ethiopia	Project	
FAO	 Food	and	Agriculture	Organization	(UN)
FCA	 Federal	Cooperative	Agency	
FCU	 Farmers	Cooperative	Union
FTF	 Feed	the	Future	Strategy	of	the	United	States	Government
GoE	 Government	of	Ethiopia
GRAD	 Graduation	with	Resilience	to	Achieve	Sustainable	Development
Ha	 Hectare	(10,000	m2	)
LMD	 Livestock	Marketing	Development
LOP	 Life	of	Project
M&E	 Monitoring	&	Evaluation
MoA	 Ministry	of	Agriculture
MoI	 Ministry	of	Industry
MoT	 Ministry	of	Trade	
MT	 Metric	Tonnes		
MTE	 Mid‐Term	Evaluation
M4	 Membership,	Money,	Management,	and	Marketing	Assessment
NGO	 Non‐governmental	Organization
PC	 Primary	Cooperative
PIF	 Policy	Investment	Framework	
PMP	 Performance	Management	Plan
PSNP	 Productive	Safety	Net	Programme
PRIME	 Pastoralist	Areas	Resilience	Improvement	through	Marketing	Expansion
P4P	 Purchase	for	Progress
RuSACCO	 Rural	Savings	and	Credit	Cooperative
SLMP	 Sustainable	Land	Management	Project
SM4M	 Sell	More	For	More	(a	training	module)
SNNPR	 Southern	Nations,	Nationalities,	and	Peoples’	Region
SoW	 Statement	of	Work	
USAID		 United	States	Agency	for	International	Development	
USG	 US	Government
VC	 Value	Chain	
WALN	 Woman	in	Agribusiness	Leadership	Network
WASH	 Water,	Sanitation,	and	Hygiene
WFP	 World	Food	Programme (UN)
ZoI	 Zones	of	Influence	
i	
Executive Summary
This	External	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	(MTE)	of	the	USAID	Ethiopia	Mission‐funded	Agricultural	
Growth	Program—Agribusiness	and	Market	Development	(AMDe)	Project	was	carried	out	in	
two	phases,	November	and	December	2014	and	January	2015.	The	Scope	of	Work	was	
developed	by	USAID	and	addressed	by	a	team	of	three	consultants—an	international	team	
leader	and	three	local	consultants.	During	the	review,	the	Evaluation	Team	visited	26	AGP	
woredas	in	Ethiopia’s	four	main	regions,	interviewing	215	individuals	from	66	organizations	
that	included	the	Ministry	of	Agriculture	(MoA)—at	federal	and	local	level—local	government,	
industry	associations,	private	sector	businesses,	Farmers	Cooperative	Unions	(FCUs),	Primary	
Cooperatives	(PCs),	smallholder	farmers—men	and	women—and	AMDe	staff.	
The	AMDe	is	funded	through	USAID	Ethiopia’s	Feed	the	Future	(FTF)	program	with	a	
budget	of	USD	50	million.1	Launched	in	June	2011,	the	AMDe	is	funded	for	five	years,	with	an	
end	date	of	May	2016.	The	review	findings	cover	the	period	from	the	launch	to	December	31,	
2014,	or	three	and	a	half	years.		It	is	planned	that	the	AMDe	will	reach	one	million	smallholder	
farmers.	This	MTE	was	delayed	past	the	mid‐point,	with	the	result	that	the	AMDe	has	15	months	
of	implementation	left	following	the	submission	of	the	first	draft	report	in	March	2015.	This	is	
unfortunate,	as	the	period	in	which	adjustments	can	be	made	is	rather	short.	For	this	reason,	the	
recommendations	section	includes	a	sub‐section	of	recommendations	for	a	follow‐on	project.		
The	AMDe	is	aligned	with	the	MoA’s,	Agricultural	Growth	Program	(AGP),2	funded	by	the	
Government	of	Ethiopia	(GoE)	together	with	the	World	Bank,	Canada,	Netherlands,	Spain,	and	
the	Food	and	Agriculture	Organization	of	the	United	Nations	(FAO)3	and	supported	technically	
by	the	Agricultural	Transformation	Agency	(ATA).4	The	AMDe	implements	AGP’s	Component	1,	
sub‐component	1.3:	Market and Agribusiness Development.			
Key findings
The	MTE	review	findings	are	generic	and	specific.	At	the	generic	level,	the	Evaluation	Team	
welcomes	USAID’s	engagement	in	Ethiopia’s	high‐potential	agriculture	areas,	including	that	this	
support	is	aligned	with	the	MoA’s	AGP.	In	this	way,	USAID	is	supporting	government	efforts	to	
balance	development	investment	across	Ethiopia’s	three	main	agro‐ecological	areas:	high	
rainfall	areas,	low	rainfall	areas,	and	the	pastoral	lowlands.	The	AGP	is	implemented	in	
Ethiopia’s	high	rainfall	areas,	which	are	dependent	on	mono‐modal	kiremt	rains5	and	a	single	
meher	growing	season.			
Ethiopia	has	made	substantial	progress	in	recent	years,	with	per	capita	income	rising	to	
USD	570,6	and	2.5	million	people	have	been	lifted	out	of	poverty	(using	a	poverty	threshold	of	
USD	1.25	per	day).	While	these	gains	are	impressive,	Ethiopia	remains	one	of	the	poorest	
countries	in	the	world,	and	per	capita	incomes	remain	roughly	half	of	the	regional	average	USD	
1,257.	National	per	capita	incomes	are	therefore	in	the	ten	lowest	globally.	Also,	because	of	
Ethiopia’s	high	population	growth,	the	absolute	number	of	poor	remains	unchanged	over	the	
past	15	years	at	around	25	million.7		
                                                            
1	USAID	Ethiopia’s	FTF	portfolio	is	valued	at	around	USD	270	million	over	five	years.	It	is	implemented	in	154	Zone	of	
Influence	woredas	that	are	home	to	an	estimated	17	million	people.			 2	The	AGP	is	implemented	in	96	woredas (AGP2	will	be	implemented	in	157	woredas) and structured:		
Component 1—Agriculture	production	and	commercialization,	with	sub‐components	on	institutional	strengthening	
and	development,	scaling‐up	good	practice,	and	market	and	agribusiness	development	
Component 2—Rural	Infrastructure	Development	and	Management,	with	sub‐components	on	small‐scale	agriculture	
water	management	and	market	infrastructure	development.	The	project	is	led	by	a	Coordination	Unit	at	federal	and	
regional	levels	and	is	guided	by	Steering	and	Technical	Committees.						 3	The	AGP	is	estimated	to	cost	about	USD	265	million,	of	which	USAID	provides	19	percent	through	AMDe	and	
Livestock	Marketing	Development	(LMD)	projects.			 4	The	ATA—Agricultural	Transformation	Agency,	www.ata.gov.et.	 5	The	single	kiremt	rains	of	June	to	September	and	the	associated	meher	growing	season.		 6	International	Monetary	Fund	2014.	
7	Poverty	and	Growth	in	Ethiopia	(1995–2011),	Ministry	of	Finance	and	Economic	Development,	2013.	
ii	
The	agriculture	sector	plays	a	central	role	in	the	Ethiopian	economy—45	percent	of	total	output	
and	80	percent	of	all	exports—and	the	lives	and	livelihoods	of	an	estimated	13	million	
smallholder	farmer	and	pastoral	households,	or	nearly	80	percent	of	the	national	workforce.	
Agriculture	growth	rates	over	a	decade	have	been	impressive,8	and	the	result	is	more	land	being	
farmed	and	increases	in	productivity	per	farmed	area.	Productivity	increases	are	the	result	of	
public	investment9—inputs,	roads,	agriculture	extension—and	public	policy	reform	related	to	
land	tenure.	Despite	the	progress	made,	more	will	need	to	be	done	to	strengthen	the	capacity	of	
Ethiopia’s	extension	services,	build	stronger	links	between	research	institutions	and	farmers,	
and	improve	access	to	inputs—seeds,	fertilizers	and	agro‐chemicals	for	plant	protection.	There	
are	also	both	infrastructure	and	policy‐related	challenges	in	agriculture	marketing.	Finally,	
despite	the	increase	in	the	amount	of	land	under	some	form	of	irrigation,10	Ethiopian	agriculture	
is	primarily	rain‐fed	and	therefore	subject	to	the	vagaries	of	the	weather.				
The	AMDe	was	launched	in	June	2011	and	became	fully	operational	in	2012.	The	AMDe	
has	therefore	been	operational	for	the	2012,	2013,	and	2014	meher	seasons.	Within	these	three	
seasons	and	therefore	learning	cycles,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	has	performed	
exceptionally	well	in	some	areas,	less	well	in	others,	and	has	yet	to	address	some	issues	that	are	
of	importance.	Progress	in	each	of	these	areas	is	presented	in	this	Mid‐Term	Evaluation.	Overall,	
the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	has	performed	well	and	has	the	potential	to	achieve	“high	
performance”	over	time.	This	is	impressive,	within	the	relatively	short	period	of	implementation	
and	Ethiopia’s	diverse	and	complex	agro‐ecology,	farming	systems,	and	agriculture	sector	
institutional	and	policy	environment.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	it	of	strategic	importance	for	
USAID	to	fund	a	follow‐on	phase.		
To	accelerate	learning,	analysis,	and	documentation	and	identify	evidence‐based	good	
practice	that	can	be	taken	to	scale,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	FTF	ZoI	should	be	smaller	
and	more	focused	and	that	AMDe	interventions	should	be	better	supported	by	other	USAID	
programs—social	protection,	WASH,	nutrition,	health,	and	education.	Implemented	as	it	is,	the	
Evaluation	Team	finds	it	unlikely	the	AMDe	will	make	a	significant	contribution	to	FTF’s	poverty	
and	stunting	reduction	objectives.	The	Evaluation	Team	also	finds	the	AMDe	could	do	much	
more	to	target	smallholder	farmers	with	holdings	of	one	hectare	or	less	and	women	in	
agriculture—both	women‐headed	households	and	women	in	male‐headed	households—and	in	
this	way	make	an	increased	contribution	to	meeting	FTF	outcomes.			
Finally,	in	this	overview	section,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	could	have	
exercised	stronger	leadership	to	contextualize	FTF	indicators	to	Ethiopia’s	agriculture	sector	
and	agro‐ecology.	This	was	not	done,	with	the	result	that	AMDe	staff	has	wasted	considerable	
time	and	resources	monitoring	and	reporting	on	rather	meaningless	indicators,	e.g.,	gross	
margins	per	hectare,	value	of	incremental	sales,	and	number	of	hectares	under	improved	
management.	Importantly	also,	FTF	does	not	require	the	monitoring	of	a	control	group,	with	the	
result	that	attribution	is	unclear.11		
Moving	to	the	specific,	the	Evaluation	Team	presents	its	findings	under	the	questions	in	
the	SoW.	
Key Question 1: To what extent is the AMDe Project progressing against planned
objectives as outlined in its performance management plan and work plan?			
As	mentioned,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	some	of	the	FTF	indicators	rather	meaningless.	For	
this	reason,	progress	reported	in	this	section	should	not	be	interpreted	as	a	statement	of	
AMDe's	overall	performance	but	rather	progress	against	the	current	indicators.			
                                                            
8	Official	figures	record	agriculture	growth	rates	of	around	8	percent.	 9	Ethiopia	is	investing	an	estimated	16	percent	of	its	national	budget	in	agriculture	and	has	therefore	exceeded	the	
CAADP	investment	target	of	10	percent.	A	considerable	proportion	of	this	investment	is	through	the	Productive	
Safety	Net	Programme.	
10	Estimated	by	the	MoA	to	be	around	two	million	hectares,	or16	percent	of	total	cultivated	land	although	a	
considerable	proportion	is	allocated	to	sugar.		 11	USAID	confirms	that	an	end‐of‐project	evaluation	is	planned.	While	this	is	welcomed,	the	Evaluation	Team	
considers	statistically	significant	impacts	unlikely	in	the	relatively	modest	period	of	AMDe	implementation.	
iii	
Result 1: Improved Competitiveness of the Value Chains
For	Result	1,	the	AMDe	tracks	13	indicators	with	progress	recorded	by	value	chain.	The	
Evaluation	Team	finds	that	21	percent	of	the	value	chain‐related	targets	have	been	fully	
achieved,	20	percent	are	very	likely	to	be	achieved,	14	percent	are	likely	to	be	achieved	with	
focused	additional	support,	and	45	percent	are	thought	unlikely	to	be	achieved.			For	example:	
 The	number	of	hectares	under	new	technology	(indicator	#1)	against	LOP	targets	across	
all	crop‐based	value	chains	is	low.	This	said,	LOP	targets	are	modest,	e.g.,	the	target	for	
wheat	is	12,000	ha,	and	these	LOP	targets	may	well	be	achieved	through	the	cumulative	
effect	of	AMDe	funding	in	seed,	fertilizer,	and	equipment.	
 The	numbers	of	farmers	benefiting	from	access	to	new	technology—seed,	fertilizer,	and	
training—(indicator	#3)	against	LOP	targets	are	variable.	For	example,	the	number	of	
beneficiary	farmers	in	the	coffee	and	sesame	value	chains	has	been	achieved;	the	number	
of	farmers	in	the	maize	value	chains	is	57	percent	of	the	LOP	target	and	may	be	achieved;	
but	it	is	unlikely	the	number	of	farmers	for	the	wheat,	chickpeas,	and	honey	value	chains	
will	be	met.		
 The	increased	value	of	improved	productivity	and	production	(indicator	#4)	appears	to	
be	progressing	well,	but	contrasts	with	progress	reported	under	indicator	#1.	As	the	two	
indicators	are	linked—the	number	of	hectares	under	improved	management	contributes	
to	increased	productivity—the	progress	reported	will	need	to	be	reviewed.	
 The	value	of	incremental	sales	(indicator	#6)	is	96	percent	of	the	LOP	target	and	is	likely	
to	be	exceeded.		
 The	value	of	exports	(indicator	#10)	is	62	percent	of	the	LOP	target	and	may	be	met.		
Result 2: Improved Access to Finance and Investment		
Specifically:	
 The	value	of	agricultural	and	rural	loans	target	(indicator	#14)	has	been	exceeded.	
 The	number	of	clients	benefitting	from	financial	services	(indicator	#18)	is	60	percent	of	
the	LOP	target	and	may	be	met.		
Result 3: Improved Enabling Environment
For	example:	
 The	seven	policies/regulations/administrative	procedures	targets	are	progressing:		
Stage	1:	Analyzed	(seven	targets	met)		
Stage	2:	Drafted	and	presented	for	public/stakeholder	consultation	(four	targets	met)	
Stage	3:	Presented	for	legislation/decree	(two	targets	met)	
Stage	4:	Passed/approved	(two	targets	met)		
Stage	5:	Passed	for	which	implementation	has	started	(zero	targets	met)		
		
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	process	associated	with	the	selection	of	the	seven	policy	issues	
to	be	robust,	including	the	engagement	of	multi‐sectoral	platforms.	However,	the	Evaluation	
Team	is	concerned	that	some	of	the	selected	policy	targets	appear	to	duplicate	policy	change	to	
which	the	MoA	is	already	committed	through	the	Agriculture	Sector	Policy	Investment	
Framework	(2010–2020),	while	others	appear	overly	optimistic.	The	Evaluation	Team	also	
finds	that	FTF	policy	work	could	have	been	better	coordinated.	
Result 4: Stimulate Innovation and Investment
For	example:	
 The	AMDe	has	disbursed	USD	11.6	of	the	planned	LOP	target	of	USD	14.2	million	
(indicator	#22)	and	is	therefore	well	on	track	to	meet	the	LOP	target.	
Key Question 2: To what extent has this project contributed to gender equity in terms of
access to credit, capacity‐building support, improved inputs and technologies resulting in
an increase in sales of agricultural commodities? Are there evidences supporting positive
changes in the aforementioned areas?
iv	
The	AMDe	launched	the	Women in Agribusiness Leadership Network	(WALN)12	in	2014	and	in	
the	same	year	launched	a	women	membership	drive	with	the	FCA	resulting	in	an	additional	
78,000	members	(not	all	new).	As	recommended	by	the	AMDe	behavior	change	implementing	
partner,	the	membership	drive	was	supported	by	small	incentives.	While	respecting	the	value	of	
this	approach,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	continued	use	of	incentives	to	be	unsustainable.	
The	Evaluation	Team	however	finds	both	of	these	interventions	to	be	very	positive.			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	gave	inadequate	attention	to	gender	in	the	AMDe	
design	phase,	as	four	of	the	original	five	value	chains13	have	a	strong	export	focus.	While	the	
importance	of	increasing	agriculture	exports	is	recognized	as	a	national	priority,	the	Evaluation	
Team	is	reminded	that	FTF	funding	has	clear	poverty	and	under‐nutrition	reduction	
development	objectives	and	therefore	that	FTF	implementing	partners	are	required	to	address	
poverty	reduction,	including	through	gender	equity	and	women	empowerment	approaches.	The	
Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	might	have	given	more	consideration	to	the	fact	that	the	
agriculture	export	sector	is	dominated	by	men	and	that	increased	emphasis	could	therefore	
have	been	given	to	value	chain	development	for	domestic	markets	and	thus	to	women	
smallholders,	traders,	and	agro‐processors.	USAID	also	did	not	designate	specific	funds	to	
support	a	strong	gender	equity	component.	
Key Question 3: What has been AMDe’s contribution to the improvement of nutritional
status of women and children? What is the evidence?
Stunting	levels	in	Ethiopia,	including	in	AGP	woredas,	are	among	the	highest	in	the	world	and,	as	
mentioned,	accelerated	stunting	reduction	is	one	of	two	FTF	development	objectives.	This	said,	
nutrition	was	not	part	of	the	original	design	and	nutrition	targets	were	“bolted‐on”	during	
AMDe’s	first	year	of	implementation.	It	is	perhaps	not	surprising	that	progress	on	nutrition	is	
mixed:	on	the	one	hand,	AMDe	has	contributed	to	improved	nutrition	outcomes	through	the	
chickpea	value	chain	development	and	launch	of	three	chickpea	shiro	(a	local	sauce)products;14
on	the	other	hand,	the	nutrition	cascade	training15	appears	to	have	achieved	little	that	will	be	
sustained	after	the	life	of	the	project.			
Therefore,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	agribusiness	and	market	development	
projects	offer	few	real	opportunities	to	contribute	to	improved	nutrition	outcomes,	as	
opportunities	for	nutrition‐sensitive	agriculture	are	minimal	unless	they	are	an	integral	part	of	
the	design	phase	and	linked	to	a	well‐funded	and	supported	agriculture	sector	production	and	
productivity	component.			
Key Question 4: What is the impact of the resources spent (financial and human) and
performance per value chain? What is the relative value generated in terms of
productivity and income increase, employment generation per value chain to resources
spent? Which value chains have the highest returns per dollar spent?
The	AMDe	monitoring	appears	weak	and	at	times	progress	reports	lack	consistency	and	rigor.	
As	some	of	the	data	sets	lacked	consistency	and	USAID	had	conducted	its	own	“Cost	Benefit	
Analysis”	study	across	FTF	value	chains	in	2014	that	provided	a	performance	ranking,	the	
Evaluation	Team	did	not	address	this	question	in	detail.16	In	order	to	address	this	question	fully,	
the	AMDe	will	need	to	complete	a	data	cleaning	and	verification	exercise.				
                                                            
12	The	network	has	received	national	recognition	through	the	January	2015	National	Conference	that	was	attended	by	
more	than	100	women	entrepreneurs.	
13	USAID	added	the	chickpea	value	chain	in	the	first	year	of	implementation.		 14	Through	GUTS	Agro‐Industry.		
15	The	cascade	training	was	supported	with	nutrition	training	posters,	training	manuals,	a	cookbook,	and	other	
materials,	which	have	been	used	by	other	projects.	 16	It	may	be	that	USAID’s	Data	Quality	Assessment	(DQA)	team	could	help	address	the	issue	of	data	consistency.	
However,	to	address	the	issue	of	rigor	and	impact,	mention	has	been	made	of	the	need	to	undertake	more	detailed	
studies	that	include	control	groups.		
v	
Key Question 5: Which among the following AMDe’s partnerships have been the most
effective in terms of their collaboration and coordination to implement AGP‐AMDe?
Which ones have been the least effective? In both cases, what is contributing to these
partnerships’ success and challenges?
The	AMDe	works	with	an	impressive	range	of	stakeholders:	MoA/regional	Bureaus	of	
Agriculture,	Ministry	of	Trade	(MoT),	ATA,	Federal	and	Regional	Cooperative	Agencies	
(FCA/RCA),	Ethiopian	Institute	of	Agriculture	Research	(EIAR)	and	Industry	Associations.17	The	
AMDe	also	works	effectively	with	private	sector	organizations,	international	and	local	NGOs,	
and	other	FTF	implementing	partners.				
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	AMDe’s	strongest	partnerships	are	with	the	
MoA/regional	Bureau	of	Agriculutre	BoA	AGP,	ATA,	FCA/RCA,	and	MoT	Export	Promotion	
Directorate	with	which	it	shares	a	common	vision	for	agribusiness	development	and	the	
associated	growth	of	cooperatives.	At	an	operational	level,	the	AMDe	annual	work	plans	are	
reviewed	and	endorsed	by	regional	and	federal	AGP	Technical	Committees.	In	addition,	USAID,	
ATA,	and	AMDe	have	forged	a	tripartite	coordination	plan	with	assigned	activity	focal	points.			
Although	AMDe	is	developing	effective	partnerships,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	it	will	take	
time	before	USAID	and	AMDe	play	a	full	and	central	role	in	AGP	decision‐making.	In	part,	this	
can	be	attributed	to	organizational	differences—donor‐government,	culture,	and	salary	and	
related	incentive	structures.	The	Evaluation	Team	also	recognizes	challenges	associated	with	
USAID’s	parallel	funding	arrangement	to	the	pooled	AGP	fund.	While	recognizing	the	challenges,	
the	Evaluation	Team	also	finds	that	parallel	funding	offers	opportunities	for	innovation	and	the	
identification	of	emerging	good	practice	that	can	inform	AGP	planning	and	operations.	This	has	
already	happened	within	the	context	of	AMDe	and	other	FTF	projects.18			
Ethiopia’s	cooperative	movement	aggregates	and	markets	less	than	10	percent	of	
Ethiopia’s	cereals,19	with	small‐scale	private	sector	traders	playing	the	major	role	in	cereal	
aggregation,	transport,	marketing,	and	processing.	While	the	AMDe	works	well	with	industry	
associations	and	some	500	private	sector	actors,	commercial	farmers,	service	providers,	
traders,	and	processors,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that,	in	order	to	address	long‐term	issues	of	
sustainability,	the	AMDe	will	need	to	achieve	a	better	balance	of	support	between	cooperatives	
and	private	sector	actors,	with	a	particular	emphasis	on	small‐	and	medium‐sized	businesses.20			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	works	well	with	other	FTF	implementing	partners	
at	federal	and	regional	levels,	but	as	the	AMDe	deploys	few	field	staff	at	woreda	level,	the	quality	
of	partnership	inevitably	tails	off	at	woreda	and	community	level.	The	Evaluation	Team	however	
finds	that	USAID	could	have	done	more	to	forge	a	coordinated	and	better‐integrated	FTF	
portfolio,	including	that	where	possible	USAID	implementing	partners	support	the	same	
communities,	and	the	opportunity	for	synergy	is	maximized.		
Key Question 6: Which of the components and/or project activities can easily be scaled
up in the future based on measurable, practical, and sustainable results?
The	AMDe	is	well	established	in	the	four	AGP	regions	and	across	the	six	value	chains.	In	view	of	
the	AMDe’s	strong	marketing	focus,	the	Evaluation	Team	also	finds	that	the	project	is	doing	
important	and	strategic	work	to	address	productivity	issues	through	its	improved	seeds,	
blended	fertilizers,	and	crop	protection	work	that	is	supportive	of	other	AGP	sub‐components.			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	AMDe's	training	and	capacity‐building	work	on	post‐harvest	
management	(threshing,	winnowing,	cleaning,	storage,	and	pest	control),	aggregation,	and	the	
marketing	of	agricultural	surpluses	to	be	of	primary	importance,	in	particular	where	the	
                                                            
17	Ethiopia	Apiculture	Board,	Ethiopia	Honey	and	Beeswax	Producers	and	Exporters	Association,	Ethiopia	Pulses	Oil	
Seeds	and	Spices	Processers	and	Exporters	Association,	and	the	Ethiopia	Coffee	Exporters	Association.			 18	Engine—mainstreaming	approaches	in	nutrition	and	GRAD—mainstreaming	village	savings	and	loans	approaches.		 19Cereals	account	for	more	than	60	percent	of	all	arable	cropping	in	Ethiopia.	 20	The	AMDe	points	out	that	cooperative	membership	can	help	smallholders	with	access	to	inputs,	information,	
training,	and	finance	and	that	the	government	is	committed	to	increase	the	effectiveness	and	marketing	and	capacity	
of	cooperatives.	The	AMDe	also	notes	its	M4	Capacity	Assessment	carried	out	in	summer	2014	documented	increased	
capacity	in	half	the	cooperative	unions.			
vi	
beneficiaries	are	poorer	smallholder	farmers—with	less	than	one	ha—and	therefore	planned	
FTF	beneficiaries.	The	Evaluation	Team	is	also	informed	by	lessons	learned	by	the	AGP	that	one‐
off,	short‐term	training	has	limited	impact.21	Learning	from	this,	the	AMDe	should	review	its	
training	and	capacity‐building	work	and	channel	resources	to	fewer	PCs,	FCUs,22	and	private	
sector	partners	in	order	that	all	trainings	can	be	supported	by	follow‐up	visits,	impact	
assessments,	and,	as	appropriate,	refresher	training.		
The	Evaluation	Team	learned	that	cereal,	honey,	and	some	pulse	prices	are	typically	
higher	in	Ethiopia	than	on	the	international	markets.23	While	recognizing	that	increasing	
agriculture	exports	is	a	national	priority,	the	Evaluation	Team	is	concerned	that	AMDe’s	focus	
on	exports	may	well	ultimately	benefit	larger	commercial	farmers	more	than	the	smaller	and	
poorer	farmers	who	are	FTF	primary	planned	beneficiaries.	The	Evaluation	Team	therefore	
finds	that	additional	consideration	could	be	given	to	developing	value	chains	for	domestic	
markets,	which	are	more	accessible	to	poorer	smallholders	and	PCUs,	as	they	obviate	the	need	
for	achieving	export	standard	production,	aggregation,	cleaning,	and	marketing.		
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	AMDe	business	management	training	support	for	
cooperatives	to	be	effective,	in	particular	where	it	is	integrated	into	broader	capacity‐building	
work.	The	Evaluation	Team	also	finds	this	work	could	be	mainstreamed	through	the	Ardaita	
Cooperative	ATVET,24	Oromia	Region,	which	provides	similar	training	and	capacity‐building	
support	to	PCs	and	FCUs	in	that	part	of	Oromia.	By	partnering	with	Ardaita—including	as	
appropriate	the	AMDe	investing	further	in	capacity	building	of	Ardaita	itself—the	AMDe	can	
minimize	duplication	and	address	sustainability	issues.25
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	AMDe’s	grant	work	is	widely	appreciated.	Grants	have	
has	supported	the	construction	of	Ethiopia’s	first	blended	fertilizer	plant,	warehouses,	and	
improved	input	supply.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	grant	work	should	be	continued,	
with	an	increased	focus	on	small‐	and	medium‐sized	businesses.	The	Evaluation	Team	has	
learned	that	the	AMDe	support	to	FCUs	for	warehouse	construction	has	been	replicated	and	that	
it	is	proposed	that	the	AGP2	will	construct	135	additional	warehouses,	storage,	and	grading	
facilities.26	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	AMDe	should	complete	its	existing	commitments	
and	thereafter	disengage	from	funding	warehouse	construction.		
The	Evaluation	Team	recognizes	the	AMDe’s	support	to	cooperatives	to	improve	credit	
ratings	and	secure	loans	from	banks	and	Rural	Savings	and	Credit	Cooperatives	(RuSACCOs).			
The	AMDe	is	supporting	World	Food	Programme’s	(WFP)	P4P	initiative	through	the	delivery	of	
32,898	mt	of	maize	from	13	FCUs.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	this	a	positive	intervention,	as	
maize	farm	gate	prices	are	volatile.	To	address	the	issues	of	volatility	sustainably,	however,	the	
Evaluation	Team	finds	that	AMDe's	maize	marketing	support	for	small‐	and	medium‐sized	
private	sector	traders	should	be	continued.			
Key Question 7: Given the findings above, does the Project have the right balance of staff
and funding? Is there an appropriate balance between the resources (staff and budget),
their management, and the activities the project intends to accomplish?
The	AMDe	employs	81	full‐time	staff	and	19	part‐time	or	pooled	staff	(64	men	and	36	women).	
The	pooled	staff	includes	the	Deputy	Chief	of	Party	Operations	and	senior	finance,	HR,	
administration,	and	support	staff	who	are	shared	with	other	ACDI/VOCA	projects	(AMDe	funds	
70	percent	of	these	staff	salaries).	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	relationship	between	AMDe	
and	some	of	the	pooled	staff	is	unclear	and	would	benefit	from	clarification.		
                                                            
21	World	Bank,	2015.	
22	Perhaps	as	few	as	50	FCUs.		
23	The	price	of	wheat,	for	example,	in	Ethiopia	at	the	time	of	the	MTE	was	nearly	twice	world	prices.	The	domestic	
price	of	honey	was	also	considerably	higher	than	the	price	on	the	world	market.	 24	The	Cooperative	Sector	Development	Strategy	(FCA,	2012),	developed	with	the	support	of	ATA,	identifies	Ardaita	
as	a	potential	“center	of	excellence”	for	cooperative	development.	While	not	centrally	located,	it	is	planned	that	the	
center	will	establish	branches	in	other	regions	and	operate	as	a	“college	without	walls.”		 25	During	the	Evaluation	Team’s	visit	to	Ardaita,	it	was	learned	that	the	AMDe	had	visited	once	but	without	follow‐up.		 26	World	Bank,	2015.	
vii	
Almost	half	of	the	AMDe's	staff	is	based	in	Addis	Ababa.27	In	order	to	consolidate	progress	and	
ensure	sustainability,	increased	attention	needs	to	be	given	to	staff	AMDe's	work	in	the	regions.		
Recommendations
Recommendation for Result 1
#1: The AMDe continues to work on the six value chains in order not to disrupt project
implementation during the remainder of the project, but gives increased focus to incomplete
Results:		
 Wheat—productivity and value addition through processing
 Maize—productivity, including open pollinated varieties, improved post‐harvest handling,
cleaning, storage, and diversifying domestic market outlets
 Coffee—post‐harvest loss reduction and quality standards
 Sesame—post‐harvest loss reduction and processing		
 Chickpeas—domestic and niche markets (Sudan, for example) for the currently used
varieties		
 Honey—production and productivity through the distribution of improved equipment,
including modern beehives and training and equipping of beekeepers and new beekeepers
Recommendation for Result 2
#2: Continue and strengthen AMDe's engagement in agriculture sector finance, in particular
capacity building for cooperatives and small‐scale private businesses to develop business plans,28
negotiate with banks, and improve accounting and auditing systems, but with a focus on fewer
partners.			
Recommendation for Result 3
#3: Recognize the need to work more closely with other FTF implementing partners including the
AKLDP.29 With FTF partners, forge a common, integrated, and coordinated approach to
agriculture sector policy work.
Recommendation for Result 4
#4: Reduce the focus on grants for new partners and consolidate the capacity of existing partners
to improve impact and sustainability.		
Recommendations for gender equity
#5: Continue to support women empowerment, including women membership of cooperatives—
though discontinue the use of incentives—and WALN, with increased emphasis on women‐led
family agribusinesses in the regions. Set aside funding for gender equity work.
#6: Document AMDe’s work with women in Tigray and SNNP Regions and share with FTF projects
within and beyond Ethiopia.
Recommendation for nutrition
#7: Hand over the nutrition work to ENGINE.		
Recommendations for improved collaboration		
#8: Continue to strengthen partnerships with key stakeholders, in particular regional BoA AGP
teams, ATA Agriculture Commercialization Clusters, and Regional Cooperative and Industry
Association Offices to accelerate training and capacity building of regional, zonal, and woreda
                                                            
27	This	figure	includes	AMDe’s	Oromia	Region	staff	who	are	based	in	Addis,	as	their	regional	counterparts	in	the	
Oromia	Bureau	of	Agriculture	are	based	in	Addis.	 28	The	business	plans	prepared	jointly	by	FCUs	and	AMDe	are	of	a	high	quality.	For	example,	the	Sidama	Elto	FCU	
business	plan	secured	loans	of	Eth	Birr	7.6	million	in	2013,	Eth	Birr	14.4	million	in	2014,	and	Eth	Birr	6.35	million	in	
2015.	
29	The	AKLDP	project	provides	agriculture	knowledge,	learning,	and	policy	support	to	USAID’s	FTF	portfolio.	
viii	
staff in agriculture marketing that includes components on the private sector and its potential role
in transforming Ethiopian agriculture. Ensure that all training and capacity building is focused
and an integral part of a holistic capacity‐building approach.		
#9: Collaborate with ATA and Federal Cooperative Agency (FCA) to develop a single PC/FCU
Certification system that integrates and harmonizes accreditation criteria.		
Recommendations for scaling up		
#10: Support the MoA and ATA to improve productivity through the improved distribution of
certified seeds (with a minimum 60 percent open pollinated varieties), blended fertilizer, credit,
and extension support.
#11: Continue to support the WFP‐P4P initiative but continue to strengthen and develop links
between smallholder farmer groups and responsible private sector traders.		
Recommendations for management
#12:	Recruit an organizational change expert to reorientate AMDe staffing, specifically increased
support for: farmer level production and productivity;30 domestic market development; and
gender. Clarify the responsibilities of the AMDe and ACDI/VOCA pooled staff and as appropriate
move staff to the regions.		
#13: Recruit an M&E specialist to improve AMDe M&E capacity. Ensure all project data are
cleaned and that increased consideration is given to project outcomes and attribution, ahead of
the final evaluation.
#14: Strengthen AMDe’s capacity development work to 15 percent of the Year 5 project budget to
build the capacity of priority PCs and FCUs and better equip them to continue work started with
AMDe. To support this reorientation, complete all warehouse construction‐related commitments
and subsequently disengage from warehouse construction.
#15: Include representatives from the MoA and possibly the MoT and MoI in the final evaluation.		
General recommendations for a follow‐on project		
The	Evaluation	Team	recommends	that	USAID	provide	follow‐on	funding	for	a	minimum	of	
another	five	years	and	therefore	welcomes	USAID’s	commitment	to	fund	AGP	Component	4:	
Agriculture	Marketing	and	Value	Chains,	sub‐component	d—strengthening	of	selected	livestock	
and	crop	value	chains.	While	welcoming	this	commitment,	the	Evaluation	Team	recommends	
that	USAID	support	for	AGP	be	more	focused	to	achieve	FTF	development	objectives;	
specifically	that	a	follow‐on	program	operate	in	a	smaller	ZoI	and	with	fewer	partners.	Within	
these	ZoI,	it	is	recommended	that,	in	addition	to	continuing	to	support	agriculture	marketing,	
significant	increased	emphasis	is	given	to:	smallholders	with	holdings	of	less	than	one	hectare—
perhaps	70	percent	of	planned	project	beneficiaries;	sustainable	agriculture	production	and	
productivity,	including	soil	health,	land	management,	and	land	tenure;	women	in	agriculture—
women‐headed	and	women	in	male‐headed	households;	and	the	private	sector,	in	particular	
small‐	and	medium‐sized	businesses.	In	addition,	the	Evaluation	Team	recommends	that	USAID	
provide	better	layered	and	sequenced	support	within	its	ZoI,	including	social	protection,	WASH,	
nutrition,	health,	and	education,	and	that,	through	this	integrated	and	coordinated	approach,	
USAID	play	a	lead	role	in	poverty	and	stunting	reduction	that	will	be	replicated	by	others.			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	should	exercise	increased	leadership	to	
contextualize	global	FTF	indicators	and	guide	FTF	implementing	partners	to	key	indicators	that	
will	track	progress	to	address	Ethiopia’s	poverty	and	stunting	challenges.				
Specific recommendations for a follow‐on project include:		
#16: Re‐orientate the value chains: hand off coffee and wheat to the industry associations and
other development partners, including as appropriate the EU, a USAID‐funded innovation lab
                                                            
30	The	Evaluation	Team	is	keen	to	see	that	the	USAID	Ethiopia	Mission	strengthens	its	support	of	production	and	
productivity	and	therefore	achieves	a	more	balanced	agriculture	sector	portfolio.	The	Evaluation	Team	is	of	the	view	
that	the	Mission	is	at	present	too	market‐focused.		
ix	
project holder, and ATA; build a more integrated approach to cereal value chains that includes
maize,31 malt barley, and sorghum—grown by large numbers of poorer smallholders; expand the
honey value chain—assisting larger numbers of poor women with little or no land; and integrate
chickpeas into a legumes/pulses value chain for domestic markets—legumes offer important soil
health and nutrition outcomes. USAID could therefore support the following value chains:
 Cereals— maize, malt barley, and sorghum
 Honey—for domestic markets (with an emphasis on women)
 Legumes—for domestic markets		
#17: Ensure that capacity building, institutional development, and gender are key components of
a follow‐on project, are appropriately funded, and are delivered within a holistic capacity‐building
approach.
#18: Reduce managerial complexity—sub‐contract the productivity, value chain development,
aggregation, and domestic market development components to specialist NGOs with a proven
track record in Ethiopia. The project holder can then better focus on management, coordination,
monitoring (data collection, collation, analysis, documentation), learning and championing
evidence‐based good practice, including with AGP2. The follow‐on project would be expected to
leave Ethiopian institutes, organizations, and businesses better equipped to lead the
transformation process of Ethiopian agriculture.
                                                            
31	With	a	focus	on	open	pollinated	varieties.		
1	
1. Introduction
1.1 Ethiopia’s agriculture sector
Ethiopia	has	made	substantial	progress	in	recent	years,	with	per	capita	income	rising	to	USD	
570.1	Two	and	a	half	million	people	have	been	lifted	out	of	poverty	(using	a	poverty	line	of	USD	
1.25	per	day).	While	this	progress	is	impressive,	Ethiopia	remains	one	of	the	poorest	countries	
in	world;	per	capita	incomes	are	roughly	half	the	regional	average	of	USD	1,257	and	amongst	
the	ten	lowest	internationally.	As	a	result	of	Ethiopia’s	high	population	growth,	the	absolute	
number	of	poor	remains	unchanged	over	the	past	15	years	at	about	25	million2	despite	
concerted	efforts	to	reduce	this	number.	
The	agriculture	sector	continues	to	play	a	central	role	in	the	Ethiopian	economy—45	
percent	of	total	output	and	80	percent	of	all	exports3—and	the	lives	and	livelihoods	of	an	
estimated	13	million	smallholder	farmer	and	pastoral	households,	which	is	nearly	80	percent	of	
all	employment.4	Ethiopian	agriculture	can	be	characterized	under	three	broad	rainfall	regimes:	
high	rainfall,	moderate	rainfall,	and	the	pastoral	lowlands.	The	AGP	woredas	are	concentrated	in	
the	high	rainfall	belt	of	western	Ethiopia	and	are	primarily	dependent	on	the	kiremt	rains	of	
June	to	September	and	the	associated	single	meher	growing	season.	The	principal	crops	include:	
cereals,	pulses,	oilseeds,	coffee,	roots,	and	tubers—potatoes,	sweet	potatoes,	cassava,	other	
vegetables,	and	sugarcane.	Growth	rates	of	all	crops	have	been	impressive	over	the	last	decade,	
due	to	a	combination	of	more	land	being	farmed5	and	increases	in	productivity	per	farmed	area.	
Productivity	increases	are	primarily	the	result	of	public	investment,	which	is	16	percent	of	the	
national	budget	and	considerably	more	than	the	CAADP‐recommended	10	percent	bench‐
mark.6	Investment	has	resulted	in	improved	access	to	inputs,	rural	roads,	expanded	agriculture	
extension	services,	and	policy	reform,	including	certification	of	land	holdings.			
Despite	the	impressive	level	of	investment,	more	needs	to	be	done	to	increase	the	
capacity	of	the	extension	services,	including	to	work	across	different	agro‐ecological	zones	and	
to	strengthen	the	link	between	research	institutions	and	farmers.7	Progress	also	needs	to	be	
made	towards	improving	smallholder	farmer	access	to	inputs—seeds,8	fertilizers,	and	agro‐
chemicals	for	plant	protection—including	opening	up	new	distribution	networks	through	small	
agribusiness	dealers	that	will	address	the	current	over‐dependence	on	cooperatives.	It	is	also	
widely	recognized	that	there	are	challenges	to	marketing	that	relate	to	poor	market	
infrastructure—aggregation	and	storage	and	market	centers—and	trade	policy	issues	related	to	
both	domestic	and	export	markets.	Finally	in	this	section,	despite	the	increase	in	the	amount	of	
land	under	some	form	of	irrigation,9	Ethiopian	agriculture	is	primarily	rain‐fed	and	therefore	
subject	to	the	vagaries	of	the	weather.			
1.2 Feed the Future and AMDe in Context
Informed	by	the	Growth	and	Transformation	Plan,	2010–2015	(GTP),
10	the	MoA	launched	the	
Policy	and	Investment	Framework	(PIF)	2010–2020.11	The	Agriculture	Growth	Program	(AGP)	
was	launched	as	a	“flagship”	project	in	2010	to	increase	agricultural	productivity	and	market	
performance	of	selected	crop	and	livestock	value	chains	in	96	high‐growth	woredas	in	Amhara,	
                                                            
1	International	Monetary	Fund	2014.	
2	Poverty	and	Growth	in	Ethiopia	(1995–2011),	Ministry	of	Finance	and	Economic	Development,	2013.	 3	Agriculture	exports	include	coffee,	oilseeds,	some	pulses,	and	livestock.	 4	AGP	Project	Appraisal	Document,	September	2010,	World	Bank.	 5	Large	areas	of	communal	grazing	have	been	put	to	the	plough	in	recent	years.	 6	The	PSNP	is,	however,	the	largest‐funded	government	program,	and	most	of	the	investment	is	in	the	form	of	food	
and	cash	payments.	
7	Some	universities	now	require	MSc	students	to	undertake	action	research	with	smallholders	in	the	vicinity.		 8	In	particular,	certified	seed	of	the	crops	and	varieties	that	they	prefer	and	are	appropriate	for	their	holdings	and	
farming	systems.	
9	Estimated	by	the	Ministry	of	Agriculture	to	be	around	two	million	hectares	or	16	percent	of	total	cultivated	land	
(although	a	considerable	proportion	is	allocated	to	sugar).		 10	Growth	and	Transformation	Plan,	2010/11–2014/15,	Federal	Democratic	Republic	of	Ethiopia.		 11	Agriculture	Sector	Policy	Investment	Framework,	2010–2020,	Ministry	of	Agriculture.		
2	
Oromia,	SNNP,	and	Tigray	Regions.	The	AGP	is	funded	by	the	GoE,	World	Bank,	and	bilateral	
development	partners—Canada,	Netherlands,	Spain,	and	FAO.	The	AGP	is	also	technically	
supported	by	the	ATA.		
The	US	Government’s	FTF	program	in	Ethiopia	is	valued	at	USD	270	million.12	FTF’s	
development	objective	is	to	increase	economic	growth	with	resiliency	in	rural	areas,	specifically	
to	reduce	sustainably	poverty13	and	hunger14	through	improvements	in	food	availability,	access,	
and	utilization.	A	FTF	implementing	partner,	the	AMDe	is	aligned	with	the	AGP	and	supports	the	
implementation	of	AGP	sub‐component	1.3:	Market and Agribusiness Development.	The	AMDe	
was	funded	in	June	2011	for	a	period	of	five	years	to	July	2016,	with	a	budget	of	USD	50	million.	
It	was	planned	that	the	AMDe	benefit	a	total	of	one	million	farmers.			
The	AMDe	development	goal	is:	sustainably reduce poverty and hunger by improving the
productivity and competiveness of agricultural value chains that offer jobs and income activities
for rural households.
15	AMDe's	work	is	structured	around	improving	the	competitiveness	of	six	
value	chains:	maize,	wheat,	sesame,	coffee,	honey,	and	chickpeas16	through	technical	and	
managerial	assistance,	increased	access	to	finance,	and	private	sector	investment.	AMDe	
partners	with	2,554	PCs	and	251	FCUs,	with	a	total	membership	of	1.9	million.			
The	project	design	included	a	12‐month	Inception Phase	during	which	time	ACDI/VOCA17
hired	staff,	established	offices	in	each	of	the	AGP	regions,	refined	the	implementation	strategy,	
and	developed	detailed	work	plans.	The	AMDe	submitted	its	first	annual	work	plan	in	
November	2011.	The	result	of	an	iterative	process,	the	first	work	plan	was	approved	by	USAID	
in	May	2012.	Follow‐on	plans	were	submitted	and	accepted	without	revision	in	October	2012,	
July	2013,	and	July	2014.	The	AMDe	has	therefore	been	operational	for	three	agriculture	cycles	
and	is	about	to	enter	the	fourth.			
1.3		 The Mid‐Term Evaluation
This	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	(MTE)	is	delayed	well	past	the	mid‐term	point.	The	draft	report	was	
submitted	in	March	2015	at	a	time	when	the	AMDe	had	15	months	of	implementation	
remaining.18	While	therefore	the	primary	purpose	of	this	MTE	is	to	assess	project	performance	
and	recommend	adjustments	during	the	life	of	the	project,	the	SoW	(see	Annex	1)	also	requires	
the	Evaluation	Team	to	offer	recommendations	to	inform	the	design	of	a	follow‐on	project.	The	
full	list	of	questions	includes	the	following:	
1. To	what	extent	is	the	AMDe	project	progressing	against	planned	objectives	as	outlined	in	
its	performance	management	plan	(PMP)	and	work	plan?			
2. To	what	extent	has	this	project	contributed	to	gender	equity	in	terms	of	access	to	credit,	
capacity‐building	support,	improved	inputs,	and	technologies,	resulting	in	an	increase	in	
sales	of	agricultural	commodities?	Are	there	evidences	supporting	positive	changes	in	
these	areas?		
3. What	has	been	AMDe’s	contribution	to	the	improvement	of	nutritional	status	of	women	
and	children?		
4. What	is	the	impact	of	the	resources	spent	and	performance	per	value	chain?	What	is	the	
relative	value	generated	in	terms	of	productivity	and	income	increase,	employment	
generation	per	value	chain	to	resources	spent?	Which	value	chains	have	the	highest	
returns	per	dollar	spent?	
5. Which	among	the	AMDe’s	partnerships	have	been	the	most	effective	in	terms	of	their	
collaboration	and	coordination	to	implement	AGP‐AMDe?	Which	have	been	the	least	
                                                            
12	Eighty‐five	percent	of	the	investment	is,	however,	in	five	main	projects:	two	implemented	in	AGP	woredas, one	in	
pastoral	areas,	one	in	PSNP	woredas, and	one	a	specialist	nutrition	project.		 13	To	reduce	household	poverty	by	30	percent	in	the	Zone	of	Influence	within	five	years.		 14	To	reduce	stunting	by	20	percent	in	the	Zone	of	Influence	within	five	years.		 15	Task	Order	AID	663	TO	11‐00003.	
16	This	was	added	in	Year	One	of	implementation	by	USAID	as	PepsiCo	expressed	interest	in	purchasing	chickpeas	
from	Ethiopia.	This	in	fact	did	not	happen.		
17	The	PRIME	implementing	agency.		
18	The	project	will	close	out	in	May	2016.	
3	
effective?	In	both	cases,	what	is	contributing	to	these	partnerships’	success	and	
challenges?	
6. Which	of	the	components	and/or	project	activities	can	easily	be	scaled	up	in	the	future	
based	on	measurable,	practical,	and	sustainable	results?	
7. Given	the	findings	to	these	questions,	does	the	Project	have	the	right	balance	of	staff	and	
funding?	Is	there	an	appropriate	balance	between	staff	and	budget,	their	management,	
and	the	activities	the	project	intends	to	accomplish?	
1.4			 Methodology
The	Evaluation	Team	comprised	a	Team	Leader	and	three	local	consultants19	(see	Annex	2—
Team	CVs)	and	carried	out	the	MTE	in	two	phases,	mid‐November	to	mid‐December	2014	and	
January	2015.	The	team	was	briefed	by	the	AKLDP	team	and	USAID	in	the	first	week	of	the	
mission.	The	Evaluation	Team’s	work	plan,	also	presented	for	discussion	in	these	meetings,	was	
approved	by	USAID	(see	Annex	4).	The	Evaluation	Team	reviewed	key	documents,	including	the	
project	proposal	and	monitoring	and	other	major	reports	(see	Annex	5	–	Bibliography).	The	
Evaluation	Team	also	visited	26	woredas	in	AGP	regions,	interviewed	215	informants	from	66	
organizations	including	farmer	organizations,	primary	cooperatives,	farmer	cooperative	unions,	
partner	organizations,	industry	associations,	and	the	private	sector	(see	Annex	6).	Interviews	
were	structured	using	a	guideline	developed	by	the	Evaluation	Team	(see	Annex	7).			
Limitations		
Despite	its	efforts—the	review	of	a	large	amount	of	project	information	and	interviewing	more	
than	200	informants—the	Evaluation	Team	recognizes	its	limitations.	For	example,	time	did	not	
allow	for	a	detailed	comparative	study	between	beneficiary	and	non‐beneficiary	households,	
and	therefore	issues	of	impact	and	attribution	have	not	been	adequately	addressed.	Time	
constraints	also	resulted	in	bias	to	stakeholders	and	activities	that	were	accessible	by	all‐
weather	roads.	The	shortcomings	aside,	the	Evaluation	Team	is	confident	that	the	findings	and	
recommendation	are	useful	both	in	the	short	term	and	the	design	of	a	follow‐on	project.	
2.		 Evaluation Findings
The	MTE	review	findings	are	generic	and	specific.	At	the	generic	level,	the	Evaluation	Team	
welcomes	USAID’s	engagement	in	Ethiopia’s	high	potential	agriculture	areas,	including	that	this	
support	is	aligned	with	the	MoA’s	AGP.	In	this	way,	USAID	is	supporting	government	efforts	to	
balance	development	investment	across	Ethiopia’s	three	main	agro‐ecological	areas:	high	
rainfall	areas,	low	rainfall	areas,	and	the	pastoral	lowlands.	The	AGP	is	implemented	in	
Ethiopia’s	high	rainfall	areas,	which	are	dependent	on	mono‐modal	kiremt	rains20	and	a	single	
meher	growing	season.			
The	AMDe	was	launched	in	June	2011	and	became	fully	operational	in	2012.	The	AMDe	
has	therefore	been	operational	for	the	2012,	2013,	and	2014	meher	seasons.	Within	these	three	
seasons	and	therefore	learning	cycles,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	has	performed	
exceptionally	well	in	some	areas,	less	well	in	others,	and	has	yet	to	address	some	issues	that	are	
of	importance.	Progress	in	each	of	these	areas	is	presented	in	this	Mid‐Term	Evaluation.	Overall,	
the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	has	performed	well	and	has	the	potential	to	achieve	“high	
performance”	over	time.	This	is	impressive,	within	the	relatively	short	period	of	implementation	
and	Ethiopia’s	diverse	and	complex	agro‐ecology,	farming	systems,	and	agriculture	sector	
institutional	and	policy	environment.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	it	of	strategic	importance	for	
USAID	to	fund	a	follow‐on	phase.		
To	accelerate	learning,	analysis,	and	documentation	and	identify	evidence‐based	good	
practice	that	can	be	taken	to	scale,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	FTF	ZoI	should	be	smaller	
and	more	focused	and	that	AMDe	interventions	should	be	better	supported	by	other	USAID	
programs—social	protection,	WASH,	nutrition,	health,	and	education.	Implemented	as	it	is,	the	
                                                            
19	John	Fox,	together	with	Dr.	Nigussie	Alemayehu,	Dr.	Amare	Ghizaw,	and	Dr.	Amdissa	Teshome.		 20	The	single	kiremt	rains	of	June	to	September	and	the	associated	meher	growing	season.		
4	
Evaluation	Team	finds	it	unlikely	the	AMDe	will	make	a	significant	contribution	to	FTF’s	poverty	
and	stunting	reduction	objectives.	The	Evaluation	Team	also	finds	the	AMDe	could	do	much	
more	to	target	smallholder	farmers	with	holdings	of	one	hectare	or	less	and	women	in	
agriculture—both	women‐headed	households	and	women	in	male‐headed	households—and	in	
this	way	make	an	increased	contribution	to	meeting	FTF	outcomes.			
Finally,	in	this	overview	section,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	USAID	could	have	
exercised	stronger	leadership	to	contextualize	FTF	indicators	to	Ethiopia’s	agriculture	sector	
and	agro‐ecology.	This	was	not	done,	with	the	result	that	AMDe	staff	has	wasted	considerable	
time	and	resources	monitoring	and	reporting	on	rather	meaningless	indicators,	e.g.,	gross	
margins	per	hectare,	value	of	incremental	sales,	and	number	of	hectares	under	improved	
management.	Importantly	also,	FTF	does	not	require	the	monitoring	of	a	control	group,	with	the	
result	that	attribution	is	unclear.21		
Moving	to	the	specific,	the	Evaluation	Team	presents	its	findings	under	the	questions	in	
the	SoW.	
2.1			Progress made under each of the four major results
Question 1: To what extent is the AMDe project progressing against planned objectives as
outlined in its performance management plan (PMP) and work plan?			
At	times,	the	Evaluation	Team	found	it	difficult	to	confirm	progress	as	the	quality	of	the	project	
data	appears	to	be	inconsistent.	The	Evaluation	Team	therefore	presents	“best	estimates.”		
Result 1: Improved Competitiveness of the Value Chains
For	Result	1,	progress	is	summarized	in	Table	3:	Progress	against	indicators	and	LOP	targets	for	
Result	1.	Progress	is	color	coded	as	follows:		
 Blue—fully	achieved	or	100	percent	of	the	LOP	target		
 Green—very	likely	to	be	achieved	or	80–100%	percent	of	the	LOP	target		
 Yellow—likely	to	be	achieved	but	requiring	additional	focus	or	60–79	percent	of	the	LOP	
target	
 Red—unlikely	to	be	achieved	or	<60	percent	of	the	LOP	target	
 Uncolored—not	assessed	
Under	Result	1,	the	AMDe	tracks	13	indicators	and	associated	value	chain	targets.	The	
Evaluation	Team	finds	that	AMDe	has	fully	achieved	21	percent,	an	additional	20	percent	are	
very	likely	to	be	achieved,	14	percent	are	likely	to	be	achieved	with	focused	additional	support,	
and	that	it	is	thought	that	45	percent	are	unlikely	to	be	achieved.	As	has	been	mentioned,	
however,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	some	of	the	FTF	indicators	rather	meaningless,	and	
therefore	this	section	of	the	report	should	not	be	interpreted	as	a	statement	of	AMDe	
performance.			
Indicator #1: Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices
as a result of USG assistance
At	the	end	of	the	2014	growing	season,	progress	against	LOP	targets	is	low	across	all	value	
chains:	7	percent	of	the	12,000	ha	target	for	wheat,	1	percent	of	the	15,670	ha	for	maize,	and	11,	
20,	and	36	percent	for	coffee,	sesame,	and	chickpeas	respectively.	AMDe	staff,	however,	suggests	
they	are	confident	of	meeting,	and	in	some	cases	exceeding,	the	LOP	targets,	as	the	targets	are	
modest	and	AMDe	systems—access	to	seeds	(maize—BH66122	and	sesame—Humera‐1	and	
Setit‐1),	fertilizer,	and	equipment—are	in	place	as	a	result	of	its	grants	facility	and	AMDe’s	
                                                            
21	USAID	confirms	that	an	end‐of‐project	evaluation	is	planned.	While	this	is	welcomed,	the	Evaluation	Team	
considers	statistically	significant	impacts	unlikely	in	the	relatively	modest	period	of	AMDe	implementation.	 22The	maize	BH661	hybrid	is	being	popularized	through	the	Advance	Maize	Seed	Adoption	Program	(AMSAP)	
partnership	of	which	AMDe	is	a	member.	While	recognizing	the	value	of	increasing	yields,	the	Evaluation	Team	is	
concerned	the	AMDe	is	being	unwittingly	pulled	into	a	narrow	focus	on	yields	that	is	potentially	unsustainable,	as	
open	pollinated	varieties	are	often	better	suited	to	the	needs	of	poorer	smallholder	farmers	in	the	more	marginal	
areas	of	the	AGP’s	four	main	regions.
5	
support	to	farmer	training,	field	demonstrations,	farmer‐to‐farmer	experience	sharing	forums,	
and	exchange	visits.	AMDe	is	confident	that	this	will	result	in	a	rapid	scaling‐up	of	progress	in	
the	current	growing	season.			
	 The	Evaluation	Team,	however,	wishes	to	draw	attention	to	the	character	of	Ethiopian	
agriculture:	13	million	smallholder	farming	families,	each	with	two,	three,	or	more	scattered	
plots	that	typically	total	less	than	a	hectare.	Smallholders	also	prize	cropping	diversity	to	meet	
household	food	security	needs	and	(understandably	perhaps)	many	are	resistant	to	
standardized	extension	packages	that	are	invariably	designed	for	model	farmers	with	larger	
holdings	and	for	higher	rainfall	areas.	The	Evaluation	Team	therefore	finds	that	this	indicator	
and	associated	LOP	targets	should	be	better	contextualized.	
				
Indicator #3: Number of beneficiaries supported by AMDe‐assisted value chains
The	LOP	targets	for	sesame	and	coffee	have	been	surpassed:	the	target	of	74,980	beneficiaries	
for	sesame	was	exceeded	by	47,752	or	164	percent	and	the	target	of	110,515	beneficiaries	for	
coffee	exceeded	by	17,963	or	116	percent.	Progress	across	other	value	chains	has	been	slower,	
and	it	may	be	that	the	LOP	targets	will	be	achieved:	23,130	of	the	planned	286,951	beneficiaries	
for	wheat	or	8	percent;	167,290	of	the	planned	295,404	beneficiaries	for	maize	or	57	percent;	
30,704	of	the	planned	143,974	beneficiaries	for	chickpeas	or	21	percent;	and	finally	19,755	of	
the	planned	88,282	beneficiaries	for	honey	or	22	percent.23	AMDe	staff	suggest	the	targets	are	
achievable	for	reasons	already	outlined.			
Indicator #4: Average yield per hectare/hive (kg)
The	LOP	targets	for	increased	yields	per	hectare	for	wheat	and	coffee	have	been	achieved	at	110	
and	104	percent	respectively,	and	the	LOP	targets	for	maize,	sesame,	and	honey	are	likely	to	be	
achieved	with	progress	at	95,	84,	and	80	percent	of	LOP	targets	respectively.	The	LOP	target	for	
chickpeas	is	unlikely	to	be	achieved,	as	progress	is	44	percent	of	the	LOP	target.	Again,	the	
AMDe	staff	is	confident	targets	will	be	reached	and	surpassed	for	the	reasons	outlined.		
Table 1: Average yield increases to December 2014
Value chain		 LOP yield targets
(kg/ha)
Achieved increased yields
(kg/ha)
Achieved increased
yields (%)
Wheat 2,969	 3,266 110	
Maize	 3,703	 3,517 95	
Coffee	 976	 1,015 104	
Sesame	 800	 672 84	
Chickpeas	 3,305	 1,454 44	
Honey	 15 12 80	
Source:	Abstracted	from	project	PMP	reports	
While	recognizing	the	progress	made,	the	Evaluation	Team	is	concerned	that	average	yield	
increases	presented	in	Table	1	are	at	variance	with	the	number	of	hectares	under	improved	
management	(Indicator	#1).		For	example,	the	reported	progress	for	wheat	under	improved	
management	is	7	percent	of	the	12,000	ha	LOP	target,	yet	despite	this	and	the	known	impact	of	
wheat	rust	in	2014,	the	AMDe	reports	a	110	percent	increase	in	yield.	In	parenthesis,	such	
anomalies	are	found	across	AMDe’s	progress	reports.					
Indicator #5: Gross margin per unit of land/hive (USD)
The	target	LOP	gross	margins	for	wheat	and	sesame	have	been	achieved	at	101	and	186	percent	
respectively,	and	progress	against	LOP	targets	for	maize	and	chickpeas	are	currently	86	and	85	
percent	respectively.	Gross	margin	progress	for	coffee	is	more	modest	at	66	percent	of	the	LOP	
target	despite	the	progress	made	to	address	production	constraints.	The	Evaluation	Team,	
                                                            
23	There	are	an	estimated	1.5	million	households	keeping	bees	in	Ethiopia.		
6	
however,	finds	the	AMDe	reporting	on	gross	margins	misleading,	as	the	reports	do	not	address	
attribution.24	It	is	therefore	not	clear	to	what	extent	AMDe	played	a	central	role	in	improving	
gross	margins	or	to	what	extent	the	improvements	were	the	result	of	other	projects	or	simply	
the	result	of	good	rainfall	or	Ethiopia’s	expanding	road	network	or	improvements	in	input	
supply.				
	 To	illustrate	the	problem	of	measuring	gross	margins,	the	Evaluation	Team	learned	the	
Gozamen	FCU,	Debre‐Markos	is	holding	several	thousands	of	quintals	of	maize	that	were	
purchased	at	prices	calculated	on	the	basis	of	production.	Prices	are	now	well	below	the	cost	of	
production,	and	the	FCU	is	understandably	reluctant	to	purchase	more	maize.	As	a	result,	
cooperative	members	were	forced	to	sell	maize	to	traders	at	the	costs	of	production	or	even	at	a	
loss.	According	to	when	the	gross	margin	indicator	is	measured,	specifically	before	or	after	price	
collapses,	the	FTF	implementing	partner	can	be	seen	to	be	either	performing	well	or	much	less	
well.	At	a	minimum,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	gross	margins	performance	data	should	be	
updated	monthly	in	order	to	more	accurately	reflect	the	complexity	of	the	commodity	
markets.25
Indicator #6: Value of incremental sales at farm‐level attributed to FTF implementation
Coffee	sales	have	reached	USD	32	million	or	127	percent	of	planned	LOP	target.	The	LOP	targets	
for	incremental	sales	of	maize	and	sesame	appear	achievable,	as	progress	is	respectively	87	and	
80	percent.	In	contrast,	the	targets	for	wheat	and	chickpeas	are	unlikely	to	be	achieved,	as	
progress	against	the	LOP	targets	is	respectively	20	and	19	percent.	See	Table	2	below.	Here	
again,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	this	indicator	inadequate,	as	the	value	of	incremental	sales	is	
primarily	informed	by	fluctuating	commodity	prices.	Accordingly,	the	timing	of	the	data	
collection	can	play	a	significant	role	in	showing	progress	against	this	indicator	in	a	positive	or	
negative	light.	The	value	of	incremental	sales	therefore	appears	to	be	another	relatively	
meaningless	indicator.			
Table 2: Value of incremental sales attributed to FTF interventions
Value chain LOP targets—
increased sales
(USD)		
Actual increased sales
(USD)
Actual increased
sales
(% of LOP target)
Wheat 9,120,344	 1,824,068 20	
Maize	 12,449,951	 10,831,457 87	
Coffee	 25,274,365	 32,098,443 127	
Sesame	 37,544,955	 30,035,964 80	
Chickpeas	 8,403,233	 1,596,614 19	
Honey	 1,904,833	 1,276,238 67	
Total		 94,697,681	 77,662,784 82	
Indicator #10: Value of exports of targeted agricultural commodities as a result of USG
assistance
The	LOP	target	for	coffee	has	been	surpassed	at	120	percent	of	the	target	or	value	of	exports	
worth	USD	120	million.	The	LOP	export	target	for	sesame	was	USD	74	million,	and	exports	to	
date	are	USD	46	million	or	63	percent.	The	target	might	therefore	be	achieved.	In	contrast,	it	
would	seem	the	LOP	targets	for	chickpeas26	and	honey27	will	not	be	met.	Despite	the	limited	
progress	made	under	this	indicator	in	the	honey	value	chain,	the	Ethiopia	Beekeepers	
Association	has,	with	the	support	of	its	donors,	including	AMDe,	assisted	Ethiopia	in	securing	
International	Organization	for	Standardization	accreditation	to	export	honey	to	niche	markets	
                                                            
24	In	general,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	AMDe	fails	to	give	adequate	attention	to	attribution.		 25	Coffee	farm	gate	prices	have,	for	example,	fluctuated	by	as	much	as	50	percent	in	just	two	years.	At	the	time	of	the	
MTE,	domestic	wheat	prices	were	roughly	twice	international	prices.	 26Ethiopia	does	not	yet	produce	export‐quality	chickpeas	for	export	to	the	Middle	East.		 27	The	domestic	price	for	honey	is	higher	than	export	prices.
7	
in	Europe,	including	the	Fair	Trade	outlets.	For	more	information	on	AMDe	support	to	Trade	
Associations,	see	Text	Box	1.			
The	LOP	targets	for	this	indicator	are	informed	by	an	export	market	assessment	carried	out	by	
USAID	and	the	ATA.	It	would	appear	the	assessment	did	not	adequately	address	domestic	and	
international	quality	and	price	issues	that	inevitably	impact	on	performance.	Bearing	in	mind	
the	focus	of	FTF	development	objectives,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	AMDe	might	have	
performed	better	if	it	had	been	tasked	to	develop	value	chains	for	domestic	markets	that	not	
only	are	more	compatible	with	a	pro‐poor	focus,	but	are	also	less	risky.	
Indicator #12: Volume of processed
products (mt)
Progress	against	planned	LOP	targets	for	the	
volume	of	processed	products	is	as	follows:	
honey—79	percent	of	the	planned	1,916	mt;	
coffee—57	percent	of	the	planned	29,627	mt;	
and	maize—52	percent	of	the	planned	19,265	
mt.	Progress	for	wheat	and	sesame	are	20	
percent	of	their	respective	targets	and	
chickpeas	only	3	percent.	It	is	likely	the	LOP	
target	for	honey,	coffee,	and	maize	will	be	met,	
as	good	progress	was	made	in	Year	3	when	
annual	targets	were	exceeded	by	287,	224,	
and	121	percent	respectively.	The	LOP	targets	
for	wheat,	sesame,	and	chickpeas	are	unlikely	
to	be	met.		
Indicator #13: Percentage decrease of post‐harvest losses as a result of AMDe
intervention
The	planned	reductions	in	post‐harvest	losses:	14	to	9	percent	for	wheat;	23	to	7	percent	for	
maize;	25	to	10	percent	for	coffee;	10	to	5	percent	for	sesame;	and	finally	20	to	3	percent	for	
chickpeas.	To	date,	reported	progress	is	impressive:	wheat	losses	to	8	percent,	maize	losses	to	
11	percent	and	chickpeas	losses	to	6	percent.	In	contrast,	progress	in	sesame	and	coffee	are	
more	modest,	losses	down	by	only	20	and	7	percent	of	planned	targets.	The	Evaluation	Team,	
however,	learned	from	lead	researchers	that	post‐harvest	loss	data	in	Ethiopia	is	probably	
overstated	and	that	losses	are	more	modest.	If	losses	are	in	fact	more	modest,	it	will	be	
necessary	to	revisit	the	AMDe	baseline	in	order	for	the	progress	reported	by	AMDe	to	be	
verified.			
Text Box 1: Support to trade associations
AMDe	is	providing	support	to	a	number	of	industry	
associations:	Coffee	Exporters	Association;	Coffee	
Producers	and	Exporters	Association;	Beekeepers	
Association;	Honey	and	Beeswax	Producers	and	
Exporters	Association;	Ethiopia	Apiculture	Board;	and	
Ethiopian	Pulses,	Oilseeds	and	Spices	Processers	and	
Exporters	Association.		AMDe's	primary	support	is	
capacity	building	and	technical	support.		AMDe	also	
supports	its	partners	to	attend	international	trade	fairs.			
AMDe,	together	with	Oxfam,	SNV,	and	SOS	Sahel	assisted	
the	Ethiopia	Apiculture	Board	(EAB)	in	hosting	the	Third
Api‐Africa International Conference	that	was	attended	by	
international	experts	and	beekeepers	from	all	over	
Africa,	including	Ethiopia.	AMDe	also	assisted	the	
Ethiopia	Beekeepers	Association	(EBA)	to	secure	EU	
accreditation	to	export	honey	to	Europe,	as	it	appears	
that	there	is	an	expanding	market	for	Ethiopian	honey	in	
Europe.	
8	
Table 3: Progress against indicators and LOP targets for Result 1
Indicator Value chain LOP target Cumulative (Years 1–3) Year 4 target % Target Result % Achievable Result %LOP
IR 1: Improved competitiveness of selected VCs
1	 Number	of	hectares	under	
improved	technologies	or	
management	practices	as	a	result	
of	USG	assistance	
Wheat	 12,000	 6,017	 846	 14	 7%	 7,501	 70%	
Maize	 15,670	 8,527	 106	 1	 1%	 9,984	 64%	
Coffee	 3,200	 900	 362	 40	 11%	 1,380	 54%	
Sesame	 3,788	 2,252	 762.5	 34	 20%	 2,075	 75%	
Chickpeas 21,000	 15,822	 7,554	 48	 36%	 15,600	 110%	
3	 Number	of	beneficiaries	
supported	by	AGP‐AMDe‐assisted	
value	chains	
Wheat	 286,951	 173,968	 23,130	 13	 8%	 72,995	 33%	
Maize	 295,440	 176,948	 167,290	 95	 57%	 74,995	 82%	
Coffee	 110,515	 70,529	 128,478	 182	 116% 19,994	 134%	
Sesame	 74,980	 57,984	 122,732	 212	 164% 9,997	 177%	
Chickpeas 143,974	 53,997	 30,704	 57	 21%	 44,989	 53%	
Honey	 88,282	 37,292	 19,755	 53	 22%	 29,994	 56%	
4	 Average	yield	per	hectare/hive	
(kg)	
Wheat	 2,969	 		 3,276	 		 110% 2,801	 94%	
Maize	 3,703	 		 3,517	 		 95%	 3,300	 89%	
Coffee	 976	 		 1,012	 		 104% 976	 100%	
Sesame	 800	 		 674	 		 84%	 775	 97%	
Chickpeas 3,305	 		 1,470	 		 44%	 2,754	 83%	
Honey	 15	 		 12	 		 80%	 15	 100%	
5	 Gross	margin	per	unit	of	
land/hive	of	selected	crops	(USD)	
Wheat	 822	 		 833	 		 101% 748	 192%	
Maize	 648	 		 558	 		 86%	 589	 177%	
Coffee	 2,453	 		 1,630	 		 66%	 2,336	 162%	
Sesame	 581	 		 1,079	 		 186% 571	 284%	
Chickpeas 750	 		 636	 		 85%	 736	 183%	
9	
Table 3 (continued)
Indicator
Value
chain
LOP
target
Cumulative (Years 1‐3) Year 4
target
%
Target Result % Achievable Result %LOP
6	 Value	of	incremental	sales	
(collected	at	farm	level)	
attributed	to	FTF	
implementation	(USD)	
Wheat	 9,120,344	 17,127,039 1,830,662	 11	 20%	 3,500,000	 58%	
Maize	 12,449,951 7,665,348	 10,817,419	 141	 87%	 2,046,875	 103%	
Coffee	 25,274,365 8,074,365	 32,129,763	 398	 127%	 5,000,000	 147%	
Sesame	 37,544,955 22,236,251 29,951,240	 135	 80%	 9,221,550	 104%	
Chickpeas 8,403,233	 1,508,233	 1,599,002	 106	 19%	 2,016,000	 43%	
Honey	 1,940,883	 1,750,079	 1,292,527	 74	 67%	 85,684	 71%	
10	 Value	of	exports	of	targeted	
agricultural	commodities	as	a	
result	of	USG	assistance	(USD)	
Coffee	 63,998,000 37,837,000 76,732,508	 203	 120%	 20,000,000 151%	
Sesame	 74,644,250 38,398,000 46,859,399	 122	 63%	 20,475,000 90%	
Chickpeas 6,073,807	 4,390,337	 ‐	 		 ‐	
Honey	 3,520,000	 1,373,600	 907,211	 66	 26%	 1,000,000	 54%	
12	 Volume	of	processed	products	
(mt)	
Wheat	 132,582	 79,095	 25,867	 33	 20%	 37,541	 48%	
Maize	 19,265	 8,317	 10,071	 121	 52%	 3,918	 73%	
Coffee	 29,627	 7,565	 16,944	 224	 57%	 15,617	 110%	
Sesame	 171,927	 93,335	 34,503	 37	 20%	 46,850	 47%	
Chickpeas 36,019	 25,107	 915	 4	 3%	 8,999	 28%	
Honey	 1,916	 530	 1,519	 287	 79%	 574	 109%	
13	 Percentage	decrease	of	post‐
harvest	losses	as	a	result	of	
AMDe	intervention	
Wheat	 9	(14)	 8	 6	 		 120%	 1	 200%	
Maize	 7	(23)	 4	 12	 		 75%		 3	 100%	
Coffee	 10	(25)	 7	 1	 7%		 3	 27%	
Sesame	 5	(10)	 4	 1	 20%		 1	 40%	
Chickpeas 3	(20)	 12	 14	 		 82%		 3	 100%	
10	
Text Box 2: AMDe support to FCUs to build
warehouses for the sesame value chain		
Based	on	a	request	from	the	Government,	
USAID	requested	AMDe	to	provide	support	to	
FCUs	in	northern	Ethiopia	to	support	the	
aggregation,	cleaning,	and	export	of	sesame.				
The	initial	recommended	standard	AMDe	
50	percent	grant	was	rejected	by	the	MoA	in	
favor	of	a	70	percent	grant.	Each	of	the	4	
warehouses	costs	around	Eth	Birr	9	million	or	
USD	450,000.	The	balance	of	the	construction	
cost	was	secured	by	loan	from	the	Ethiopia	
Commercial	Bank,	using	the	land	certificate	as	
collateral.	The	loans	included	a	one	and	a	half	
year	construction	“grace	period”	and	then	
repayment	over	between	five	and	eight	years.	
To	date,	repayments	are	on	track	and	total	23	
percent.		
The	warehouses	each	have	a	capacity	of	
5,000	mt,	and	AMDe	has	also	supplied	sesame	
cleaning	equipment	under	the	same	grant	
facility.		
Result 2: Improved Access to Finance and Investment
Originally,	this	result	was	titled	Improved	Access	to	Finance.	However,	following	the	sub‐
contracting	of	Renew	Strategies	(a	private	equity	firm),	the	result	was	renamed,	as	is	indicated	
in	the	sub‐title.			
Indicator #14: Value of agricultural and rural loans
The	main	activities	carried	out	under	this	indicator	are	twofold:	to	build	the	capacity	and	
understanding	of	banks	and	agriculture	sector	stakeholders,	resulting	in	increased	trust	and	
investment;	and	to	attract	equity	investors	to	invest	in	Ethiopia’s	agriculture	sector.	To	
December	2014,	this	resulted	in	USD	63	million59	of	new	investment,	or	more	than	150	percent	
the	LOP	target	of	USD	40	million.	An	analysis	of	the	loans	confirms	that	69	percent	were	made	
by	the	Commercial	Bank	of	Ethiopia,	while	16,	7,	and	5	percent	were	made	by	the	Cooperative	
Bank	of	Oromia,	Awash	International	Bank,	and	Wogagen	Bank	respectively.	The	loans	were	
made	to	76	major	recipients	that	indirectly	benefited	an	estimated	2,300	other	firms	or	PCs.	The	
Evaluation	Team	finds	this	work	of	strategic	importance	in	a	sector	that	has	historically	
struggled	to	attract	investment	from	banks60	and	financial	institutions	in	Ethiopia,	with	the	
result	that	smallholder	farmers,	PCs,	and	FCUs61	have	been	slow	to	take	up	new	technologies.			
Some	of	the	most	successful	investments	
have	been	the	result	of	a	combination	of	loans	and	
AMDe	grants	(see	Result	4).	For	example,	the	AMDe	
provided	70	percent	grants	to	FCUs	for	the	
construction	of	warehouses	and	cleaning	
equipment	for	sesame	that	will	increase	exports.		
The	AMDe	staff	also	worked	with	FCUs	to	develop	
business	plans	and	the	Ethiopia	Commercial	Bank	
(ECB)	that	resulted	in	the	balance	of	the	30	percent	
construction	costs	being	covered	by	the	ECB	as	a	
repayable	loan.			
Based	on	the	success	of	this	model	(see	Text	
Box	2	and	3),	the	AMDe	has	received	grant	
applications	for	an	additional	nine	warehouses	
from	FCUs	for	the	aggregation,	cleaning,	and	
storage	of	maize.	The	quality	of	the	new	
warehouses	will	enable	the	FCUs	to	compete	for	
WFP	P4P	contracts.	It	is	also	reported	that	the	
World	Bank	is	supporting	the	construction	of	40	
more	warehouses	across	the	four	AGP	regions.	
Under	the	second	activity,	Renew	Strategies	has	secured	USD	250,000	of	private	equity	
funding	for	METAD	PLC	(a	local	coffee	value	chain	actor)	that	has	also	benefited	from	an	AMDe	
grant	of	USD	172,000	for	improved	storage,	a	washing	station,	and	cleaning	equipment.	The	
AMDe	investment	team	also	reported	that	Renew	Strategies	has	an	additional	USD	2.5	million	in	
the	pipeline,	with	options	of	an	additional	USD	6	million.	While	very	encouraging,	it	remains	to	
be	seen	if	this	level	of	investment	will	be	realized.62			
Indicator #18: Number of clients (households and/or microenterprises) benefitting from
financial services provided through USG‐assisted financial intermediaries, including non‐
financial institutions or actors
                                                            
59	At	the	time	of	the	finalization	of	the	review,	the	level	of	facilitated	investment	had	increased	to	more	than	USD	80	
million.
60The	Evaluation	Team	learned	that	only	6	percent	of	Ethiopia	Commercial	Bank	loans	are	made	to	the	agriculture	
sector.		
61	It	should	be	noted	that	cooperatives	in	Ethiopia	have	historically	struggled	to	secure	bank	loans	as	a	result	of	poor	
credit	ratings.		
62	Investors	continue	to	be	discouraged	by	the	cost	of	doing	business	in	Ethiopia.
11	
The	planned	number	of	LOP	clients	benefiting	from	financial	services	is	64,520,	of	which	29,080	
or	45	percent	has	been	achieved	(see	Figure	1).	The	number	of	planned	beneficiaries	for	Year	5	
is	17,720,	and,	provided	this	number	is	achieved,	the	end	of	the	project	total	will	be	46,800,	or	
72.54	percent	of	the	LOP	target,	which	is	satisfactory.				
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	this	indicator	of	central	importance,	as	it	reflects	the	number	
of	people	benefiting	from	USG	assistance	and	is	therefore	a	proxy	for	employment.	In	a	country	
where	unemployment	is	estimated	to	be	over	17	percent63	(Central	Statistics	Agency,	2014)—
and	higher	in	the	age	group	18	to	25—increasing	the	number	of	clients	and	therefore	
supporting	the	creation	of	seasonal	and	full‐time	jobs	is	of	primary	importance.	To	further	
increase	the	number	of	clients	and	support	increased	employment	opportunities,	support	
would	need	to	be	focused	on	PCs	and	small‐	and	medium‐sized	businesses.	In	order	to	ensure	
this	reorientation,	the	AMDe	would	need	to	disengage	from	further	support	for	large	
infrastructure	projects	such	as	warehouse	construction	after	it	has	met	its	current	obligations.	
As	a	result	of	increasing	interest	from	other	development	partners,	including	as	proposed	
through	the	AGP2,	it	would	seem	that	FCUs	are	increasingly	able	to	attract	investment	for	
warehouse	construction	from	other	sources.		
Figure 1: Number of clients benefiting from financial services		
Result 3: Improved Enabling Environment
Indicator #21: Numbers of policies/regulations/administrative procedures improved as
a result of USG assistance		
The	AMDe	contracted	a	team	of	international	and	local	consultants	to	undertake	a	“Business	
Enabling	Environment	Assessment”	that	is	informed	by	the	World	Bank’s	“Doing	Business”	
assessment	tools.	In	addition,	the	seed	and	fertilizer	policy	targets	were	informed	by	the	PIF.	
The	Assessment	was	carried	out	in	2012	and	the	findings	presented	to	key	stakeholders	in	a	
validation	workshop.	As	a	result,	the	AMDe	identified	seven	policy	processes	that	it	planned	to	
inform,	with	a	view	to	creating	a	more	favorable	environment	for	agribusiness.			
The	Evaluation	Team	learned	that	progress	across	the	seven	policy	processes	is	mixed,	with	
good	progress	made	in	some	areas	while	slower	progress	has	been	achieved	in	other	areas.	This	
is	perhaps	not	surprising,	as	the	agriculture	policy	environment	in	Ethiopia	is	amongst	the	most	
challenging	in	sub‐Sahara	Africa.	Detailed	progress	is	presented	in	the	Table	4	below.	Using	the	
                                                            
63		Ethiopia	measures	unemployment	as	the	number	of	people	actively	looking	for	a	job	as	a	percentage	of	the	labor	
force	http://ieconomics.com/ethiopia‐unemployment‐rate.
12	
Text Box 3: Embaba Haya RuSACCO, Tigray		
The	Embaba	Haya	RuSACCO	was	established	in	December	2002	with	
51	members	(43	men	and	8	women),	with	savings	of	Eth	Birr	1,020.	
The	membership	increased	steadily	to	1,109	(515	men	and	594	
women)	in	2012.	With	the	support	of	AMDe,	membership	has	
increased	further	to	1,332	(620	men	and	712	women)	in	2013,	and	
1,479	(690	men	and	789	women)	in	2014.	Savings	are	now	valued	at	
Eth	Birr	5,196,000.	
Support	provided	by	AMDe	since	March	2013	includes	training	on:		
 savings	methods	and	membership	mobilization		
 financial	management		
 risk	analysis	in	saving	mobilization	
 basic	computing—Peachtree	Accounting	Software		
 leadership		
With	this	support	and	AMDe’s	support	for	office	equipment—
desktop	computers,	laptop,	photocopier,	printer,	LCD	projector,	Sony	
camera,	chairs,	tables,	filing	cabinet,	and	fax	machine—the	Embaba	
Haya	has	graduated	from	a	RuSACCO	to	a	rural	bank.		
FTF	enabling	environment	tracking	system,	four	policy	processes	have	been	progressed	to	Stage	
2,	one	to	Stage	3,	and	two	to	Stage	4.		
The	Evaluation	Team	recognizes	the	
good	work	done	to	create	a	more	
favorable	environment	for	
agribusiness	but	notes	that	the	MoA	
had	already	identified	the	need	for	
seed	and	fertilizer	policy	reform	and	
that	these	were	progressing	as	
planned.	In	contrast,	AMDe	
engagement	in	the	wheat	subsidy	and	
maize	export	bans	policy	processes	
appear	overly	optimistic	in	view	of	the	
complexity	of	the	policy	processes,	the	
number	of	different	government	
institutions	involved,	and	the	
importance	to	national	food	security.	
Irrespective	of	the	engagement	of	John	
Mellor	Associates	to	lead	the	wheat	
subsidy	policy	processes,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	it	unlikely	that	these	policy	processes	will	
be	easily	informed	by	the	AMDe,	or	indeed	that	it	could	play	anything	other	than	a	minor	role.	
Rather,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	AMDe’s	policy	work	could	have	been	better	informed	by	
and	coordinated	with	other	FTF	partners,	with	the	support	of	USAID.	
Table 4: Policies, regulations, administrative procedures by their stages of development
Specific policy targets Development stage* Remark/note
Seed	system	that	supports	
the	development	of	a	
private	seed	industry	
Stage	3:	Presented	for	
legislation/decree		
National	Seed	Regulations	have	been	
submitted	by	MoA	to	the	Prime	Minister’s	
Office	for	passage	by	Council	of	Ministers.		
Lift	restrictions	for	private	
sector	engagement	in	
fertilizer	production	and	
marketing	
Stage	2:	Drafted	and	
presented	for	public	
consultation		
The	MoA	presented	a	revised	policy	proposal	
for	the	re‐launch	of	the	National	Fertilizer	
Industry	Agency—dissolved	in	2006.	
Regulatory	framework	for	
third	party	warehouse	and	
grading		
Stage	4:	
Passed/approved	
A	Public	Enterprise	Warehouse	regulation	
was	passed	by	the	Council	of	Ministers	and	
implementation	will	begin	once	the	
Regulation	is	gazetted.	The	regulation	will	
separate	the	current	ECX	trading	and	
warehousing	system.	This	will	be	an	
important	first	step	to	third	party	or	private	
sector	warehousing.		
Removal	of	wheat	import	
subsidies	and	maize	export	
bans		
Stage	4:	
Passed/approved	
The	MoT	issued	a	letter	to	MoA	on	November	
22,	2014	to	remove	the	export	ban	on	maize	
for	commercial	farmers	and	the	EGTE.	
Provision	of	a	National	
Agricultural	Finance	system	
to	meet	the	needs	of	small	
commercial	farmers	
Stage	2:	Drafted	and	
presented	for	public	
consultation		
Develop	an	institutional	
structure	for	coffee	
marketing		
Stage	2:	Drafted	and	
presented	for	public	
consultation		
Develop	a	strategy	for	the	
improved	transport	and	
handling	of	commodities	to	
improve	competitiveness		
Stage	2	:Drafted	and	
presented	for	public	
consultation		
A	strategy	for	the	improved	transport	and	
management	of	fertilizer	imports	has	been	
presented	to	key	stockholders.	Domestic	
transport	cost	analysis	is	underway.	
13	
*The	various	FTF	policy	enabling	stages	are:	Stage	1—Analyzed,	Stage	2—Drafted	and	presented	for	
public/stakeholder	consultation,	Stage	3—Presented	for	legislation/decree,	Stage	4—Passed/approved,	
and	Stage	5—Passed	for	which	implementation	has	begun.	
Result 4: Stimulate Innovation and Investment
This	result	speaks	specifically	to	AMDe's	grant	support.	The	grant	fund	was	established	at	USD	
14.2	million	and	to	December	31,	2014	had	disbursed	a	total	of	USD	11.6	million	to	240	
grantees.	Grants	are	typically	accessed	by	either	a	competitive	solicitation	process	or	specific	
requests	from	multi‐stakeholder	value	chain	platforms	with	which	the	AMDe	is	involved.	As	has	
however	been	noted,	at	times	AMDe	responds	to	requests	from	the	MoA	routed	through	USAID.			
AMDe	grants	are	funded	under	a	cost	share	arrangement,	with	AMDe	contributing	
between	30	and	50	percent.	Individual	grants	vary	considerably	from	as	little	as	USD	817	to	the	
Wirtu	Kachama	Seed	Multiplication	Cooperative	Society	for	a	Sell	More	for	More	Training—
Phase	1,	to	grants	of	USD	1.8	million	to	the	Yidnekachew	Dabessa	Coffee	Plantation	and	USD	1.3	
million	to	the	Ethiopia	Commodity	Exchange	for	a	Digital	Traceability	System.	Other	large	
grants	include	USD	970,000	for	the	Becho	Woliso	FCU—for	Ethiopia’s	first	blended	fertilizer	
plant—and	five	grants	of	USD	198,000	for	the	five	management	contracts	of	the	blended	
fertilizer	plants.64	Of	the	240	grants	completed	or	under	process	of	payment	to	December	31,	
only	22	are	above	USD	100,000,	with	the	vast	majority	around	USD	50,000.	Grants	have	been	
awarded	to	industry	associations,	cooperatives,	RuSACCOs,	private	sector,	public	research	
institutions,	and	the	Ethiopia	Commodity	Exchange.			
The	majority	of	grants	were	awarded	in	2014	and	by	year	end,	9	percent	had	been	fully	
completed,	61	percent	were	partially	completed,	and	2	percent	were	at	the	signature	stage.	In‐
kind	grants	of	equipment	and	machinery	accounted	for	28	percent	of	grants,	and	all	were	under	
procurement.	Additional	analysis	by	region	and	value	chain	is	provided	in	Tables	5	and	6	below.	
As	can	be	seen,	Oromia	benefited	from	88	grants	totaling	USD	4.7	million	or	40	percent	of	all	
grants,	with	roughly	half	this	amount	awarded	to	the	other	three	regions.	Grants	to	the	different	
value	chains	varied	from	USD	783,837,	or	6	percent,	for	honey	to	21	percent	for	sesame	to	
support	almost	anything	from	warehouse	construction	to	aggregate,	clean,	and	store	sesame	for	
export,	through	to	irrigation	equipment,	tractors,	and	seed	cleaners	for	EIAR	centers	to	increase	
the	supply	of	basic	seed	and	washing	stations	for	coffee	exporters.	Similarly,	PCs	and	FCUs	have	
benefited	from	machinery—seed	and	grain	cleaners,	tractors,	planters,	honey	homogenizers—
and	washing	stations	and	have	as	a	result	been	able	to	expand	the	range	of	services	they	
provide	their	members.	Grants	have	also	been	used	to	support	common	interest	groups—
women’s	cooperatives	and	women	entrepreneurs—including	the	purchase	and	distribution	of	
coffee	seedlings,	modern	beehives,	and	processors	for	chickpea	milling.			
Table 5: Innovation grants awarded by region
Region # of grants
awarded to‐
date
Amount
awarded,				to‐
date (USD)
# of grants
awarded 2014
Amount awarded,			
this year (USD)
Amhara 47 2,207,141 43 1,406,613	
Tigray 42 2,044,182 40 1,313,117	
SNNPR 52 2,196,241 49 2,137,844	
Oromia 88 4,751,127 81 4,410,354	
Addis 11 416,506 7 237,719	
Total 240 11,615,197 220 $9,505,648
                                                            
64	The	World	Bank	funded	the	other	four	blended	fertilizer	plants.
14	
Table 6: Innovation grants awarded by value chain
Value chain # of grants
awarded to‐
date
Amount
awarded,					to‐
date (USD)
# of grants
awarded 2014		
Amount awarded,				
this year (USD)
Sesame 36 2,536,228 31 1,030,329	
Coffee 40 2,178,866 32 1,999,084	
Chickpeas 32 1,328,039 26 1,079,539	
Maize 40 1,047,778 40 1,047,778	
Wheat 58 1,189,210 58 1,189,210	
Honey 26 783,837 25 608,467	
Finance 3	 461,905 3 461,905	
Inputs
(Fertilizer
Blending)
5	 2,089,335 5 2,089,335	
Total 240 11,615,197 220 $9,505,648
In	the	remaining	life	of	the	project,	the	Evaluation	Team	find	that	it	would	be	beneficial	for	
AMDe	to	continue	to	focus	its	majority	grant	support	to	PCs	and	FCUs	on	the	one	hand	and	
family	businesses	on	the	other,	with	grants	of	below	USD	50,000	and	that	reach	down	the	value	
chain	towards	productivity	and	first‐level	aggregation	or	first‐level	processing	in	smaller	
market	towns.				
2.2		 Improvements in gender equity
Question 2: To what extent has this project contributed to gender equity in terms of
access to credit, capacity‐building support, improved inputs and technologies resulting in
an increase in sales of agricultural commodities? Are there evidences supporting positive
changes in the aforementioned areas?		
In	accordance	with	GoE	policy	targets	for	women’s	participation	in	Ethiopia’s	economic,	
political,	and	social	development,	the	AMDe	set	30	percent	women’s	participation	as	a	quota	for	
all	AMDe‐supported	training,	exchange	visits,	and	investment	support.65
Although	the	funding	was	delayed,	the	Evaluation	Team	has	identified	AMDe’s	support	to	the	
launching	of	the	Women	in	Agribusiness	Leadership	Network	(WALN)	in	the	four	AGP	regions	
as	one	of	the	project’s	main	gender	equity	successes.	The	Network	offers	business	development	
training—negotiation,	marketing,	networking,	financial	planning,	and	communication	skills—
leadership	training,	mentoring	and	coaching	support,	and	networking	opportunities	for	women	
leaders	operating	in	Ethiopia’s	agribusiness	sub‐sector.66	The	primary	purpose	of	AMDe’s	
support	is	to	increase	the	profitability	of	women‐led	businesses	and	to	promote	women	as	
sector	leaders.67	While	recognizing	the	good	work	done,	the	Evaluation	Team	is	concerned	that,	
within	a	year	of	the	launch,	the	AMDe	channeled	grants	of	USD	1.5	million	for	only	450	women	
members.			
The	AMDe	has	also	supported	a	membership	drive	to	increase	the	number	of	women	
members	and	the	number	of	women	in	leadership	positions	in	PCs	and	FCUs.	With	the	support	
of	a	behavior	change	organization,	the	AMDe	used	an	incentive‐based	model	that	offered	small	
                                                            
65	Women‐headed	households	account	for	28	percent	of	households	in	AGP	woredas,	and	women	in	male‐headed	
households	typically	constitute	50	percent	of	family	labor.	The	30	percent	figure	therefore	under‐represents	women	
in	agriculture.	
66WALN	currently	supports	100	women	in	its	training	program.	The	AMDe	has	invested	USD	1.5	million	in	support	of	
the	Network	to‐date.		
67	The	network	has	received	national	recognition	through	the	January	2015	National	Conference	that	was	attended	by	
more	than	100	women	entrepreneurs.	
15	
gifts	to	individual	women	who	joined	cooperatives	and	travel	grants	to	the	cooperative	leaders	
who	attracted	the	most	women.	As	a	result	of	the	initiative,	an	additional	78,000	women	joined	
cooperatives	in	the	nine‐month	period	from	March	to	December	2014	(see	Table	7	below).				
Table 7: Incentive‐based women membership drive
Region		 Number
of FCUs
Number
of PCs
Women
registering
Number
registering for
the first time		
% registering
for the first
time		
Oromia	 14	 761	 14,161 2,781 19.6	
Amhara	 10	 548	 30,573 10,009 32.7	
SNNPRs	 9	 237	 19,227 13,066 68.0	
Tigray	 9	 129	 14,408 10,744 74.6	
Total		 42 1,675 78,369 36,600 46.7
While	recognizing	the	impressive	gains	made	to	address	the	gender	imbalance	in	cooperatives,	
the	Evaluation	Team	is	concerned	AMDe’s	behavior	change	advisory	organization	
recommended	the	use	of	incentives,	as	when	these	are	discontinued	future	women	membership	
drives	may	prove	less	successful.	What	is	really	required	is	that	cooperatives	are	given	support	
to	take	on	new	ways	of	working	that	are	more	supportive	of	women	membership	and	
participation	in	decision‐making.	For	this	reason,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	use	of	
incentives	should	be	immediately	discontinued	so	that	future	increases	in	women	membership	
are	attributable	strictly	to	women’s	perceptions	of	membership‐related	benefits.			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	gave	inadequate	attention	to	gender	in	the	AMDe	
design	phase,	as	four	of	the	original	five	value	chains68	have	a	strong	export	focus.	While	
aligning	with	the	AGP	is	important,	USAID	might	have	given	increased	consideration	to	the	fact	
that	with	some	notable	exceptions,	agriculture	sector	exports	are	generally	dominated	by	men.	
The	selection	of	other	and	complementary	value	chains	focusing	on	domestic	markets	might	
therefore	have	afforded	increased	opportunities	for	women	smallholders,	traders,	and	agro‐
processors.	USAID	also	did	not	designate	specific	funds	to	support	AMDe’s	gender	equity	work.	
2.3		 Improvements in nutritional outcomes
Key question 3: To what extent has AMDe contributed to the improved nutritional status
of women and children?
The	original	AMDe	design	did	not	include	improved	nutrition	outcomes	for	women	and	
children,	and	nutrition	targets	were	added	later	at	the	request	of	USAID.			
	 In	the	first	year	of	implementation,	the	AMDe	commissioned	a	Cost	of	Nutritious	Diet	
Baseline	Study	against	which	it	is	planned	that	nutrition‐related	progress	can	be	measured	at	
the	end	of	the	life	of	the	project.	The	findings	of	the	study	also	inform	AMDe’s	cascade	nutrition	
training	through	cooperatives.			
While	the	Evaluation	Team	
recognizes	the	importance	of	improving	
nutrition	outcomes	in	Ethiopia69	and	that	
nutrition	is	a	development	objective	of	
FTF,	the	Evaluation	Team	is	concerned	
that	the	AMDe’s	agribusiness	and	market	
development	focus	does	not	naturally	
lend	itself	to	improved	nutrition	
outcomes.	Specifically,	there	are	
relatively	few	opportunities	to	develop	
                                                            
68	USAID	added	the	chickpea	value	chain	in	the	first	year	of	implementation.		 69	Stunting	rates	are	above	40	percent	in	AGP	woredas	and	amongst	the	highest	in	the	world.	
Text Box 4: Processed chickpeas for improved nutrition
outcomes
Together	with	Guts	Agro	Industry	(GUTS),	the	AMDe	has	
supported	the	launch	of	three	chickpea‐based	shiro	products	
and	roasted	chickpea	snacks.		
These	new	and	nutritious	chickpea	products	are	
processed	from	chickpeas	purchased	through	FCUs	that	have	
a	Memorandum	of	Understanding	(MoU)	with	GUTS	for	4,000	
metric	tonnes	of	chickpeas.		
It	is	estimated	that	the	MoU	benefits	52,000	smallholder	
farmers.		
Source:	AGP‐AMDe	Annual	Report	(2014)	
16	
and	promote	nutrition‐sensitive	agriculture	within	the	current	scope	of	the	project.			
	 The	Evaluation	Team	is	therefore	not	surprised	to	learn	that	nutrition‐related	progress	
is	mixed.	On	the	one	hand,	the	AMDe	has	contributed	to	improved	nutrition	outcomes	through	
the	chickpea	value	chain	development	and	the	launch	of	three	chickpea	shiro	products	(see	Text	
Box	4).	On	the	other	hand,	the	Evaluation	Team	can	find	little	evidence	to	support	the	
continuation	of	the	cascade‐based	nutrition	training,	as	it	appears	in	some	cases	to	be	little	
more	than	an	AMDe	requirement	for	cooperatives	to	secure	grants.	It	is	also	not	clear	to	the	
Evaluation	Team	how	successful	the	training	is	in	changing	attitudes	and	behavior	or	how	gains	
will	be	sustained	beyond	the	life	of	the	project.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	the	nutrition	
component	might	be	better	implemented	through	FTF’s	ENGINE	project.70			
2.4 Effective resource use
Question 4: What is the impact of the resources spent and performance per value chain?
What is the relative value generated in terms of productivity and income increase,
employment generation per value chain to resources spent? Which have the highest
returns per dollar spent?
In	order	to	address	this	question,	it	would	be	necessary	to	have	full	and	reliable	data	sets	on	the	
following:	increases	in	land	area	under	new	technologies;	what	the	technologies	were	and	what	
each	contributed	to	yield	improvements;	an	analysis	of	any	increased	costs	associated	with	
these	changes;	the	value	of	incremental	sales,	with	prices	reported	regularly	throughout	the	
marketing	season;	and	the	number	of	jobs,	both	seasonal	and	year‐round,	that	have	been	
generated.	This	was	not	possible,	as	the	AMDe	monitoring	lacks	consistency	and	rigor.	For	this	
reason,	this	question	was	not	addressed.		
The	decision	not	to	address	this	question	was	also	informed	by	USAID’s	own	“Cost	
Benefit	Analysis”	study	of	2014	that	has	provided	a	value	chain	performance	ranking.71	In	order	
to	address	this	question	fully,	the	AMDe	will	need	to	complete	a	thorough	data	cleaning	and	
verification	exercise.				
The	Evaluation	Team	has,	however,	learned	that	the	AMDe	has	created	an	estimated	
4,231	jobs	(see	Table	8).		While	it	is	clear	from	the	field	work	that	not	all	these	jobs	are	full‐
time/permanent,	in	a	country	where	unemployment	is	so	high,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	
employment	creation	should	be	a	priority	for	FTF	and	that	implementing	partners	should	track	
and	report	in	detail	on	employment	creation,	including	both	seasonal	and	full‐time/permanent	
employment,	and	ideally	offer	USAID	gender‐	and	age‐disaggregated	data	that	can	be	shared	
with	regional	and	federal	government.		
Table 8: Number of jobs created
Indicator Value chain LOP target Total # of jobs
created (Years
1‐3)
% LOP
Number	of	jobs	
attributed	to	FTF	
implementation
Wheat 2,268 143 6
Maize 2,060 2,690 130
Coffee	 2,533 575 23	
Sesame 1,556 538 34.5
Chickpeas	 1,238 3 ‐	
Honey	 1,100 282 25.6	
Total		 	 10,755 4,231 39.3	
Source:	Abstracted	from	AMDe	PMP	reports		
                                                            
70	Empowering	New	Generations	in	Improved	Nutrition	and	Economic	Opportunities	implemented	by	Save	the	
Children	International.	
71	It	may	be	that	USAID’s	Data	Quality	Assessment	(DQA)	team	could	help	address	the	issue	of	data	consistency.	
However,	to	address	the	issue	of	rigor	and	impact,	mention	has	been	made	of	the	need	to	undertake	more	detailed	
studies	that	include	control	groups.  
17	
While	the	information	in	these	tables	offers	useful	performance	data	across	the	six	value	chains,	
the	Evaluation	Team	finds	there	is	more	work	to	be	done	to	re‐check	and	verify	some	of	the	
data—and	in	particular	to	confirm	attribution,	i.e.,	that	the	progress	made	can	be	attributed	to	
the	support	provided	by	the	AMDe.	Unable	to	confirm	the	necessary	information	during	the	
period	of	the	review,	the	Evaluation	Team	did	not	fully	answer	this	question.	In	the	remaining	
life	of	the	project,	therefore,	it	is	important	the	AMDe	monitoring	staff	plays	an	active	role	in	
verifying	all	progress	data,	including	addressing	potentially	challenging	issues	such	as	the	
impact	of	disease—rust	in	wheat	and	maize	lethal	necrosis—fluctuating	farm	gate	prices,	and	
the	seasonality	of	some	jobs.	Unless	this	is	done	in	the	next	few	months,	the	Evaluation	Team	
finds	the	AMDe	will	not	be	appropriately	prepared	for	a	rigorous	end‐of‐project	evaluation,	
which	would	be	unfortunate,	as	the	AMDe	has	clearly	achieved	a	great	deal.				
While	unable	to	address	this	question	fully,	the	Evaluation	Team	wishes	to	highlight	the	
impact	of	USAID’s	decision	to	support	a	MoA	request	for	warehousing,	storage,	and	cleaning	
equipment	for	sesame	to	increase	exports.	As	presented	in	Figure	2,	investment	across	six	value	
chains	across	four	years	varies	between	1	and	7	percent.	The	exception	is	support	to	the	sesame	
value	chains	in	Year	2,	when	35	percent	of	the	AMDe	annual	budget	was	invested.	While	
recognizing	the	strategic	importance	of	this	investment,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	this	skewing	
of	investment	had	a	deleterious	effect	on	the	development	of	the	other	value	chains.		
Figure 2: Budget use by value chain
Further	analysis	of	budget	use	also	reveals	that	“pass‐through	grants”	to	partner	organizations	
and	value	chain	actors	account	for	45	percent	of	the	project	budget	and	are	managed	by	ACDI‐
VOCA	headquarters	in	Washington.	While	this	grant	management	mechanism	may	reduce	
demands	on	local	staff,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	many	advantages	in	local	grant	management,	
as	local	staff	better	understands	the	context	in	which	the	project	is	working,	and	are	in	a	better	
position	to	provide	technical	and	managerial	mentoring	support.			
Finally	in	this	section,	the	Evaluation	Team	learned	that	the	AMDe	invests	only	3	percent	of	
project	costs	in	training	and	capacity	development.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	this	level	of	
investment	is	inadequate	to	consolidate	and	mainstream	gains	made	by	AMDe.	
18	
2.5 Project design and management
Question 5: Among AMDe's partnerships, which are being most effective in terms of their
collaboration and coordination?
As	mentioned,	the	AMDe	supports	the	MoA	AGP	to	deliver	its	Component	1,	sub‐component	1.3:	
Market and Agribusiness Development.72	In	order	to	do	this,	the	AMDe	works	most	closely	with	
the	MoA,	ATA,73	and	the	FCA	at	federal	and	regional	levels,	with	which	it	shares	a	common	
vision	of	the	commercialization	of	agriculture	and	growth	of	cooperatives.	At	an	operational	
level,	the	AMDe	annual	work	plans	are	endorsed	by	regional	AGP	Technical	Committees	before	
they	are	presented	at	the	federal	AGP	Technical	Committee.				
In	addition,	the	AMDe	has	also	forged	a	range	of	partnerships,	a	sample	of	which	includes	the	
following:		
 Capacity	Building	for	Scaling‐Up	of	Evidence‐based	Best	Practice	in	Agricultural	Production	
in	Ethiopia	(CASCAPE):	The	CASCAPE	project	is	a	joint	initiative	between	Ethiopia	and	the	
Netherlands	to	improve	agricultural	productivity.	The	AMDe	partners	CASCAPE	on	soil	
testing	and	improved	seeds.		
 Capacity	to	Improve	Agriculture	and	Food	Security	(CIAFS): The	AMDe	is	working	with	CIAFS	
on	fertilizer	policy,	honey	and	coffee	value	chains,	capacity	building	for	cooperatives,	and	a	
coordinated	initiative	to	promote	private	sector‐led	seed	multiplication	and	certification.		
 Ethiopia	Commodity	Exchange	(ECX):	The	AMDe	is	working	with	the	ECX	to	train	ECX	staff,	
warehouse	operators,	and	management	firms	on	grading	and	coffee	certification.	In	addition,	
the	AMDe	is	working	with	the	ECX	to	revise	coffee	standards,	including	the	planned	launch	of	
a	traceability	system.	Finally,	the	AMDe	is	supporting	cooperatives	to	become	permanent	
members	of	the	ECX.		
 Ethiopia	Institute	of	Agriculture	Research	(EIAR):	The	AMDe	carried	out	a	seed	production	
and	supply	survey74	with	the	EIAR	that	resulted	in	AMDe	grants	for	irrigation	equipment,	
tractors,	and	seed	cleaning	equipment	being	awarded	to	11	research	centers	to	increase	the	
supply	of	certified	seed	of	varieties	that	will	help	increase	smallholder	farmer	productivity.		
 Industry	associations:	The	AMDe	is	working	closely	with	a	number	of	industry	associations,	
including	the	Ethiopia	Apiculture	Board	(EPA),	Ethiopia	Honey	and	Beeswax	Producers	and	
Exporters	Association	(EHBPEA),	the	Ethiopia	Pulses,	Oilseeds	and	Spices	Processers	and	
Exporters	Association	(EPOSSPEA)	and	the	Ethiopia	Coffee	Exporters	Association	(ECEA).	
 Ministry	of	Trade:	The	Agricultural	Marketing	Directorate	of	MoT	is	mandated	to	build	
capacity	in	the	supply,	distribution,	and	marketing	of	agricultural	inputs.	AMDe	is	
collaborating	with	the	MoT	to	assess	regional	and	international	marketing	opportunities	and	
warehouse	regulations.	
 Private	Sector:	The	AMDe	is	working	with	several	hundred	private	sector	organizations,	
including	WALN.	
The	Evaluation	Team	learned	from	other	FTF	implementing	partners	that	at	times	the	AMDe	
leadership	plays	a	lead	and	catalytic	role	amongst	FTF	implementing	partners	in	Ethiopia,	in	
particular	in	developing	value	chain	thinking	and	promoting	market	solutions.	This	said,	in	a	
meeting	of	FTF	implementing	partners	that	the	Evaluation	Team	facilitated	on	December	16,	
2014,75	it	became	clear	that	much	more	could	be	done	to	strengthen	levels	of	coordination	and	
integration,	including:		
                                                            
72Through the delivery of the MoA’s Agriculture Sector Policy Investment Framework, 2010–2020 (PIF), the MoA has
sought to reorientate donor funding from funding emergency food security projects to social protection (PSNP) and longer‐
term development (AGP and SLMP). USAID’s funding for AMDe is welcomed by the MoA as part of this commitment. 73 USAID, ATA, and AMDe have forged a tripartite coordination plan with focal points assigned for each joint activity. 74 Strengthening Source Seed Production and Supply System of the National Agriculture Research System in Ethiopia.   75 The meeting was attended by three Chiefs of Party (COPs), four DCOP (Deputy COPs) and four other senior staff
representing the AMDe, ENGINE, GRAD, LMD, and PRIME projects.    
19	
 Coordinate	activities	in	AGP	woredas	in	order	to	reduce	duplication	where	projects	are	
working	in	the	same	value	chain,	e.g.,	LMD	and	GRAD—sheep	and	goat	fattening	and	AMDe	
and	GRAD—honey.			
 Share	social	behavior	change	communication	materials	on	nutrition	and	coordinate	
interventions.		
 Share	lessons	in	gender	mainstreaming.		
 Collaborate	in	the	organization/participation	in	local	and	international	trade	fairs.		
Ways	in	which	the	FTF	might	better	collaborate	are	presented	diagrammatically	below	in	Figure	
3.			
Figure 3: Illustration of the collaborative mechanisms between FTF partners
				
Key:		
		
Collaboration	based	on	geographic	overlap	
		
Collaboration	based	value	chain	or	shared	objectives	
Although	the	AMDe	has	built	effective	partnerships,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	and	
AMDe	play	complementary	as	opposed	to	central	roles	in	AGP	decision‐making.	In	part,	the	
Evaluation	Team	attributes	this	to	partner	differences—organizational	culture,	timing	of	
planning	cycles,	incentive	structures—but	this	is	also	the	result	of	USAID’s	support	for	AMDe	
and	LMD	as	opposed	to	its	support	for	AGP	pooled	funding.	While	there	are	inevitable	
constraints	associated	with	USAID’s	funding	arrangements,	so	too	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	
strengths	and	opportunities,	including	increased	opportunities	for	innovation,	piloting,	and	
demonstration	that	over	time	can	be	documented	and	inform	evidence‐based	good	practice.			
The	Evaluation	Team	learned	that	Ethiopia’s	cooperative	movement	aggregates	and	
markets	less	than	10	percent	of	Ethiopia’s	cereals,76	and,	in	contrast,	small‐scale	private	sector	
traders	play	the	major	role	in	cereal	aggregation,	transport,	marketing,	and	processing.	While	
recognizing	the	AMDe	works	well	with	industry	associations	and	some	500	commercial	farmers,	
service	providers,	traders,	and	processors,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	issues	of	
sustainability	will	be	better	addressed	by	achieving	a	better	balance	of	support	between	
cooperatives	and	private	sector	actors.			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	works	well	with	other	FTF	implementing	partners	
at	federal	and	regional	levels	but	that	the	quality	of	partnership	appears	to	tail	off	at	woreda
level.	The	probable	reasons	are	outlined	above	and	do	not	need	repeating.	The	Evaluation	Team,	
however,	finds	that	USAID	could	have	done	more	to	forge	a	coordinated,	integrated,	and	
harmonized	FTF	portfolio	and	that	the	current	re‐design	of	the	MoA’s	PSNP4	and	AGP2	
potentially	offers	USAID	and	lead	FTF	implementing	partners77	new	and	potentially	exciting	
opportunities	for	improved	alignment,	integration,	and	coordination.		
2.6		 Sustainability
                                                            
76Cereals	account	for	more	than	60	percent	of	all	arable	cropping	in	Ethiopia.	 77	The	lead	FTF	implementing	projects	are	AMDe,	LMD,	GRAD,	and	PRIME.  
ENGINE AMDe GRAD
LMD
AGP woreda
Non‐AGP woreda
20	
Question 6: Which of the components and/or project activities can be scaled up in the
future based on measurable, practical, and sustainable results?
As	expected	at	this	stage	of	the	project	cycle,	the	AMDe	is	well	established	in	each	of	the	four	
AGP	regions	and	across	the	six	value	chains.	In	order	to	address	the	issue	of	sustainability	and	
specifically	which	project	activities	in	which	regions	can	be	scaled	up,	the	Evaluation	Team	has	
structured	its	findings	around	the	following	four	themes	as	required	by	the	SoW:		
 Enhancing	agricultural	productivity	
 Access	to	finance	and		
 Access	to	markets		
 Cross‐cutting		
Enhancing agriculture productivity: The	Evaluation	Team	recognizes	the	good	work	done	by	
AMDe	to	increase	smallholder	farmer	productivity,	including:	input	supply—improved	seeds,	
blended	fertilizers,	crop	protection—and	post‐harvest	handling	practices.	The	Evaluation	Team	
finds	that	this	work	should	be	continued	and	expanded.		
Under	the	G8	New	Alliance	for	Food	Security	and	Nutrition,78	the	AMDe	is	supporting	
the	MoA,	ATA,	and	DuPont	Pioneer79	in	a	three‐year	partnership	under	the	Advanced	Maize	
Seed	Adoption	Program	(AMSAP),	which	seeks	to	transition	smallholders	from	open	pollinated	
to	hybrid	maize	varieties	to	increase	yields.	Since	the	launch	with	320	model	farmers	in	2013,	
the	program	has	expanded	to	3,200	smallholder	farmers	in	2014.	The	AMDe	also	supports	the	
BH‐661	Program	that	was	launched	with	100	model	farmers	in	16	woredas	in	Amhara	and	
Oromia	and	has	been	subsequently	expanded	into	SNNP	Region.			
While	recognizing	the	importance	of	improving	access	to	quality	seeds,	the	Evaluation	
Team	is	concerned	the	AMDe	is	narrowing	its	focus	on	hybrid	maize.	Certainly,	hybrid	maize	
out‐yields	open	pollinated	varieties,	but	the	appropriateness,	affordability,	and	sustainability	of	
the	hybrid	maize	can	be	questioned.	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	should	provide	more	
balanced	support	to	maize	growers,	including	open	pollinated	varieties	and	support	for	farmer‐
to‐farmer	exchanges	and	community	seed	fairs.		
Access to finance: It	is	widely	recognized	that	in	order	to	increase	and	sustain	Ethiopia’s	
impressive	agriculture	sector	growth	rates,	additional	investment	is	needed.	The	Evaluation	
Team	finds	that	AMDe’s	work	in	this	area	is	of	critical	importance	and	should	be	a	priority	
during	the	remaining	life	of	project.	Specifically,	however,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	
should	focus	on	support	to	business	plan	development,	negotiations	with	banks,	and	improved	
financial	management,	accounting,	and	auditing.	The	Evaluation	Team	also	finds	that	the	AMDe	
should	increase	its	level	of	support	to	small‐	and	medium‐sized	businesses.			
Access to markets: The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that,	while	continuing	to	complete	existing	
commitments,	the	AMDe	should	focus	its	remaining	
work	to	strengthen	value	chains	for	domestic	markets,	
as	these	have	the	potential	to	benefit	poorer	
smallholder	farmers,	in	particular	women,	who	are	
FTF’s	primary	beneficiaries.	As	part	of	this	
reorientation,	the	Evaluation	Team	find	an	important	
role	for	AMDe	to	continue	to	strengthen	the	technical,	
managerial,	and	administrative	skills	and	capacities	of	
PCs	and	FCUs	to	secure	finance,	invest	in	infrastructure	
and	equipment,	and	therefore	more	effectively	
aggregate,	grade,	clean	produce,	and	supply	traders.		
                                                            
78Launched	in	Ethiopia	in	the	autumn	of	2012.	
79	DuPont	Pioneer	is	investing	USD	2.3	million	to	provide	hybrid	maize.	AMDe	is	supporting	this	investment	with	USD	
1	million	to	support	training,	field	demonstrations,	direct	retail	distribution	networks,	commercial	credit	schemes,	
post‐harvest	storage,	soil	sampling	at	demonstration	sites,	logistics,	and	market	access	and	development.   
Text Box 5:		AMDe support to Sidama
Elto FCU		
Sidama	Elto	FCU	was	established	in	2004	
with	1,000	members	(only	22	women).	It	
has	grown	to	15,000	members	(1,400	
women),	while	its	capital	has	increased	
from	Eth	Birr	6,100	to	15	million.	AMDe	
facilitated	links	to	WFP	P4P	in	2010.	
Initially,	it	was	not	easy	to	meet	quality	
standards.	The	FCU	is,	however,	now	able	
to	supply	maize	to	WFP,	the	result	of	
AMDe	support—improved	storage	
(including	moisture	testing),	shellers,	
cleaning,	and	fumigation	sheets.	
21	
Specific	to	the	maize	value	chain,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that,	while	continuing	to	
facilitate	links	between	FCUs	and	World	Food	Programme’s	(WFP)	P4P	initiative	(see	Text	Box	
5),	the	AMDe	also	identify	alternative	markets	that	link	FCUs	to	private	traders	and	in	this	way	
spread	risk	and	build	more	sustainable	market	options.			
Cross‐cutting:	The	Evaluation	Team	finds	the	AMDe	cascade‐style	training	modules—Sell	More	
for	More	(SM4M)—that	AMDe	has	pioneered	can	be	scaled	up	and	mainstreamed.	One	way	to	
do	this	is	to	partner	with	the	Ardaita	Cooperative	ATVET,80	Oromia	Region,	as	it	provides	
similar	training	and	capacity‐building	support	to	PCs	and	FCUs	in	that	part	of	Oromia.	Through	
such	a	partnership	arrangement,	the	AMDe	could	not	only	build	the	capacity	of	Ardaita,	but	also	
address	issues	of	sustainability.81	In	addition,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	all	training	should	
be	part	of	an	integrated	and	holistic	capacity‐building	initiative	that	provides	ongoing	support	
to	a	more	focused	number	of	organizations	and	individuals,	as	only	in	this	way	will	real	impact	
be	ensured.	
2.7 Management
Question 7: Does the project have the right balance of staff and funding given activity
priorities?
The	AMDe	employs	a	team	of	81	full‐time	staff	and	19	part‐time	staff	(64	men	and	36	women)	
as	follows:		
 Senior	managers—10	percent		
 Administration,	finance,	and	support—11,	10,	and	27	percent	respectively		
 Component	1:	Access	to	markets	and	improved	competitiveness—25	percent		
 Component	2:	Access	to	loans—5	percent		
 Component	3:	Enabling	environment—a	single	staff	member	
 Component	4:	Innovation	and	capital	grants—2	percent		
 Cross	cutting—10	percent		
The	Evaluation	Team	learned	that	almost	half	of	AMDe	staff	is	based	in	Addis	Ababa.82	In	
order	to	consolidate	the	gains	made	during	the	life	of	the	project,	the	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	
AMDe	will	need	to	invest	more	resources	in	capacity	building	and	institutional	support	in	the	
regions.	To	support	this	reorientation,	the	AMDe	might	benefit	from	the	support	of	an	
organizational	change	expert	who	can	also	address	other	tasks,	including	the	review	and	
harmonization	of	job	titles	and	clarification	of	roles	and	responsibilities	amongst	pooled	
workers.	
The	Evaluation	Team	also	recommends	the	AMDe	strengthen	its	M&E	capacity,	with	a	
view	to	improving	the	quality	of	its	reporting	and	ensuring	all	data	are	cleaned	ahead	of	the	
final	evaluation.			
3.		 Recommendations
Recommendation for Result 1
#1: The AMDe continue to work on the six value chains in order not to disrupt project
implementation during the remainder of the project, but give increased focus to incomplete
Results:		
 Wheat—productivity and value addition through processing
 Maize—productivity, including open pollinated varieties, improved post‐harvest handling,
cleaning, storage, and diversifying domestic market outlets
                                                            
80	The	Cooperative	Sector	Development	Strategy	(FCA,	2012),	developed	with	the	support	of	ATA,	identifies	Ardaita	
as	a	potential	“center	of	excellence”	for	cooperative	development.	While	not	centrally	located,	it	is	planned	the	center	
will	establish	branches	in	other	regions	and	operate	as	a	“college	without	walls.”		 81	During	the	Evaluation	Team’s	visit	to	Ardaita,	it	was	learned	that	the	AMDe	had	visited	once	but	without	follow‐up.		 82This	figure	includes	the	AMDe	Oromia	Region	staff	based	with	the	national	team,	which	is	not	unusual	as	the	Bureau	
of	Agriculture,	Oromia	Region	is	similarly	based	in	Addis	Ababa.
22	
 Coffee—post‐harvest loss reduction and quality standards
 Sesame—post‐harvest loss reduction and processing		
 Chickpeas—domestic and niche markets (Sudan, for example) for the currently used
varieties		
 Honey—production and productivity through the distribution of improved equipment,
including modern beehives and training and equipping of beekeepers and new beekeepers
Recommendation for Result 2
#2: Continue and strengthen AMDe's engagement in agriculture sector finance, in particular
capacity building for cooperatives and small‐scale private businesses to develop business plans,83
negotiate with banks, and improve accounting and auditing systems.
Recommendation for Result 3
#3: Recognize the need to work more closely with other FTF implementing partners, including the
AKLDP.84 With FTF partners, forge a common, integrated, and coordinated approach to
agriculture sector policy work.
Recommendation for Result 4
#4: Reduce the focus on grants for new partners and consolidate the capacity of existing partners
to improve impact and sustainability.		
Recommendations for gender equity
#5: Continue to support women empowerment, including women membership of cooperatives—
though discontinue the use of incentives—and WALN, with increased emphasis on women‐led
small‐	and medium‐sized agribusinesses in the regions. Set aside funding for gender equity work.
#6: Document AMDe’s work with women in Tigray and SNNP Regions and share with FTF projects
within and beyond Ethiopia.
Recommendation for nutrition
#7: Hand over the nutrition work to ENGINE.		
Recommendations for improved collaboration		
#8: Continue to strengthen partnerships with key stakeholders, in particular regional BoA AGP
teams, ATA Agriculture Commercialization Clusters, and Regional Cooperative and Industry
Association Offices to accelerate training and capacity building of regional, zonal, and woreda	
staff in agriculture marketing that includes components on the private sector and its potential role
in transforming Ethiopian agriculture. Ensure that all training and capacity building is focused
and an integral part of a holistic capacity‐building approach.		
#9: Collaborate with ATA and Federal Cooperative Agency (FCA) to develop a single PC/FCU
Certification system that integrates and harmonizes accreditation criteria.		
Recommendations for scaling‐up		
#10: Support the MoA and ATA to improve productivity through the improved distribution of
certified seeds (with a minimum 60 percent open pollinated varieties), blended fertilizer, credit,
and extension support.
#11: Continue to support the WFP‐P4P initiative but continue to strengthen and develop links
between smallholder farmer groups and responsible private sector traders.		
Recommendations for management
                                                            
83	The	business	plans	prepared	jointly	by	FCUs	and	AMDe	are	of	a	high	quality.	For	example,	the	Sidama	Elto	FCU	
business	plan	secured	loans	of	Eth	Birr	7.6	million	in	2013,	Eth	Birr	14.4	million	in	2014,	and	Eth	Birr	6.35	million	in	
2015.	
84	The	AKLDP	project	provides	agriculture	knowledge,	learning,	and	policy	support	to	USAID’s	FTF	portfolio.	
23	
#12:	Recruit an organizational change expert to reorientate AMDe staffing, specifically increased
support for: farmer level production and productivity;85domestic market development; and gender.
Clarify the responsibilities of the AMDe and ACDI/VOCA pooled staff and as appropriate move staff
to the regions.		
#13: Recruit an M&E specialist to improve AMDe M&E capacity. Ensure all project data are
cleaned and that increased consideration is given to project outcomes and attribution, ahead of
the final evaluation.
#14: Strengthen AMDe’s capacity development work to 15 percent of the Year 5 project budget to
build the capacity of priority PCs and FCUs and better equip them to continue work started with
AMDe. To support this reorientation, complete all warehouse construction‐related commitments
and subsequently disengage from warehouse construction.
#15: Include representatives from the MoA, and possibly the MoT and MoI, in the final evaluation.		
General recommendations for a follow‐on project		
The	Evaluation	Team	recommends	that	USAID	provide	follow‐on	funding	for	a	minimum	of	
another	five	years	and	therefore	welcomes	USAID’s	commitment	to	fund	AGP	Component	4:	
Agriculture	Marketing	and	Value	Chains,	sub‐component	d—strengthening	of	selected	livestock	
and	crop	value	chains.	While	welcoming	this	commitment,	the	Evaluation	Team	recommends	
that	USAID	support	for	AGP	be	more	focused	to	achieve	FTF	development	objectives,	specifically	
that	a	follow‐on	program	operate	in	a	smaller	ZoI	and	with	fewer	partners.	Within	these	ZoI,	it	
is	recommended	that,	in	addition	to	continuing	to	support	agriculture	marketing,	significant	
increased	emphasis	is	given	to:	smallholders	with	holdings	of	less	than	one	hectare—perhaps	
70	percent	of	planned	project	beneficiaries;	sustainable	agriculture	production	and	
productivity,	including	soil	health,	land	management,	and	land	tenure;	women	in	agriculture—
women‐headed	and	women	in	male‐headed	households;	and	the	private	sector,	in	particular	
small‐	and	medium‐sized	businesses.	In	addition,	the	Evaluation	Team	recommends	that	USAID	
provides	better	layered	and	sequenced	support	within	its	ZoI	that	includes	social	protection,	
WASH,	nutrition,	health,	and	education	and	that,	through	this	integrated	and	coordinated	
approach,	USAID	play	a	lead	role	in	poverty	and	stunting	reduction	that	will	be	replicated	by	
others.			
The	Evaluation	Team	finds	that	USAID	should	exercise	increased	leadership	to	contextualize	
global	FTF	indicators	and	guide	FTF	implementing	partners	to	key	indicators	that	will	track	
progress	to	address	Ethiopia’s	poverty	and	stunting	challenges.				
Specific recommendations for a follow‐on project include:		
#16: Reorientate the value chains: hand off coffee and wheat to the industry associations and
other development partners, including, as appropriate, the EU, a USAID‐funded innovation lab
project holder, and ATA; build a more integrated approach to cereal value chains that includes
maize,86 malt barley, and sorghum—grown by large numbers of poorer smallholders; expand the
honey value chain—assisting larger numbers of poor women with little or no land; and integrate
chickpeas into a legumes/pulses value chain for domestic markets—legumes offer important soil
health and nutrition outcomes. USAID could therefore support the following value chains:
 Cereals—maize, malt barley, and sorghum
 Honey—for domestic markets (with an emphasis on women)
 Legumes—for domestic markets		
#17: Ensure that capacity building, institutional development, and gender are key components of
a follow‐on project, are appropriately funded and delivered within a holistic capacity‐building
approach.
                                                            
85	The	Evaluation	Team	is	keen	to	see	that	the	USAID	Ethiopia	Mission	strengthens	its	support	of	production	and	
productivity	and	therefore	achieves	a	more	balanced	agriculture	sector	portfolio.	The	Evaluation	Team	is	of	the	view	
that	the	Mission	is	at	present	too	market‐focused.		
86	With	a	focus	on	open	pollinated	varieties.	
24	
#18: Reduce managerial complexity—sub‐contract the productivity, value chain development,
aggregation, and domestic market development components to specialist NGOs with a proven
track record in Ethiopia. The project holder can then better focus on management, coordination,
monitoring—data collection, collation, analysis, documentation—learning, and championing
evidence‐based good practice, including with AGP2. The follow‐on project would be expected to
leave Ethiopian institutes, organizations, and businesses better equipped to lead the
transformation process of Ethiopian agriculture.
Annexes
Annex	1	Statement	of	Work	
Annex	2	Evaluation	Team	Members	–	Curriculum	vitae	
Annex	3	Conflict	of	Interest	forms		
Annex	4	Work	plan	
Annex	5	Bibliography	
Annex	6	List	of	places	visited	and	people	interviewed	
Annex	7	Tools	used	
		
2 
ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK
MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
USAID/ETHIOPIA’S AGRICULTURE GROWTH PROGRAM—AGRIBUSINESS AND MARKET 
DEVELOPMENT (AGP-AMDe) PROJECT
Contract Start Date End Date LOP Budget 
AID-663-TO-11-00003 May 02, 2011 May 01, 2016 USD 49,885,436 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Agricultural Growth Program—Agribusiness and Market Development (AGP-AMDe) is a flagship 
project under USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) strategy for Ethiopia and is USAID’s largest 
contribution to the Government of Ethiopia’s (GoE) Agricultural Growth Program (AGP). It is a five￾year project aimed at stimulating agricultural growth to improve national food security, generate 
employment, and reduce poverty in a sustainable manner. AGP is a unique initiative designed to 
coordinate and integrate the efforts of all development partners to ensure a shared understanding of 
priorities and objectives, and to avoid the duplication of efforts. The project was initiated in 2011 and 
will close in 2016. 
In line with the overall objectives of AGP, AGP-AMDe works to sustainably reduce poverty and 
hunger by improving the productivity and competitiveness of value chains that offer jobs and income 
opportunities for rural households. AMDe uses a value chain approach to bring together relevant 
actors to create and take advantage of market opportunities and address shared constraints. The value 
chain approach, it is postulated, stimulates agricultural productivity and the growth of small-scale 
businesses, increasing incomes and reducing the poverty and vulnerability of smallholder farmers and 
rural inhabitants. This market-led approach builds cooperation among stakeholders with divergent 
interests, fast tracks the pace of development, and ensures the sustainability of results. Target value 
chains are maize, wheat, sesame, coffee, honey, and chickpeas. The project is implemented in the high 
rainfall regions of Amhara, Oromia, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region (SNNPR), 
and Tigray by strengthening agricultural productivity and markets. 
The AMDe performance evaluation is expected to provide important information on the level of 
progress regarding planned results (both quantitative and qualitative) of the project vis-à-vis the 
project objectives and goal, effectiveness of the functions of the established 
collaboration/coordination mechanisms, and the working relationship among the implementing 
partners and stakeholders. The evaluation will also identify key lessons learned (both positive and 
negative) to inform the project’s implementation in the remaining years ahead. 
USAID’s evaluation policy encourages independent external evaluation to increase accountability to 
inform those who develop programs and strategies, and to refine designs and introduce improvements 
into future efforts. In keeping with that aim, this evaluation will be conducted to review and evaluate 
the performance of the USAID-funded AMDe project activities implemented by ACDI/VOCA. The 
evaluation will focus on assessing the program’s mid-term performance (May 2011 through June 
2014) in achieving its program goal, objectives, and results. 
II. BACKGROUND 
USAID/Ethiopia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) goal—“Ethiopia’s 
Transformation to a Prosperous and Resilient Country Accelerated”—is aligned with the 
Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE’s) five-year Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), which builds 
on the significant expansion of the economy and basic services over the past five years. The 
USAID/Ethiopia CDCS comprises three Development Objectives (DOs) and one Support Objective. 
The Economic Growth and Transformation (EG&T) office, in coordination with the Alternative 
Livelihoods and Transition (ALT) office, implements DO1 (Increase economic growth with resiliency 
in rural Ethiopia). As shown in the DO Results Framework (As shown in the DO Results Framework 
3 
in Annex I), the achievement of this DO depends upon the combined success of five interdependent 
intermediate results (IRs). The strategy will demonstrate the potential of market-based agricultural 
development to reduce poverty and promote sustainable livelihoods for chronically food-insecure 
households. 
The Feed the Future (FTF) Strategy, which is the key component of DO1, aims to sustainably reduce 
poverty and hunger through investments in the performance of the agricultural sector, in improved 
nutrition, and in the improved capacity of vulnerable households to meet their food needs. FTF 
investments will lead to improvements in food availability, access, and utilization. A better￾performing agriculture sector should improve both food availability and access, while improved food 
access and utilization will improve nutrition. The strategy demonstrates the potential of market-based 
agricultural development to reduce poverty and promote sustainable livelihoods for chronically food￾insecure households. The strategy utilizes a Push-Pull Model that seeks to build the capacity of 
vulnerable and chronically food-insecure households to participate in economic activity (the “push”), 
while mobilizing market-led agricultural growth to generate relevant economic opportunity and 
demand for smallholder production, labor, and services (the “pull”). 
AGP-AMDe project is designed to achieve USAID’s overall goal to sustainably reduce poverty and 
hunger by improving the productivity and competitiveness of value chains that offer jobs and incomes 
for rural households. The project has applied a comprehensive approach to strengthen the private 
sector and link farmers to sustainable livelihoods along key agricultural value chains. Activities have 
been driven by gender-sensitive value chain analyses that incorporate a dual focus on tangible aspects 
such as infrastructure, institutions, technologies, and prices, together with intangibles such as trust, 
industry leadership potential, and the value placed on learning. This analysis enabled AGP-AMDe to 
provide the right mix of targeted technical assistance, capacity building and institutional 
strengthening, and critical public and private partnership development. The project promotes 
innovation and incentives through smart subsidies to enhance knowledge, increase opportunities, and 
inform choices that catalyze and drive changes in behavior, investment, and production. 
ACDI/VOCA, the prime contractor to the AGP-AMDe project, has assembled a team of sub￾contractors with diverse skills and broad experience that offers the specific competencies to deliver 
results across AGP-AMDe. ACDI/VOCA is the lead organization of the team as well as technical 
lead on the value chain and financial services components. IFDC offers its extensive experience in 
the development of commercial agro-input systems. Booz Allen Hamilton leads the enabling 
environment component, supported by technical assistance from John Mellor & Associates on 
agriculture policy reform. Danya provides a strategic communications plan which will guide AGP￾AMDe’s use of communication tactics to increase behavior change, adopt technology, facilitate 
learning, and increase overall project outcomes. Kimetrica brings its ki-projectsTM platform to 
strengthen the monitoring and evaluation system. CQI provides targeted technical support to 
development of the coffee value chain. Crown Agents provides demand-driven technical assistance. 
Since its inception, the AGP-AMDe project produced notable achievements against targets set. Under 
the Task Order, ACDI/VOCA has had success addressing systemic constraints through the following 
activities: 
 Building the internal financial and risk management capacity of Farmer Cooperatives Unions 
(FCUs), commercial farmers, and agri-businesses 
 Facilitating debt financing through intensive technical support to FCUs and Primary 
Cooperatives (PCs) on business plan development and meeting loan application requirements, 
linking potential borrowers to financial institutions for loans to invest in agricultural 
technology and machinery upgrades 
 Promoting and facilitating uptake of new products and technologies, such as leasing, in 
collaboration with other programs and pilots for community warehouse receipt systems and 
mobile banking 
 Supporting marketing programs, such as the WFP P4P program in which we provide direct 
technical assistance to FCUs to meet sales contract agreements of quality and quantity, and 
supporting Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) to increase FCUs’ access to 
agricultural machinery to improve their productivity 
4 
 Stimulating equity investment in agro-processing in partnership with RENEW Strategies, 
drawing increased international, private sector investors to Ethiopia 
Intended Project Results 
The following chart summarizes the various anticipated results for the AGP-AMDe project. 
Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts 
 Conduct value chain analysis with financial, 
enabling environment, nutrition, and gender 
lenses; strategy and vision development 
 Initial analysis and vision/strategy document; 
plan for integration of cross-cutting themes; 
regular updates and ongoing documented 
learning 
 Project follows clear strategy for 
achieving vision; project is able to 
adjust interventions based on 
observations 
Value chain level: 
 Increased competitiveness of value chains 
 Increased responsiveness to end-market 
opportunities through new technologies and 
relationship structures 
 Supporting markets serving value chain actors 
and adapting to trends in demand for inputs, 
training, ICT, transport, and other services 
 Expanded reach and variety of financial services 
available to value chain actors 
 More supportive environment for financial sector 
and value chain growth 
Firm level: 
 Increase in number and activity of agricultural 
enterprises including input suppliers, 
aggregators, exporters, and service providers 
 Increased profits from agriculture, especially for 
smallholders 
 Improved cash flow and access to finance for 
investment 
Household level: 
 Increased income 
 Increased employment 
 Reduced poverty 
 Improved food security and nutrition 
 Build relationships that enable value chain actors 
to respond to end-market opportunities 
 Promote transparency and trust in vertical 
linkages 
 Activities to strengthen horizontal linkages 
 Activities to strengthen supporting markets, 
including input supply, storage, ICT, transport, 
and training/BDS 
 Develop TOT and materials on health and 
nutrition themes; Train GoE AGP implementers 
who will train DAs to deliver health/nutrition 
messages 
 Buyers identified and engaged with suppliers 
 Stakeholders’ workshops and smaller 
meetings held 
 Increased and repeated transactions between 
buyers, suppliers, and support service 
providers 
 Cooperatives and associations assessed and 
trained 
 New commercial input suppliers entering the 
market 
 Storage facilities rehabilitated or established; 
possibility of private sector warehouse 
operators explored 
 Information about ECX grading system 
disseminated 
 Trade fairs attended, trainings in export 
promotion held 
 Market information delivered through local 
entities 
 Service providers linked to clients, trainings 
co-financed 
 Health/nutrition materials developed; TOTs 
held; follow-up TA conducted to ensure 
messages reach smallholders through DAs 
 Increased sales and learning flows 
between buyers and suppliers, 
including smallholder farmers and 
vulnerable groups 
 Increased trust and transparency 
between value chain actors 
 Smallholder farmers consistently 
able to understand and achieve 
quality standards 
 Balanced distributions of benefits in 
the value chain, leading to 
incentives for ongoing upgrading at 
multiple levels 
 Increased use of support services 
by smallholders (including 
embedded services) 
 Private sector input suppliers selling 
improved inputs and providing 
embedded services 
 Households receive and apply new 
information about improved 
health/nutrition practices 
 Build capacity of financial institutions 
 Develop new financial products and services 
 Build capacity of financial sector associations 
 Stimulate lending through guarantee funds 
 Work with agricultural enterprises to establish 
alternative forms of collateral 
 Facilitate policy and regulatory improvements 
 Leverage the investments of RUFIP 
 Trainings conducted for commercial banks 
and MFIs 
 TOT held with EBA and AEMFI 
 TA and training held for MFIs to improve 
marketing to women 
 New products designed and piloted to meet 
the needs of smallholders and other value 
chain actors 
 Products rolled out; staff of financial 
institutions trained in new products 
 TA delivered to financial sector associations 
in agricultural lending, risk management, and 
product development 
 Increased creditworthiness of agricultural 
enterprises 
 Public-private dialogue stimulated; reforms 
achieved 
 Meetings and joint activities carried out with 
RUFIP 
 Increased ability and willingness of 
commercial banks and MFIs to lend 
to the agricultural sector 
 Financial institutions able to tailor 
products to the needs of target 
clientele including women and 
smallholder farmers 
 Financial institutions participating in 
the DCA program 
 Financial sector associations 
facilitate increased focus on 
agricultural lending 
 Policy and regulatory framework 
conducive to growth 
 RUFIP adequately reaching and 
serving value chain actors 
 Promote public-private dialogue 
 Build the capacity of the public sector 
 Design improvements in policies and regulations 
 Meetings and workshops held with trader and 
exporter associations, cooperative unions, 
and other civil society institutions 
 Stakeholder buy-in to reform 
process 
 Reduced enforcement costs 
6 
 Facilitate access to international markets  TA and training provided to MOARD staff 
 Reforms to administrative procedures 
 Training and TA provided to Ministry of Trade 
and other relevant institutions 
 More efficient administrative 
processes 
 Policies that better support value 
chain growth 
 Increased government ability to 
analyze and plan policy change 
 Ministry of Trade better able to 
analyze and alleviate trade 
constraints 
 Develop, disburse, and monitor strategic grants 
through Innovation and Demonstration Funds 
 Large and small grants disbursed to address 
systemic constraints related to the policy 
environment, lack of access to finance, 
disincentives for investing, etc. 
 Partial subsidies introduced and phased out 
as value chain actors demonstrate willingness 
to invest 
 Perceived risk reduced through 
observed benefits of investment in 
upgrading 
 Innovation becomes the norm as 
more value chain actors invest in 
new technologies 
7 
III. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 
In line with the overall objectives of AGP and the Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) national 
strategies, AGP-AMDe is designed to sustainably reduce poverty and hunger by improving the 
productivity and competitiveness of value chains that offer jobs and income opportunities for rural 
households. 
AGP-AMDe project activities are intended to directly contribute to USAID’s development objective of 
Increased Economic Growth with Resiliency in Rural Ethiopia through targeted intermediate results in the 
areas of: 
 Improved competitiveness of selected value chains 
 Improved inputs—both seed and fertilizers 
 Improved access to finance and investment 
 Business enabling environment 
 Innovation fund (focus on implementation rather than disbursement) 
The program consists of four major components: 
1. Improved competitiveness of selected value chains: Under Component 1, the AGP-AMDe is 
increasing market competitiveness and improving market access for smallholder farmers by 
facilitating improvements in capacity of the cooperative sector, private traders, processors, and 
service providers, as well as creating specific market linkages between various industry actors. 
The project is supporting an increased value and volume of sales in domestic and export markets. 
2. Improved access to finance: Under Component 2, AGP-AMDe is building on Component 1 
activities to improve access to finance for input and output purchases and investment for 
cooperatives and agro-dealers through the development of business plans, financial plans, and 
loan applications for input/output and medium-term capital. The project is also developing new or 
enhancing existing financial products for cooperatives and agribusinesses that commercial banks 
provide. Additionally, improving access to production and output financing for smallholder 
producers is also included here. 
3. Improved enabling environment of selected value chains: Under Component 3, AGP-AMDe is 
largely focusing on fertilizer and seed policy changes to be officially adopted by the GoE, and 
subsequently rolled out throughout the country. Additionally, the project is addressing agricultural 
finance, streamlining regulations supporting trade of inputs and outputs, warehouse management 
regulations, and gender-enabling environment constraints. These constraints have been identified 
and prioritized with ATA and GoE, and joint initiatives are being planned and implemented to 
address them.
4. Stimulate increased innovation and investment: The Innovation Fund, a key resource available 
to the AGP-AMDe project, is facilitating investments in a broad range of competiveness￾enhancing activities, with specific focus placed on innovative approaches and technologies. It cuts 
across all areas and supports many of the activities under Components 1 and 2. 
8 
AGP-VC Results-Oriented Integration: 
IV. PURPOSE AND USE OF THE EVALUATION 
The main purpose of this midterm performance evaluation is to provide the AGP-AMDe team and 
USAID with an objective assessment of project progress towards achieving its objectives, the 
effectiveness of the AGP-AMDe partnerships, and any strengths and challenges. The findings and 
recommendations from this mid-term evaluation are therefore expected to inform management decision￾making processes and improve performance towards the achievement of AGP-AMDe’s key results and 
goal. The evaluation findings will also help inform the design of future similar projects. 
Specifically, the evaluation will: 
1. Assess the extent to which planned results (both the quantitative and qualitative) of the project have 
been achieved vis-à-vis the project objectives and goal 
2. Assess the programmatic and cost effectiveness of the project’s approaches during implementation 
towards achievement of its objectives and key results 
3. Assess whether or not the project activities are replicable and sustainable with supporting evidence 
9 
4. Identify lessons learned and challenges and make clear, explicit, and actionable recommendations. 
Suggestions will be made for improving not only project performance but also the design and 
implementation of future similar projects. 
V. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
A. Performance Results 
1. To what extent is the AGP-AMDe Project progressing against planned objectives as outlined in 
its Performance Management Plan (PMP) and Work Plan? 
The evaluation should analyze actual results versus the targets outlined in the Project PMP within 
the activity’s different technical areas (value chain competitiveness, access to finance, influencing 
the enabling environment, innovation grant disbursements, and anticipated outcomes and cross 
cutting themes), including identifying successful and unsuccessful approaches leading to the 
achievement of its objectives. In addition, any evidence that suggests AMDe may be under- or 
over-reporting results against its indicators should be identified. 
2. To what extent has this project contributed to gender equity in terms of access to credit, access to 
capacity building support, access to and adoption of improved inputs and technologies, and 
income increase as the result of incremental sales of agricultural commodities? Are there 
evidences supporting positive changes in the aforementioned areas? 
3. What has been AMDe’s contribution to the improvement of Nutritional Status of Women and 
Children? What are the evidences of that? 
4. What is the impact of the resources spent (financial + human) and performance per value chain, 
i.e., what is the relative value generated in terms of productivity and income increase, 
employment generation per value chain to resources spent? (i.e., Which value chains have the 
highest returns per dollar spent?) 
B. Project Design and Management 
1. Which among the following AMDe’s partnerships have been the most effective in terms of their 
collaboration and coordination to implement AGP-AMDe? Which ones have been the least 
effective? In both cases, what is contributing to these partnerships’ success and challenges? 
a. Other AGP program components implemented by government agencies 
b. Other AGP program partners: both GoE ( this includes Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry 
of Trade, Ministry of Industry, Federal Cooperative Agency, etc.), ATA, and other 
donors 
c. Other Feed the Future projects, especially LMD, ENGINE, and GRAD
C. Sustainability 
1. Which of the components and/or project activities can easily be scaled up in the future based on 
measurable, practical, and sustainable results: 
 Enhancing agricultural productivity 
 Access to finance 
 Access to markets 
D. Management 
1. Given the findings in the above questions, does the Project have the right balance of staff and 
funding given activity priorities? Is there an appropriate balance between the resources (staff and 
budget), their management, and the activities the project intends to accomplish?
10 
VI. EVALUATION METHODS 
A recommended evaluation design and data collection methods are presented below. However, the 
evaluation team will be responsible for refining the design as recommended below or proposing an 
alternative design for consideration and approval by USAID. The evaluation strategy and data collection 
methodologies should include mixed methods for better triangulation and validation of findings. The 
team should present an evaluation questions matrix showing the source of data, method of data 
collection, and also the tool to be used to answer each of the evaluation questions. The methodology 
will be presented as part of the draft work plan as outlined in the deliverables below, approved by 
USAID/Ethiopia and included in the final report. The evaluation team will have available for their 
analysis a variety of program implementation documents, baseline surveys, and reports. Methodology 
strengths and weaknesses should be identified, as well as measures taken to address those weaknesses. All 
data collected and presented in the evaluation report must be disaggregated, as appropriate, by gender, 
geography, and value chain. 
(a) EVALUATION DESIGN 
It is recommended that a non-experimental design be used that will focus on measuring project results 
before and after project implementation using project monitoring and survey data (primary and secondary 
data). The before-project data should be drawn from the baseline survey report produced by the 
implementing partners. The after-project implementation data should consider both primary and 
secondary information and need to be both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The evaluation team is 
expected to strengthen this design to make it as rigorous as possible or propose alternative evaluation 
designs for consideration. 
(b) DATA COLLECTION METHODS 
As stated above, the evaluation team will be responsible for proposing an appropriate evaluation design 
and data collection methods.The team should consider mapping the research questions against the 
quantitative and qualitative data in a matrix/table to show how each research question will be answered. 
However, it is also recommended that the data collection methods should include the following: 
Use of quantitative data should include, but not be limited to: 
 Comparison of current indicator values to baseline data for select output and outcome indicators 
 Map out the project results against performance measure indicators to show the total number of 
indicators under each result and whether performance is met/on target (90–100%), exceeded 
(>100%), or not achieved (</=89%) 
Approaches to collect qualitative data could include but are not limited to: 
 Document Reviews 
 Key Informant Interviews 
 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 
The size of the potential pools of respondents for key informant interviews and focus group discussions as 
well as the citeria for selection (random, purposive, mixed) should be of sufficient size to make 
meaningful but not necessarily statistically significant conclusions as determined by AKLDP and the 
consultant. 
VII. EXISTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SOURCES 
The consultants will review the following documents: 
a) Project descriptions and modifications 
b) Project work plans 
11 
c) Quarterly reports 
d) Annual reports 
e) Budget and financial reports 
f) PMP and other M&E documents 
g) Baseline surveys and formative research 
h) Project performance data 
i) Projects gender analysis/value chain assessments/other surveys 
j) Project-generated assessments 
k) GoE reports on AGP and other related documents 
l) Project performance data 
m) Relevant external evaluations from other sources (e.g., other donors) 
A data analysis plan should be developed by the evaluation team based on specific USAID expectations 
included in this scope of work. The data analysis should include sex disaggregation and other gender 
considerations for this evaluation based on the Missions and Projects Gender strategies. Other relevant 
disaggregation of data such as value chains could also be included where appropriate. The evaluation 
team is expected to refine this in the development of the methodology. 
Limitations of the design and methodology should be reflected in the evaluation report. 
VIII. TEAM COMPOSITION 
The evaluation team shall consist of one independent international expert, serving as the team lead and 
primary coordinator with USAID, as well as two high-level Ethiopian experts, at least one of whom can 
also serve as an interpreter. All team members must have professional-level English speaking and writing 
skills. 
The technical team members must all have significant experience in agriculture, agribusiness/agriculture 
commercialization, and food security-related programs. In addition to the three technical team members, 
the team should include a mid-level social scientist with strong quantitative analytical skills. The team 
should also have Ethiopian country or East Africa regional experience, along with comparative 
experience in grant management and administration, access to finance, and agriculture policy-related 
programming in other countries or regions of the world. 
Sound experience in conducting evaluations or research is expected of all members, and experience in 
developing strategies would be useful. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions in local languages 
and provide accurate translations into English for at least one team member is essential. 
A statement of potential bias or conflict of interest (or lack thereof) is required of each team member. 
USAID may propose internal staff members from USAID/Ethiopia as well as from Washington under one 
of the following conditions: (1) where USAID contributes a unique expertise; and (2) for USAID capacity 
building. If any USAID staff is proposed to participate on the evaluation team, their role may include 
some or all of the following functions: 
 Provide, when asked, background information on the activity and respond to questions from the 
external evaluators 
 Contribute to data collection and analysis efforts 
 Review and comment on the final evaluation report for its accuracy 
The evaluation team lead will be responsible for ensuring the integrity of the external evaluation, 
including alerting the Mission Program Office if any USAID participants on the evaluation team are 
overstepping their role. 
Team Leader (one): The team leader should have an expertise in agriculture, agribusiness/agriculture 
commercialization, and food security-related programs with at least ten years of work experience. He/she 
12 
will be responsible for overall management of the evaluation, including coordinating and packaging the 
deliverables in consultation with the other members of the external team. The team leader must have 
strong team management skills and sufficient experience with evaluation standards and practices to 
ensure a credible product. The team leader will develop tools for the evaluation and a design plan and 
share it with USAID/Ethiopia for their approval. The team leader will develop the outline for the draft 
report, present the report and, after incorporating USAID/Ethiopia staff comments, submit the final report 
to USAID/Ethiopia within the prescribed timeline. The team leader must be fluent in English and have 
strong writing skills. 
Local Ethiopian Experts (two): The Ethiopian experts should have experience with agriculture, 
agribusiness/agriculture commercialization, and food security-related programs in Ethiopia, with at least 
five years’ work experience in monitoring and evaluation. The Ethiopian experts should also be proficient 
in English and Amharic. 
IX. EVALUATION SCHEDULE 
The estimated time period for undertaking this evaluation is 45 work days for the entire team, with the 
exception of the Team leader, who will have 60 working days. At least 20 work days for all team 
members should be spent in Ethiopia. The ideal arrival time is October15, 2014; however, the arrival date 
will be finalized between USAID and AKLDP, the organization conducting the evaluation. 
The evaluation team is required to work six days a week. The team is required to travel to selected 
woredas in each region where project activities are being implemented. While the teams are in Ethiopia, 
at least 50% of their time will be spent outside Addis Ababa to conduct interviews with project staff, 
government partners, and project beneficiaries. The evaluation team will prepare an exit briefing and 
presentation of the findings, which it will deliver to USAID staff before the consultants depart Ethiopia. 
Also, the evaluation team will submit a draft report 48 hours in advance of the exit briefing for review and 
comments by USAID. Comments from USAID will be incorporated before the submission of the final 
draft. 
The final report with USAID and consultant revisions should be submitted by November 30, 2014, 
assuming the field work starts as planned on October 15, 2014. 
An illustrative table for Level of Effort (LOE) is below. The Contractor is expected to submit a detailed 
LOE. 
Activity Expat Team 
Leader 
Ethiopian 
Evaluation 
Specialists (2) 
Document review, work plan, draft questions, data analysis 
plan, suggested list of interviewees, finalized data collection 
tools/instruments for the interview protocols 
5 10 
Travel to/from Ethiopia 4 
In-briefing with USAID in Addis Ababa 1 2 
Interviews in Addis Ababa 4 8 
Interviews or survey work in project/activity areas 18 36 
Mid-term briefing and interim meetings with USAID 2 2 
Data analysis, preliminary report, and presentation preparation 8 16 
Draft evaluation report 10 8 
Final exit presentation to USAID (with PowerPoint 
presentation and draft evaluation report) 
2 2 
13 
Final exit presentation to relevant partners (with PowerPoint 
presentation) 
1 2 
USAID comments on the initial final report (10 days) - - 
Final evaluation report 4 4 
One-page briefer preparation 1 0 
Totals 60 90 
Travel over weekends may be required during site visits. Note that September 11, 2014 and September 
27, 2014 are national holidays and thus the US Embassy and USAID are closed on these days. 
X. USAID MANAGEMENT 
Roles and Responsibilities 
USAID: USAID is responsible for: approving the evaluation SOW; reviewing and approving evaluation 
team member candidates; approving the work plan, including LOE; and providing feedback and 
comments to refine the final report, while always maintaining the objectivity of the evaluation findings 
and ensuring feasibility of the recommendations. From a technical management perspective, the 
evaluation team will work closely with the COR for the AGP-AMDe Project. In order to maintain 
objectivity, all final decisions about the evaluation will be made by the Program Office. 
Tufts University (TU)/AKLDP: The management of the evaluation will be handled by TU/AKLDP. 
TU/AKLDP is responsible for: recruiting and managing the evaluation team; developing contracts for the 
evaluation team; managing finances related to the evaluation team’s expenses during the evaluation; 
refining data collection tools; and participating in review sessions on the draft and final evaluation report. 
XI. LOGISTICS 
The USAID-funded AKLDP project will provide the administrative and logistics support. 
XII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES 
A. DESCRIPTION AND TIMELINE OF DELIVERABLES
1.In-briefing: Within 48 hours of arrival in Addis Ababa, the evaluation team will have an in-brief 
meeting with USAID/Ethiopia’s Program Office and the EG&T Office for: introductions; presentation 
of the team’s understanding of the assignment; initial assumptions; review of the evaluation questions, 
survey instruments, and initial work plan; and adjustment of the SOW, if necessary.
2.Evaluation Work Plan: Prior to their arrival in-country, the evaluation team shall provide a detailed 
initial work plan with timeline to the Program Office and EG&T Office and a revised work plan three 
days after the in-briefing. USAID will share the revised work plan with GoE for comment, as needed, 
and will revise accordingly. The initial work plan will include: (a) the overall evaluation design, 
including the proposed methodology, data collection, and analysis plan, and data collection instruments; 
(b) a list of the team members indicating their primary contact details while in-country, including the e￾mail address and mobile phone number for the team leader; and (c) the team’s proposed schedule for 
the evaluation. The revised work plan shall include the list of potential interviewees, sites to be visited, 
and evaluation tools.
3.Mid-term Briefing and Interim Meetings: Schedule a mid-term briefing with USAID to review the 
status of the evaluation’s progress, with a particular emphasis on addressing the evaluation’s questions 
and a brief update on potential challenges and emerging opportunities. The team will also provide the 
COR of AGP-AMDe project with periodic written briefings and feedback on the team’s findings. 
Additionally, a weekly 30-minute phone call with the Program Office and the EG&T Office and Team 
14 
Leader will provide updates on field progress. If there are any problems, these should be immediately 
addressed and not be left for the phone calls.
4.PowerPoint and Final Exit Presentation: A final presentation to USAID and other relevant partners 
will include a summary of key findings and key conclusions as these relate to the evaluation’s questions 
and recommendations to USAID and the implementing partners. It is to be scheduled as agreed upon 
during the in-briefing, and five days prior to the evaluation team’s departure from Addis Ababa. A copy 
of the PowerPoint file will be provided to the USAID’s EG&T and the Program Offices prior to the 
final exit presentation.
5.Draft Evaluation Report: The content of the draft evaluation report is outlined in Section XIII.B, 
below, and all formatting shall be consistent with the USAID branding guidelines and 508 compliance. 
The focus of the report should be answering the evaluation questions and may include factors the team 
considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such factors can be included in the 
report only after consultation with USAID. The draft evaluation report will be submitted by the 
evaluation team leader to the USAID’s EG&T, Program Office, and TU/AKLDP 24 hours in advance 
of the exit briefing for review and comments by USAID. USAID’s Program Office and EG&T will 
have ten business days in which to review and comment and TU/AKLDP shall submit all comments to 
the evaluation team leader. 
6.Final Evaluation Report: The report will incorporate final comments provided by the TU/AKLDP. 
The length of the final evaluation report should not be more than 30 pages, not including Annexes and 
the Executive Summary. USAID comments are due within ten days after the receipt of the initial final 
draft. The final report should be submitted to the USAID’s EG&T and Program Office within three 
days of receipt of comments by the evaluation team leader. All project data and records will be: 
submitted in full in electronic form in easily readable format; organized and fully documented for use 
by those not fully familiar with the project or evaluation; and owned by USAID and made available to 
the public, barring rare exceptions, on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse 
(http://dec.usaid.gov). 
7.One-page briefer: A briefer on key qualitative and quantitative findings and conclusions relative to 
the evaluation questions for each municipality is included in the evaluation’s scope—to be given to the 
appropriate government counterpart(s) so that they have the opportunity to review evaluation findings 
and share them with the larger community. Each briefer will be reviewed by the Program Office and 
EG&T prior to distribution and will be translated into Amharic. 
B. FINAL REPORT CONTENT 
The evaluation report shall include the following: 
1. Title Page 
2. Table of Contents (including Table of Figures and Table of Charts, if needed) 
3. List of Acronyms 
4. Acknowledgements or Preface (optional) 
5. Executive Summary (3–5 pages) 
The executive summary should succinctly capture the evaluation purpose and evaluation questions, 
project background, evaluation design, methods, and limitations, and the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations. 
6. Introductory Chapter 
a. Brief description of FTF, ZoI, and AMDe intervention areas 
15 
b. A description of the project evaluated, including goals and objectives. 
c. Brief statement on purpose of the evaluation, including a list of the main evaluation questions. 
d. Brief statement on the methods used in the evaluation such as desk/document review, interviews, 
site visits, surveys, etc. 
e. Explanation of any limitations of the evaluation—especially with respect to the methodology 
(e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.)—and 
how these limitations affect the findings. 
7. Findings: This section should include findings relative to the evaluation questions. The information 
shall be organized so that each evaluation question is a sub-heading. Any findings examining group 
differences (i.e., sex, region, etc.) should indicate instances in which differences are statistically 
significant.
8. Summary and Conclusions: This section must answer the evaluation questions based upon the 
evidence provided through the Findings section. The information shall be organized so that each 
evaluation question is a sub-heading.
9. Recommendations and Next Steps: Based on the conclusions, this section must include actionable 
statements that can be implemented into the existing program or included into future program design. 
Recommendations are only valid when they specify who does what, and relate to activities over 
which the USAID program has control. For example, recommendations describing government action 
are not valid, as USAID has no direct control over government actions. Alternatively, the 
recommendation may state how USAID resources may be leveraged to initiate change in government 
behavior and activities. It should also include recommended future objectives and types of specific 
activities based on lessons learned. The information shall be organized so that each evaluation 
question is a sub-heading.
10. Annex: The annexes to the final evaluation report should be submitted as separate documents—with 
appropriate labels in the document file name (e.g., Annex 1—Evaluation SOW) and headers within 
the document itself—and may be aggregated in a single zipped folder.
a. Evaluation Statement of Work 
b. Places visited; list of organizations and people interviewed, including contact details 
c. Evaluation design and methodology 
d. Copies of all tools such as survey instruments, questionnaires, discussions guides, checklists 
e. Bibliography of critical background documents 
f. Meeting notes of all key meetings with stakeholders 
g. “Statement of Differences” 
h. Evaluation Team CVs 
i. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest (signed by each member) 
C. REPORTING GUIDELINES
 The format of the report shall be consistent with the USAID branding guidelines and 508 
compliance. 
 The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate what worked in the project over the given time period, what did not, and why. 
 Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the statement of work. 
 The evaluation report should include the statement of work as an Annex. All modifications to the 
statement of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team 
composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the Program Office. 
16 
 Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation 
such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final 
report. 
 Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females, and data will be 
disaggregated by gender, age group, and geographic area wherever feasible. 
 Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the 
limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable 
differences between comparator groups, etc.). 
 Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise, 
and supported by strong quantitative and/or qualitative evidence. 
 Sources of information, including any peer-reviewed or grey literature, will be properly identified 
and listed in an Annex. 
 Recommendations will be supported by a specific set of findings. They will also be action-oriented, 
practical, and specific, with defined responsible parties for each action. 
  
17 
Annex	2	Evaluation	Team	Members	–	Curriculum	vitae	
Annex 3: Conflict of Interest forms
U.S. Governmental Evaluator 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 
Conflict of Interest Form 
Source Selection Name: Amdissa Teshome RFA Number: 
Please review the list of prime contractors and their subcontractors who are offering 
proposals in response to the Request for Application for the source selection identified 
above with the Contracting Officer. After reviewing the list, check the appropriate boxes, fill 
in the information requested, and sign. 
I certify that neither I nor my immediate family, to the best of my knowledge, possess 
any financial interest whatsoever in any company, parent or subsidiary, which is 
proposing on the acquisition identified above now being considered by the Technical 
Evaluation Committee (TEC) of which I am a member or advisor. Should any 
company in which I or my immediate family has a financial interest submit a proposal 
to my source selection team, I will reveal immediately such interest to the TEC 
Chairperson and Contracting Officer. 
Or 
☐I do possess a financial interest in a company that is proposing on or is in a way involved 
in the acquisition identified above now being considered by the TEC of which I am a 
member or advisor. (If you have checked this box, please provide a description of your 
financial interest on the reverse side of this form.) 
I further acknowledge my obligation to disclose any friendships; family or social 
relationships; past, present, or planned employment relationships, or any other type of 
relationship, such as housing or transportation arrangements which might be perceived as 
compromising my independent judgment in connection with the Source Selection. (Please, 
make any disclosures on the reverse of this form.) 
Name (print): Amdissa Teshome 
Organization: USAID/Ethiopia Phone: +251 (0) 911177069 
Signature: 
Date: 18/01/15 

Non-Disclosure Form 
Name: Amdissa Teshome Organization: AKLDP/Tufts 
Source Selection Name: RFA Number: 
1. I acknowledge that I have assigned to the source selection indicated above. I have 
been briefed orally by the COP and as such, am knowledgeable of Subsection 27 of 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Procurement Integrity Act, 41 
U.S.C., Section 423, and FAR 3.104. I am aware that unauthorized disclosure of 
source selection or proprietary information could damage the integrity of this 
procurement and that the transmission or revelation of such information to 
unauthorized persons could subject me to prosecution under the Procurement 
Integrity Laws or under other applicable laws. 
2. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not divulge, publish, or reveal by word, 
conduct, or any other means, such information or knowledge, except as necessary to 
do so in the performance of my official duties related to this source selection and in 
accordance with the laws of the United States, unless specifically authorized in 
writing in each and every case by the Contracting Officer or duly authorized 
representative of the United States Government. I take this obligation freely, without 
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and in the absence of duress. 
3. I acknowledge that the information I receive will be given only to persons specifically 
granted access to the source selection information and may not be further divulged 
without specific prior written approval from an authorized individual. 
4. If, at any time during the source selection process, my participation might result in a 
real, apparent, possible, or potential conflict of interest, I will immediately report the 
circumstances to the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer. 
☐Check if applicable: I am a non-government employee. I have signed a proprietary 
information non-disclosure agreement that has been included in the contract between my 
firm and the government that precludes me from divulging any proprietary data to which I 
may gain access during the source selection. I have submitted (or will submit) a Conflict of 
Interest Statement and documentation to the Contracting Officer indicating my personal 
stock holdings prior to accessing source selection information. 
Signature: Date: 18/01/15 
Debriefing Certificate 
I have been debriefed orally by the COP as to my obligation to protect all information to 
which I have had access during this source selection. I no longer have any material 
pertinent to this source selection in my possession except material that I have been 
authorized in writing to retain by the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer. I will not 
discuss, communicate, transmit, or release any information orally, in writing, or by any other 
means to anyone after this date unless specifically authorized to do so by a duly authorized 
representative of the United States Government. 
Signature: Date: 18/01/15 


 
U.S. Governmental Evaluator 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 
Conflict of Interest Form
Source Selection Name: Nigussie Alemayehu RFA Number: 
Please review the list of prime contractors and their subcontractors who are offering 
proposals in response to the Request for Application for the source selection identified 
above with the Contracting Officer. After reviewing the list, check the appropriate boxes, fill 
in the information requested, and sign.
☐I certify that neither I nor my immediate family, to the best of my knowledge, possess any 
financial interest whatsoever in any company, parent or subsidiary, which is proposing on 
the acquisition identified above now being considered by the Technical Evaluation 
Committee (TEC) of which I am a member or advisor. Should any company in which I or my 
immediate family has a financial interest submit a proposal to my source selection team, I 
will reveal immediately such interest to the TEC Chairperson and Contracting Officer.
or
☐I do possess a financial interest in a company that is proposing on or is in a way involved 
in the acquisition identified above now being considered by the TEC of which I am a 
member or advisor. (If you have checked this box, please provide a description of your 
financial interest on the reverse side of this form.)
I further acknowledge my obligation to disclose any friendships; family or social 
relationships; past, present, or planned employment relationships, or any other type of 
relationship, such as housing or transportation arrangements which might be perceived as 
compromising my independent judgment in connection with the Source Selection. (Please, 
make any disclosures on the reverse of this form.)
Name (print): Nigussie Alemayehu 
Organization: USAID/Ethiopia Phone: (+) 251-911-111942
Signature: 
Date: 25 February 2015
Non-Disclosure Form
Name: Organization: 
Source Selection Name: RFA Number: 
1. I acknowledge that I have assigned to the source selection indicated above. I have been 
briefed orally by _________________________ and as such, am knowledgeable of 
Subsection 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Procurement Integrity Act, 
41 U.S.C., Section 423, and FAR 3.104. I am aware that unauthorized disclosure of source 
selection or proprietary information could damage the integrity of this procurement and that 
the transmission or revelation of such information to unauthorized persons could subject me 
to prosecution under the Procurement Integrity Laws or under other applicable laws.
2. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not divulge, publish, or reveal by word, conduct, or 
any other means, such information or knowledge, except as necessary to do so in the 
performance of my official duties related to this source selection and in accordance with the 
laws of the United States, unless specifically authorized in writing in each and every case by 
the Contracting Officer or duly authorized representative of the United States Government. I 
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and in the 
absence of duress.
3. I acknowledge that the information I receive will be given only to persons specifically granted 
access to the source selection information and may not be further divulged without specific 
prior written approval from an authorized individual.
4. If, at any time during the source selection process, my participation might result in a real, 
apparent, possible, or potential conflict of interest, I will immediately report the circumstances 
to the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer.
X Check if applicable: I am a non-government employee. I have signed a proprietary information 
non-disclosure agreement that has been included in the contract between my firm and the 
government that precludes me from divulging any proprietary data to which I may gain access during 
the source selection. I have submitted (or will submit) a Conflict of Interest Statement and 
documentation to the Contracting Officer indicating my personal stock holdings prior to accessing 
source selection information.
Signature: 
Date: 25 February 2015
Debriefing Certificate
I have been debriefed orally by _________________________________ as to my obligation to 
protect all information to which I have had access during this source selection. I no longer have any 
material pertinent to this source selection in my possession except material that I have been 
authorized in writing to retain by the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer. I will not discuss, 
communicate, transmit, or release any information orally, in writing, or by any other means to anyone 
after this date unless specifically authorized to do so by a duly authorized representative of the United 
States Government.
Signature:
Date: 25 February 2015

1 | Page
Annex 4 Work plan
Table 1. Summary mission plan
Dates   Working
day
A.A. Field
Nov. 19 First Phase Nov. 19–Dec. 20 1
Nov. 19   Initial Planning and Preparations 2–6 6 0
Nov. 25– Dec.
2
Northern route field mission      (3
team members)    
7–13 0 9
Nov. 25–Dec.
2
Review of Addis Ababa institutions
and partners (1 team member)
7–13 9
Dec. 3–4 Full team meeting in A.A. 14–15 2 0
Dec. 5–13 Central route field mission
(3 team members)
16–25 0 9
Dec. 5–23 Field visit to Tigray Region (1 team
member)
21–25 9
Dec. 15–19 Full team meeting in A.A. 26–30 7 0
Dec. 20 Team Leader travel to Nairobi 31
Sub‐total 15 18
2015 Second Phase
Jan. 5  TL travel to Addis Ababa 32
Jan. 6–10 Meetings with industry associations.
Report writing
33–37 5
Jan. 12 Team reviews draft 38 1
Jan. 13 Final exit presentation—AMDe 39 1
Jan. 14 Final exit presentation—USAID 40 1
Jan. 15 Incorporate comments 41 1
Jan. 19 Submit final report 42 1
By Jan. 29 USAID comments 43 1
Jan. 30 Final evaluation report 44 1
Jan. 31 1–page briefer 45 1
Table 2. List of organizations, people, and places met
Type of
organization Federal Amhara Tigray Oromia SNNPR Total
AMDe‐AA 1(13)         1(13)
AMDe‐RO   1(4) 1(5) 1(3) 1(7) 4(19)
F/PC/CIG   4(31) 4(42)   1(4) 9(77)
FCU   6(12) 4(10) 5(6) 4(5) 19(33)
Fgov Off 3(7)         3(7)
Prvt 2(2) 1(1) 1(1)     2(4)
R&E 1(1) 1(1) 3(5) 2(6)   7(13)
RO   6(14) 3(7) 1(2) 2(3) 12(26)
SACCO     1(3)     1(3)
SBN     1(3)     1(3)
2 | Page
TMMF     1(4)     1(4)
USAID‐FTF 5(12)       1(1) 6(13)
Total 12(35) 19(63) 19(80) 9(17) 9(20) 66(215)
Table 3. Detailed mission plan
Date Travel schedule Focus (northern route) Addis national activities
         Dr. Amdissa
Tues. Nov. 25 Drive AA–
DebreMarkos  
Warehouse construction; 1,440 members
trained on PHL; 39 leaders trained & 4 PCs
trained in cooperative management; 2
fumigation sheets (WFP marketing); 2
bankable business plans; 7 million Birr loan
for maize marketing; 145 Q white maize
supply to WFP. Overnight in DebreMarkos
Ethiopian Coffee Growers; Ethiopian
Pulses; Ethiopian Honey and Beeswax;
ECX ; The Millers Association; Ministry of
Trade; Cooperative Bank of Oromia;
Exporters: Green Coffees; DuPont pioneer
factory Menengesha; Federal Cooperative
Agency; MoA (AGP); ATA
Wed. Nov. 26 Travel DebreMarkos
to Bahir Dar
Travel—Bahir Dar     
Thurs. Nov.
27
Bahir Dar Meet with zone/woreda officials; blended
fertilizer plant; warehouse; fumigation
sheets; WFP purchase of white maize; post‐
harvest handling; PC leaders management
training
  
Fri. Nov. 28 Bahir Dar 20 million Birr loan facilitated; 2 bankable
business plans prepared; 3 market linkages
with buyers
  
Sat. Nov. 29 Travel Bahir Dar to
Gonder
Gonder overnight  
Sun. Nov. 30 Gonder Break. Writing day    
Mon. Dec. 1   Meet regional/zonal
heads
Sesame seed cleaning machine; sesame seed
provided to members; 47 leaders and staff
SM4M post‐harvest handling; seed grading
equipment. Overnight
  
Tues. Dec. 2 Gonder afternoon
travel to A.A.
30 million Birr Loan for sesame purchase;
export sesame facilitated; bankable business
plans. Travel air to A.A.
  
      Meeting with AMDe team     
      JF; Nigussie; Amdissa  
Wed. Dec. 3     Review day for team    
Thurs. Dec. 4     Break  
      Southern route Tigray route
Fri. Dec. 5 Drive to Jima (Oromia) Overnight Jima via BechoWaliso.  Meet
zone/woreda officials
Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMD
team
Sat. Dec. 6 Travel Agaro (Oromia) Overnight Jima. 2 wet coffee, 32 lead
farmers, and 2,000 member farmers—post‐
harvest; management (overnight)
Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMD
team
Sun. Dec. 7      Break—discussion/writing
Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMDe
team
Mon. Dec. 8 Travel Bonga (SNNPR) Meeting with officials. 1,440 member
farmers trained in post‐harvest and input
handling; 16 leaders and 4 PCs trained in
cooperative management; Honey collection,
storage, and handling. Bonga overnight.
Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMDe
team
3 | Page
Tues. Dec. 9 Travel Bonga–Walkite–Hossana–Awassa Overnight Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMDe
team
Wed. Dec. 10 Hawassa (SNNPR) M)et with officials and AMDe staff Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMDe
team
Thurs. Dec. 11 Hawassa (SNNPR) (Overnight). Warehouse; white maize
facilitated; 960 farmers trained post‐harvest;
fumigation sheets; 41 leaders trained
management and 14.4 million Birr loan
facilitated for maize purchase; 34 leaders
trained in cooperative management
Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMDe
team
Fri. Dec. 12   Travel Robe (Oromia) Meet with officials. Tractor support for
union, 68Q wheat seed for FCU; 960 farmers
trained on post‐harvest; 21 leaders and
cooperatives trained on management;
market linkage 7,000. Overnight
Amare mission to Tigray. Link with AMD
team
Sat. Dec. 13 Travel Robe–A.A.
(road)
Travel.  Overnight A.A. Amare returns to A.A.
Sun. Dec. 14    Break    
Mon. Dec. 15 A.A. Team meeting, a.m. meetings with ATA,
AGP, FCA
  
Tues. Dec. 16 A.A. Meetings with ATA, AGP, FCA AMDe, LMD afternoon
Wed. Dec. 17     Group meeting with GRAD, ENGINE, LMD,
AMDe, PRIME
  
Thurs. Dec. 18 A.A. Meet USAID—Interim meeting    
Fri. Dec. 19 A.A. Team briefing with Adrian  
Sat. Dec. 20 TL   Travel A.A.–
Nairobi
     
Phase 2
Mon. Jan. 5 TL travel to Addis
Ababa
     
Tues. Jan. 6   Meeting of ET
exchange of individual
drafts
     
Wed. Jan. 7 Writing draft report.
Data analysis,
preliminary report
     
Thurs. Jan. 8 Writing draft report.
Data analysis,
preliminary report
     
Fri. Jan. 9 Writing draft report.
Data analysis,
preliminary report
     
Sat. Jan. 10 First draft exchanged
between ET members
     
Sun Jan. 11 Team review of draft        
Mon. Jan. 12 ET meets industry
associations
  
Tues. Jan. 13 ET meets industry
associations
     
Wed. Jan. 14 Final exit presentation
to AGP‐AMDe
     
Thurs. Jan. 15 Final exit presentation
to USAID
     
Fri. Jan. 16 Incorporation of
comments from
presentations
     
Sat. Jan. 17 Incorporation of
comments from
presentations
     
4 | Page
Sun. Jan. 18 TL travel A.A.–NBI      
5 | Page
Mon. Jan. 19 Submit draft final
report
     
Jan. 29 USAID comments (10
days)
     
Jan. 30 Final evaluation report       
Jan. 31 1‐page briefer       
ANNEX 5: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
1 AGP Project Appraisal Document, September 3, 2010, World Bank.
2 Feed the Future Baseline Report 2013, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program, May 2004,
International Food Policy Research Institute.  
3 AGP‐AMDe Mid‐Term Evaluation Statement of Work.
4 AGP‐AMDe Rapid Value Chain Survey of Wheat, Maize, Coffee, Sesame, Honey, and Beans/
Pulses, December 2011, ACDI/VOCA.
5 AGP‐AMDe Year 1 Work Plan.  
6 FY 2014 Annual Report.   
7 FY 2012 Annual Report.  
8 Y3 Work Plan.  
9 Y4 Work Plan Final.  
10 Y2 Work Plan Nov. 30.
11 Rapid VC Survey.  
12 DoC 001 Baseline Report.  
13 Y2 Annual Report.   
14 Annex 2: 2014 Annual Survey.   
15 Annex 7: Activities with Cooperatives.
16 List of 96 AGP Woredas.  
17 FY 2014 Work Plan.  
18 3Q Report 2014.
19 AMDe Project Document.
20 ToRs for Team members—IFDC, John Mellor, Danya, CQI, Crown Agents.
21 Trade Agreements Privatising Biodiversity, November 2014.
22 Report of the BBSRC Working Group on Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture.
23 Honey Bee Production and Marketing Systems, Constraints and Opportunities in Burie
District, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. A thesis submitted to the Department of Animal Science
and Technology, School of Graduate Studies, Bahir Dar University, May 2009, Tessega Belie.
24 Feed the Future (FTF) of Ethiopia—Baseline Report of 2013.
25 ATA‐AMDe‐USAID Coordination Table.
26 Five Year Sesame Production Assessment.
27 CASCAPE National Stakeholders Conference, NSC1 Presentation.
28 ENGINE External Mid‐Term Evaluation 2014.
29 MASHAV Rapid Assessment Report October 2014.
30 Grain 5 Year—5070 Trade Deals—Criminalise Farmer Seeds.
31 Trade Agreements Privatising Bio Diversity.
32 CASCAPE National Stakeholders Conference, Value Chain Presentation, 24/April /14, see
CASCAPE Report for details.
33 ATA‐USAID‐AGP Coordination Table.
34 African Soils Crisis Threatens Food Security.
35 AGE‐VCE Task Order AID 663.
36 GRAD MTE Report, Vol. 1, Main Text, 28/11/2014.
37 Push‐Pull—1 slide.
38 Sustainable Agriculture Intensification, Report on the BBSRC Working Group on Sustainable
Intensification of Agriculture, 03/12/2014.
39 MASHAV, Rapid Assessment Report, October, 2014.
40 AGP‐AMDe Annual Progress, Survey and Baseline Reports (Year 1—May 2011–Sep 2012;
Year 2—Oct 2012–Jun 2013; Year 3—Jul 2013–Jun2014; Annual Survey—Jul 2014 and
Baseline Household Survey—Oct 2011).
41 AGP‐AMDe Annual Survey, July 2014.
42 AGP‐AMDe Annual Work Plans (Year 1—Nov 2011–Sep 2012; Year 2—Oct 2012–Jun 2013;
Year 3—Jul 2013–Jun 2014 and Year 4—Jul 2014–Jun 2015).
43 AGP Final Report on Program Mid‐Term Evaluation, MoA, May 2014, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
44 AGP‐AMDe Annex 1—Assumptions, Targets and Achievements, 5 pp.
45 Central Statistical Agency of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Agricultural
Sample Survey, 2008/09 (2001 E.C.), (September–December 2008), Volume VII: Report on
Crop and Livestock Product Utilization (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season), Statistical
Bulletin 446, Addis Ababa, June 2009.
46 Central Statistical Agency of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Agricultural
Sample Survey, 2010/2011 (2003 E.C.), (September–December 2010), Volume I: Report on
Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season).
47 Central Statistical Agency of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Agricultural
Sample Survey, 2010/2011 (2003 E.C.), (September–December 2010), Volume II: Report on
Livestock and Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings).
48 Central Statistical Agency, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey, Addis Ababa, 2011.
49 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, MoARD, Agricultural Growth Program (AGP)
Program Implementation Manual (PIM), June 2010, Addis Ababa.
50 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, MoH (201): Health Sector Development
Programme IV (2010/11–2014/15).
51 Feed the Future (FTF) of Ethiopia—Baseline Report 2013.
52 Gender Aware Approaches in Agricultural Programmes—Ethiopia Country Report, SIDA,
May 2010.
53 Growth and Transformation Plan 2010/11–2014/15, Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia.
54 http://www.feedthefuture.gov/documents/FTF_2010_Implementation_Plan_Ethiopia.pdf.
55 IPMS Ethiopia 2007, Toolkit for Gender Analysis of Crop and Livestock Production
Technologies and Services Provision, MOARD, ILRI, CIDA.
56 Protein Energy Malnutrition in Boys Is More Common Than in Girls, Is More Frequent
amongst Rural Households, and Exhibits Regional Variation with Highest Rates Being Found
in Tigray and Amhara, World Bank, 2001.
57
Annex 6: List of Places Visited and People Interviewed
Name Sex Organization Role Region Office Location Date of Meeting Contact via Category 2 short
Vanessa Adams F ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Director AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Yohannes Agonafir M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Maize VC Specialist AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Teka Reda M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Senior National VC Specialist AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Mengesha Tadesse M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Policy Team Leader AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Bizuwork Negussie M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Team Leader—Innovation Grant AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Mesfin Terefe M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Zewdu Yilma M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Wheat VC Specialist AA AA 11/19/2014 AMDe‐AA
Assefa Amaldegn M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Senior Honey Value Chain
Specialist
AA AA ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
AMDe‐AA
Rahel Tessema F ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Senior Gender Specialist AA AA ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
AMDe‐AA
Firew Bekele M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Senior BCC Manager AA AA ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
AMDe‐AA
Amogne Diresse M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Senior Nutrition Specialist AA AA ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
AMDe‐AA
Baraki Zeselassie M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
Director of Finance & Operations AA AA ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Addis Ababa
AMDe‐AA
Semachew Kassahun M USAID/FTF Coordinator AA Embassy of USA 11/24/2014 USAID‐FTF
Adam M USAID/FTF AA Embassy of USA 11/24/2014 USAID‐FTF
Daniel M USAID/FTF AA Embassy of USA 11/24/2014 USAID‐FTF
Sahle Derbew M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Amhara Region
Maize VC Specialist Amhara Bahir Dar 11/25/2014 AMDe‐RO
Endegena Amare M Zonal Cooperatives Promotion
Office, East Gojam Zone
Head Amhara Debremarkos 11/25/2014 RO
Mulusew Addis M Zonal Cooperatives Promotion
Office, East Gojam
Promotion Process Owner Amhara Debremarkos 11/25/2014 RO
Abrham Tadesse M Zonal Cooperatives Promotion
Office, East Gojam
Marketing Expert Amhara Debremarkos 11/25/2014 RO
Meselu Worku M Gozamen FCU Manager Amhara Debremarkos 11/25/2014 FCU
Wogayehu Mengistu M Gozamen FCU Marketing Head Amhara Debremarkos 11/25/2014 FCU
ZeElias Yiley M Woreda Office of Agriculture,
Debre‐Elias Woreda
AGP Focal Person Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Asmare Taye M Woreda Office of Agriculture,
Debre‐Elias Woreda
Process Owner, Crop Production Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Endazeze Gedie M Woreda Office of Agriculture,
Debre‐Elias Woreda
Crop Production Expert Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Misganaw Mossie M Woreda Office of Agriculture,
Debre‐Elias Woreda
Crop Protection Expert Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Alem Menge F Gofchima PC Cooperatives Promoter Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 F/PC
Andualem Dilnessa M Gofchima PC Accountant Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 F/PC
Degarege Tsegaye M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 F/PC
Minalu Melay M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 F/PC
Shiferaw Yenealem M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Gizachew Ayena M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Esuale Melese M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Arefayne Abatyihun M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Zelalem Belsti M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Mosse Wubu M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Anchinesh Ejigu F Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Wondimu Zeleke M Gofchima PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 Gofchima PA/Kebele, Debre Elias,
East Gojam
F/PC
Mulatu Demeke M Gofchima PC DA Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Abrham Dagnaw M Gofchima PC DA Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Mekuanint Desse M Gofchima PC DA Amhara Debre‐Elias 11/26/2014 RO
Getachew Eshetu M Damot FCU Manager Amhara Bure 11/26/2014 FCU
Teferi Wondale M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Amhara Region
Manager Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 AMDe‐RO
Sintayehu Mengiste M Zenbaba Bee Products
Development and Marketing
Cooperatives Union
Manager Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 FCU
Enkuanhone Mekuriaw M Zenbaba Bee Products
Development and Marketing
Cooperatives Union
Quality Control Expert Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 FCU
Temesgen Muche M Zenbaba Bee Products
Development and Marketing
Cooperatives Union
Quality Equipment Operator Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 FCU
Sitotaw Abay M Merkeb FCU Deputy Manager Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 FCU
Girum Tessema M Merkeb FCU Marketing Expert Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 FCU
Solomon Abe M Amhara Bureau of Agriculture AGP Focal Person Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 Amhara Bureau of Agriculture,
Bahir Dar
RO
Tekeba Tebabal M Amhara Cooperatives Promotion
Agency
Deputy Manager Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 RO
Amare Ademe M Amhara Cooperatives Promotion
Agency
Marketing Expert Amhara Bahir Dar 11/27/2014 RO
Meskerem Abebe F ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Amhara Region
Nutrition Specialist Amhara Bahir Dar 11/28/2014 AMDe‐RO
Ademetew Tesfaye M Agunta Beekeeper PC Chairman Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Kelemu Turenegh M Agunta Beekeeper PC Cashier Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Bayush Ayenew F Agunta Beekeeper PC Credit Access Committee Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Tirusew Meseret F Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Sitotaw Emere M Agunta Beekeeper PC Purchaser Committee Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Debas Demele M Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Beza Beyene M Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Sheganesh Adamu F Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Yideneku Lake F Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Nibret Tebabel M Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Emawaya Seyouim F Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Desalech Menyehel F Agunta Beekeeper PC Member Amhara Dangila 11/28/2014 Agunta Beekeeper PCDangila,
Amhara
F/PC
Endalkachew Abie M Tsehay FCU Manager Amhara Gondar 11/29/2014 FCU
Getasew Agigneche M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Amhara Region
Sesame VC Specialist Amhara Bahir Dar 11/29/2014 AMDe‐RO
Meseret Eyayu F Aberjeha PA/Kebele, Denbia
Woreda
Chairperson Amhara Denbia 11/29/2014 Aberjeha PA/Kebele, Denbia
Woreda
F/PC
Desse Tesfaye M Aberjeha PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Denbia 11/29/2014 Aberjeha PA/Kebele, Denbia
Woreda
F/PC
Engidaw M Aberjeha PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Denbia 11/29/2014 Aberjeha PA/Kebele, Denbia
Woreda
F/PC
Addis Tarke M Aberjeha PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Denbia 11/29/2014 Aberjeha PA/Kebele, Denbia
Woreda
F/PC
Tadesse Gelaw M Tsehay FCU Production and Seed
Multiplication Head
Amhara Gondar 11/29/2014 FCU
Fantahun Tegegne M Zonal Cooperatives Promotion
Office, North Gondar Zone
Head Amhara Gondar 11/30/2014 RO
Kiros Wolde M Metema FCU Chairperson Amhara Metema 12/1/2014 Metema FCU, Gendewuha FCU
Guade Michael M Metema FCU Manager Amhara Metema 12/1/2014 Metema FCU, Gendewuha FCU
Tekaligne Yiblet M Kokit PC Chairperson Amhara Metema 12/1/2014 F/PC
Afrash Demissie M Kokit PC Farmer and purchaser of the PC Amhara Metema 12/1/2014
Kokit PA/Kebele, Metema Woreda
F/PC
Dinklij Amare M Kokit PC Farmer and member of the PC Amhara Metema 12/1/2014
Kokit PA/Kebele, Metema Woreda
F/PC
Kibretu Telake M Yoninadani Agri PLC Legal Agent Amhara Metema 12/1/2014 Prvt
Getachew Tilaw M Gondar Agricultural Research
Center
Chickpea Breeder Amhara Gondar 12/2/2014 R&E
Dessalegne M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Oromia Region
A/Manager and Wheat VC
Specialist
Oromia AA 12/5/2014 AMDe‐RO
Alemayehu M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Oromia Region
Coffee VC Specialist Oromia AA 12/5/2014 AMDe‐RO
Dinku Gurara M Becho‐Wolliso FCU D/Manager Oromia Tulubolo 12/5/2014 FCU
Mekonnen Haile M Admas FCU Manager SNNPR Wolkitie 12/5/2014 Admas FCU, Wolkitie FCU
Fikadu Dhugassa M Limu Inara FCU Manager Oromia Limu‐Kosa 12/6/2014 FCU
Sada Mohammed M Arga FCU Manager Oromia Agaro 12/6/2014 Arga FCU, Agaro Gomma Woreda FCU
Seyoum Itana M Jima Zonal Office of Agriculture Head Oromia Jima 12/8/2014 Jima Zonal Office of Agriculture,
Jima
RO
Ayelech Tadesse F Jima Zonal Office of Agriculture AGP‐Focal Person Oromia Jima 12/8/2014 Jima Zonal Office of Agriculture,
Jima
RO
Tesfu Kebede M Jima Research Center A/Center Director Oromia Jima 12/8/2014 EIAR, Jima Research Center R&E
Menda Jatessa M Jima Research Center Irrigation Expert Oromia Jima 12/9/2014 EIAR, Jima Research Center R&E
Frehiwet Getahun M Kefa Forest Coffee FCU Manager SNNPR Bonga 12/8/2014 FCU
Alemayehu Hailu M Kefa Forest Honey FCU A/Manager SNNPR Bonga 12/8/2014 Kefa Forest Honey FCU, Bonga FCU
Anbese Abebe M Kefa Forest Honey FCU Board Chairperson SNNPR Bonga 12/8/2014 Kefa Forest Honey FCU, Bonga FCU
Nuredin Mohammed M Marketing and Cooperative Bureau Head SNNPR Hawassa 12/10/2014 RO
Wondwessen Hussein M Bureau of Agriculture A/AGP Focal Person, M & E
Specialist
SNNPR Hawassa 12/10/2014 Bereau of Agriculture, Hawassa RO
Sisay Yohannes M Sidama Elto FCU Manager SNNPR Hawassa 12/10/2014 Sidama Elto FCU, Hawassa FCU
Germame Garuma M Bureau of Agriculture D/Head SNNPR Hawassa 12/10/2014 RO
Amhaeyesus Woldemichael M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
A/Manager and Wheat VC
Specialist
SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region,
Hawassa
AMDe‐RO
Simayehu Tafesse M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
Regional Input Market and Farm
Technology Specialist
SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 AMDe‐RO
Alemayehu Tilahun M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
Maize VC Specialist SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 AMDe‐RO
Wondwossen Worku M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
M & E Officer SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 AMDe‐RO
Etaferahu Alemayehu F ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
Nutrition and Gender Specialist SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 AMDe‐RO
Getachew Asmare M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
Honey VC Specialist SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 AMDe‐RO
Abiot Imiru M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, SNNP Region
Grants & BDS Specialist SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 AMDe‐RO
Elias Kayessa M ENGINE Project, Regional Office,
SNNP Region
Regional Coordinator SNNPR Hawassa 12/11/2014 ENGINE Project, Regional Office,
SNNP Region, Hawassa
USAID‐FTF
Tilahun Nigatu M Wetera Kechema PC Secretary SNNPR Wondo Genet 12/11/2014 Wetera Kechema PA/Kebele,
Wondo Genet Woreda
F/PC
Mengesha Doyamo M Wetera Kechema PC Control Committee Chairperson SNNPR Wondo Genet 12/11/2014 Wetera Kechema PA/Kebele,
Wondo Genet Woreda
F/PC
Mengistu Alebachew M Wetera Kechema PC Treasurer SNNPR Wondo Genet 12/11/2014 Wetera Kechema PA/Kebele,
Wondo Genet Woreda
F/PC
Engidawork Asefa M Wetera Kechema PC Board Chairperson SNNPR Wondo Genet 12/11/2014 Wetera Kechema PA/Kebele,
Wondo Genet Woreda
F/PC
Olika Urgessa M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Oromia Region
Rural Finance Specialist Oromia AA 12/12/2014 ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Oromia Region
AMDe‐RO
Negesso Jara M Raya Wakena FCU A/Manager, HR Head Oromia Dodolla 12/12/2014 Raya Wakena FCU, Dodolla, West
Arsi
FCU
Anteneh Teferi M Raya Wakena FCU Agronomist Oromia Dodolla 12/12/2014 Raya Wakena FCU, Dodolla, West
Arsi
FCU
Mohammed Wayu M Ardaita ATVET College Academic Vice Dean Oromia Ardaita 12/12/2014 Ardaita ATVET College R&E
Abraham Girma M Ardaita ATVET College Head of Cooperative Finance and
Auditing
Oromia Ardaita 12/12/2014 Ardaita ATVET College R&E
Melese Waktola M Ardaita ATVET College Head of Cooperative
Management
Oromia Ardaita 12/12/2014 Ardaita ATVET College R&E
Teshale Likesa M Ardaita ATVET College Practical Training Coordinator Oromia Ardaita 12/12/2014 Ardaita ATVET College R&E
Biniam Solomon M Galema FCU Admin and Finance Head Oromia Bekoji 12/12/2014 Galema FCU, Bekoji, West Arsi FCU
Berhan Darge F ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Tigray Region
Wheat Value Chain Expert Tigray Mekele 12/5/2014 AMDe‐RO
Leake Gebreselama M ACDI/VOCA AGP‐AMDe Project
Regional Office, Tigray Region
Sesame Value Chain Expert Tigray Mekele 12/5/2014 AMDe‐RO
Abadi Girmaye M TARI A/Director General, Natural
Resources Director
Tigray Mekele 12/5/2014 R&E
Mezan Amare M TARI Crops Director Tigray Mekele 12/5/2014 R&E
Yemane W/ Gebriel M TMMF Manager Tigray Mekele 12/5/2014 TMMF
Assefa Babe M CIG Wheat seed multipliers Tigray Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 F/PC
Mulu Huluf M CIG Wheat seed multipliers Tigray Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 F/PC
Tadesse Habtu M CIG Wheat seed multipliers Tigray Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 F/PC
Gebre Kidan Hailu M Embaba Haya SACCO Chairperson Tigray Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 SACCO
Alemtehaye Seyum M Embaba Haya SACCO Manager Tigray Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 SACCO
Sendayo Abadi M Embaba Haya SACCO Loan Officer Tigray Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 SACCO
Yemane G/Meskel M Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 F/PC
Lemlem Meresa F Mekele University Livestock Expert, gives training to
Bees CIG
Tigray Mekele 12/6/2014 R&E
Lemlem Hagos F Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Member of Bee CIG Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization, Kebele‐Semirt
Woreda‐Endamehoni
F/PC
Akeza Kalayou M Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Member of Bee CIG Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization, Kebele‐Semirt
Woreda‐Endamehoni
F/PC
Haftu Kiros M Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Member of Bee CIG, Kebele
Manager
Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization, Kebele‐Semirt
Woreda‐Endamehoni
F/PC
Merset Dargo F Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Member of Bee CIG, purchaser Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization, Kebele‐Semirt
Woreda‐Endamehoni
F/PC
Negeste Haile F Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Member of Bee CIG, supervisor Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization, Kebele‐Semirt
Woreda‐Endamehoni
F/PC
Mebrat Afera F Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization
Member of Bee CIG, supervisor Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 Debre Genet Women Bee
Organization, Kebele‐Semirt
Woreda‐Endamehoni
F/PC
Fetale Gesesse F Semirt Kebele women's affairs Head Tigray Simert Kebele‐ 
Endamehoni
Woreda
12/6/2014 RO
Abebe Fantaye M Ofla Ashange FCU Manager Tigray 12/7/2014 FCU
Moges Abreha M Ofla Ashange FCU Cashier Tigray 12/7/2014 FCU
Debar Alemseged M Gasha Reda Lema Mechanized
Farm P.L.C.
Manager Tigray 12/7/2014 Prvt
Abate Mesele M Bokra FCU Marketing & Deputy Manager Tigray 12/7/2014 FCU
Mulu Asefa M CIG Wheat seed multipliers of
Ferehaya PC
Accountant Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Haftu Agebahu M CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Tadesse Haftu M CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Adehanu Babae M CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Teamo Reda M CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Abeba Kiros F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Mehagosit Berhanu F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Meheret Gidaye F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Sendayo Alemu F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Lemle m Haile F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Abokesh Kashaye F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Aleganesh Nigussie F CIGW SM Member Tigray 12/7/2014 F/PC
Gebru Desta M AGP‐AMDe Focal Person AGP‐AMDe Focal Person Tigray Mekele 12/8/2014 RO
Atakelt Ambachew M BDS and Grant Specialist BDS and Grant Specialist Tigray Mekele 12/8/2014 AMDe‐RO
Aseffa Abebe M Rural Finance Specialist Rural Finance Specialist Tigray Mekele 12/8/2014 AMDe‐RO
Daniel G/Meskel M Comel Managing Director Comel Managing Director Tigray Mekele 12/8/2014 AMDe‐RO
Abadi Haile Selassie M AGP+CU Focal Person AGP+CU Focal Person Tigray Mekele 12/8/2014 RO
Haile Zebelew M HuARC Director Tigray Humera 12/9/2014 R&E
Fesseha Berhae M HuARC Sesame Agronomist Tigray Humera 12/9/2014 R&E
Tadessie G/Kidan M Setit Humera FCU Chairperson Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 FCU
Zemikial Tesfahun M Setit Humera FCU Cashier Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 FCU
Abreha G/ Mariam M Setit Humera FCU Manager Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 FCU
Amare Haile M TMMF Plan and Progam Oficer Tigray Mekele 12/10/2014 TMMF
Mebratom Teferi M TMMF, Humera Branch Manager Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 TMMF
Hailemariam Menker M TMMF, Humera Branch Technician Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 TMMF
Getachew Andualem M CBO, Humera Branch Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 TMMF
Hayelom Abera M MFSC Chairperson Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 F/PC
Zafu Asmelash M MFSC Member Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 Humera, Tigray F/PC
Aeb Asmelash M MFSC Secretary Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 Humera, Tigray F/PC
Birhan Asefa M MFSC Depty Chairperson Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 Humera, Tigray F/PC
Tesfaye Areki M MFSC Adminstrator Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 Humera, Tigray F/PC
Lilay Merset F MFSC Cashier Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 Humera, Tigray F/PC
Tekle Michael Tadesse M Dansha FCU Manager Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 FCU
Mamao Alemayehu M Dansha FCU Chairperson Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 FCU
Dereje Techanew M Dansha FCU Depty Chairperson Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 FCU
Medhene Beyene M Dansha FCU Finance Head Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 FCU
Abadit Tadese F CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Ekubazqi Welendel M CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Adisu Giday M CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Asmelash W/Gebriel M CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Hagos Kahsay M CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Haile Chane M CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Giday Abereha F CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Shishay Gezae F CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Tsegaye G/Medhin M CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Tsehaye Birhanu F CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Birhane Welay F CIG Seed Multiplication of
Egirmetkel PC
Member Tigray Dansha 12/10/2014 Dansha, Tigray F/PC
Tesfaye Yaebeyo M Humera, ZARDO Head Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 RO
Berhane Mengeha F Humera, ZARDO Extension Team Leader Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 RO
Berhane Feseeha F Humera, ZARDO Agronomist Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 RO
Alemseged Alemayehu M Kafta Humera Sesame Production
and Sales Cooperatives
Manager Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 F/PC
Tekemte Tsegaye M Kafta Humera Sesame Production
and Sales Cooperatives
Board Chairperson Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 F/PC
Ayenew SerekeBerhan M Kafta Humera Sesame Production
and Sales Cooperatives
Quality and Inspection Tigray Humera 12/10/2014 F/PC
Henock Demessie M MoT Branch Office Branch Managger Tigray Humera 12/12/]2014 RO
Kasu Kelele M SBN Agronomist Coach Tigray Humera 12/12/]2014 SBN
Atakelti Fisseha M SBN Agronomist Coach Tigray Humera 12/12/]2014 SBN
Gezu Seyum M SBN Marketing Tigray Humera 12/12/]2014 SBN
Fekadu Tilahun M ATA Director, Input‐Output Market
Linkage
AA AA 12/16/2014 Fgov
Dereje Biruk M ATA Wheat and Barely Value Chain
Director
AA AA 12/16/2014 Fgov
Fasil Reda M ATA Maize and Sorghum Director AA AA 12/16/2014 Fgov
Mirafe Gebriel M ATA Chief of Staff and Senior Director,
Special Projects
AA AA 12/16/2014 Fgov
Girma Kassa M AGP‐LMD DCOP AA AA 12/16/2014 AGP‐LMD Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Cherinet Zewdie M AGP‐AMDe M&E specialist AA AA 12/16/2014 AGP‐AMDe Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Tadele Gelan M AGP‐AMDe DCOP AA AA 12/16/2014 AGP‐AMDe Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Mark Steen M AGP‐LMD COP AA AA 12/16/2014 AGP‐LMD Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Karri Byrne F Mercy Corps/PRIME COP AA AA 12/16/2014 Mercy Corps/PRIME Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Maura Brazil F ACDI/VOCA SVP 12/17/2014 ACDI/VOCA Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Daniel Abbot M SCI/ENGINE DCOP AA AA 12/16/2014 SCI/ENGINE Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Ebrahim M MoA, AGP Management Unit Advisor AA AA 12/17/2014 MOA Addis Ababa Fgov
H/E Usman Surur M Federal Cooperatives Agency Director AA AA 12/17/2014 FCA Addis Ababa Fgov
Tesfaye Mengiste M MoA, Extension Directorate Director AA AA 12/18/2014 Fgov
John Meyer M CARE/GRAD Chief of Party AA AA 12/16/2014 CARE/GRAD Addis Ababa USAID‐FTF
Demese Chanyalew M John Mellor Associates Consultant AA AA John Mellor Associates Prvt
Yilma G/Kidan M Coffee Growers & Exporters Association General Manager AA AA Coffee Growers & Exporters Association Prvt
Getahun Alemu M IFDC/AGP‐AMDe Senior Seed Specialist AA AA IFDC/AGP‐AMDe AMDe‐AA
Asnake Fikre M EIAR Crop Research Director AA AA EIAR R&E
ANNEX 7: Tools Used
1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS MATRIX
A. Performance results Source of data Method of data collection Tool to be used
1. To what extent is the AGP‐AMDe Project
progressing against Planned objectives as
outlined in its Performance Management
Plan (PMP) and Work Plan?
1. PMP and other M&E docs
2. Work Plans
3. Baseline surveys and formative research
4. Project performance data
5. Quarterly reports
6. Annual reports
7. Budget and financial reports
8. Woreda field visits
1. Document review
2. Mission Work Plan
3. List of interviewees
4. Interview with John Mellor on
Agriculture Policy Reform
5. Interview CQI on TA for Coffee value
chain
6. Interview Crown Agents—demand‐
driven Technical Assistance (TA)
7. Interview with Danya on BCC
communications
1. Team discussion and reporting
2. Semi‐structured interviews
3. Focus group discussions
4. Individual discussions
5. Data analysis
2. To what extent is this project contributing
to gender equity in terms of access to
credit, access to capacity‐ building support,
access and adoption of improved inputs and
technologies and income increase as the
result of incremental sales of agricultural
commodities? Is there evidence supporting
positive change in the aforementioned
areas?
1. Baseline surveys and formative research
2. Quarterly reports
3. Annual reports
4. Budget and financial reports
5. Project performance data
6. Interviews at woreda level/FCU, PC‐ level,
and women groups
1. Document review
2. Discussions with consortium members
3. Discussion with GoE staff at state and
woreda levels
4. Discussions with Cooperative/Farmers
Assoc. officials
5. Discussion with women groups
1. Team discussion and reporting
2. Semi‐structured interviews
3. Focus group discussions
4. Individual discussions
5. Data analysis
3. What has been AMDe’s contribution to the
improvement of Nutritional Status of
Women and Children? What is the evidence
of that?
1. Project performance data
2. Woreda/region nutrition data
3. UN/NGO local nutrition data
4. Interviews at cooperative level and
women groups
1. Interview with Danya—behavior
change and technology adoption
2. Document review
3. Discussion with GoE staff at state and
woreda levels
4. Discussions with Cooperative/
Farmers Assoc. officials, women groups
1. Team discussion and reporting
2. Semi‐structured interviews
3. Focus group discussions
4. Individual discussions
5. M&E system
6. Data analysis
4. What is the impact of the resources spent
(financial and human) and performance per
value chain?
1. Maize
2. Wheat
3. Sesame
4. Coffee
5. Honey
6. Chickpeas
1. Baseline surveys and formative research
2. Quarterly reports
3. Annual reports
4. Budget and financial reports
5. Project performance data
6. Interviews at woreda level/cooperative
level and farmers/women groups
1. Document review
2. Mission Work Plan
3. List of interviewees
4. Discussion with GoE staff at state and
woreda levels
5. Discussions with Cooperative/
Farmers Assoc. officials
6. Discussion with farmers/women
groups
1. Team discussion and reporting
2. Interview questionnaires
3. Focus group discussions
4. Individual discussions
5. Data analysis and presentation
6. Matrix for each value chain—
smallholder farmers; capacity of
cooperative sector; private traders;
processors; service providers; market
linkages
7. Value chain map for selected hubs
B Project design and management
1. Which among the AMDe’s partnerships
have been the most effective in terms of
their collaboration and coordination to
implement AGP‐AMDe? Which ones have
been the least effective? What is
contributing to these partnerships’ success
and challenges?
1. Interviews with ACDI/VOCA and Team
members
2. Quarterly reports
3. Annual reports
4. Budget and financial reports
5. Project Performance data
6. Interviews at woreda level/cooperative
level and farmers/women groups
1. Document review
2. Mission Work Plan
3. List of interviewees
4. Discussion with GoE staff at state and
woreda levels
5. Discussions with Cooperative/Farmers
Assoc. officials
6. Discussion with farmers/women
groups
1. Matrix for defined partner
relationships
2. Team discussion and reporting
3. Semi‐structured interviews
4. Individual discussions
5. Data analysis and presentation
a. Other AGP program components
implemented by government agencies
7. List of other AGP program components
implemented by government agencies
See above See above
b. Other AGP program partners: GoE, ATA, and
others
8. Project documents for: GoE–MoA;
Ministry of Trade; Ministry of Industry;
Federal Cooperative Agency; other donors
See above See above
c. Other Feed the Future Projects, especially
LMD, ENGINE, and GRAD
9. Project documents for: LMD, ENGINE,
and GRAD
See above See above
C. Sustainability Source of data Method of data collection Tool to be used
1. Which of the components and/or project
activities can easily be scaled up in the
future based on measurable, practical, and
sustainable results: enhancing agricultural
productivity; access to finance; and access
to markets?
1. Generated from B1. Matrix/analysis for
defined consortium/partner roles
2. Generated from A4. Matrix/analysis for
each value chain: smallholder farmers;
capacity of cooperative sector; private
traders; processors; service providers;
market linkages
See A4 See A 4.7.
Team discussion
D. Management
1. Given the findings in the above questions,
does the project have the right balance of
staff and funding given activity priorities?
Outcomes from A, B, and C Outcomes from A, B, and C Team discussion.
Group meeting (s) with ACDI/VOCA
2. SEMI –STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
A. Performance Results 
1. To what extent is the AGP-AMDe Project progressing against planned objectives as outlined in its Performance Management Plan (PMP) and Work Plan? 
The evaluation should analyze actual results versus the targets outlined in the Project PMP within the activity’s different technical areas. 
 Specific questions Level Source/method 
1. Compare targets and actual results. Identify reasons for 
under-/over-achievement. AMDe HQ 
AMDe regional 
offices 
Progress reports/internal mid-term reviews (if any) 
2. Have the project targets changed since project inception? If 
yes, what circumstances led to the change? 
Compare original project document with revised project documents (if 
any) 
3. Has the project promoted competitiveness in each of the value 
chains in its operational areas? Compare before and after 
project competitiveness in the value chains.
Federal/Regional 
Interview 
 Federal/Regional trade bureaus 
 Federal/Regional Agricultural marking bureaus/directorate 
 Cooperative agency 
 Cooperative/union leaders/traders/brokers 
4. What mechanism has the project used to facilitate access to 
finance for smallholders/primary cooperatives/unions/local 
traders? How successful has it been in this respect?
Interview 
 Cooperative banks 
 Microfinance 
5. How successful has the project been in influencing the 
enabling environment for smallholders/primary 
cooperatives/unions/ local traders? Are there policies 
changed/new policies formulated as a result of project 
activities?
Interview 
 ECX 
 ATA 
 Agriculture marketing directorate 
 Cooperative agency 
 Cooperative/union leaders 
6. What is the rate of innovation grant disbursements? How 
effective have they been in meeting their objectives? 
Interview grant receivers 
7. Identify successful and unsuccessful approaches leading to the 
achievement of project objectives. 
Woreda/ 
community 
Interview relevant woreda officials, DAs, 
community discussion (FGDs) 
8. Identify any evidence that suggest the project may be under- or 
over-reporting results against its indicators. 
AMDe 
Federal/Region 
Woreda 
Close examination of project reports over time 
Interview project staff 
Interview with government/donor 
Ground truthing (FGDs) 
9. What measures has the project taken to ensure sustainability? Federal/Region 
Woreda 
Community 
Interview 
2. To what extent has this project contributed to gender equity in terms of access to credit, access to capacity-building support, access to and adoption of improved inputs and 
technologies and income increase as the result of incremental sales of agricultural commodities? Are there evidences supporting positive changes in the aforementioned areas? 
 Specific questions Level Source/method 
10. What percentage of value chain participants is women? 
AMDe 
Region 
Woreda 
Community 
Analyze project reports 
Community FDGs 
Interview woreda Extension workers and DAs 
11. What percentage of credit beneficiaries is women/women 
groups? How does this compare with regional/federal targets 
and achievements? 
12. What percentage of trainees is women/women groups? How 
does this compare with regional/federal targets and 
achievements? 
13. What percentage of adopters of improved inputs and 
technologies is women/women groups? How does this compare 
with regional/federal targets and achievements?
14. Has women/women group income increased as a result of the 
project? If yes, by how much? How does this compare with 
income increase for men? 
Community Community discussion (both men/women) using appropriate PRA tools 
15. Compare before and after project increase in women 
income/empowerment status. 
Community Community discussion (both men/women) using appropriate PRA tools 
16. What measures has the project taken to ensure sustainability in 
gender equity? 
3. What has been AMDe’s contribution to the improvement of Nutritional Status of Women and Children? What are the evidences of that? 
 Specific questions Level Source/method 
17. Is the SM4M strategy compatible with nutrition objective? Is 
there evidence that increase in households/women income has 
also led to improved nutritional status? 
AMDe 
Region 
Woreda 
Community 
Interview 
 Project staff at HQ and region 
 FTF partners 
 Woreda extension workers and DAs 
 Community FDGs (men/women) 
18. Does the project have a system for monitoring the effectiveness 
of its BCC materials? How effective are the project’s BCC 
materials? 
AMDe 
Woreda/kebele
Community 
Interview 
 Interview Project BCC staff 
Review BCC materials 
Community discussion (both men/women) 
19. Compare dietary diversity for women and children before and 
after project. 
Community Community discussion (both men/women) using appropriate PRA tools 
20. What measures has the project taken to ensure sustainability in 
nutrition practices? 
4. What is the impact of the resources spent (financial and human) and performance per value chain? i.e., What is the relative value generated in terms of productivity and income 
increase, employment generation per value chain to resources spent? (i.e., Which value chains have the highest returns per dollar spent?) 
 Specific questions Level Source/method 
21. Budget and staff allocation by value chain 
AMDe 
Region 
Interview: 
 Finance and human resource 
department 
 The respective value chain heads 
22. Employment generated by value chain Community Community discussion (both men/women) 
using appropriate PRA tools 
23. Income increased by value chain Community Community discussion (both men/women) 
using appropriate PRA tools 
24. What measures has the project taken to ensure 
financial/human resources sustainability? 
B. Project Design & Management 
1. Which among the following of AMDe’s partnerships have been the most effective in terms of their collaboration and coordination to implement AGP-AMDe? Which ones have been 
the least effective? In both cases, what is contributing to these partnerships’ success and challenges? 
a. Other AGP program components implemented by government agencies 
b. Other AGP program partners; GOE ( this includes Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Industry, Federal Cooperative Agency, etc.), ATA, and other 
donors 
c. Other Feed the Future projects, especially LMD, ENGINE, and GRAD 
 Specific questions (the questions will be reversed when interviewing 
partners and AMDe) 
Level Source/method 
25. Why and how is the organization selected for collaboration? What is 
the collaboration framework? Is the framework binding or voluntary? 
AMDe 
Federal 
Partner 
organizations 
Interview: 
 Associations leaders 
 Financial institutions 
 Private sector 
 The respective value 
chain heads 
 AGP coordinator 
 ATA 
 MoT/MoI 
 FCA 
 FTF partners 
26. Which value chain is the organization involved in? 
27. What were the expectations of the organization at the beginning of the 
project? Are these expectations met? Are they likely to be met in the 
second half of the project? 
28. To whom is the organization/collaborator accountable/reporting? 
How frequently is it reporting? 
29. How simple/complex is the collaboration procedure? 
Vertical/horizontal? 
30. What were the challenges of working with the project? How have 
these challenges been addressed? How responsive is the project to 
challenges/problems encountered? 
31. Overall, how effective do you think the partnership is? (on a scale of 
1–5; 1=least 5=most) 
32. What measures has the project taken to ensure sustainable 
collaboration? 
C. Sustainability 
1. Which of the components and/or project activities can easily be scaled up in the future based on measurable, practical, and sustainable results?: 
 Enhancing agricultural productivity 
 Access to finance and 
 Access to markets 
D. Management 
1. Given the findings in the above questions, does the project have the right balance of staff and funding given activity priorities? Is there an appropriate balance between the 
resources (staff and budget), their management, and the activities the project intends to accomplish? 
AMDe	Mid‐term	Review	Mission
I	 Questions	to	guide	discussions	with	Region,	Zone	and	Woreda‐level	officials	
A.	 Particulars	
	 Region:	
	 Zone:	
Woreda:	
Office	name:	
Name:	
Role/Title:	
Address	(including	Tel	#	E‐mail,	etc.):	
B	
1. In	which	areas	of	development	(of	the	region,	zone,	woreda)	is	AMDe	working	in	partnership	with	your	office?	(keeping	in	mind	all	the	components	of	AMDe)
2. Who	are	the	primary	targets	of	these	interventions?	(component	by	component	and	probing	more	on	gender equity;	wealth level‐the	poorest	of	the	poor	
vs	better	offs;	and	value chain actors‐grassroots	production	vs	top	market‐level	actors)	
3. How	are	the	planning,	implementation	and	monitoring	processes	carried	out	jointly	with	the	project	team?	
4. Are	 there	 other	 partners	 (other	 than	 the	 AGP‐GoE)	 engaged	 in	 similar	 interventions?	 And	 how	 is	 the	 coordination	 done	 to	 ensure	 effectiveness	 and
efficiency?	
5. What	Nutrition Programs	are	currently	being	implemented	and	in	which	of	these	is	AMDe	involved?	
6. In	your	assessment,	how	do	you	rate	the	progress	in	achieving	planned	targets?		
7. Are	there	any	inconsistencies	in	quarter‐	or	annual‐	reports	produced	by	the	project?	
C	
8. How	do	you	assess	or	compare	effectiveness	of		
a. AMDe’s	project	components	being	implemented	in	the	(region,	zone,	woreda)	
b. Other	partners	with	similar	interventions	
c. What	is/are	contributing	to	the	successes	archived	and	challenges	encountered?	
D	
9. Which	best	practices	of	AMDe	can	be	scaled	up/out	easily	and	which	ones	not?	and	what	are	the	reasons	for	these?	
E	
10. Does	the	project	have	enough	staff	at	this	office	level	to	implement	plans?	What	would	be	the	best	arrangement?	
F		
11. What	changes	do	you	think	should	be	made	to	make	for	the	project	to	deliver	more	effectively	and	efficiently	
a. For	the	next	two	years	
b. If	it	has	to	continue	after	2016