[July 14, 2016] This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by BLUE Consulting Ltd: Dr. Mohamed A. Sherif Omran, M&E Expert/ Activity Leader; Dr. David Schroder, Agribusiness Expert/ Editor; Dr. Hamdi Salem, Agriculture Economist/ Team Leader; Dr. Ayman Shelaby, Agricultural Economist; Dr. Alaa El-Beltaguy, Food Processing Expert; Ms. Shaymaa M. Omran, Economic Analyst. Final Performance Evaluation Agribusiness Linkages Global Development Alliance, Developing Egypt’s Agribusiness Industry FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Agribusiness Linkages Global Development Alliance, Developing Egypt’s Agribusiness Industry July 14, 2016 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. iii Contents ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................VI EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................................. 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 3 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 7 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 7 Sample size ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ......................................................................................................................... 9 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 11 DESK-REVIEW FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................11 FIELD SURVEY FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................13 Question One: What objectives/ targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results? ................................13 Question Two: What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs ..................................................................................................20 Question Three: In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the project (from design to the end of implementation)? What are areas for improvement? ............................................................................23 Question Four: To what extent were the projects able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design? ...................................................................................................................................................26 Question Five: How have the projects developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors? .............................................................................................................................................32 Question Six: To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)? ................................................................................................................35 Question Seven: To what extent did the implementing partners monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project? a. How did ACDI/VOCA adjust the implementation to address findings? ...............................................................................................................................................37 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................................38 ANNEXES....................................................................................................................................................................40 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) ......................................................................................... 41 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS....................................................................................................................... 55 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................................... 59 iv Tables TABLE 1: BENEFICIARIES AND OTHER STOCKHOLDERS TO BE INTERVIEWED THROUGH GROUP AND/ OR ONE-TO-ONE INTERVIEWS .............. 7 TABLE 2: NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS AND THE ONE-TO-ONE INTERVIEWS............. 8 TABLE 3: SAMPLE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................................. 8 TABLE 4: ANALYTICAL TABLES: GDA – SOS & IRS ..................................................................................................................11 TABLE 5: GENDER AND EDUCATION DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................16 TABLE 6: HOLDING AREAS AND TOMATO AREAS AS PERCENTAGE OF THE HOLDING AREAS ................................................................17 TABLE 7: DID THE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT? .................................................................................17 TABLE 8: REASONS OF PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................17 TABLE 9: DID THE PROJECT IMPROVE THE CLEANING, GRADING AND HANDLING SYSTEMS? ...............................................................18 TABLE 10: HOW DO THE BENEFICIARIES VALUE PROJECT SUPPORT PROVIDED? ..............................................................................21 TABLE 11: EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ASSOCIATION IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................25 TABLE 12: PROJECT SUPPORT TO THE ASSOCIATIONS ...............................................................................................................28 TABLE 13: SOURCE OF SEEDLINGS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER PROJECT .....................................................................................29 TABLE 14: DID THE PROJECT IMPROVE THE AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS? ...........................................................................................29 TABLE 15: MARKETING PROBLEMS BEFORE AND DURING PROJECT..............................................................................................30 TABLE 16: WOMEN CONTRIBUTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES........................................................................................33 TABLE 17: IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE WOMEN’S INCOME................................................................................................. 34 TABLE 18: WHAT ARE THE SUSTAINED ACTIVITIES AFTER THE END OF THE PROJECT? .......................................................................36 TABLE 19: DID ACDI/VOCA MONITOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION? .........................................................................................38 TABLE 20: SOURCE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS FOR THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .........................................................................56 TABLE 21: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS – QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................................................60 v ACRONYMS AERI Agricultural Exports and Rural Incomes ALEB Agriculture-Led Export Businesses ASBA Assiut Businessmen’s Association ATUT Agricultural Technology Utilization and Transfer AUC American University in Cairo CD Country Director CFI Cairo Food Industries COO Chief Operations Officer DDC Desert Development Center EU European Union EurepGAP Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices GDA Global Development Alliance GAP Good Agricultural Practices GOE Government of Egypt IMC Industrial Modernization Center LE Egyptian Pounds (LE 5.68 = $1) MoALR Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MT Metric tons OD Organizational Development P & J Paste and Juice Company PBDAC Principal Bank for Development and Agricultural Credit SOW Statement of Work US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to assist the USAID Mission and USAID Washington in reaching decisions related to:  The effectiveness of the current approach to strengthen the food processing industry, the livelihoods of small farmers, and the capacity building;  The types of mechanisms/ approaches the Mission should use in any future assistance to the sector (specifically the GDA); and  The nature and scope of possible future projects in the sector based on lessons learned from the current projects. The evaluation questions are as follow: 1. What objectives/ targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results? 2. What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs? 3. In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the projects (from design to the end of implementation)? What are areas for improvement? 4. To what extent were the projects able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design? 5. How have the projects developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors? 6. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)? 7. To what extent did the implementing partners monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project? How did ACDI/VOCA adjust the implementation to address findings? The Agribusiness Linkages Global Development Alliance (GDA)1 , which began in March 2008, whereby USAID, the H.J. Heinz Company (HEINZ) and ACDI/VOCA, along with local partners teamed up to support the development of the agricultural sector in Egypt. 1 USAID provided funding for the GDA under a cooperative agreement with ACDI/VOCA number 263-A-00-08-00013-00 and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with H.J. Heinz Company. vii ACDI/VOCA was the principal implementing partner of the GDA, and used the value chain approach to link farmers with plots of ten or less feddans2 into production groups to benefit from improved marketing opportunities and economies of scale. The GDA assisted farmers to improve productivity by introducing new, high value varieties; integrating technology (e.g., soil and water analyses; formulating fertilizers and pesticide regimens; mechanization including sub-soiling, leveling, bed listing, etc.) into their operations; and applying better agronomic methods and farming practices, such as improved irrigation methods and post-harvest handling. The GDA's targeted areas for intervention were Luxor; Qena; Esna and Aswan in Upper Egypt; and Nubaria in North Egypt. Production groups were introduced to forward type contracting methods used by HEINZ. The forward contracting method generally committed farmers to supply participating local food processors with at least 50% of their total production of processing tomatoes. They were able to sell the remainder of their crop in the local market to take advantage of any upward change in the price of tomatoes, which has been historically volatile in Egypt. Alternate crops were of equal importance to this GDA success. While growing tomatoes using a forward contract approach with HEINZ and other participating local food processors, this would enable small-scale farmers to stabilize their income. In addition, farmers were assisted by the project to grow high value horticultural crops for export and/or high-end local markets thereby increasing their marketing opportunities and income potential. During January 2011, as the economic and political situation in Egypt deteriorated, many farmers were unable to procure the necessary inputs such as pesticides or to visit their farms to irrigate their crops over-ripened in the fields because laborers were unwilling or unable to harvest the crops, and crop yields were substantially reduced. Farmers faced the 2011/12 crop season with insufficient liquidity to work their farms. In response to this situation, USAID expanded the scope of the GDA, in particular the ACDI/VOCA cooperative agreement, to provide additional support through an input in-kind grant program for smallholder farmers and managed by selected associations. This allowed 2,811 farmers to cultivate more than 10,400 feddans of tomatoes as they received seedlings, fertilizers and/or pesticides through a special grant type voucher program that was initiated in year 4 of the project. In addition, the GDA project was granted an additional six month extension to allow selected associations to manage the in-kind grant activity for farmers to reduce some of the constraints in the tomato value chain 2 A Feddan is 4,200 square meters and a hectare is equal to 10,000 square meters. viii that hinder farmers’ access to quality inputs and high value markets. Also, three associations in Aswan received six fully equipped greenhouse tunnels to cultivate seedlings, and a group of three associations in Luxor received a collection center with cold trucks, pre-cooling and a cold storage facility. This work was completed under consecutive project extensions of ACDI/VOCA’s cooperative agreement during the period from October 2012 to March 2013, and the final extension, which ran through June 2013. The goal of this USAID project was to integrate 3,000 farmers into a sustainable and competitive high-value horticultural value chain anchored by HEINZ in the governorates of Sohag, Qena, Luxor, and Aswan in Upper Egypt; El Minya and Assiut in Middle Egypt; Beni Suef, Giza, and Fayoum in Northern Upper Egypt; and the Nubaria area in Lower Egypt. The planned results were to:  Increase smallholder production of processing varietals of tomatoes to 2,000 tons of tomatoes per day by year 3, and 4,000 tons per day by year 5, with attainment of each benchmark triggering a total of around $40 million in investments by Americana (private sector processor) in processing facilities and facility upgrades.  Increase annual per capita incomes from tomatoes of participating smallholder farmers by an average of $921 (LE 5,321) for 3,000 farmers by year 5 in 10,000 feddans. In addition, the GDA objectives during the extension period were to ensure the delivery of the in-kind grants to beneficiaries and to ensure sustainable sources of income for beneficiaries. The ultimate goal of the GDA was to contribute to sustainable rural development throughout Egypt by enhancing the capacity of smallholder farmers to profitably serve as reliable suppliers of high-value horticulture to processors and other buyers. The GDA project operated through four components towards achieving its ultimate goal: Component 1: Organizing smallholder production and farm management; Component 2: Organizing smallholder marketing and sales; Component 3: Strengthening business/logistics services; and Component 4: Immediate impact and emergency grants. This performance evaluation employed qualitative and quantitative methods to answer USAID’s evaluation questions. The mixed-methods approach combined a desk review with key interviews with implementers, focus group discussions, site visits, and a quantitative survey with GDA beneficiaries. Six associations/cooperatives within three governorates (two from each governorate), and 58 farmer beneficiaries were interviewed individually. The team conducted a total of six focus group discussions with farmers. The focus groups engaged a total of 92 individuals (75 male, 17 female). BLUE Consulting also designed and administered a quantitative survey targeting key project ix stakeholders (4 vendors, 7 processors, 6 NGOs (associations/cooperatives), 5 greenhouse owners, 19 field representatives, 9 master trainers, and 8 government officials), primarily to obtain their views and perceptions concerning various measures of agricultural productivity resulting from GDA activities and support provided. Based on the desk review the evaluation team was able to determine the end of project targets and achievements for each of the strategic objectives and results. After the team conducted their field survey and focus group meetings; they were able to verify the results reported by ACDI/VOCA. Remarkably, the team agreed with most of ACDI/VOCA’s reported results as verified by the evaluation team. The GDA project collaborated with several selected vendors (agribusiness firms) for the purpose of supplying quality production inputs to smallholders. A majority of the vendors (four out of six) stated that the project assisted them in developing activities that increased their sale of inputs for the new plant varieties being promoted under the GDA. The project provided various types of assistance and support to greenhouse owners and operators to expand quality seed production, new tomato varieties, and services to farmers. The greenhouses were mainly used as nurseries and none of them were used for commercial tomato production. Most of the greenhouse owners (three out of five) who participated in the GDA project expanded the number and area of their greenhouses during implementation of the GDA compared to the number and area before the project began. Also, four out the five owners interviewed indicated that their production costs were reduced by 25% to 50% due to better management of their inputs, especially in the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The main problem for tomato production, identified by the growers in the three governorates (through the focus group meetings), was plant diseases especially the “Tuta Absoluta” pest. The GDA project assisted growers in solving this problem by providing appropriate pesticides and using appropriate application methods. Pesticides were provided to farmers in the form of a voucher (subsidy) to participating farmers, encouraging them to adopt the use of appropriate pesticides as stated by all interviewees. In accordance with the GDA’s overall objectives, the GDA project assisted growers in improving productivity through adopting good agricultural practices (GAP). As a result of the above-improved best practices adopted, it was reported through all focus groups that grower’s productivity per feddan increased by approximately 25% to 30%. Not only did productivity increase, growers reported that their cost per unit (ton) of production decreased by approximately 20% to 25%. x In general, the project was successful in contributing to the Agricultural Exports and Rural Income Project’s3 highest-level results under which the GDA was authorized. The overall technical support provided by the GDA project has been reported to be significant and positive in increasing productivity and farmer incomes. However, the marketing support provided was not enough and GDA project participants indicated the assistance provided to them was inadequate in addressing their immediate marketing problems, especially in Aswan and Luxor project areas. Partnership between the GDA project and stakeholders and between stakeholders themselves were formed during the project from year one through year five, but none of the partnerships were formed during the design and planning period for the GDA project. Vendors, greenhouse owners, processors and farmers indicated they were not engaged in the early planning of the GDA activities and they were decision-takers rather than decision-makers. NGOs associations were relatively more engaged in the design and planning of the GDA activities during implementation. Business relationship between vendors (input providers) and greenhouse owners and between greenhouse owners and farmers were established and are relatively sustainable. Some of the association NGOs that participated in the project have continued and maintained a relationship with other stakeholders and developed new linkages that were based on their previous project experience. As for capacity building, the vendors interviewed reported different types and levels of support provided to them by the GDA project including: training and information, established linkages and contracts between food processors and growers, and growers with greenhouses vendors. ACDI/VOCA screened and contracted several greenhouses to serve as key nurseries for GDA project target areas. All nurseries participated in the GDA activities received technical and training support from ACDI/VOCA building greenhouse nursery’s staff and management capacity, which included the establishment and effective management of the greenhouse, introducing new plant varieties, improved irrigation systems and management, appropriate use and application of fertilizers, pest management and control programs, and producing quality seedlings. 100% of the sample in Behira and Luxor governorates believed that the GDA project did improve the agricultural system in their governorate. 94% of the interviewed beneficiaries in Aswan 3 See project background xi also believed that the project improved their agricultural system. The beneficiaries, who said yes, believed that the GDA project improved the irrigation system (15%), fertilizer programs (25%), new varieties (20%), pest management (24%), and improved seedlings (16%). Referring to the capacity building of the associations, two (2) greenhouses were established for the Alhekma Association in Wadi Alnokra - Aswan to expand growers’ access to new quality seedlings thereby reducing their need to travel long distance to obtain quality seedling. The Women’s Association in Luxor, as a result of GDA assistance, contracted other food processors and exporters to supply onions after the project period ended. Also, the GDA project supported the establishment of a cooling facility in Isna, which now serves three associations in generating revenue and expanded services to their members. No formal financial support (farm credit or loans) was offered to any of the beneficiaries and stakeholders except for providing a voucher program (in-kind subsidy) for farmers to adopt production inputs such as quality seedlings, fertilizers, and pesticides. All greenhouse owners interviewed reported up to 50% to 90% of personnel in nurseries were female and most of them received training through the GDA project. Only a few females were interviewed outside of the women from the Women Association in Luxor. The focus group meeting participants emphasized the role of females in crop cultivation as significant but limited to several practices such as harvesting and packaging of tomatoes, and sometimes, transplanting of seedlings as reported throughout the five focus groups. These practices generally represent 25% to 50% of the required labor, as they are labor-intensive operations. The GDA project impact on women’s incomes reported positive or neutral. Food processing is an attractive employment area for female labor. Four processors interviewed stated that female laborers represent from 12%-50% of total labor force in the different food processing phases. The engagements of females in associations’ activities were very limited as reported by four association officials who were interviewed. Sustainable relationships between vendors (input providers), associations and greenhouse owners have been maintained through the GDA project. Agricultural practices adopted by greenhouse owners and farmers are still being applied. Activities initiated by the associations NGOs during the project period are mostly functioning. The associations in Behira and Luxor went further to extend their activities to other crops, after the GDA project ended. Grower relationship with processors through forward contracting was not sustainable. xii ACDI/VOCA was reported to do monitoring of its activities offered by the project to beneficiaries and stakeholders, in particular the technical support and training provided. Evaluation of the GDA project activities implemented by ACDI/VOCA was not verified through the evaluation team’s field visits and interviews, however; it was verified from the desk review of ACDI/VOCA’s annual and final report. ACDI/VOCA regularly collected data every year to evaluate project achievements, reported on indicators and measured progress against the GDA project baseline and planned target levels. 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of this assignment is to conduct an evaluation of the Global Development Alliance (GDA) with HEINZ implemented by ACDI/VOCA under the cooperative agreement (award #: 263-A-00-08-00013). The GDA project began in March 2008 and ended June 2013. This evaluation will serve a dual purpose: 1) learn to what extent the GDA project objectives and goals, at all result levels, have been achieved; and 2) to inform the design of future projects, particularly using the GDA approach4 , working in the tomato or rotational crop value chains. The evaluation used quantitative and qualitative data and was based on the perception of the stakeholders (i.e. farmers, private sector processors, greenhouse operators, traders, input suppliers, associations, etc.) and relevant staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, occurring approximately three years after the GDA implementation period ended. Also the evaluation collected feedback on GDA project achievements, how it was implemented, and stakeholders and beneficiaries’ value and perception of what results were actually achieved. The seven main evaluation questions are as follow: 1. What objectives/targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results? 2. What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs? 3. In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the project (from design to the end of implementation)? What are areas for improvement? 4. To what extent was the project able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design? 5. How have the project developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors? 4 Global Development Alliance (GDA) --A GDA is a partnership involving USAID and the private sector where the partners work together to develop and implement activities that leverage and apply our respective assets and expertise to advance core business interests, achieve USAID’s development objectives, and increase the sustainable impact of USAID's development investments. GDAs mobilize at least $1 in resources from private sector partners for every $1 USAID contributes. 2 6. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)? 7. To what extent did the implementing partner monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project? How did ACDI/VOCA adjust the implementation to address findings? 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Agribusiness Linkages Global Development Alliance (GDA) project was authorized to contribute to the Economic Growth Objective and the Agriculture Program Area of the AERI project through providing support for agricultural trade expansion, small-scale producers and producer and marketing associations to increase private sector competitiveness. The Agribusiness Linkage GDA Goal was: to contribute to sustainable rural development throughout Egypt by enhancing the capacity of smallholder farmers to profitably serve as reliable suppliers of high-value horticulture to processors and other buyers by integrating 3,000 farmers into a sustainable and competitive high-value horticultural value chain anchored by HEINZ in the governorates of Sohag, Qena, Luxor, and Aswan in Upper Egypt; El Minya and Assiut in Middle Egypt; Beni Suef, Giza and Fayoum in Northern Upper Egypt; and the Nubaria area in lower Egypt. Intended planned results were:  Increase smallholder production of processing varieties of tomatoes to 2,000 tons of tomatoes per day by year 3, and 4,000 tons per day by year 5, with attainment of each benchmark triggering a total of around $40 million in investments by Americana (private sector processor) in processing facilities and facility upgrades.  Increase annual per capita incomes from tomatoes of participating smallholder farmers by an average of $921 (LE 5,321) for 3,000 farmers by year 5 in 10,000 feddans. The Strategic Objectives were:  Strengthened tomato processing sector as measured by increased production of processing tomato varieties in Egypt and increased tomato processing sector supply.  Annual per capita incomes from tomatoes increased by an average of $921 (LE 5,231) for 3,000 participating smallholder farmers by Year 5 in 10,000 feddans. The GDA initially was designed to have three components, and in 2011, a fourth component was added. The four components and the intermediate results are as follows: Component 1: Organizing smallholder production and farm management Intermediate Result 1.1: Improved utilization or implementation of new agricultural technology and techniques IR 1.1.1: 85% of smallholders adopting new technology or techniques IR 1.1.2: 60% of smallholders utilizing new seed varieties for tomatoes & alternative crops 4 Intermediate Result 1.2: Improved yields (increase in MT of tomatoes harvested per feddan) IR 1.2.1: Tomato yield increasing from an average of 12-15 MT per feddan to more than 30 MT per feddan IR 1.2.2: 20% decrease in crop spoilage & losses as a result of improved harvest & post-harvest practices Intermediate Result 1.3: Improved return on investment for smallholders IR 1.3.1: 20% decrease in production costs (as a percentage of revenue) Component 2: Organizing smallholder marketing and sales Intermediate Result 2.1: Strengthened producer-buyer linkages IR 2.1.1: 40% of all crops (tomatoes and alternate crops) sold into processing or exporting channels (contingent on market prices) Component 3: Strengthening business/logistics services Intermediate Result 3.1: Improved production of hybrid seedlings IR 3.1.1: 60% increase in survivability rate of seedlings in the greenhouse and in the field IR 3.1.2: 20% increase in income for greenhouses from the sale of seedlings Intermediate Result 3.2: Improved application of pesticides IR 3.2.2: 500 applicators/ operators trained prior to MoALR qualification and licensing Component 4: Immediate impact emergency grants. Intermediate Result 4.1: Improved farmers’ access to quality inputs IR 4.1.1: 75% of participating farmers receiving vouchers upon attending relevant training Intermediate Result 4.2: Strengthen Associations’ capacity to manage distribution of agricultural inputs to members IR 4.2.1: Three associations manage distribution of the inputs to the farmers in year 4 and 8 associations in tear 5. Intermediate Result 4.3: Strengthened Supply Chain Linkages IR 4.3.1: 3 processors participate in the grants component in year 4, 5 processors in year 5, and 2 processors develop proposals for USAID in year 4. 5 Project Modifications In April 2010, USAID/Egypt conducted a Rapid Assessment of the project. In response, the Year 3 Work Plan for the GDA was modified by geographical area concentration, as were the two strategic objectives for the project. Going forward, GDA project activities focused primarily on production groups in the South (Esna, approaching it from the North in Qena and from the South in Aswan) and in the North (Nubaria production region). Also, ACDI/VOCA closed their field office in Minya; however, given their working relationship with the World Food Program, ACDI/VOCA continued to support farmer production groups in Beni-Suef due to their willing cooperation to work under forward price contracts with selected food processors from the industrial cities located in the North.. This geographical refocus reduced the number of feddans and farmers enrolled in the project. Thus, ACDI/VOCA amended the first strategic objective of the project to: 1. Strengthened tomato processing sector as measured by: a. Increased production of processing tomato varieties in Egypt b. Increased tomato processing sector supply (and raw tomato demand) Additionally, in order to reach the objective of 10,000 feddans of processing tomatoes under production by year 5, no more than 3,000 farmers could be enrolled in the project. Therefore, the second objective was amended and changed to: 2. Annual per capita incomes from tomatoes increased by an average of $921 (LE 5,231 during an exchange rate of 5.7 EGP/dollar) for 3,000 participating smallholder farmers by Year 5 in 10,000 feddans. No-cost Extension In September 2012, ACDI/VOCA was granted a six- month, no-cost extension (October 2012 - March 2013). During this time, ACDI/VOCA completed the summer 2012 season in Nubaria (North Egypt), where 3,000 feddans of tomato were under production, and the crop was harvested from June through August. In southern Egypt, farmers grew approximately 3,000 feddans of sesame as their summer crop, and it was harvested in September and October. ACDI/VOCA continued to provide these farmers with technical assistance and training as well as marketing support until the harvests was completed. Additionally, in March 2013, ACDI/VOCA was granted an additional three-month no￾cost extension (March 2013-June 2013). During this time ACDI/VOCA provided grants to associations to establish greenhouses, a collection center, two cold trucks and three field coolers. With respect to the approved extension, the result framework was further 6 modified to include an additional strategic objective and two additional intermediate results and sub-intermediate results as follows: Strategic Objective: Enhanced the capacity of Upper Egypt associations to serve the farming communities in the areas of marketing, forward contracting and access to inputs. The two Intermediate results that contribute to the achievement of the SO are: Intermediate Result 5: Enhanced capacity of associations to provide effective, beneficial services to their members and to develop rural communities. This IR 5 had four sub-levels IRs. Intermediate Result 6: Reinforced information that has been transferred to farmers throughout the GDA project in order to assure sustainability. This IR had two sub-levels IRs. 7 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation approach being used to evaluate the GDA activity authorized under the AERI project is based on using: 1) project records and secondary data, and information from available project documentation; and 2) primary data and information collected through questionnaires using one-to-one interviews and targeted focus groups to collect stakeholder perceptions concerning GDA project performance and results achieved. Table 1 summarizes which groups participated in the focus group meetings and which groups were interviewed individually. The survey questionnaires included different types of questions to insure that the evaluation team received correct and accurate information. For example, the evaluation team asked the same question to different stakeholders as well as similar questions which were worded differently to effectively triangulate stakeholder responses (identify a data point from different angles) concerning targeted data and information. All the questions and expected answers in all the questionnaires were coded to easily identify the observations during the analysis phase. Table 1: Beneficiaries and other stockholders to be interviewed through group and/ or one-to-one interviews Group GDA Focus Group meeting One-to-one interviews I Private sector processors, greenhouse operators, traders, input suppliers √ II Farmers/Association Members √ √ III Association Staff √ IV Relevant staff of the Ministry of Agriculture √ Notes: Group II was interviewed through group meetings and a selected number of them were interviewed individually after the group meeting to respond to a larger set of questions. The evaluation team performed a desk review of core project documents, as the first step, to extract the achievements and impacts from project implementation. The team reviewed official ACDI/VOCA work plans, progress reports, mid-term reviews and the end of project report. The Agribusiness Linkages GDA achievements were well identified and recorded. The second step was to design appropriate questionnaires (data collection tools – see Annex III) to collect primary data on perceptions from project beneficiaries and stakeholders concerning project achievements and results. Table 21 in Annex III has a column entitled “Evaluation Question” and each question in the different questionnaires has a value from 1 to 7. In some cases, a question may 8 have two values. This means the answer provided a response to parts of two evaluation questions. The evaluation questions are provided in Annex III at the end of Table 21. Sample size The sample size that was proposed in the SOW was 3% of the beneficiaries of the GDA project in each governorate. The evaluation team proposed an increase in the number of the farmers’ beneficiaries that were interviewed using the focus group meeting method. This permitted a larger number of participants to be interviewed within a shorter time period and without adding additional costs. This was an appropriate solution to reducing potential sample bias due to a small sample size. Table 2 includes the number of farmers’ beneficiaries that attended the focus group meetings and those who participated in the one-to-one interviews. The study team increased the number of farmers met from 64 to 117 farmers. Table 2: Number of Beneficiaries who participated in the Focus Group Meetings and the One-to-One Interviews Number of beneficiaries Governorate Only Both Only Total One-to-One Interviews and FG FG Behira (Nubaria) 8 11 11 30 Aswan 6 13 20 39 Luxor 11 9 28 48 Total 25 33 59 117 Table 3 includes the sample size that was used to collect the required information to analyze the analytical table and to answer the above mentioned evaluation questions. The evaluation team was able to individually interview 58 growers, as well as, 92 growers in farmer group meetings, which increased the number of farmer beneficiaries that were individually interviewed and the overall sample size. Also, the team interviewed 13 farmers (control group) who did not participate in the project. These interviews were in addition to the 58 stakeholders, as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Sample Size and Distribution Governorate/ Location Beneficiaries Other stakeholders interviewed Individual Interviews Group Meetings Control Group Vendors Processors NGOs Greenhous Field Representatives Master Trainers Government Officials Aswan 19 33 7 2 1 2 2 Luxor 20 37 3 2 3 9 2 Behira (Nubaria) 19 22 3 2 1 8 2 Great Cairo 4 7 9 2 Total 58 92 13 4 7 6 5 19 9 8 9 Limitations of the Evaluation Report The GDA project as well as the ACDI/VOCA’s cooperative agreement ended in June 2013, i.e. approximately three years ago. Given the elapsed time of three years in which this performance evaluation is being conducted, project beneficiaries interviewed may not recall the specific details of the Agribusiness Linkages GDA project. This caused some difficulty in arranging the meetings with stakeholders and obtaining accurate and specific information. This assignment started on July 26, 2015, as scheduled. The team started with a desk review and BLUE Consulting submitted a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MoALR) requesting to start the fieldwork with the Agricultural Directorates and Agricultural Cooperatives in Behira (Nubaria), Aswan and Luxor governorates. The Ministry of Agriculture had to approve the meetings with its affiliated Directorates in the targeted governorates. Unfortunately due to the excessive time required to obtain the government’s approval, the work had to be stopped on October 11, 2015 for approximately four months until the Government of Egypt (GOE) approved the proposed field visits to the agricultural directorates and cooperatives. The work resumed on February 12, 2016. This evaluation faced a number of other challenges and limitations. The limitations discussed below are limitations to the evaluation and should not be considered as limitations of the GDA project.  Due to miscommunication with ACDI/VOCA staff during the early implementation of this evaluation, BLUE Consulting team was not able to obtain a complete list of beneficiaries from ACDI/VOCA. This proved a challenge when determining how to identify project beneficiaries to participate in the field surveys. The evaluation team worked with selected farmer associations and cooperatives to draw a sample of beneficiaries from their records. ACDI/VOCA provided the evaluation team with a complete list of vendors, processors, field representatives (who received training under the project), master trainers, and greenhouse owners, which was used to select a random sample of beneficiaries/stakeholders.  Selection bias—the survey sample was drawn by relying on the association records to identify project farmer beneficiaries, which could introduce selection bias. Selection bias is an inherent risk when implementers or project participants help to facilitate contact with project beneficiaries, as they may select the most active, responsive, or engaged beneficiaries, meaning that the evaluation team may only hear from key informants who report positive experiences. During the first meeting of the evaluation team in Nubaria we informed the Cooperative staff on how to select a random sample from their list of farmers. The evaluation team 10 conveyed the same information to the other associations/cooperatives in Aswan and Luxor to reduce the effect of the sample selection bias. Meanwhile, the evaluation team performed a total of six focus group meetings (11-19 beneficiaries in each group meeting), which represented one focus group meeting held in each selected association/cooperative. The focus group meeting allowed for open discussion and consensus on questions, thereby minimizing anticipated sample selection bias.  Recall the end of the project—given that the project activities ended three years prior to the evaluation team’s fieldwork, some key informants could have provided inaccurate or incomplete recollection about GDA activities and experiences. Because beneficiaries, in particular farmers, do not normally keep written farm records, they only gave their best estimates of historical crop sales and incomes, and therefore are only an approximation of their true values.  Also, the sample size, which is relatively small, statistical inferences, should be drawn carefully from the survey findings. 11 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Desk-review findings As indicated in the report methodology, the evaluation work started with a desk review of available GDA documents. Based on the review of documents, the following table summarizes the project goal, strategic objectives and intermediate results, targeted results, documented achievements as amended, and the evaluation team’s remarks and comments. Table 4: Analytical Tables: GDA – SOs & IRs5 # Objective or Indicator End of Project Target End of Project Achievement Evaluation Team’s Remarks and Comments O1 Volume of processing tomatoes cultivated and available to the industry 3,000 MT per day 4,713 MT per day The team agrees with end of project achievement, a 57 percent increased above end of project target based on tomatoes cultivated and available to the industry reported in project documents. What could not be verified is the percent provided by project participant growers due to the small number of growers interviewed through the field survey, which occurred three years after project ended. Also, the project only worked with a small number of food processors and they could not provide data concerning their daily tonnage amounts in the interviews. O2 Average net income from tomatoes per feddan increased $1,091 $3,007 winter $1,189 summer These are the project documented 2011/2012 numbers appear reasonable. The 5 years average numbers were not reported. The team agrees, to the 2011/2012 numbers as the average yield reported by interviewees were reported to be high. Although the prices were down due to contracts problems and issues between farmers and processors. IR 1.1.1 Percentage of participating smallholders adopting new technology or techniques 85% 100% The team agrees to this percentage rate based on project documents and interviewees responses concerning adopting GAP provided through the project. IR 1.1.2a Percentage of smallholders using new seed varieties for tomatoes 90% 100% The team agrees to this percentage reported in 2011/2012 seasons, as the seedlings were provided (for free) by ACDI/VOCA to participating farmers. IR Percentage of 55% 50% The team interviewed only 3 farmers who 5 The objective and indicators are based on the project final report 12 # Objective or Indicator End of Project Target End of Project Achievement Evaluation Team’s Remarks and Comments 1.1.2b smallholders using new seed varieties for alternative crops cultivated alternate crops. The team could not verify the achievement percentage and agree with end of project estimated reported in project documents. IR 1.1.3 Reduced pesticide residuals on crops NA 100% of samples tested below MRLs, with 50% showing no residues The evaluation team agrees with the achievement of reduced pesticide use by farmers through the results of the one to one meetings with the vendors and farmers, and the focus group meetings with growers (farmers). IR 1.2.1 Average yield per feddan for tomatoes 30+ MT per feddan 28.3 MT per feddan The team agrees with project end of project achievement, based on one to one and focus groups discussions concerning yield achievements with project participants. IR 1.2.2 Decrease in tomato crop spoilage and losses as a result of improved harvest and post￾harvest practices 20% decrease in losses Losses, according to the interviewees were not reduced by the percentage reported in project documentation, as most of interviewees reported no assistance provided from the project in post-harvest practices. Also, the waiting time outside the processors (during delivery) spoiled a large amount of delivered tomatoes and the factory rejected them. IR 1.3.1 Change in average per feddan production cost of tomatoes as a percentage of total sales 20% decrease from baseline 45% decrease from baseline (2012 value: production costs represent 47% of total sales) Interviewees reported a decrease in production costs due to the reduced usage of nitrogen fertilizers. Unfortunately the evaluation team could not verify the estimate provided in project documents based on interviews held. IR 2.1.1 Percentage of all crops (tomatoes and alternate crops) sold into processing or exporting channels (contingent on market prices) 40% 22% of tomato crop and 100% of the sesame crop sold to processors or exporters during final GDA crop season, (Summer 2012) Only Behira farmers supplied tomatoes to processors, therefore, the team could not verify the percentage reported, as it requires official records to be provided by processors, which they did not provide to the evaluation team. The team could not verify this achievement reported in project documents for the sesame crop. The sesame crop has to be processed and farmers do not store sesame for long period, therefore the estimates provided in project documents are likely correct. IR 3.1.1 Survivability rate of seedlings in the nurseries 95% 94.5% The team agrees to this percentage estimate provided by project documents and verified based on greenhouse owners interviewed. IR 3.1.2 Increase in income for nurseries from the sale of seedlings 4.1 LE net return per tray 4.59 LE net return per tray The team agrees to this value due to the reduced quantity of fertilizers used reported by a majority of greenhouse owners that were interviewed. IR 3.3.1 Percentage of farmers having access to credit (in the forms of value 50% 100% The team could not verify this achievement as no one of the interviewees reported they received any facilitation assistance offered by ACDI staff to access new finance. Further 13 # Objective or Indicator End of Project Target End of Project Achievement Evaluation Team’s Remarks and Comments chain financing, loans or grants) analysis would need to be done to verify this estimate. IR 4.2.1 Number of associations that managed the distribution of in￾kind grants to farmers 11 associations 15 associations The team received a list of 12 associations provided which in-kind grants to farmers. The team selected a sample of six associations to be interviewed. IR 4.3.1a Number of processors participating in the grants component. 5 processors 6 processors  CFI-Heinz  P&J  Al Ain  Al Kanana  Expert  Green Valley The team could only meet with seven processors out of a list of twenty (20) firms obtained from ACDI/VOCA; the interviewed firms are:  CFI-Heinz  P&J  Al Ain  ICAPP  Wadi Foods  Agrofood  Special Foods Industry International Source: Agribusiness Linkages Global Development Alliance, Final Report dated February 23, 2014; and the findings of the evaluation analysis in 2016. Field survey findings It should be mentioned that the AERI project was designed to achieve the following high level results; small and medium size farms would increase the volume and value of production, especially horticultural products, through improved crop selection, and improvements in production and post-harvest technologies. The data collection and analysis were designed to answer the seven evaluation questions, as per the SOW. Follows are the findings, and conclusion for each of the evaluation seven questions. Question One: What objectives/ targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results? Findings The findings in this section will cover the responses from the beneficiaries and stakeholders concerning the first evaluation question. Vendors The GDA program collaborated with several selected vendors (agribusiness firms) for the purpose of supplying quality production inputs to small holders. The evaluation team interviewed six vendors (including seeds producers). A majority of the vendors 14 (four out of six) stated that the project assisted them in developing activities that increased their sale of seeds and introduced new plant varieties. Also, the project trained technical advisors in the Nubaria Association for Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables. However, the remaining two vendors didn’t receive any assistance for the development of their companies’ activities. The seed providers (vendors), which participated in the project, indicated that they experienced increased germination ratios of seeds provided to the greenhouses. The GDA project changed farmer’s management and use of the traditionally-used pesticides to low residual pesticides, which helped in increasing productivity, quality and the quantities supplied to processors as stated by three out of four suppliers. Smaller quantities of pesticides were used by farmers, which reduced production costs and increased farm income of participated farmers, as stated by three vendors. They (vendors) indicated that increased farmer income was likely due to increased crop productivity. Responses of the vendors were based on the ongoing relationship between them, the greenhouse owners and the farmers during the project period. These vendors recognized the project efforts in helping farmers understand the value and use of appropriate pesticides and in particular using good agricultural practices. Greenhouse Owners The GDA project provided various types of assistance and support to greenhouse owners and operators to expand quality seed production and services to farmers. The greenhouses were mainly used as nurseries and none of them were used for commercial tomato production. Five greenhouse owners were interviewed. Most of the greenhouse owners (three out of five) who participated in the project expanded the number and area of their greenhouses during the project compared to the number and area before the project. The primary reason for this was the increased number of participating farmers and their demand for new seedlings. However, there were some greenhouse owners who decided not to expand their greenhouse operations due to their limited financing and management capacity. Fortunately, none of the greenhouse owners decreased their number of nurseries during or after the project period, as they benefited from project technical assistance and training. Two of the greenhouse owners, who participated in the project, faced some production problems before the project including but not limited to soil salinity and soil fungus infections. The project provided technical assistance to help owners solve these problems and other technical problems. Two of the interviewed greenhouse owners reported that their greenhouse productivity increased due to improved seedling germination and the technical assistance provided by the project to solve the previously mentioned problems. The other three greenhouse owners reported no changes in their greenhouses’ operations or productivity. Also, four owners out the five interviewed indicated that their production costs were reduced by 25% to 50% due to better management of their inputs, especially in the use of fertilizers. 15 Most of the greenhouses owners interviewed indicated that they gained new customers that lead to increased sales and business revenues, which was due to the technical and training assistance provided to them. Growers (farmers) Focus group meetings The main problem for tomato production, stated by the growers in the three governorates through the focus groups, was plant diseases especially the “Tuta Absoluta” pest. The project assisted growers in solving this problem by providing appropriate pesticides. This was provided to farmers in the form of a voucher (subsidy) to participating farmers, encouraging them to adopt the use of appropriate pesticides as stated by all interviewees. Another problem mentioned, critically, by Aswan growers was the shortage of improved seedlings and, accordingly, growers had to buy them from nurseries located in Isna District, which is a long distance from the project target areas. The GDA project, in the case of Alhekma Association in Wadi Alnokra, provided support for establishing two greenhouses that produced improved seedlings, which reduced the needs for the farmers to travel long distances to buy quality seedlings from Isna. Also, the GDA project, trained the staff of the association on the management and production of seedlings. In accordance with the GDA’s overall objectives, the GDA project assisted growers in improving productivity through adopting good agricultural practices (GAP), as agreed by most of the focus groups’ participants, such as:  Adjusting the planting periods,  Improving land preparation before cultivation,  Using improved cultivation methods,  Improve the irrigation systems, including water management,  Using fertilizers effectively through better application, amounts, and types,  Planting new varieties that improved yields and resistant to diseases,  Using pest control methods and proper disposal of pesticide materials,  Improving access to better seedlings from participating nurseries, and  Using technical support. As a result of the above-improved best practices adopted, it was reported through all focus groups that grower’s productivity per feddan increased by approximately 25% to 30%. Not only did productivity increase, growers reported that their cost per unit (ton) of production decreased by approximately 20% to 25%. This was due primarily to changes in the application and better use of fertilizers and increased productivity thereby reducing costs per unit, as reported by project beneficiaries. 16 As for the marketing side, growers traditionally sell their production to local traders and wholesale traders located in local wholesale markets while a few growers, in Luxor, normally sold their tomato production to exporters before the project began. This situation remained the same during the project period for Luxor. In Behira, the growers’ production of Alhoda and Alshohada Associations were sold to the HEINZ processing operation, as HEINZ was committed to accepting all supplied quantities of tomatoes under the GDA. Other food processors were reported to have procured some tomatoes from growers, but there were problems with the associations and the forward contracts issued with growers that were not resolved. Individual interviews Table 5 includes gender and education description of the beneficiary sample and a control group. The beneficiary sample consisted of 58 beneficiaries and the control group consisted of 13 individuals who did not participate in the project. Majority of the beneficiaries were male and had university or technical educations. It was not easy to interview the women due to their small representation in the group discussions in most of the associations except for the Women Association in Luxor. Also, most of the participants of the control group knew nothing about the project, or had the chance to be part of the project. Under the control group, there were no female participants that attended the focus group discussions. Table 5: Gender and education distribution Governorate Gender Education Male Female University Technical Secondary School Read & write Illiterate Behira (Nubaria) 100% 0% 32% 42% 5% 10% 11% Aswan 100% 0% 17% 50% 6% 10% 17% Luxor 85% 15% 24% 38% 0% 14% 24% Total with project 95% 5% 24% 43% 3% 13% 17% Total Control Group 100% 0% 18% 18% 0% 46% 18% Source: Study Survey 2016 Table 6 includes tomato areas as percentage of the holding areas in the three governorates for beneficiaries and the control group. The table shows that the project increased the area of tomato cultivation for the beneficiaries of the project in the three governorates (especially in Luxor), meanwhile, the percent of the control group declined slightly from 27% to 23% after the project ended. Unfortunately, the percent of tomato area, which increased during the project time period, dropped after the project ended. As reported by beneficiaries interviewed, this was due to the drop in prices they experienced in marketing their crop as well as the increased costs of production they incurred, after the project ended its support, leading to a reduction in planted acreage. 17 Table 6: Holding areas and tomato areas as percentage of the holding areas Governorate Holding Tomato Area (%) Area (fd) Before Within After Behira (Nubaria) 176.7 27% 39% 29% Aswan 111.5 30% 49% 35% Luxor 122.5 39% 85% 41% Total with project 410.7 31% 55% 34% Total Control Group 260.8 27% 20% 23% Source: Study Survey 2016 Table 7 includes the responses of 52 farmers who answered the questions about increased productivity, as a result of the project. In the three governorates, 90% of the interviewed beneficiaries reported that their productivity increased by about 37%. Table 7: Did the productivity increased as a result of the project? Governorate % of Number of Beneficiaries reported productivity: % of Change of productivity as a result of the project Increased No Change Decreased Increased No Change Decreased Behira (Nubaria) 94% 6% 0% 27% 0% n/a Aswan 80% 20% 0% 50% 0% n/a Luxor 95% 5% 0% 38% 0% n/a Total with project 90% 10% 0% 37% 0% n/a Source: Study Survey 2016 Table 8 includes the responses of 47 farmers who reported that farm productivity was increased as a result of the project. The causes of increased productivity were adoption of better varieties (37%), improved irrigation system (20%), better fertilizer use and management (36%), marketing system improved (0%), and other reasons (6%) such as technical assistance provided, better pest control management used, changing the timing of production, etc. Table 8: Reasons of productivity increased as a result of the project Governorate Variety Changes Irrigation System Improved Fertilizer System Improved Marketing System Improved Others Behira (Nubaria) 34% 25% 39% 0% 2% Aswan 43% 11% 32% 0% 14% Luxor 37% 22% 37% 0% 4% Total with project 37% 20% 36% 0% 6% Source: Study Survey 2016 Table 9 shows the percent of beneficiaries who responded to the following two questions: “Did the project improve the cleaning, grading and handling systems?” and “Did post-harvest losses decrease?” as well as reducing the percentage of crop losses, as a result of project interventions. The majority of beneficiaries in the three governorates stated that the project did not effectively improve the cleaning, grading and handling system. Only an average of 24% of the beneficiaries in the three 18 governorates indicated that the project improved their post-harvest levels. The beneficiaries, who said yes, believe that the percentage of crop losses they experienced improved by percent ranged from 5% to 7% in the three governorates. Table 9: Did the project improve the cleaning, grading and handling systems? Governorate Cleaning, grading and handling system were improved Did post-harvest losses decrease? % of losses reduced Yes No Yes No (improvement) Behira (Nubaria) 47% 53% 37% 63% 5% Aswan 24% 76% 23% 77% 5% Luxor 15% 85% 15% 85% 7% Total with project 28% 72% 24% 76% 5% Source: Study Survey 2016 Processors The project collaborated with several food processors during the GDA project period. Seven processors were interviewed; one of them didn’t exist before the project started and established his processing firm in 2009, during the project period. Food processors who participated in GDA project activities traditionally purchased their raw material from producers through forward contracts (two processors), intermediary traders (five processors), wholesale markets (two processors), and/ or from their own farms (one processor). During the project period the food processors interviewed continued to purchase their raw material from the same sources and some of them expanded their forward contracts with existing growers as well as established new links with other growers. One of the processors was expecting the project to work with growers to expand organic tomato production; however, he mentioned that the project didn’t succeed in helping the expansion of organic raw material, to meet his planned needs. The project did succeed in establishing new links between food processors and some association and, accordingly, made quality and timely raw materials more available to food processors especially through the Nubaria associations. In some other cases, the project provided information to processors about new varieties, areas and growers of specific raw materials. As for the quality of raw material provided during the project period, three of the food processors interviewed mentioned the improved quality of raw material through the planting of better varieties for processing and the use of post-harvest practices (sorting and grading). However, there were two processors that mentioned they experienced no changes in the quality of raw material they received. As for the quality of raw materials received after the project period different responses were recorded by food processors interviewed such as: 19  Majority of the food processors believed the situation is much better than before the project, as growers implemented project recommendations that improved product quality and increased production, and  A few food processors stated that the project didn’t succeed as well in sustaining growers’ attitudes towards increasing production and quality. As for the capacity of the food processing firms participating in the GDA project, two different opinions were stated.  Increased capacity for small-scale processing firms was achieved due to establishing new contracts with growers and associations during the first year of the project as stated by three food processors, and  Other food processors stated that they didn’t expand their processing capacity due to inadequate quantity supplied by growers. For example, one food processor mentioned specifically that the quantities supplied by small-scale growers were too small of an amount compared to his processing requirements; therefore he did not invest in expanding his operation. Associations’ Staff All the five associations’ officials interviewed mentioned that several training programs were conducted by the project for participating association for their board members and staff. Training programs included strategic planning, organization and managing meetings effectively, budgeting and developing new income sources. It was reported that GDA project activities offered improved association’s management system and increased the skills and capacity of their staff, as reported by the interviewees. Conclusions It should be mentioned that the AERI project was designed to achieve the following:  For small and medium size farms, they would increase their volume and value of production, especially horticultural products, through improved crop selection, and improvements in production and post-harvest technologies. To achieve this result, the GDA project provided assistance to targeted agribusiness vendors and greenhouse owners where vendors increased their sale of seeds and introduced new plant varieties through farm demonstration and extension activities, while greenhouses (nurseries) expanded their activities and experienced increased germination ratios, increased survival ratios, and higher sales. The GDA project was able to contribute to AERI’s achievement of planned highest-level results.  As for growers, they received technical assistance, which led to increased farm productivity per feddan by 25% to 30% and reduced the cost per unit (ton) of production by 20% to 25%. Area cultivated with tomatoes increased and new technologies (mainly new seeds’ varieties, cultivation methods, irrigation 20 methods and proper pest control techniques) were adopted during the project period.  As for processors, responses about the changes in quality of raw material received after the project period varied from one interviewee to another. Small-scale processors in general expanded their capacity due to project assistance and increased availability and timeliness of quality raw material.  Associations that participated in the project received training, which led to building their staff and board members’ capacity and improved their work conditions.  In general, the project was successful in contributing to the achievement of AERI’s highest-level results as farm production increased and good agriculture practices adopted by farmers. Question Two: What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs Findings The findings in this section will cover the responses of beneficiaries and stakeholders to the second evaluation question. Vendors The vendors interviewed provided different opinions with regard to support provided by the project. Responses varied from enough support as reported by three vendors, enough to some extent as reported by one vendor, and not enough as reported by two vendors. Issues to be considered in future projects by USAID as mentioned by the vendors interviewed include:  Develop the know-how, that is strengthen skills and capacities, rather than provide financial support,  Support a wide range of crops versus focusing on just one crop,  Extend the project areas to include other regions,  Introduce new machinery and equipment,  Assist firms in increasing their production efficiency in the project areas, and  Offer training to different stakeholders. Greenhouse Owners The support provided by the project to greenhouse owners was enough (reported by three owners) or enough to some extent (reported by two owners). Owners stated the following issues to be considered in future projects by USAID:  Increase and extend the level of technical support to project participants, and  Provide more assistance in marketing of farm production. 21 Growers (farmers) Focus groups The support provided by the project to growers was stated by the growers through the focus groups to be enough or enough to some extent. Growers have identified the following issues should be considered in future projects by USAID:  Pay more attention to marketing, as it affects the success of the project significantly,  Extend the implementation period to more than one year (two years in some areas) as most of the beneficiaries consider that the project period is the period when the project provided in-kind grants to growers,  Support processing firms within the project areas and assist processors to effectively communicate to growers which varieties to cultivate for processing and increase cultivated areas,  Matchmaking growers with processors in target areas to reduce transportation costs,  Differentiate the crops supported to include more crops,  Ensure the sustainability of the project activities,  Engage growers in developing farm production plans and participate in project activities more, and  Ensure seriousness of participating growers. Despite the above mentioned issues, the overall technical and training support provided by the project has been reported to be significant and positive in increasing productivity and farmer incomes. However, the marketing support provided was not enough and project participants indicated the assistance provided to be inadequate, especially in Aswan and Luxor project areas. Individual interviews Table 10 includes the opinions of the project beneficiaries about the sufficiency of the project support. Sixty percent (60%) of the interviewed beneficiaries in Luxor felt that the project support was sufficient, in Nubaria the percent was 53%, and in Aswan the percent was 40%. Table 10: How do the beneficiaries value project support provided? Governorate Project Support Sufficient Neutral Insufficient Behira (Nubaria) 53% 24% 23% Aswan 40% 47% 13% Luxor 60% 30% 10% Total with project 52% 33% 15% Source: Study Survey 2016 22 The beneficiaries interviewed who felt that project support was insufficient provided as to why they felt this and provided their suggestions: new projects should give more attention to improving the marketing system, provide support for harvest mechanization, improve the irrigation system, increase farmer training, improve the linkages between processors and associations, establish new factories in the production zones, increase the length of support under the project, improve project sustainability, and engage the beneficiaries early on in the project design and implementation. These above suggestions may seem biased but they do provide information about beneficiaries’ ideas for where new project designs should be focused to address their needs. BLUE Consulting suggest that the donors should apply the participatory approach in designing new projects in order to identify beneficiary constraints and challenges to improving their incomes and livelihoods, which is a standard best practice proposed by development agencies. Based on beneficiaries interviewed they felt this didn’t happen adequately to their expectation and that future agriculture project designs should try to be more inclusive in assessing and understanding project beneficiary needs. Processors Most of the food processors interviewed believe that the support provided by the project to growers was enough, as reported by three processors. However, the project didn’t ensure sustainability after the project ended, as reported by two processors interviewed. Processors interviewed believe that it would be better if future USAID projects consider the following issues:  Introduce the project in a better ways to help project stakeholders/participants understand project objectives and the role of the associations and growers,  Provide financial support to growers through the associations,  Promote the use of the proper pesticides and fertilizers use and application,  Introduce new machinery to growers,  Extend better technical assistance and know-how (knowledge) to growers,  Engage stakeholders in designing the project, and  Improve the selection criteria of association to choose experienced and appropriate associations, Associations’ Staff The NGOs officials interviewed have stated different opinions with regard to support provided by the project to participating associations and project growers. Responses varied from enough support (reported by three interviewees), enough to some extent 23 and not enough (reported by one interviewee). Suggested issues to be considered in future projects by USAID should include:  Contracting with different processors to avoid the long waiting time while supplying the production to processing firms,  Providing more technical and training support to associations to strengthen capacity building, build trust, and provide in-kind support to ensure new and sustainable income sources for the associations to sustain association services, and  Assisting Associations to pay more attention to marketing issues of growers. Conclusions Several main conclusions have been extracted throughout the interviews and focus group meetings;  The technical support provided by the project was highly appreciated by the different actors along the value chain and significantly increased farmer production and reduced production costs at the farm level.  The marketing activities provided by the project were not “adequate enough” to meet the increased production that occurred through the technical and training support provided.  The engagement of the beneficiaries and stakeholders in the design of project activities was not adequate to ensure sustainability of the GDA project activities.  The absence of the harmony between Associations and Food Processors was due to bad past experience and lack of trust, which made it difficult to sustain GDA project activities, in particular contracts to supply crops to processors. Question Three: In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the project (from design to the end of implementation)? What are areas for improvement? Findings This section will cover the responses of beneficiaries and stakeholders to the third evaluation question. Vendors Going into the GDA project, vendors were considered key stakeholders, and were one of the most critical local impediments to growers providing increased production of raw material and providing a consistent supply of raw materials to processors. Vendors interviewed reported different years when the project was introduced to them, in 2008 the project was introduced to two vendors, and in 2009 two other vendors were added. In 2011 and 2013 one new vendor was added each year for a total of six vendors that were participating as local partners (stakeholders) in the 24 project. Four of them started to collaborate with the project immediately and the others two collaborated later. Unfortunately, the vendors indicated they were not engaged in the planning and design, and or involved in implementation decisions of the project. Areas of collaboration were limited to supplying improved tomato’ seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, as directed by the project. Input suppliers identified by the project were input suppliers that provided quality inputs and unadulterated. The project provided farmers with the names of several qualified fertilizer suppliers (meaning their fertilizers were tested by the project) as well as agrochemical providers that were registered for use in Egypt for tomatoes and other crops. Farmers established new relationships and access to creditable input suppliers that contributed to their improved production they experienced. Greenhouse Owners Greenhouse owners were also considered major stakeholders in the project, as they were the main source for providing quality seedlings and new varieties to farmers. The project provided technical assistance and or training to approximately 56 seedling nurseries countrywide introducing improved tomato seedling varieties and providing best practices and management for tomato seedling production and seedling survival methods. Greenhouse nurseries established new and better relationships with growers forming new stakeholder relationships. All six-greenhouse owners interviewed indicated that they were approach by the project during its implementation and not during project design. Also, greenhouse owners reported that the partnership during the implementation phase was primarily limited to contracting greenhouses to provide new seedlings according to the project standards. The project organized some advocacy seminars or workshops to better introduce the project to greenhouse owners and managers, as reported by four owners. However, they were not engaged in early project management design or implementation. Engaging greenhouse owners and or managers into project design could be a major area of improvement to forming effective long-term partnership and leveraging funding from owners to support services to growers. This should be considered in future projects. Growers (farmers) Focus groups During the focus group discussions, growers interviewed discussed their participation in the project, especially receiving training and technical support. The GDA project assisted growers in establishing new and stronger relationships with input vendors, and greenhouse growers through trainings on GAP, on-farm demonstrations, and information offered through the project. One major comment growers reported was their lack of involvement during the planning period, as mentioned in all the growers’ 25 focus groups. Focus group participants reported that partnerships established with other stakeholders during the implementation phase were weak and growers were decision-takers rather than decision-makers. Furthermore, all growers in the focus group indicated that they were engaged in the project activities for only one crop season. They were not engaged in the project design or its management. The evaluation team believes that engaging growers early on into the project design is a major area to improve participant buy-in and ensuring an effective partnership with growers. Individual interviews Table 11 shows that all the six (6) associations visited in the three governorates were established before the project started. Almost half of the interviewed beneficiaries believe that the project did not improve their association. Almost one-third of the beneficiaries believe that the project did improve their associations. They believe that the project improved their associations by providing training, technical assistance, and establishing a greenhouse in Koum-Omboo to provide quality seedling to their members. Table 11: Effect of the project on the association improvement Governorate Existence of Association Did the project improved the Association Before Project After Project Yes No Do not know Behira (Nubaria) 100% 0% 21% 47% 32% Aswan 100% 0% 35% 53% 12% Luxor 100% 0% 35% 45% 20% Total with project 100% 0% 30% 48% 21% Source: Study Survey 2016 Processors Processors traditionally obtained their raw material from producers through contracts (two processors), intermediary traders (five processors), wholesale markets (two processors), and/or from their own farms (one processor). The project developed partnerships, in Behira and Luxor, between associations and processors through grower forward contracts to supply farm production to processing firms. The partnership established in Behira was reported to be successful while the partnership established in Luxor wasn’t completed. Partnerships were not sustainable and often didn’t meet the conditions established by both sides. The evaluation team could not find any successful and/ or sustainable partnership with processors established by the project, after the project ended. 26 Associations’ Staff Most of association staff interviewed reported that they were, somehow, engaged in the planning of project activities as reported by three officials. For example, the in￾kind support provided by the project to growers was initially suggested by the Nubaria Association for Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables – Behira. There were two other associations that were not engaged in the planning of the project activities or provided an explanation as to why they were not involved. Conclusions  Partnerships between the beneficiaries and stakeholders and between stakeholders themselves were formed during the project from year one through year five, but none of the partnerships were formed during the design and planning period for the project.  Vendors, greenhouse owners, processors and farmers were not engaged in the planning of the project activities and were decision-takers rather than decision-makers. Associations were relatively more engaged in the design and planning of the project activities.  Relationship between vendors (seeds providers) and greenhouse owners and between greenhouse owners and farmers were established and are relatively sustainable. Some of the NGOs participated in the project have continued and maintained a relationship with other stakeholders and developed new linkages that were based on their previous project experience. Question Four: To what extent were the projects able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design? Findings This section will cover the responses of beneficiaries and stakeholders to the fourth evaluation question. Vendors All vendors interviewed reported different types and levels of support that was provided to them by the project including: training and information, linkage and contracts with processors, growers and greenhouses. For example, vendor capacity, knowledge and services were strengthened in providing appropriate types of inputs to support new seedling varieties being introduced such as the appropriate type of fertilizer and amount required; appropriate types of chemical and pest control to use; and effective ways vendor staff and agents extend information to farmers and coordinate with processors. 27 Greenhouse Owners The project screened and contracted several greenhouses to serve as key nurseries for the target areas. All nurseries participated in the project activities received technical support by the project building staff and management capacity, which included the establishment and effective management of the greenhouse, introducing new plant varieties, improved irrigation systems and management, appropriate use and application of fertilizers, pest management and control programs, and producing quality seedlings. Technical information and/or training on planting seeds, irrigation, fertilizing, pest control and hardening of seedlings were delivered to greenhouse staff through training. The contracted greenhouses were the only source for improved seedlings during the project period. Most of the greenhouses (three out of five) expanded their operations either during or shortly after the project and remain the primary source for improved seedlings after the project ended. Greenhouse owners indicated the project did not offer any financial facilitation or support to them. Field Representatives The sample size of field representatives who received training from the project was 19 field representative, i.e. eight from Nubaria, two from Aswan, and nine from Luxor. All of them indicated that the training they received was very useful and successful in strengthening their skills. Trainings offered were on topics such as water and soil analyses; fertilization and irrigation, integrated pest management; and Global Gap measure. Also, the field representatives indicated that they continued to answer questions asked by farmers on a voluntary base after the project ended. Master Trainers The sample size of the master trainers interviewed was nine trainers. The nine trainers interviewed indicated that their capacity and knowledge was increased due to project training. Master trainers, around 54, who were hired under the project and trained by industry experts to serve as Master Trainers, who trained pesticide operators and applicators in meeting HeinzGAP and GlobalGAP licensing and product requirements, as well as in extending best practices for pest management. They received requests from the project sites asking for consultation on a voluntary base. They have answered these requests positively without charging any fees but they have not been able to continue providing these services without a fee. Growers (farmers) Focus groups The interviewed farmers, through the focus group meetings, reported no financial facilitation was offered by the project to their associations for their members. The 28 only financial support delivered to farmers was provided through in-kind subsidy such as providing seedlings, fertilizers, and pesticides, as reported by all the focus group participants. The project changed growers’ attitudes to accept hardened seedlings, which was not acceptable before the project; however, greenhouse owners reported that this attitude didn’t continue for long time after the project ended. Focus groups participants indicated that the project provided extension services, information and training to farmers. The technical support provided, as stated throughout all focus groups, proved to achieve good results in promoting good agricultural practices through changes in growers’ irrigation systems, introducing new fertilizing materials and application methods, introducing effective pest control approaches and provided improved seedlings based on selected varieties. During project implementation, farmers indicated they were faced by deep price fluctuations in local markets and experienced a high percentage of harvest losses due to poor post-harvest practices. As reported in the focus group, post-harvest losses were not improved except in one case where losses were reduced by 5%. Individual interviews Table 12 shows that on average 64% percent of the beneficiaries believed that the project provided support to their association versus 36% who believed that the project did not support their association in the three governorates. The type of support provided was reported to be 100% in-kind support (training and technical assistance) in Behira and Luxor while in Aswan only 75% of beneficiaries reported receiving in-kind support. Table 12: Project support to the associations Governorate Did the project provide support to the association? If yes, the support was Yes No In-kind Financial Others Behira (Nubaria) 68% 32% 100% 0% 0% Aswan 53% 47% 75% 0% 25% Luxor 70% 30% 100% 0% 0% Average Total with project 64% 36% 92% 0% 8% Source: Study Survey 2016 However, based on project documents in year three, ACDI/VOCA was reported to have provided some targeted assistance in collaboration with a specific business association and their members in Assiut. The association developed a loan mechanism for smallholder farmers with included a loan period of six months at 16 percent interest that was guaranteed by either the Assiut Businessmen’s Association or participating food processors. In general, the project did not appear to have a focus on helping farmers’ access finance, based on the focus group members’ recollection in the three Governorates sampled. 29 Table 13 describes the source of seedlings in the three governorates before, during and after the project period. It shows that the source of the majority of seedlings before the project was from private sector nurseries and a small amount was from self-nurseries6 . During the project period more than 79% of the seedlings were from the nurseries that participated in project. After the project period, about 41% of the seedlings were from the private sector nurseries and 39% from greenhouses, which participated in the project. Also, about 5% of the seedlings were produced by self￾nurseries and 14% stopped producing tomato seedlings after the project ended. Table 13: Source of seedlings before, during and after project Governorate Before Project During project After project PS Nursery Self￾Nursery PS Nursery Participate d Nursery Self￾Nursery PS Nursery Participate d Nursery Self￾Nursery Stopped producing tomato Behira (Nubaria) 100% 0% 21% 79% 0% 39% 44% 0% 17% Aswan 63% 37% 5% 95% 0% 53% 18% 18% 12% Luxor 95% 5% 5% 95% 0% 33% 52% 0% 14% Total with project 86% 14% 10% 90% 0% 41% 39% 5% 14% Source: Study Survey 2016 Table 14 describes the effect of the project on the agricultural system, in particular the tomato crop in the three governorates sampled. 100% of the sample in Behira and Luxor governorates believed that the project did improve the agricultural system in their governorate. 94% of the interviewed beneficiaries in Aswan also believed that the project improved their agricultural system. The beneficiaries, who said yes, believed that the project improved the irrigation system (15%), fertilizer programs (25%), new varieties (20%), pest management (24%), and improved seedlings (16%). Table 14: Did the project improve the agriculture systems? Governorate The project improved agriculture systems If yes, How? Yes No Irrigation System Fertilizer programs New varieties Pest Management Improved Seedlings Behira (Nubaria) 100% 0% 12% 25% 21% 25% 18% Aswan 94% 6% 18% 26% 16% 24% 16% Luxor 100% 0% 16% 25% 22% 23% 14% Total with project 98% 2% 15% 25% 20% 24% 16% Source: Study Survey 2016 6 Self-nurseries are type of nurseries that were common in the past where a farmer establish open nursery (not under greenhouse conditions) within his/her own farm for the purpose of producing seedlings for his/her use. 30 Table 15 includes questions about the marketing problems before project and if the project resolved the problems. The situation was different in the three governorates. In Nubaria, 72% of the project beneficiaries stated that they faced marketing problems before the project period. However, 69% of them stated that the project assisted them in resolving these marketing problems through contracts with CFI￾Heinz. The remaining 31% (contracted with other processors other than CFI-Heinz) stated that the project did not assist them and they still owed the contracted processor money until now. In Aswan 63% of the project beneficiaries stated that they faced marketing problems before the project period. The project did not assist them in resolving their marketing problems due to the long distance between the farmer’s field and markets; lack of farm contracting; or price fluctuations. In Luxor, 45% of the project beneficiaries stated that they faced marketing problems before the project period while 8% stated that the project assisted them in resolving these problems. The marketing problems were described as price fluctuations, lack of contract farming, etc. Table 15: Marketing problems before and during project Governorate Did you face problem in marketing your crop before the project? Did the project assisted in resolving it? Yes No Yes No Behira (Nubaria) 72% 28% 69% 31% Aswan 63% 37% 0% 100% Luxor 45% 55% 8% 92% Total with project 60% 40% 25% 75% Source: Study Survey 2016 Processors The capacity building activities offered by the project to participating processors were limited where only two processors reported that their staff received technical training by the project. Other interviewed processors, in the sampled governorates, indicated they didn’t receive any training or capacity building support for their staff. Also, the project didn’t offer any financial or credit facilitation support to any of the participating processors. Associations’ Staff The Associations interviewed reported that they received the following types of support: 31  Two (2) greenhouses were established for the Alhekma Association in Wadi Alnkra - Aswan to provide grower access to new quality seedlings thereby reducing their need to travel long distance to find quality seedling.  The project provided some furniture for the Women Association in Luxor.  The Women Association in Luxor, as a result of project assistance, contracted other processors and exporters to supply onions after the project period ended.  The project established cooling facility in Isna that serves three associations. Other associations in the three governorates did not receive any financial or in-kind material support or equipment. All the associations were offered selected training for their board members and staff. Training programs included strategic planning, accounting, proposal writing, organizing effective meetings and budgeting. Approximately 50% to 100% of interviewed associations' staff attended at least one training programs offered by the project. The training programs offered were reported to be effective and improved association performance. Conclusions  Capacity building was an effective and significant component of the GDA project. Vendors received training through the project. Greenhouses were offered technical and training support for their staff to operate and improve greenhouse operations, which led to, in most of the cases, expanding the level of sales and creating greater trust between the growers and the greenhouse owners.  Master Trainers were hired to provide training to different categories supporting farmer services such as chemical and pest operators and applicators. Field representatives were trained and appear to be still offering consultations to beneficiaries, on a voluntary basis.  Growers’ attitudes and behaviors have changed significantly through the adoption of good agriculture practices extended by the project.  No capacity building activities were offered to farmers regarding post-harvest practices and measures to reduce harvest losses, as planned by the project, in particular in the sampled governorates.  No formal financial support (farm credit or loans) was offered to any of the beneficiaries and stakeholders except providing in-kind subsidy such as seedlings, fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.  Associations received support by the project either in the form of training programs for their staff and board members or in the form of grants. 32 Associations were not well prepared to develop or support marketing activities for their members.  Women, in particular, working in greenhouse nurseries received valuable training by the project. Question Five: How have the projects developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors? Findings This section will cover the responses of beneficiaries and stakeholders to the fifth evaluation question. Greenhouse Owners Nurseries require extensive utilization of female labor. All greenhouse owners interviewed reported up to 50% to 90% of personnel in nurseries were female, working mainly in planting seeds. All interviewees reported that most of female labor in the nurseries received training through the project. Training programs included planting of seeds, safe use of pesticides, and safety in the work environment. Also, only one of the five greenhouse owners stated that the GDA project helped in improving women’s incomes. The other four greenhouse owners were unable to indicate any improvements in women's incomes due to project interventions. Growers (farmers) Focus groups Only nine females were interviewed in the Women Association in Luxor. The role of females in crop cultivation is significant but limited to several practices such as harvesting and packaging of tomatoes, and sometimes, transplanting of seedlings as reported throughout the focus group meetings. These practices generally represent 25% to 50% of the required labor, as they are labor intensive operations. Some land owners (graduates) in Nubaria operate and cultivate their own land (one case). Focus group members did not identify any project activities that increased proven women’s participation in agricultural activities. The impact of the project on increasing women’s incomes was somewhat neutral (three cases) to positive (two cases), as reported by interviewees. In two cases, the GDA project did have a positive impact on increasing women’s incomes by 20% to 25%. The females interviewed in Luxor Association attended training programs that were conducted by the project. These training programs included land preparation and housekeeping. Individual interviews Table 16 reports on the three questions related to women’s contribution or the critical role they perform in the agricultural activities as reported by project beneficiaries (54 beneficiaries) and a control group (who did not participate in the 33 project – 7 farmers). Out of the beneficiaries interviewed, 5% were women (15% were Luxor beneficiaries and belong to the women association). 72% of the sample of the beneficiaries in Behira and 65% of the sample of the beneficiaries in Luxor reported that women contributed to agricultural activities. Only 25% of the sample of the beneficiaries in Aswan reported that women contributed to agricultural activities. The total sample average of the three governorates is about 56% for project beneficiaries who reported that they believed women contributed to agriculture activities versus 44 percent who responded that they believed women did not contribute to agriculture activities during the GDA project period. The control group’s total average was similar to the project beneficiaries in both cases, 57% indicted yes, and 43% indicated no. The contribution of women in agricultural activities in Behira and Luxor were higher than Aswan. Even though, in the three governorates, the beneficiaries believed that women received less training opportunities and support from the project than what men received. They also believed that women’s contributions were slightly improved after the project period ended, i.e. from 17% to 21%. Table 16: Women contribution to the agricultural activities Governorate Do women contribute to Agricultural Activities?* Did women receive training? Women contribution** Yes No Yes No Before After Behira (Nubaria) 72% 28% 39% 61% 21% 23% Aswan 25% 75% 31% 69% 12% 13% Luxor 65% 35% 45% 55% 18% 24% Total with project 56% 44% 39% 61% 17% 21% Total Control Group 57% 43% n/a n/a 25% n/a Source: Study Survey 2016 * The percent represents the number of interviews who said yes and who said no. ** The percent represents the average contribution of women in agricultural activities. 34 Table 17 includes the impact of the GDA project on the women’s incomes. All interviewed beneficiaries reported positive or neutral impact of the project activities on the women’s incomes, and no one reported a negative impact. An average of 81% of the GDA project beneficiaries reported that the project had a neutral impact on the women incomes in the three governorates. In Behira and Aswan, project beneficiaries believed that women incomes increased by 25% while project beneficiaries in Luxor believed that women incomes increased by 43%. Project beneficiaries stated that the increase in income is mostly due to the expansion in the number and area of greenhouse nurseries, which employ more female labor. Table 17: Impact of the project on the women’s income Governorate Percent of Sample Reporting Impact of the project on women incomes (%) Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Behira (Nubaria) 22% 78% 0% 25% 0% n/a Aswan 18% 82% 0% 25% 0% n/a Luxor 16% 84% 0% 43% 0% n/a Total with project 19% 81% 0% 31% 0% n/a Source: Study Survey 2016 Processors Food processing is also an attractive employment area for female labor. Four processors interviewed stated that 12% to 50% female labor was used in various food processing phases. Food processors offer a high level of skilled work for female labor, which is often dedicated to the sorting and grading and cleaning of raw material purchased from growers. Only one company reported to have 0% of female labor employed. In addition, only one of the four companies reported to having a female manager. The impact of the project on women’s incomes is reported to be slightly positive, as reported by four interviewees and neutral as reported by other two interviewees. Proposed options to increase women’s incomes or employment opportunities are: increasing their skills to effectively perform higher level food processing jobs and responsibilities; increasing the size and capacity of processing firms; and or have processors focus more on horticultural crops that require extensive post-harvest practices, such as sorting and grading of produce harvested. Associations’ Staff Engagement of females in associations’ activities was very limited as reported by four officials. Only the Women Association in Luxor reported to have 50% female staff. The project had no impact on increasing the level of female participation in association activities as reported by four associations. Conclusions  A limited number of females were interviewed, as most of them came from the Women Association in Luxor. Nurseries and processing firms were the 35 firms that employed the highest level of female labor. Females represent up to 90% of nurseries’ labor and up to 50% of processing firms’ labor.  Women received some training in several topics through project activities. As for their contribution to agriculture, females were reported to contribute more in the tomato harvesting process than other crops. The contribution women made to agriculture activities in Behira and Luxor were reported to be higher than in Aswan. The contributions women made to agriculture activities didn’t significantly increase after the project ended. However, the project’s impact on their incomes was reported by beneficiaries to be mostly neutral.  Engagement of females in associations’ activities was very limited except within the Women Association in Luxor where female staff represents 50% of the total staff number. Question Six: To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)? Findings This section will cover the responses of beneficiaries and stakeholders to the sixth evaluation question. Vendors Vendors interviewed (three vendors) indicated they collaborated with the project during the project period till the end of the project through supplying quality inputs to growers. Two vendors reported that they collaborated with the project only once. The collaboration stopped after the project ended except with the partner association, where some vendors still supplied quality seeds to some associations for their members and greenhouse owners. Greenhouse Owners All the participating greenhouses still apply some of the technical improvements provided by the project, such as planting timing, seed density and seeding practices, and improved irrigation methods. One of the greenhouses is still operating although under a different owner. No financial or in-kind subsidies were provided to greenhouses during the project period. Growers (farmers) Focus groups All the participating associations, in the sampled governorates, were established prior to the start of the project. The project has been engaged in strengthening capacity of three of the associations, especially those in Aswan and Luxor through: 36  Establishing two greenhouses in Wadi Alnokra – Aswan. However, the greenhouses were closed during the evaluation team visit.  Cooling system in Armant - Luxor. The system is shared with other two associations and is working effectively.  The Women Association has developed contracts with other processors and exporters and continues to do so after the project ended.  Production practices such as using high yield varieties, cultivation methods and irrigation systems are still being applied by the participating growers. Individual interviews Table 18 summarizes the most sustained activities of the project, after the project ended. Production methods were the highest at 46%, and then followed by improved varieties at 39%. Table 18: What are the sustained activities after the end of the project? Governorate Improved Varieties Packaging Methods Production Methods Training Mechanization Behira (Nubaria) 39% 0% 44% 11% 6% Aswan 35% 6% 47% 9% 3% Luxor 43% 0% 45% 10% 2% Total with project 39% 2% 46% 10% 4% Source: Study Survey 2016 Processors Most of the interviewed food processors (four processors) reported irregular supply of raw materials provided by farmers except during the crop season 2011/2012. As that year was only one year before the project ended; linkages established during this period were not strong enough to ensure sustainability. Also, Processors’ forward contracts with growers were not renewed after the project ended, as reported by all interviewees. Associations’ Staff The NGOs interviewed stated the following issues:  The activities that were based on grants provided were not currently functioning except for the cooling system located in Luxor, where the system belongs to three associations and project supported activities were followed by other donor projects supporting the same associations. Meanwhile, the non-functioning activities faced several problems related to poor management and operating costs no being covered.  The project didn’t create any sources of sustainable income for the associations except, the above mentioned cooling system ignoring the non￾functioning facilities. 37  The Women Association in Luxor, as a result of the project, contracted other processors and exporters to supply onions, after the project ended. Conclusions  Sustainable relationship between vendors (seeds providers), associations and greenhouse owners were maintained through the project.  Agricultural practices adopted by greenhouse owners and farmers during the project are still being applied.  Activities initiated by the NGOs during the project period are mostly functioning. Some NGOs (in Behira and Luxor) went further to extend their activities to other crops, after the project ended.  Growers’ relationships with the food processors that were established through forward price contracts were not sustainable after the GDA project ended. The project didn’t help NGOs create sustainable sources of income for farmer associations. Question Seven: To what extent did the implementing partners monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project? a. How did ACDI/VOCA adjust the implementation to address findings? Findings This section will cover the responses of beneficiaries and stakeholders to the seventh evaluation question. Greenhouses’ owners All interviewed greenhouse owners reported that ACDI/VOCA consultants provided regular technical support to contracted greenhouses. Growers (farmers) Focus groups All participants, in the focus groups, indicated that they recalled regular visits by ACDI/VOCA consultants/volunteers to the field that provided technical assistance and support to project beneficiaries. Individual interviews Table 19 includes the knowledge of project beneficiaries about ACDI/VOCA’s monitoring of the GDA project. In the three governorates 58% of the project beneficiaries stated that they knew that ACDI/VOCA was in a very close relation with the beneficiaries during the implementation, 40% of the beneficiaries did not know 38 and only one person in Luxor said that there was inadequate monitoring of the project. BLUE team believes that ACDI/VOCA has done a good job as the evaluation team realized the significant effort made by ACDI/VOCA staff in effectively monitoring the field activities. Table 19: Did ACDI/VOCA monitor project Implementation? Governorate ACDI/VOCA monitored project implementation Yes No Do not know Behira (Nubaria) 56% 0% 44% Aswan 63% 0% 37% Luxor 55% 5% 40% Total with project 58% 2% 40% Source: Study Survey 2016 Associations’ Staff All the interviewed NGOs staff reported regular visits to field for providing technical assistance to growers and other beneficiaries by ACDI/VOCA consultants and staff. Conclusions  ACDI/VOCA was reported to do effective monitoring of its activities mentioned by project beneficiaries and stakeholders, in particular the technical support and training provided. As per the project final report; ACDI/VOCA developed a database for the purpose of collecting and analyzing data. The database included information about farmers, crops produced, land profile (incl. traceability codes, results and water and soil analyses, etc.), production groups (associations), buyers/processors, greenhouse nurseries, specialists/consultants, suppliers (e.g., pesticides, agricultural machinery, irrigation equipment, etc.), training/events, loans, forward contracts, and seasonal data. The evaluation team believes that ACDI/VOCA has done adequate monitoring of project activities.  Evaluation of the project activities was not verified through the team’s field visits or interviews, however; the team verified project results from the desk review of annual and final reports of the GDA project. ACDI/VOCA regularly collected data every year to evaluate project achievements, reported on indicators and measured progress against the project baseline and planned target levels. Also, an impact survey was completed at mid-term which provided the team with performance information Recommendations Follows are some recommendations based on the findings of the report:  Advocate the project goals, objectives and planned results to a wider range of beneficiaries during early phases of project design and definitely during project start-up and implementation. This would build greater ownership of 39 project interventions and results with stakeholders and beneficiaries, and contribute to the sustainability of services and practices promoted.  USAID funded projects are recommended to conduct a series of workshops with potential beneficiaries and stakeholders before the project work plan is set in order to choose and engage the highly motivated beneficiaries and/or stakeholders to buy into the work plan of the project thereby ensuring significant participation and project sustainability.  Marketing specialists should work closely with beneficiaries and stakeholders to execute contracts issued through the selection of serious and committed beneficiaries and stakeholders. The newly issued law for Contract Farming should be addressed when working with beneficiaries and stakeholders to execute the contracts issued as it strongly guarantees the execution of contracts.  Make sure the staff of the collaborating stakeholders (associations/NGOs and Processors) is harmonized in order to smooth the process of supplying the raw material to processors.  To ensure sustainability of selected project activities, projects should include stakeholders early on in project design and implementation work, thereby establishing a win-win situation between project implementers and stakeholders. This can be done through holding workshops and annual project meetings with stakeholders and beneficiaries on proposed work-plans, involving project stakeholders in implementation work, collecting positive and negative feedback on project activities, and working with stakeholders on sustainability plans to ensure selected activities supported by a project will be continued with local partners.  Wherever appropriate, training activities should involve husband-and-wife teams in order to increase male support for women’s activities.  Associations and beneficiaries should cost-share in the sponsoring of training programs. A recommended approach is having beneficiaries pay an increasing fee-overtime for training provided to them.  The project should pay more attention to post-harvest losses as it affects the overall achievements of the project in particular farm income.  Female-oriented activities should be income generating activities to ensure that women incomes will increase.  Partner Associations should be selected based on their past experience. Criteria might include; proven sustainable activities from previous projects implemented through USAID and/or other donors, proven high women participation in the Association activities and highly motivated staff of the associations. 40 Annexes 41 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) End of Project Performance Evaluation of USAID/Egypt: (a) Agriculture Exports and Rural Incomes (AERI) Bilateral Projects (b) HEINZ Global Development Alliance and Value Chain Training A. PURPOSE The purpose of this solicitation is to conduct an evaluation of the following two projects under the Agricultural Exports and Rural Incomes (AERI) bilateral agreement #263-0285: 1. Global Development Alliance (GDA) cooperative agreement (award #: 263-A-00- 08-00013) with Heinz. The GDA with HEINZ is implemented by ACDI/VOCA. It began in February 2008 and ended June 2013. 2. Value Chain Training Project (VCT) cooperative agreement (award#: 263-A-00-08- 00030-00) is implemented by Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities (MUCIA). It began on September 2003 and ended June 2013. The evaluation will serve a dual purpose: 1) learn to what extent the GDA and VCT projects objectives and goals, at all result levels, have been achieved; and 2) to inform the design of future projects, particularly using the GDA approach, working in the tomato or rotational crop value chains, and with agriculture technical schools. The performance evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative data, and be based on the perceptions of the stakeholders (farmers, private sector processors, greenhouse operators, traders, input suppliers, associations, agriculture technical school students, teachers, headmasters, and parents, private sector commercial farms, and relevant Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Education staff), and will collect feedback on what the projects have achieved, how they were implemented, their value and perception to the stakeholders and what results actually occurred. B. BACKGROUND 1. Development Context Agriculture is the largest employer of all economic sectors in Egypt, providing more than 28% of total employment, 45% of total female employment, and more than 56% of all jobs in rural areas in Upper Egypt. It is without question the most important source of income and employment to the rural poor, and spillovers from productivity improvements in the rural sector create benefits for urban areas as well, in terms of cheaper food, better infrastructure, and reduced pressure from urban migration. A recent study by the World Bank and Central Agency for Public Mobilization (CAPMAS), an Egyptian statistical agency, found that agriculture was the main engine of poverty reduction, despite its lower￾than-average growth rate. USAID’s agricultural programs in the most recent strategic stage have focused on demand-driven horticultural production, innovative post￾harvest and marketing technologies, and increased productivity of staple food crops, agricultural biotechnology, and institutional linkages. All of these efforts have helped to bring about a more open, competitive marketing system and to foster sustainable 42 agricultural growth. While most of the distortions that previously kept the agricultural sector from reaching its full potential have been lifted, the private agricultural sector in Egypt is still not fully market driven. Additional structural changes and human resource development are needed to accelerate transformation of the sector. Transformation of the smallholder farmer sector is critical if agriculture is to reach its full potential. The vast majority of Egyptian smallholder farmers follow traditional cropping patterns that have been used for decades and remain focused on local food crop production. In recent years, substantial USAID/Egypt resources have been allocated toward increasing the volume of high value horticultural crop production for both local markets and export under the AERI Program. The transformation of the agricultural sector also requires that small farmers improve their skills and knowledge in farming, while larger commercial farm managers find skilled farm labor to operate their farms. To meet the challenge of smallholder transformation and the growing need for highly skilled farm laborers, the delivery of relevant, practical, market-driven agricultural education in secondary schools is a requirement. 2. Intended Results AERI The goals of the Activity Approval Document Amendment 6 of AERI (under which both the VCT and Heinz-GDA projects are authorized) were to contribute to the Economic Growth Objective, Agriculture Program area and also to the Investing in People Objective, Education Program area. AERI was to provide support for agricultural trade expansion, small-scale producers and producer and marketing associations to increase private sector competitiveness. The projects were also to support agricultural technical schools and international linkages between Egyptian and U.S. agribusiness firms and research institutions for enhanced technology transfer and commercialization of research products. It was anticipated that AERI would achieve the following results: Small and medium size farms would increase the volume and value of production, especially horticultural products, through improved crop selection, and improvements in production and post-harvest technologies. Agricultural Technical School (ATS) will improve their teaching methodologies, curriculum, and equipment, and introduce new career counseling and internship programs for the benefit of their students. Heinz GDA The goal of this USAID project was to integrate 3,000 farmers into a sustainable and competitive high-value horticultural value chain anchored by HEINZ in the governorates of Sohag, Qena, Luxor and Aswan in Upper Egypt , El Minya and Assiut in Middle Egypt, Beni Suef, Giza and Fayoum in Northern Upper Egypt and the Nubaria area in lower Egypt. The results were intended to be: 43 Increase smallholder production of processing varietals of tomatoes to 2,000 tons of tomatoes per day by year 3, and 4,000 tons per day by year 5, with attainment of each benchmark triggering a total of around $40 million in investments by Americana (private sector processor) in processing facilities and facility upgrades. Increase annual per capita incomes from tomatoes of participating smallholder farmers by an average of $921 (LE 5,321) for 3,000 farmers by year 5 in 10,000 feddans. VCT Project Through USAID funding, MUCIA strengthened the institutional capacities of Agriculture Technical Schools (ATSs), improved the educational environment, introduced new educational technology, enhanced the experiential learning programs, linked ATS students with the private sector, and developed agricultural leadership for ATS students. The target results were: Qualifying 25 ATSs to receive accreditation. Securing 7,000 job opportunities in the Delta and Upper Egypt for youth. Developing 57 curricula in 6 technical areas to meet labor market needs. Establishing 5 career centers to link ATS students and graduates with the private sector. Developing an agricultural leadership, career, and personal development program to enhance career success, personal growth and leadership skills (Future Farmers of Egypt Club). 3. Approach and Implementation Heinz GDA In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the GDA, the expectations from HEINZ and ACDI/VOCA were as follows: Heinz: Supplies key technical expertise, through its Global Technology Team. The company will provide its technology package and Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) to ensure that the greenhouse nursery operations being established through the AERI horticultural grant function effectively. HEINZ will supply the seeds to these nurseries, which will produce the processed tomato seedlings for sale and distribution to contract farmers. Anticipates supplying more than $1 million in direct technical assistance and training in tomato production through its Global Technology Team during the five-year life of the project. During the second year of the project (October 2009), Cairo Food Industries (CFI), a HEINZ affiliated Egyptian private sector company, will make an investment of about $6 million in a new facility rather than up-date and modernize capacity at the CFI. During the third year, an additional Egyptian company, Americana, will make another investment of $6 million to expand the green-field facility. 44 Through CFI, HEINZ also plans to set aside almost $43 million to fund the forward contracts for purchasing tomatoes for processing from Egyptian smallholders. Considering 80 percent of this amount as a contribution to the project, HEINZ is committed to making more than $36 million available over a period of 5 years (2008-2012). CFI will process the tomatoes that it purchases and will sell the processed tomato product to HEINZ for use in its food products. By sourcing 75 percent of its tomatoes from Upper Egypt, CFI is expected to be able to process tomatoes for up to eight months per year. ACDI/VOCA Provide training and technical assistance, as well as offer centralized marketing services for all participating small holder farmers. The satellite offices will oversee demonstration farms, check on the demonstration plots and verify the agricultural practices of participating farmers Explore new market opportunities for tomatoes and crops grown in rotation with tomatoes, facilitate links with buyers, assist producer groups in obtaining forward contracts, develop and manage the training and technical assistance plan, facilitate access to credit for growers. ACDI/VOCA will field 15 highly-qualified volunteer consultants over the 5-year life of the project, providing an in-kind contribution of $125,225. Provide additional financial support worth an estimated $5 million from the Industrial Modernization Center (IMC). IMC’s contribution will cover the cost of demonstration farms, field trials, irrigation systems and similar infrastructure, GAP certification. 45 VCT Project The VCT Project was designed with the following expectations: Strengthening the institutional capacity of 117 ATSs This component aimed to build the school capacity and raise ATS performance. In order to carry out this goal, improvement of school management was targeted through providing training to school managers and assisting staff while selecting model schools to get accreditation by the GOE to serve as role models for other schools. The focus was on linking schools with their local society through establishing an advisory committee in every school, which had local community leaders, parents, and business people as members. The role of these committees was to improve the training programs within schools and to support schools in providing a better community service. In addition, schools were supplied with computer equipment and teachers were trained to use the equipment and teach basic Microsoft computer skills to their students. This was a skill set that was lacking in graduates. Moreover, ATS teachers were taught to help their students refine their entrepreneurial skills so as to be capable of preparing feasibility studies, and implement their own small-scale projects. Finally, an additional five career centers were established to link the private sector with ATS schools. A tracking system was created through a data base served as a durable connection between a school and its graduates. Develop new, market-responsive curricula and education programs This component underlined the improvement of education and learning styles. To enhance the educational environment, the ATS curricula were transformed into PowerPoint presentations for lesson plans, to make them more comprehensible to students and more clearly and consistently taught. Also, curricula development was executed in cooperation with business people; faculty staff and MOE representatives (teachers and supervisors) where curricula could better meet labor market needs. Furthermore, performance efficiency of teachers and supervisors was raised by using modern strategies of active learning to elevate student engagement in the educational process. Also planned were developing skill sheets as a tool of experiential learning to train students to comprehend the technical parts of various disciplines. In addition, technical support was provided to teachers to train students on advanced cultivation approaches, and MOU agreements were formed with international companies, such as Pioneer and Syngenta. Develop an Agricultural Leadership Program (Future Farmers of Egypt FFE) and establish and continue supporting the Supervised Agricultural Internship Program (SIP) This component aimed to increase the interpersonal skills along with the technical skills of ATS students, with the ultimate goal of increasing employability. To achieve its goal, VCT project worked on three axes. The first axis was the Future Farmers of Egypt program (FFE), which concentrated on building the interpersonal skills of ATS students; mainly leadership, communications, problem-solving, time-managing, event-organizing and plan-designing-and implementing skills. The second axis considered elevating the technical skills of ATS students through establishing a link 46 between ATSs and the agribusiness sector. This linkage assisted ATS students to adapt to real-work environment and use up-to-date technology, leading them to successfully compete in the labor market. Thirdly, the VCT introduced employment fairs as a new concept in ATSs. This activity linked human resource departments of the private sector with ATSs, aiming to increase employability rates of ATS senior students and graduates. 47 4. Project Modifications Heinz GDA Year 3 and 4 In April 2010, USAID/Egypt conducted a Rapid Assessment of the project. In response, the Year 3 Work Plan for the GDA was modified by geographical area concentration, as were the two strategic objectives for the project. Going forward, project activities focused primarily on production groups in the South (Esna, approaching it from the North in Qena and from the South in Aswan) and in the North (Nubaria production region). Also, ACDI/VOCA closed the field office in Minya; however, given their working relationship with World Food Program they continued to support production groups in Beni Suef due to their willing cooperation to work under forward contracts and demand from processors from the industrial cities in the North. This geographical refocus reduced the number of feddans/farmers enrolled in the project. Thus, ACDI VOCA amended the first strategic objective for the project to: 1. Strengthened tomato processing sector as measured by: a. Increased production of processing tomato varieties in Egypt b. Increased tomato processing sector supply (and raw tomato demand) Additionally, in order to reach the objective of 10,000 feddans of processing tomatoes under production by year 5, no more than 3,000 farmers could be enrolled in the project. Therefore, the second objective was changed to: 2. Annual per capita incomes from tomatoes increased by an average of $921 (LE 5,231 during an exchange rate of 5.7EGP/dollar) for 3,000 participating smallholder farmers by Year 5 in 10,000 feddans. No-cost Extension In September 2012, ACDI/VOCA was granted a six month, no-cost extension (October 2012 - March 2013). During this time, ACDI/VOCA completed the summer 2012 season in Nubaria (north Egypt), where 3,000 feddans of tomato were under production, and the crop was harvested from June through August. In southern Egypt, farmers grew approximately 3,000 feddans of sesame as their summer crop, and it was harvested in September and October. ACDI/VOCA is continuing to provide these farmers with technical assistance and training as well as marketing support until the harvests have been completed. Additionally, in March 2013, ACDI/VOCA was granted an additional three month no-cost extension (March 2013-June 2013). During this time they are providing grants to associations to establish greenhouses, a collection center, two cold trucks and three field coolers. VCT Project In March 2011, USAID modified the VCT Project implemented through MUCIA, to add two elements to the project. The first was to prepare rural youth for employment in agricultural value chains by continuing to support the 54 Agricultural Technical Schools (ATSs) in Upper Egypt and Sinai and by expanding activities to include the 63 ATSs in the Delta. Under the previous VCT Project, USAID was only supporting the 54 48 ATSs in Upper Egypt and Sinai. However, many ATSs were still in need of additional support to strengthen their capacity to improve curricula and internship programs and to build sustainable partnerships with the agri-business community. For example, previous to the amendment, no enhancement programs were initiated in the Delta to assist ATSs prepare rural students for employment and successful careers. The majority of ATS graduates over the last 10 years were either not working in agriculture or were unemployed. At the same time, most commercial farms and food processing companies reported that ATS graduates lack the skills required to start a career in global agriculture. This lack of employable skills was a direct result of serious problems facing the 63 Delta ATSs. The Delta ATS educational programs were not responsive to the needs of the job market, and little attention was given to problem-solving and communication skills. In addition, these students had very few resources for “hands-on” training and almost no opportunities existed for practical training on commercial farms. Secondly, the VCT Program was to strengthen the export capacity of small-scale farmers (SSFs) to participate in selected horticulture and livestock export market and food processing value chains by building effective partnerships with export commercial farms and food processors, thereby increasing their income. During the past decade, efforts to help SSFs participate in exporting high value horticultural crops and livestock products to global markets had limited success. The inability of SSFs, who control more than 80 percent of the agricultural land, to meet international standards, and the lack of basic cold chain facilities and logistics capacity, were major challenges to Egypt’s ability to effectively reduce rural poverty. Strengthening the SSFs’ export and processing capacity in selected horticulture and livestock value chains, including cold storage facilities and SSFs’ logistics, was to increase rural income and alleviate poverty. 5. Existing Data During the evaluation, the following documents will be available to the team upon arrival in Cairo and in the USAID/Egypt Office of Economic Growth: Annual work plans for each project Annual PMPs for each project Baseline survey of each project Mid-term evaluation of HEINZ GDA Skills gap analysis by MUCIA Regional GDA evaluation Quarterly reports of each project Annual reports of each project PERSUAP final report USAID Evaluation Report Checklist Any other HEINZ GDA of VCT documents or international data/reports C. EVALUATION RATIONAL 1. Evaluation Purpose 49 The VCT and HEINZ GDA projects ended June 2013. This evaluation will assist the Mission and Washington in reaching decisions related to: 1) the effectiveness of the current approach to strengthen the food processing industry, the livelihoods of small farmers, and the capacity building of the ATS system; 2) the types of mechanisms/approaches the Mission should use in any future assistance to the sector (specifically the GDA); and 3) the nature and scope of possible future projects in the sector based on lessons learned from the current projects. The Mission anticipates as a deliverable for this evaluation, a two-part report. The first section should focus on an evaluation of GDA-Heinz activities from 2008-2013 and the VCT activities from 2003-2013, and the second section should focus on recommendations for the Mission’s future activities. Technical recommendations within this paper will feed into future project designs and descriptions. The paper shall also recommend optimal procurement options for the Mission’s consideration. 2. Audience and Intended Users The audiences of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Egypt Mission, specifically the agriculture team, the Bureau for Food Security, the GDA Office, and implementing partners and Heinz. An Executive Summary and recommendations will be provided to the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR) and Ministry of Education (MOE). USAID will use the report to inform future strategies and to share lessons learned with other stakeholders; ACDI/VOCA and MUCIA will learn about their strengths and weaknesses; and MALR and MOE will learn how to better benefit from ACDI/VOCA and MUCIA technical assistance. It is expected that Heinz, MUCIA and the small holder farmers will have the opportunity to discuss how the GDA and VCT assisted them and how these types of project could better assist them in the future. Evaluation Questions for both Projects in Order of Importance 1. What objectives/targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results? 2. What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs? 3. In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the projects (from design to the end of implementation)? a. What are areas for improvement? 4. To what extent were the projects able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design? 5. How have the projects developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors? 6. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)? 7. To what extent did the implementing partners monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project? a. How did ACDI/VOCA adjust the implementation to address findings? D. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 50 1. Evaluation Design This is a performance evaluation and is intended to focus on how the Heinz-GDA and VCT project have been implemented, what they have achieved, whether expected results have occurred according to the projects’ design and in relation to the development hypothesis, whether the projects were cost-effective, and how activities are perceived, valued, and sustained. Evaluators will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to generate answers. 2. Data Collection Methods The Evaluation Team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information, which is required to assess the evaluation objectives. The evaluation team shall share data collection tools with USAID for review, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The survey tools should draw upon both subjective and objective input of the programs’ stakeholders and should be disaggregated to the relevant level along the value chain. Illustrative disaggregation and program areas for the surveys of the respective clients should consider geographical coverage, type of crops, participation time at the program, gender, processing facility type, size of businesses and schools, and other factors, as applicable. The data collection methodology will include a mix of tools appropriate to the evaluation questions and include document review, in-depth interview with the key stakeholders, and focus group discussions with beneficiaries and a control group that has not participated on the project but are farmers with similar characteristics of the project beneficiaries (in terms of land size, crops cultivated and in the same communities). The evaluation team will complete site visits to three governorates (Luxor, Nubaria, and Aswan) for the HEINZ GDA, and three governorates (Aswan, Beni Suef, and El Sharkia) for the VCT project. A representative sample size of 3% of beneficiaries for the HEINZ GDA activity, and 1% of beneficiaries for the VCT activity in the governorates should also be collected. The method for selecting the representative sample should be discussed with USAID. Document Review: USAID/Egypt will provide the Evaluation Team with electronic copy of the key Program related documents mentioned above under relevant document section prior to the start of the in-country work. All team members shall review these documents in preparation for the initial Team Planning Meeting. Interviews and Site Visits: The Evaluation Team will conduct in-depth interviews and focus group discussions and inspect if any aspect of the activity are ongoing, at a minimum, with the following organizations/staff: Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Ministry of Education Representatives of the GDA private sector participants (tomato processors, green houses owners, small farmers, and other food processors) Representatives of the VCT private sector participants (commercial farms) USAID Staff 51 Smallholder farmers (3% of project beneficiaries in Luxor, Nubaria, and Aswan governorates) ATS students, teachers, headmasters, and parents (1% of project beneficiaries in Aswan, Beni Suef, and El Sharkia governorates) 3. Data Analysis Methods The information collected will be analyzed by the Evaluation Team to identify correlations and establish what are the major trends and issues. The basic unit of analysis will be each stakeholder. Data will be disaggregated by gender to identify how project inputs are benefiting disadvantaged and advantaged groups according to gender and poverty. 4. Methodological Strengths and Limitations Key informant interviews, information collected during site visits and surveys are suggested as a primary data source for this evaluation. Given the short timeline for this study, the evaluation team may not be able to cross check key informant characterizations of changes in beneficiary behavior and competencies through direct beneficiary interviews or observation E. EVALUATION PRODUCTS 1. Deliverables Pre-stakeholder meetings: Work plan: During the Team Planning Meeting, the Team will prepare a detailed work plan which will include the methodologies to be used in the evaluation, timeline, and detailed Gantt chart. The work plan will be submitted to the Evaluation Program Manager at USAID/Egypt for approval no later than the 3rd day of work. Methodology Plan: A written methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps and detail, and operational work plan) will be prepared during the team planning meeting and discussed with and approved by USAID prior to implementation. List of Interviewees and Schedule: USAID will provide the Evaluation Team with a stakeholder analysis that includes an initial list of interviewees, from which the Evaluation Team can work to create a more comprehensive list. Prior to starting data collection, the Evaluation Team will provide USAID with a list of interviewees and a schedule for conducting the interviews. The Evaluation Team will continue to share updated lists of interviewees and schedules as meetings/interviews take place and stakeholders are added to/deleted from the schedule. Data collection tools: Prior to starting fieldwork, the Evaluation Team will share the data collection tools with the USAID Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion and prior approval. Post-stakeholder meetings: Discussion of preliminary draft evaluation report: The Evaluation Team will submit a preliminary draft of the report to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager, who will provide preliminary comments prior to final Mission debriefing. This will facilitate 52 preparation of a more final draft report that will be left with the Mission upon the evaluation team’s departure. Debriefing with USAID: The team will present the major findings of the evaluation to USAID/Egypt through a PowerPoint presentation after submission of the draft report and before the team’s departure from country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as recommendations for the future activities designs and implementation. The team will consider USAID/Egypt comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. Debriefing with Partners: The team will present the major finding of the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint presentation prior to the team’s departure from country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and activities only, with no recommendations for future program. The team will consider partners’ comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. Draft Evaluation Report: A draft report of the findings and recommendations should be submitted to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager prior to the Team’s departure from Egypt. The written report should clearly describe findings and conclusions. Recommendations for future programming will be addressed in a separate internal memo. USAID will provide written comments on the draft report within nine working days of receiving the document. Final Report: The Evaluation Team will submit a final report that incorporates responses to Mission comments and suggestions no later than three working days after USAID/Egypt provides written comments on the Team’s draft evaluation report (see above). If USAID/Egypt determines that there are still content issues to be addressed or that previous feedback has not been satisfactorily addressed, the final unedited report will be considered second draft and further feedback will be given to the team no later than 5 days of receipt of the second draft. If USAID/Egypt determines that there is no need for further changes, the report will be considered final unedited draft and no further feedback will be given. The final report submission is subject to the approval of the Contract Officer’s Representative. Data sets: All data instruments, data sets, presentations, meeting notes and final report for this evaluation will be presented to USAID, in English, on three (3) flash drives to the Evaluation Program Manager. All data on the flash drive will be in an unlocked, editable format. The proposed format for the final evaluation report, to be provided in English, should be organized as follows: Executive Summary Table of Contents Introduction Background Methodology The findings and conclusion from the Heinz-GDA and VCT Projects, and based on these recommendations for future Mission activities. Issues/Challenges 53 Future Directions References Annexes The evaluation Team Leader shall incorporate USAID’s comments and submit the final report to USAID in electronic format (Microsoft Word) as well as printed and bound copies (five copies in English and five in Arabic) not later than 3 working days after the receipt of the comments. The entire report shall be no longer than 30 pages (not including annexes), single spaced in a Times New Roman font, size 12 type font. Graphics and tables may apply appropriate font and font size. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. F. TEAM COMPOSITION The team shall include the following personnel, and all attempts should be made for the team to be comprised of an equal number of male and female members. Team Leader: This individual shall have a minimum of a Master’s degree in an agriculture economics discipline or related field and 10 years’ experience in the monitoring, evaluation and analysis of agricultural development projects. Experience in designing surveys and development assistance program monitoring systems is required. Arabic language is strongly preferred. Technical Advisor - Agriculture: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Agriculture Technical Advisor in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic language, agricultural extension, value chain, agri-business development, marketing, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive field experience in Egypt or the region, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. Technical Advisor - Education: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Education Technical Advisor in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic language, training in basic education field, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive experience in Egypt or the region, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. Local Surveyors: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Local Surveyors in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic and English language, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive field experience in Egypt, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. G. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT 1. Logistical Support USAID/Egypt will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. USAID/Egypt will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders and identified by USAID prior to the initiation of field work. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging vehicle rental and drivers as 54 needed for their site visits around Cairo and in the specified governorates (including air travel when/if necessary). They will also need to arrange their own hotel arrangements if necessary and procure their own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing and photocopying. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own payments. USAID/Egypt personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. 2. Period of Performance The period of performance for implementing the required deliverable shall be a period of eight weeks, beginning on or about (o/a) June, 2015, with field work completed in April 20 and final report concluding o/a May 8, 2015. Within three months of issuing the final report, the final report shall be submitted to the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). 55 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS 56 Table 20: Source and method of Analysis for the evaluation questions Evaluation Question Source for GDA Method of Analysis 1 What objectives/targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results?  Review PMP  Project documentation,  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Analyze progress in indicators data  Analyze progress in project activities and utilization of project resources  Questions in the surveys related to this evaluation question should determine the following indicators:  Changes of areas cultivated and productivity, adoption of new cultivation methods, decrease in production costs per unit, quality of inputs and product, reasons for improvements, challenges of improvements and changes in marketing channels.  Changes in the source of raw material (contracting), quality of product supplied, stability of supply, improvement in employability for processors.  Improvement of income for input suppliers and quality of supplies.  Means of association development. 2 What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/ Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs?  Project documentation,  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Analyze the implementation issues  Questions in the surveys related to this evaluation question should determine the following indicators:  Weaknesses in designing and implementing the project activities and ideas to overcome these weaknesses in the future from different points of views. 3 In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the projects (from design to the end of implementation)? a. What are areas for improvement?  Project work plans and progress reports  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Track when and how stakeholders joined the project  Questions in the surveys related to this evaluation question should determine the following indicators:  Involvement of stakeholders in planning the project activities, the establishment of the relationship with stakeholders, means of development of the associations, means of support to farmers and other beneficiaries, means of cooperation with project and 57 dissemination of project goals and activities. 4 To what extent was the project able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design?  Project documentation  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Track and analyze the training programs and verify their impact on the recipients  Questions in the surveys related to this evolution question should determine the following indicators:  Means of technical support especially to producers and processors, deliver of new technologies in production and processing and its impact on production quality, stakeholders access to finance, changes in the source of inputs, means of marketing support and its impact on losses, training offered to stakeholders.  Means of capacity building of the entities involved in the project activities, ability of the associations to benefit from the grants and equipment provided by the project and associations access to finance. 5 How have the projects developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors?  Project documentations  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Review work plans versus progress reports on women participation  Questions in the surveys related to this evolution question should determine the following indicators:  The changes in women contribution to agricultural value chain activities, improvement of women income as a result of the project and means of support to women. Perception of male and female on women participation and enhancement under the project 6 To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)?  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Questions in the surveys related to this evolution question should determine the following indicators:  Projects established using the grants provided by the project and still exist, the use of equipment provided, means of cooperation between stakeholders during and after the project, the use of production 58 methods developed by the project, stability and quality of products supplied after the project and development of new sources of income by the affiliated associations. 7 To what extent did the implementing partners monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project?  Project documentation  In depth interviews and focus groups, using questionnaires, with stakeholders’ organizations and staff.  Review the monitoring plan and track the progress in monitoring and how the implementation was adjusted, accordingly.  Questions in the surveys related to this evolution question should determine the following indicators:  The degree of involvement for partners in planning the project activities and in M&E. Perception of stakeholders on how ACDI/VOCA monitored the project and how the implementation was adjusted. 59 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 60 Table 21: Data Collection Tools – Questionnaires استمارات استبيان Checklist /Questionnaire Project: Agribusiness Linkages Global Development Alliance; Developing Egypt’s Agribusiness Industry المشروع: تحالفالتنميةالعالمية )GDA )-تطويرنظام االعمال الزراعيةفي مصر المحافظة: :Governorate اسم القائم بملئ االستمارات: :Interviewer of Name " بيانات هذه االستمارة سرية وال تستخدم إال فى أغراض البحث العلمى for and confidential is questionnaire this of Data scientific research Eval. Ques 1. Proposed Questions (Focus Groups) )التركيز مجموعات )المقترحة االسئلة .1 1.1 Farmers and Farmers’ Association Members: :المزارعين منظمات وأعضاء المزارعين 1.1 A list of attendees and their contact information to be attached بهم الخاصة االتصال وبيانات الحضور بأسماء كشف يرفق Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ المحافظة: :Governorate المركز: :District القرية: :Village 3 1.1.1 Did the association exist before the project? Yes ………. No ……….  هل الجمعية كانت موجودة قبل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 3 1.1.2 Did the project contribute to the development of the association? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? …………………………………………………  هل ساهم المشروع في تطوير الجمعية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ .................................................................................. 4 1.1.3 Did the project provide any finance facilitation? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention Credit facilitation………. Delayed payment purchases ………. Bank finance ………. Other, mention: ……………………  هل قدم المشروع أيتسهالت تمويلية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ تسهيالت ف االقتراض .......... شراء مستلزمات إنتاج باألجل من تجار .......... تمويل بنكي .......... أخرى ، تذكر .........................................................  ما هو مصدر الشالت المستخدمة في الزراعة؟ ?seedlings of source the is What 1.1.4 4 61 Eval. Ques 1. Proposed Questions (Focus Groups) )التركيز مجموعات )المقترحة االسئلة .1 Before the project: Own nursery …. Project nurseries …. Other nursery… After the project: Own nursery … Project nurseries … Other nursery …. قبل المشروع: مشتل خاص .......... مشتل مشارك في المشروع .......... مشتل آخر ......... بعد المشروع: مشتل خاص .......... مشتل مشارك في المشروع .......... مشتل آخر ......... 1,4 1.1.5 Did the project develop the means of cultivation? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? Irrigation system ………. Fertilization ………. New species and varieties ………. Pest and disease control ……… Developed seedlings ………. Other, mention: ………………………  هل ساهم المشروع في تطويرأساليب الزراعة ؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي طبيعة هذا التطوير؟ أنظمة الري .......... برامج التسميد .......... أصناف سالالت جديدة .......... برامج مكافحة اآلفات واألمراض .......... شتالت مطورة .......... أخرى ، تذكر ................................................................... 1 1.1.6 Did the productivity improve during the project? Yes …… No ……. If yes, increased by .… % If no, Same ….. or Decreased ….. %  هل زادت إنتاجية الفدان مع المشروع؟ زادت .......... % لم تتغير .......... إنخفضت .......... % 1 1.1.7 If it was increased, what were the reasons for improvement? Changing varieties ………. Improving irrigation system ………. Improved fertilization ………. Improved marketing systems …… Improved product quality ………. Other, mention ………………  في حالة الزيادة، م ا هي اسباب الزيادة؟ تغييراألصناف .......... تحسين نظام الري .......... تحسين نظام التسميد .......... تحسن نظم تسويق المنتج .......... أخرى ، تذكر .......................................... 1 1.1.8 Have the project contributed to reduce production costs? Yes ………. % No ………. The reason?  هل ساهم المشروع في خفض تكاليف اإلنتاج ؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... ما السبب؟ 1,4 1.1.9 Did you face any problems in the crop production? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention ………………………………………  هل واجهتك أي مشاكل فى إنتاج المحصول؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها .................................................................................... 1,4 1.1.10 Did the project assist in solving them? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? ……………………………………………  هل ساعد المشروع فى حل هذه المشكالت؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ..................................................................................... 62 Eval. Ques 1. Proposed Questions (Focus Groups) )التركيز مجموعات )المقترحة االسئلة .1 4 1.1.11 What are the technical supports offered by the project directly to farmers or via the association? Extension service………. Information ………. Training ……… Other, mention ……………………  ما هي مجاالت الدعم الفني التي قدمها المشروع للمزارعين مباشرة أو من خالل الجمعية؟ إرشاد .......... معلومات .......... تدريب .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ........................................................................................... 4 1.1.12 Did the project assist in developing packaging and labeling methods? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساعد المشروع في تحسين طرق التعبئة والتغليف والتداول ومعامالت ما بعد الحصاد؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 4 1.1.13 Did the project contribute to decreasing post-harvest losses? Yes …… by …. % No ………. Reasons:  هل تحسنت معدالت فقد المحصول بعد الحصاد أثناء المشروع؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... ما السبب؟ 4 1.1.14 Did you face any marketing problems before the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention …………………………………………  هل واجهتك أي مشاكل فى تسويق إنتاجك من المحصول قبل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها .................................................................................... 4 1.1.15 Did the project assist in solving them? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? ……………………………………………  هل ساعد المشروع في حلها؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ .................................................................................... 4 1.1.16 What is the marketing support offered by the project to farmers or association? Contracting ………. New market opportunities ………. Facilities (post-harvest) ………. Other, mention ……………………  ما هي مجاالت الدعم التسويقي المقدم من المشروع للمزارعين والجمعية؟ تعاقد .......... معلومات .......... أسواق جديدة .......... تجهيزات )معامالت بعد الحصاد( .......... أخرى ، تذكر: .............................. 6 1.1.17 What are the activities launched during the project and still operating? Improved Varieties ……….…….. Packaging ………….. Cultivating methods................ Training …………. Farm mechanization ………..  ما هي األنشطة التي استحدثت أثناء المشروع وما زالت مستمرة؟ ألصناف المحسنة ........... طرق التعبئة ........... طرق الزراعة ................ التدريب ............... ميكنة عمليات الزراعة والجمع ................... 1,4 1.1.18 To whom do you usually sell your crops before the project? المشروع؟ قبل الطماطم من إنتاجك تبيع كنت لمن  جمعية تعاونية تسويقية .......... تاجر محلي ......... تاجر جملة ......... 63 Eval. Ques 1. Proposed Questions (Focus Groups) )التركيز مجموعات )المقترحة االسئلة .1 A marketing cooperative ………. Local trader ………. Wholesaler ………. Exporter ………. Processor ……. Wholesale market ………. ُم َص سوق الجملة .......... ِّدر ......... مصنع ......... 1,4 1.1.19 To whom do you usually sell your crops during the project? A marketing cooperative ………. Trader ………. Wholesaler ………. Exporter ………. Processor ……….  لمنكنتتبيع إنتاجك من الطماطم أثناء المشروع؟ جمعية تعاونية تسويقية .......... تاجر ......... تاجر جملة ......... ُم َصِّدر ......... مصنع ......... 4 1.1.20 Did the project organize any awareness and advocacy workshops? Yes ………. No ……….  هل نظم المشروع أي ندوات أو ورش عمل لنشر فكر المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 4 1.1.21 Did the project organize any training programs for farmers? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, list them: Technical ………. Post-harvest ………. Marketing ………. Finance ………. Other, mention: ……………………………  هل نظم المشروع أي تدريباتللمزارعين؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ فنية .......... معا الت بعد الحصاد .......... تسويقية .......... تمويلية .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ............................................................... 3 1.1.22 What is the period you have been engaged with the project? From ………. To …………….  م ا هي المدة التي تعاونت فيها مع المشروع؟ من .......... إلى ............. 3 1.1.23 Did you participate in the project planning and management? Yes ………. No ……….  هل شاركت في تخطيط وإدارة المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 6 1.1.24 Do you still apply the project recommendations? Yes ………. No ………. If yes? Mention: Improved Varieties …..… Cultivation methods ……..… irrigation systems …….. Contracts ……. safe production ……………  هل ما زلت تطبق نفس إرشادات المشروع فيما يتعلق باإلنتاج والتسويق؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم؟ م ا هي؟ ألصناف ........ نظام الزراعة ............ نظام الري ............ التعاقدات ........... اإلنتاج اآلمن .............. 6 1.1.25 Is the In-kind grants delivered to the association still operating Yes ………. No ……….  هل المنح العينية المقدمة من المشروع ما زالت قيد التشغيل؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 5 1.1.26 Do women contribute to production activities? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention …………………………………………  هل تساهم المرأة في ألنشطة الزراعية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ 64 Eval. Ques 1. Proposed Questions (Focus Groups) )التركيز مجموعات )المقترحة االسئلة .1 ................................................................................... 5 1.1.27 Did any women receive trainings from the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, type of training …………………………………………  هل تلقت أي من السيدات تدريب م خالل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ ................................................................................... 5 1.1.28 What is the ratio of women's contribution to production activities? Before the project ………. % After the project ………. %  م ا هي نسبة مساهمة المرأة في ألنشطة الزراعية ؟ قبل المشروع .......... % بعد المشروع .......... % 5 1.1.29 What is the impact of the project on women's level of income? Positive ………. % Neutral ………. Negative ………. %  م ا هو تأثير المشروع على مستوى دخل المرأة؟ إيجابي %.......... متعادل .......... سلبي %.......... 2 1.1.30 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough …….. somehow enough ……. not enough ………..  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي ............. إلى حد ما ...............غير كافي .................... 2 1.1.31 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  7 1.1.32 Did ACDI monitor the project activities? Yes … No.... Do not know …. If Yes: How: ……………………………………………………………  هل كانت شركة )ACDI )تتابع تنفيذ المشروع؟ نعم ..... ال ....... ال أعرف ......... اذا كانت االجابة نعم: كيف ........................................................................... Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 1.2 المزارعين وأعضاء منظمات المزارعين: :Members’ Associations and Farmers 2.1 Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ المحافظة: :Governorate المركز: :District القرية: :Village Name of farmer: :المزارع اسم Name of association: :الجمعية اسم العمر: :Age 65 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 Level of education: Graduate ………. High school ………. Basic education ………. Read and write ………. Illiterate ………. Other, mention ……………… المستوي التعليمي: تعليم عالي .......... تعليم متوسط .......... تعليم أساسي ...... يقرأ ويكتب ......... أمي .......... أخرى ، تذكر ...............................  إجمالى الحيازة الزراعية: .......... فدان - .......... قيراط - .......... سهم feddans . ………:holding Total 2.1.1 1 1 2.1.2 Area cultivated with tomatoes before the project: ………. feddans - قيراط .......... - فدان .......... :المشروع قبل بالطماطم المزروعة المساحة  ......... سهم 1 2.1.3 Area cultivated with tomatoes during the project: ………. feddans قيراط .......... - فدان .......... :المشروع اثناء بالطماطم المزروعة المساحة  - ........ سهم 1 2.1.4 Area cultivated with tomatoes after the project: ………. feddans - قيراط .......... - فدان .......... :المشروع بعد بالطماطم المزروعة المساحة  ......... سهم 1 2.1.5 Area cultivated with crop ………… before the project: ……. feddans ...... - فدان ..... :المشروع قبل ............ بمحصول المزروعة المساحة  قيراط - ...... سهم 1 2.1.6 Area cultivated with crop ………… during the project: ……. feddans ..... - فدان .... :المشروع أثناء ............ بمحصول المزروعة المساحة  قيراط - ...... سهم 1 2.1.7 Area cultivated with crop ………… after the project: ………. feddans ...... - فدان ..... :المشروع بعد ............ بمحصول المزروعة المساحة  قيراط - ...... سهم 3 2.1.8 Did the association exist before the project? Yes ………. No ……….  هل الجمعية موجودة قبل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 3 2.1.9 Did the project contribute to the development of the association? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? ………………………………………………………………  هل ساهم المشروع في تطوير الجمعية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ...................................................................................... 4 2.1.10 Did the project provide any finance facilitation? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention Credit facilitation………. Delayed payment purchases from traders ……….  هل قدم المشروع أي تسهالت تمويلية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ تسهيالت ف االقتراض ......... شراء مستلزمات إنتاج باألجل من تجار .......... تمويل بنكي .......... أخرى ، تذكر 66 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 Bank finance ………. Other, mention: ………………………………… ..................................................... 4 2.1.11 What is the source of seedlings? Before the project: Own nursery ………. Project nurseries ………. Other nursery ………. After the project: Own nursery ………. Project nurseries ………. Other nursery ……….  ما هو مصدر الشالت المستخدمة في الزراعة؟ قبل المشروع: مشتل خاص .......... مشتل مشارك في المشروع .......... مشتل آخر ......... بعد المشروع: مشتل خاص .......... مشتل مشارك في المشروع .......... مشتل آخر ......... 6 2.1.12 What are the activities launched during the project and still operating? Improved Varieties ….. Packaging ……. cultivating methods ……. training …….. Mechanization ………  ما هي األنشطة التي استحدثت أثناء المشروع وما زالت مستمرة؟ األصناف المحسنة طرق التعبئة طرق الزراعة التدريب ميكنة عمليات الزراعة والجمع 4 2.1.13 Did the project develop the means of cultivation? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? Irrigation system ………. Fertilization ………. New species and varieties ………. Pest and disease control ……… Developed seedlings ………. Other, mention: …………………………  هل ساهم المشروع في تطويرأساليب الزراعة ؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي طبيع ة هذا التطوير؟ أنظمة الري .......... برامج التسميد ......... أصناف سالالت جديدة .......... برامج مكافحة اآلفات واألمراض .......... شتالت مطورة .......... أخرى ، تذكر .................................................................................. 1 2.1.14 Have the productivity improved during the project? Increased ………. % Same ………. % Decreased ………. %  هل زادت إنتاجية الفدان مع المشروع؟ زادت .......... % لم تتغير .......... إنخفضت .......... % 1 2.1.15 What are the reasons for improvement? Changing varieties ………. Improving irrigation system ………. Improved fertilization ………. Improved marketing systems …… Improved product quality ………. Other, mention …………………  ما هو سبب الزيادة؟ تغييراألصناف .......... تحسين نظام الري ......... تحسين نظام التسميد .......... تحسن نظم تسويق المنتج .......... أخرى ، تذكر ........................................... 1,4 2.1.16 Did you face any problems in production? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention ……………………………………………………  هل واجهتك أي مشاكل فى إنتاج المحصول؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها ..................................................................................... 67 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 1 2.1.17 Have the project contributed to reduce production costs? Yes ………. % No ………. The reason?  هل ساهم المشروع في خفض تكاليف اإلنتاج ؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... ما السبب؟ 4 2.1.18 Did the project assist in developing packaging and labeling methods? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساعد المشروع في تحسين طرق التعبئة والتغليف والتداول ومعامالت ما بعد الحصاد؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 4 2.1.19 Did the project contribute to decreasing post-harvest losses? Yes ………. % No ………. Reasons:  هل تحسنت معدالت فقد المحصول بعد الحصاد أثناء المشروع؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... ما السبب؟ 4 2.1.20 What are the technical supports offered by the project directly to farmers or via the association? Extension service………. Information ………. Training ……… Other, mention ……………………………  ما هي مجاالت الدعم الفني التي قدمها المشروع للمزارعين مباشرة أو من خالل الجمعية؟ إرشاد .......... معلومات .......... تدريب .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ....................................................................................... 4 2.1.21 Did the project assist in developing packaging and labeling methods? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساعد المشروع في تحسين طرق التعبئة والتغليف؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 4 2.1.22 Did you face any marketing problems before the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention …………………………………………  هل واجهتك أي مشاكل فى تسويق إنتاجك من المحصول قبل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها ..................................................................................... 4 2.1.23 Did the project assisted in solving them? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? ………………………………………………………  هل ساعد المشروع في حلها؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ................................................................................. 4 2.1.24 What are the marketing supports offered by the project to farmers or association? Contracting ………. New market opportunities ……….  ما هي مجاالت الدعم التسويقي المقدم من المشروع للمزارعين والجمعية؟ تعاقد .......... معلومات .......... أسواق جديدة .......... تجهيزات )معامالت بعد الحصاد( .......... أخرى ، تذكر: 68 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 Facilities (post-harvest) ………. Other, mention ……………………… .............................. 6 2.1.25 What are the activities launched during the project and still operating? Improved Varieties ……. Packaging ……… cultivating methods ……. training …….. Mechanization ………  ما هي األنشطة التي استحدثت أثناء المشروع وما زالت مستمرة؟ ألصناف المحسنة ......... طرق التعبئة ......... طرق الزراعة ..........التدريب .......... ميكنة عمليات الزراعة والجمع .................. 1,4 2.1.26 To whom did you usually sell your crops before the project? A marketing cooperative ………. Local trader ………. Wholesaler ………. Exporter ………. Factory ………. Wholesale market ……….  لمن كنت تبيع إنتاجك من الطماطم قبل المشروع؟ جمعيةتعاونية تسويقية .......... تاجر محلي ......... تاجر جملة ......... ُم َص سوق الجملة .......... ِّدر ......... مصنع ......... 1,4 2.1.27 To whom do you usually sell your crops during the project? A marketing cooperative ………. Trader ………. Wholesaler ………. Exporter ………. Factory ……….  لمنكنتتبيع إنتاجك من الطماطم أثناء المشروع؟ جمعية تعاونية تسويقية .......... تاجر ......... تاجر جملة ......... ُم َصِّدر ......... مصنع ......... 3 2.1.28 Did the project organize any awareness and advocacy workshops? Yes ………. No ……….  هل نظم المشروع أي ندوات أو ورش عمل لنشر فكر المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 3 2.1.29 Did the project organize any training programs? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, list them: Technical ………. Post-harvest ………. Marketing ………. Finance ………. Other, mention: ……………………………  هل نظم المشروع أي تدريباتللمزارعين؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ فنية .......... معامالت بعد الحصاد .......... تسويقية .......... تمويلية .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ......................................................................... 3 2.1.30 What is the period you have been engaged with the project? From ……………. To …………….  م ا هي المدة التي تعاونت فيها مع المشروع؟ من .......... إلى ............. 3 2.1.31 Did you participate in the project planning and management? Yes ………. No ……….  هل شاركت في تخطيط وإدارة المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 6 2.1.32 Do you still apply the project recommendations? Yes ………. No ………. If yes? Mention:  هل ما زلت تطبق نفس إرشادات المشروع فيما يتعلق باإلنتاج والتسويق؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم؟ ما هي؟ ألصناف ......... نظام الزراعة ............... نظام الري ............. التعاقدات 69 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 Varieties ……. cultivation methods ………. irrigation systems ………. contracts ………. safe production ………. .......... اإلنتاج اآلمن .......... 6 2.1.33 Is the In-kind grants delivered to the association still operating Yes ………. No ……….  هل المنح العينية المقدمة من المشروع ما زالت قيد التشغيل؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 5 2.1.34 Do women contribute to production activities? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention ………………………………………………  هل تساهم المرأة في ألنشطة الزراعية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ ................................................................................... 5 2.1.35 Did any women receive trainings from the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention …………………………………………  هل تلقت أي من السيدات تدريب م خالل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ ................................................................................... 5 2.1.36 What is the ratio of women's contribution to production activities? Before the project ………. % After the project ………. %  م ا هي نسبة مساهمة المرأة في ألنشطة الزراعية ؟ قبل المشروع .......... % بعد المشروع .......... % 5 2.1.37 What is the impact of the project on women's level of income? Positive ………. % Neutral ………. Negative ………. %  م ا هو تأثير المشروع على مستوى دخل المرأة؟ إيجابي %.......... متعادل .......... سلبي %.......... 2 2.1.38 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough somehow enough not enough  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي إلى حد ما غير كافي 2 2.1.39 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  7 2.1.40 Did ACDI monitor project activities? Yes … No.... Do not know …. If Yes: How: ……………………………………………………………  هل كانت شركة )ACDI )تتابع تنفيذ المشروع؟ نعم ..... ال ....... ال أعرف ......... اذا كانت االجابة نعم: كيف ........................................................................... 70 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 2.2 مالكي الصوب: :Owners Greenhouses 2.2 Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ المحافظة: :Governorate المركز: :District القرية: :Village اسم مالك الصوبة: :owner of Name العمر: :Age Level of education: Graduate ………. High school ………. Basic education ………. Read and write ………. Illiterate ………. Other, mention ……………… المستوي التعليمي: تعليم عالي .......... تعليم متوسط .......... تعليم أساسي .......... يقرأ ويكتب .......... أمي .......... أخرى ، تذكر ........................................... 1 2.2.1 # of greenhouses and their total area: ………. greenhouses - ………. square meters  إجمالى عدد الصوب ومساحتها: .......... صوبة - .......... متر مربع 1 2.2.2 # of greenhouses cultivated with tomato / seedlings before the project and their area: ………. greenhouses - ………. square meters  عدد الصوب المزروعة بالطماطم/ الشتالت قبل المشروع ومساحتها: .......... صوبة - .......... متر مربع 1 2.2.3 # of greenhouses cultivated with tomato / seedlings during the project and their area: ………. greenhouses - ………. square meters  عدد الصوب المزروعة بالطماطم / الشتالت أثناء المشروع ومساحتها: .......... صوبة - .......... متر مربع 1 2.2.4 # of greenhouses cultivated with tomato / seedlings after the project and their area: ………. greenhouses - ………. square meters  عدد الصوب المزروعة بالطماطم / الشالت بعد المشروع ومساحتها: .......... صوبة - .......... متر مربع 4 2.2.5 Did the project provide any facilitation to expand the greenhouse? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention ………………………………………………………………  هل قدم المشروع أي تسهالت للتوسع في الصوبة؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها ................................................................................. 4 2.2.6 Did the project offer direct finance of credit facilitation? Yes …. No ……. If yes, mention …………………………………………………………  هل كان هناك تمويل مباشر أو تسهيالت للتمويل من المشروع؟ نعم ......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها ..................................................................................... 71 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 4 2.2.7 Did the project develop the means of cultivation? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? Cultivation system ………. Irrigation system ………. Fertilization ………. New species and varieties ………. Pest and disease control ………. Developed seedlings ………. Other, mention: ………………  هل تم تطوير نظام الزراعة في الصوبة بواسطة المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي طبيع ة هذا التطوير؟ نظام إنشاء الصوب .......... أنظمة الري .......... برامج التسميد .......... أصناف سالالت جديدة .......... برامج مكافحة اآلفات واألمراض .......... شتالت مطورة .......... أخرى ، تذكر ....................................................... 1,4 2.2.8 Was the productivity improved during the project? Increased ………. % Same ………. % Decreased ………. %  هل زادت إنتاجية الصوبة مع المشروع؟ زادت .......... % لم تتغير .......... إنخفضت .......... % 1 2.2.9 What were the reasons for improvement? Changing varieties ………. Improving irrigation system ………. Improved fertilization ………. Improved marketing systems …… Improved product quality ………. Other, mention …………………  ما هو سبب الزيادة؟ تغيير األصناف .......... تحسين نظام الري .......... تحسين نظام التسميد .......... تحسين نظم تسويق المنتج .......... تحسين نوعية المنتج ............. أخرى ، تذكر ........................................... 4 2.2.10 What is the source of seedlings? Before the project: Own nursery ………. Project nurseries ………. Other nursery ………. After the project: Own nursery ………. Project nurseries ………. Other nursery ……….  ما هو مصدر الشالت المستخدمة في الزراعة؟ قبل المشروع: مشتل خاص .......... مشتل مشارك في المشروع .......... مشتل آخر ......... بعد المشروع: مشتل خاص .......... مشتل مشارك في المشروع .......... مشتل آخر ......... 6 2.2.11 What are the activities launched during the project and still operating? Improved Varieties ……. Packaging ……… cultivating methods ……. training …….. Mechanization ………  ما هي األنشطة التي استحدثت أثناء المشروع وما زالت مستمرة؟ ألصناف المحسنة ......... طرق التعبئة ......... طرق الزراعة .........التدريب .......... ميكنة عمليات الزراعة والجمع .................. 1 2.2.12 Did you face any problems in production? Yes ………. No ………. 2.2.13 If yes, mention ……………………………………………  هل واجهتك أي مشاكل فى إنتاج المحصول؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها ..................................................................................... 1 2.2.14 Did the project assist in solving them? How? المشكالت؟ هذه حل فى المشروع ساعد هل  72 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? …………………………………………… نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ...................................................................................... 1 2.2.15 Have the project contributed to reduce production costs? Yes…. % No …. The reason?  هل س اهم المشروع في خفض تكاليف اإلنتاج ؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... ما السبب؟ 4 2.2.16 Did the project assist in developing packaging and labeling methods? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساعد المشروع في تحسين طرق التعبئة والتغليف والتداول ومعامالت ما بعد الحصاد؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 4 2.2.17 Did the project contribute to decreasing post-harvest losses? Yes ………. % No ………. Reasons:  هل تحسنت معدالت فقد المحصول بعد الحصاد أثناء المشروع؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... ما السبب؟ 1 2.2.18 Did you face any marketing problems before the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention ……………………………………………  هل واجهتك أي مشاكل فى تسويق إنتاجك من المحصول قبل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكرها .................................................................................... 1 2.2.19 Did the project assist in solving them? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? …………………………………………………  هل ساعد المشروع في حلها؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ..................................................................................... 1,4 2.2.20 To whom do you usually sell your crops before the project? A marketing cooperative ………. Local trader ………. Wholesaler ………. Exporter ………. Factory ………. Wholesale market ……….  لمن كنت تبيع إنتاجك من الطماطم قبل المشروع؟ جمعية تعاونية تسويقية .......... تاجر محلي ......... تاجر جملة ......... ُم َص . سوق الجملة .......... ِّدر ......... مصنع ........ 1,4 2.2.21 To whom do you usually sell your crops during the project? A marketing cooperative ………. Trader ………. Wholesaler ………. Exporter ………. Factory ……….  لمنكنتتبيع إنتاجك من الطماطم أثناء المشروع؟ جمعية تعاونية تسويقية .......... تاجر ......... تاجر جملة ......... ُم َصِّدر ......... مصنع ......... 3 2.2.22 Did the project organize any awareness and advocacy workshops? Yes ………. No ……….  هل نظم المشروع أي ندوات أو ورش عمل لنشر فكر المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 73 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 3 2.2.23 Did the project organize any training programs? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, list them: Technical ………. Post-harvest ………. Marketing ………. Finance ………. Other, mention: ……………………….  هل نظم المشروع أي تدريباتللمزارعين؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ فنية .......... معامالت بعد الحصاد .......... تسويقية .......... تمويلية .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ......................................................................... 3 2.2.24 What is the period you have been engaged with the project? From ………. To …………….  م ا هي المدة التي تعاونت فيها مع المشروع؟ من .......... إلى ............. 3 2.2.25 Did you participate in the project planning and management? Yes ………. No ……….  هل شاركت في تخطيط وإدارة المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 6 2.2.26 Do you still apply the project recommendations? Yes ………. No ………. If yes? Mention: Varieties …….. Cultivation methods ………. irrigation systems ……….. Contracts ……….. Safe production ………….  هل ما زلت تطبق نفس إرشادات المشروع فيما يتعلق باإلنتاج والتسويق؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم؟ ما هي؟ ألصناف ........ نظام الزراعة ........... نظام الري ............. التعاقدات .............. اإلنتاج اآلمن .................... 6 2.2.27 Is the In-kind grant delivered to the association by the project still operating Yes ………. No ……….  هل المنح العينية المقدمة من المشروع ما زالت قيد التشغيل؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 5 2.2.28 Do women contribute to production activities? Yes ……. No ………. If yes, mention …………………………………………………  هل تساهم المرأة في ألنشطة الزراعية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ ................................................................................... 5 2.2.29 Did any women receive trainings from the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention …………………………………………………  هل تلقت أي من السيدات تدريب م خالل المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ ................................................................................... 5 2.2.30 What is the ratio of women's contribution to production activities? Before the project ………. % After the project ………. %  ما هي نسبة مساهمة المرأة في ألنشطة الزراعية ؟ قبل المشروع .......... % بعد المشروع .......... % 5 2.2.31 What is the impact of the project on women's level of income? المرأة؟ دخل مستوى على المشروع تأثير هو ا م  74 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 إيجابي %.......... متعادل .......... سلبي %.......... % .......... Negative . ………Neutral % . ………Positive 2 2.2.32 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough ……… somehow enough ………. not enough ……………….  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي ........... إلى حد ما .................. غير كافي .................. 2 2.2.33 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  7 2.2.34 Did ACDI monitor project activities? Yes … No.... Do not know …. If Yes: How: ……………………………………………………………  هل كانت شركة )ACDI )تتابع تنفيذ المشروع؟ نعم ..... ال ....... ال أعرف ......... اذا كانت االجابة نعم: كيف ........................................................................... 3.2 المصنعين: :Processors 2.3 Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ المحافظة: :Governorate المركز: :District القرية: :Village Name of factory: :المصنع اسم اسم مالك/ مدير المصتع: :manager /owner of Name رقم الموبايل: #: Mobile 1,3 2.3.1 What is the source of the raw material before the project? Farmers ………. Traders ………. Wholesale Market ………. Contract ………. Other, mention: …………………………  ما هو مصدر الحصول علىالمادة ا الخام قبل بداية المشروع؟ منتجين .......... تجار .......... سوق الجملة .......... تعاقد .......... أخرى: تذكر ................................................................................................ 1,3 2.3.2 What is the source of the raw material during the project? Farmers ………. Traders ………. Wholesale Market ………. Contract ………. Other, mention: …………………………………  ما هو مصدر الحصول علىالمادة ا الخام أثناءالمشروع؟ منتجين .......... تجار .......... سوق الجملة .......... تعاقد .......... أخرى: تذكر ................................................................................................  هل س اهم المشروع في توفير المادة الخام بنسبة أكبر عن ذي قبل؟ material raw the of availability the to contribute project the Did 2.3.3 1,3 75 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 better than before? Yes ………. % No ………. .......... ال % .......... نعم 1 2.3.4 Is there any difference in the product quality during the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, what is the difference? Suitable varieties ………. Sorted and Graded Fruits ………. Improved Packaging ………. Other, mention: ………………………………  هل اختلفت جودة المحصول المور خالل فترةالمشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي طبيعة االخالف؟ أصناف الئمة .......... فرز وتدريج المحصول .......... عبوات مالئمة .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ............................................................................................ 1 2.3.5 Is there any difference in the product quality after the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, what is the difference? Suitable varieties ………. Sorted and Graded Fruits ………. Improved Packaging ………. Other, mention: ………………………………  هل اختلفت جودة المحصول المورد بعد انتهاء المشروع حتى اآلن؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي طبيعة االخالف؟ أصناف الئمة .......... فرز وتدريج المحصول .......... عبوات الئمة .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ............................................................................................ 4 2.3.6 Did the project provide training of the workers? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساهم المشروع في تدريب العاملين؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 1 2.3.7 Did the project contribute to developing the production method? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how …………………………………………………  هل ساهم المشروع في تطوير طريقة اإلنتاج؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ...................................................................................... 6 2.3.8 Did the project contribute to increase the quantity and quality of production? Yes ………. No ………. How?  هل ساهم المشروع في زيادة كمية اإلنتاج وجودته؟ نعم .......... ال .......... كيف؟ 6 2.3.9 Did the project contribute to stability of quantities supplied of raw material? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساهم المشروع في انتظام توريد المادة الخام؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 1 2.3.10 Did the project contribute to increase the level of operating? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, what is the ratio? ………. %  هل ساهم المشروع في زيادة نسبة التشغيل؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، م ا هي نسبة الزيادة؟ .......... % 76 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 4 2.3.11 Did the project provide credit facilitation? Yes ………. No ……….  هل ساهم المشروع في توفير تسهيالت ائتمانيةللمصنع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 5 2.3.12 Do women contribute to processing activities? Yes …… No ………. If yes, mention ……………………………………………………  هل تساهم المرأة في أنشطة التصنيع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ .................................................................................... 5 2.3.13 What is the ratio of women's contribution to greenhouse activities? …. %  م ا هي نسبة مساهمة المرأة في أنشطة التصنيع؟ .......... % 5 2.3.14 What is the impact of the project on women's level of income? Positive ………. % Neutral ………. Negative ………. %  م ا هو تأثير المشروع على مستوى دخل المرأة؟ إيجابي .......... % متعادل .......... سلبي .......... % 2 2.3.15 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough ……….. Somehow enough …………. not enough ……………  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي ................ إلى حد ما .................. غير كافي .................. 2 2.3.16 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  2.3.17 Are there any other questions we did not ask? What are these questions? What are their answers?  هليوجد اسئلة اخريلميتمالتطرقاليها؟ ما هيتلك االسئلة؟ وما هي االجابة عليها من وجههنظرك؟ 4.2 التجار Traders 2.4 Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ Name of trader: :التاجر اسم رقم الموبايل: #: Mobile العنوان: :Address 1,3 2.4.1 What is the source of the raw material before the project? Producers ………. Own farm ………. Wholesale Market …… Contract ………. Other, mention: ………………………….  ما هو مصدر الحصول علىالمادة ا الخام قبل بداية المشروع؟ منتجين .......... مزرعة خاصة .......... سوق الجملة .......... تعاقد .......... أخرى: تذكر ............................................................................................ 1,3 2.4.2 Did it change after the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention new sources…………………………….  هل اختلفت هذه المصادر بعد المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، أذكر المصادر الجديدة؟ ................................................................. 77 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 1 2.4.3 What is the nature of relationships with producers before and after the project?  ما هي طبيعة الالقة مع المنتجينقبل وبعد المشروع؟ 1,4 2.4.4 Are there any changes in quantity and quality of products received from producers after the project? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, what is the difference? More quantities …… Suitable varieties ……. Sorted and Graded Fruits ……. Improved Packaging ………. Other, mention: ………………………  هل حدث اخالف في جودة وكمية المنتج التي تحصل عليها من المنتجين بعد المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي طبيعة االخالف؟ كمية أكبر .......... أصناف الئمة .......... فرز وتدريج المحصول .......... عبوات الئمة .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ............................................................... 5 2.4.5 Do women contribute to trading activities? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, mention ……………………………………………………  هل تسا هم المرأة في أنشطة التجارة؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، ما هي؟ ................................................................................... 5 2.4.6 What is the ratio of women's contribution to trading activities? ………. %  م ا هي نسبة مساهمة المرأة في أنشطة التجارة؟ .......... % 5 2.4.7 What is the impact of the project on women's level of income? Positive ………. % Neutral ………. Negative ………. %  م ا هو تأثير المشروع على مستوى دخل المرأة؟ إيجابي .......... % متعادل .......... سلبي .......... % 2 2.4.8 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough ……….. Somehow enough …………. not enough ……………  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي ................ إلى حد ما .................. غير كافي .................. 2 2.4.9 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  5.2 موردي عناصر إلنتاج: :(Vendors (Suppliers Input 2.5 Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ Name of supplier: :المورد اسم رقم الموبايل: #: Mobile عنوان المورد: :Address Kinds of inputs supplied: :الموردة المواد طبيعة 3 2.5.1 When did you know about the project activity? ………. .......... متىعلمتببدايةنشاطالمشروع؟  78 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 3 2.5.2 When did you start cooperating with the project? ………. .......... المشروع؟ مع التعاون بدأ متى  3 2.5.3 What are the kinds of cooperation with the project? المشروع؟ مع التعاون أوجه هي ما  1 2.5.4 Did the project contribute to developing your activities? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? …………………………………………..  هل ساهم المشروع في تطوير األنشطة الخاصة بكم؟ نعم .......... ال .......... في حالة نعم ، كيف؟ ...................................................................................... 1 2.5.5 Did the project contribute to increase survivability ratio of seedlings? Yes ………. % No ……….  هل ساهم المشروع في زيادة نسبة إنبات الشتالت؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... 1 2.5.6 Did the project contribute to changing quantities and types of fertilizers and pesticides? Yes ………. No ………. If yes, how? ……………………………………………..  هل ساهم المشروع في تغيير كمية ونوعيات المبيدات واألسمدة؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... كيف؟ 1 2.5.7 Did the project contribute to increase farm income? Yes ……. No ……. If yes, how? ………………………………………………..  هل ساهم المشروع في زيادة دخل الزراع؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... كيف؟ 4 2.5.8 What kind of support did you receive from the project? Financial support ………. Capacity building ………. Training ………. Information ………. Other, mention: ………  ما هي طبيعة الدعم المقدم لكم من المشروع؟ دعم مالي .......... بناء مؤسسي .......... تدريب .......... معلومات .......... تعاقدات .......... أخرى ، تذكر: .......................................................... 6 2.5.9 Did the cooperation with project continued to its end? Yes ………. No ……….  هل استمر التعاون مع المشروع حتى نهايته؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 6 2.5.10 Did the cooperation with the project beneficiaries continue after the project? Yes ………. No ……….  هل استمر التعاون مع المستفيدين من المشروع بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 2 2.5.11 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough ……….. Somehow enough …………. not enough ……………  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي ................ إلى حد ما ..................غير كافي .................. 79 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 2 2.5.12 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  2.5.13 Are there any other questions we did not ask? What are these questions? What are their answers?  هليوجد اسئلة اخريلميتمالتطرقاليها؟ ما هيتلك االسئلة؟ وما هي االجابة عليها من وجههنظرك؟ 6.2 موظفي منظمات المزارعين: Staff’ Associations Farmers 2.6 Date of interview: :المقابلة تاريخ Name of association: :الجمعية اسم Name of association director: :الجمعية مدير اسم رقم الموبايل: #: Mobile عنوان الجمعية: :Address 4 2.6.1 What are the kinds of support offered by the project to the association staff? Financial support ………. Capacity building ………. Training ………. Other, mention: ………………………  م ا هي مجاالت الدعم التي قدمها المشروع للعاملين بالجمعية؟ دعم مالي .......... بناء مؤسسي .......... تدريب .......... أخرى ، تذكر: ............................................................................................. 4 2.6.2 Did the association receive any grants from the project? Yes ………. No ……… If yes: Mention:  هل حصلت الجمعية على أي منح من المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال ..........في حالة نعم: ما هي؟ 6 2.6.3 Did the association activities initiated during the project still operating? Yes ………. No ………  هل ما زالت االالنشطةالتي بنيت على المنح قيد التشغيل؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 6 2.6.4 Did the project created extra income for the association? Yes ………. No ……… Mention:  هل أدى المشروع إلى خلق مصادر دخل مستمرة للجمعية؟ نعم .......... ال .......... كيف؟ 4 2.6.5 How the support by the project assisted in developing the association performance?  كيف س اهم الدعم المقدم من المشروع في تطوير أداء الجمعية؟ 1,4 2.6.6 What are the training programs attended by staff? Strategic planning ………. Income generation ………. Meeting organization ………. Other, mention: ……………………….  م ا هي التدريبات التي حصل عليها العاملين بالجمعية؟ تخطيط استراتيجي .......... تطوير مصادر الدخل .......... عقد االجتماعات ......... أخرى ، تذكر: .......................................................... 80 Eval. Ques 2. Questionnaires (one-to-one) )شخصية مقابلة )استبيان استمارات .2 4 2.6.7 What is the ratio of staff attended training programs? ………. % % .......... تدريبات؟ حصلواعلى الذين العاملين نسبة هي ا م  1 2.6.8 What are the impacts of the training programs? التدريبات؟ هذه على المترتب األثر هو ما  5 2.6.9 Did the project contribute to increase the ratio of women's contribution to association activities (as an employee)? Yes ………. No ………  هل ساهم المشروع في زيادة نسبة مساهمة المرأة في أنشطة الجمعية كموظفة بالجمعية؟ نعم .......... % ال .......... 3,7 2.6.10 Did you participate in planning and implementation of the project activities? Yes ………. No ………  هل شاركتم في تخطيط وإدارة أنشطة المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 2 2.6.11 How do you evaluate the project support? Enough ……….. Somehow enough …………. not enough ……………  ما تقييمك للدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ كافي ................ إلى حد ما .................. غير كافي .................. 2 2.6.12 How can we benefit from such support in the future? المستقبل؟ في أفضل بشكل الدعم هذا من االستفادة يمكن كيف  7 2.6.13 Did ACDI monitor project activities? Yes … No.... Do not know …. If Yes: How: ……………………………………………………………  هل كانت شركة )ACDI )تتابع تنفيذ المشروع؟ نعم ..... ال ....... ال أعرف ......... اذا كانت االجابة نعم: كيف ........................................................................... 2.7 Collaboration with related authorities and organization (Directorates of Agriculture – International affairs department at Ministry of Agriculture) 7.2 التعاون مع الهيئات والمنظمات ذات الصلة )مديريات الزراعة – إدارة اعالقات الخارجية بوزارة الزراعة( 2.7.1 What are the kinds of cooperation with the project? المختلفة؟ مراحله خالل المشرو مع التعاون أوجه هي ما  2.7.2 Did the cooperation contribute to solving any of the problems within the projects areas?  هل ساهم التعاون مع المشروع في وضع حلول للمشاكل في مناطق المشروع؟ 3,7 2.7.3 Did you participate in planning and implementation of the project activities? Yes ………. No ………  هل شاركتم في تخطيط وإدارة أنشطة المشروع؟ نعم .......... ال .......... 7 2.7.4 Did ACDI monitor project activities? Yes … No.... Do not know …. If Yes: How: ……………………………………………………………  هل كانت شركة )ACDI )تتابع تنفيذ المشروع؟ نعم ..... ال ....... ال أعرف ......... اذا كانت االجابة نعم: كيف ........................................................................... 81 The evaluation questions are: 1. What objectives/targets were met towards AERI’s highest level results? 2. What are the lessons learned from the program’s implementation that USAID/Egypt can take into consideration for future similar programs? 3. In what ways were stakeholder partnerships formed during the projects (from design to the end of implementation)? a. What are areas for improvement? 4. To what extent were the projects able to build capacity of the beneficiaries according to the project design? 5. How have the projects developed measures to enhance women’s participation in their respective sectors? 6. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the associations (beyond June 2013)? 7. To what extent did the implementing partners monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of the activities supported by the project? a. How did ACDI/VOCA adjust the implementation to address findings? U.S. Agency for International Development 1A Nady El Etisalat Street New Maadi, Cairo Egypt Postal Code - M 11435 Phone +20 2 2522-7000 Fax +20 2 2516-4628 Email cairomedia@usaid.gov