FEED THE FUTURE EAST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY THROUGH ENHANCED REGIONAL
TRADE (FOSTER-TRADE) ACTIVITY
End of Project Evaluation Report
Submitted to
AGMARK
Final Report
MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD
P.O BOX 19131-40123 KISUMU
Tel : +254-720575286/0736545755/0713575070
Email : archielaogange@yahoo.com
December 2016
1 | P a g e
End of Feed The Future FOSTER-Trade Activity Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) November, 2016
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................4
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................6
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................8
1.1. Background and Rationale ....................................................................................................................................8
2.0 Evaluation Objectives and Scope ...........................................................................................................................9
2.1 Specific Objectives..................................................................................................................................................9
3.0 Methodology and Approach ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3.1 General approach................................................................................................................................................10
3.1.1 Desk top reviews...............................................................................................................................................10
3.1.2 Surveys..............................................................................................................................................................10
3.1.3 Key Informant Interviews (KII).........................................................................................................................10
3.1.4 Focus Group Discussion...................................................................................................................................10
3.2. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size .................................................................................................................10
3.2.1 Simple Random Sampling.................................................................................................................................11
3.2.2 Purposive and snow ball sampling ...................................................................................................................11
3.3 Survey tools and procedure ..................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Data collection and field visits.............................................................................................................................11
3.5 Data analysis and presentation ............................................................................................................................12
3.6 Limitations of the evaluation ................................................................................................................................12
4.0 Evaluation Results and Discussions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
4.1 Characteristics of Sampled Cross-Border Trader (CBTs)...................................................................................13
4.2 Project Outcomes and Impacts.............................................................................................................................15
4.2.1 Building traders capacity to enhance cross-border grain trade .......................................................................16
4.2.2 Sources of Commodities traded and Mode of delivery .....................................................................................18
4.2.3 Volumes traded between Nov 2015 – Oct 2016................................................................................................18
4.2.4 Source of Market Information..........................................................................................................................19
4.2.5 Duration of Payments for commodity purchases..............................................................................................20
4.2.6 Main Source of revenue in grain trade before and after the project.................................................................21
4.3. CBTs operating formally (%) ..............................................................................................................................21
2 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
4.4 Proportion of informal traders that declare their goods......................................................................................22
4.5 General Impediments to cross-border trade.........................................................................................................22
4.6 General Characteristics of Agrodealers...............................................................................................................23
4.7 Foster-Trade Activity Outcomes among Agrodealers..........................................................................................23
4.7.1 Proportion that reported change in Agri-inputs sales in the past 2 years.........................................................23
4.7.2 Major source of income in Agri-Inputs Business..............................................................................................24
4.7.3 Main source revenue by seed type sold ............................................................................................................24
4.8 Constraints Faced by Agrodealers.......................................................................................................................25
5.0 Assessment on Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability of FOSTER Trade....................26
5.1 Overall Relevance................................................................................................................................................26
5.2 Overall Effectiveness and Efficiency ...................................................................................................................26
5.3 Challenges experienced in project implementation.............................................................................................27
5.5 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................................27
5.7 Lessons Learnt......................................................................................................................................................28
6.0 Conclusions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29
6.1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................29
Annex ..........................................................................................................................................................................31
References...................................................................................................................................................................41
3 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
List of Tables
Table 1: General characteristics of CBTs.................................................................................................. 13
Table 2: Traders Consciousness when sourcing grains............................................................................. 18
Table 3: Sources of commodities and mode of delivery ............................................................................ 18
Table 4: Major sources of income from commodity trade before and after FOSTER-Trade Activity ...... 21
List of Figures
Figure 1: Commodities traded by cross-border traders............................................................................. 14
Figure 2: Business nature and direction of trade....................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Services received by CBTs during FOSTER-Trade Activity ...................................................... 16
Figure 4: Benefits of participating in FOSTER-Trade Activity................................................................. 17
Figure 5: Volumes traded among CBTs by Border-Point .......................................................................... 19
Figure 6: Market information sources........................................................................................................ 20
Figure 7: Payments for commodity purchases ........................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: CBTs operating formally ............................................................................................................ 22
Figure 9: CBTs Operating Informally but recording transactions ............................................................ 22
Annex
Annex 1: Cross-border Survey Questionnaire............................................................................................ 31
Annex 2: Agrodealer Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 36
Annex 3: Focus Group and Key Informant Guides .................................................................................... 39
Annex 4: List of Key Informants Interviewed ............................................................................................. 40
4 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AGMARK Agricultural Market Development Trust
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program
CBTs Cross Border Traders
CBTA Cross Border Traders Associations
FOSTER Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through Enhanced Regional Trade
JBCs Joint Border Committees
KEBS Kenya Bureau of Standards
KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate
KRA Kenya Revenue Authority
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
TFDA Tanzania Food and Drug Authority
TRA Tanzania Revenue Authority
UBS Uganda Bureau of Standards
URA Uganda Revenue Authority
USAID United States Agency for International Development
5 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Acknowledgment
Moford Management Consultants Limited and its entire team wish to express their sincere appreciation
to all the people and institutions for their participation and support during this evaluation exercise.
However, in a special way we wish to thank AGMARK for giving her team the opportunity to serve as an
external evaluator to Feed the Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Activity.
The Team Members further acknowledge the organizational and logistical support, and the invaluable
information and insight they received from AGMARK staff at the National office in Nairobi. The
evaluation team extends their special appreciation to FOSTER-Trade Project Manager, the Project
Coordinator and the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer for the overall guidance, advice, coordination
and cooperation during the exercise
This work would not have been possible without patience; sincerity and valuable time from CBTs and in
particular their Officials, agrodealers and other stakeholders who agreed to be interviewed during this
study. Special thanks to representatives of the government agencies for various countries in particular the
Revenue authorities, Standards and Controls, Port health and all the inspectorates. Thank you
abundantly. The team finally acknowledges all enumerators who made this data collection a success.
6 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Executive Summary
Agricultural Markets Development Trust (AGMARK) implemented a two year Feed the Future East
Africa Food Security through Enhanced Regional Trade (FOSTER-Trade) activity whose overall goal
was to increasing access to and utilization of staple foods in Eastern Africa, to increase formal cross
border trade flows of sorghum and beans across the borders of Namanga (Kenya-Tanzania), Busia and
Malaba (Kenya-Uganda), Katuna/Gatuna (Uganda-Rwanda) and Isebania/Sirare (Kenya-Tanzania). The
objectives of FOSTER Trade activity directly contribute to the realization of the CAADP goal of
integrating regional markets and reducing the cost of doing business across the borders (Pillar II),
facilitating access to inputs and yield enhancing technologies (Pillar IV) and directly contributing to the
goal of the Feed the Future initiative of increased access, availability and utilization of African grown
staple foods in regionally integrated markets.
The external evaluation was meant to assess the level of achievements of the activity’s objectives, to
assess the extent to which Feed the Future FOSTER-Trade Activity has impacted the cross-border grain
traders and whether the anticipated changes have been realized, to examine which factors have proved
critical in promoting or hindering change and draw lessons for planning of future projects.
The consultant designed survey instruments to capture socio-economic characteristics of the cross border
traders, the nature and coverage of their business operations, effectiveness of traders. participation in
capacity building activities, participation in one stop border post (OSBP) activities, level and direction of
trade operation in terms of quantities traded, market segment as well as supply sources and progress made
in their performance since they started participating in FOSTER activity. Additionally, checklists were
developed to capture feedback on impact of the activity from traders in a group discussion set up and
finally Key informant guides were also designed to solicit additionally information particularly from
activity implementers, government agencies, financial institutions and agro dealers.
Overall, the activity is credited with an upward surge in sales of beans and sorghum in the last two years.
80% of traders reported that they sell beans. Another 79% reported that they also trade in maize and 35%
in sorghum alongside beans. Other commodities stocked by these traders included green grams, ground
nuts, cowpeas and cassava. The trends were similar across the border-border-points where beans and
maize were the most commonly stocked and traded commodities. The major market segment is
consumers at 52%. This could be a pointer towards achieving the objective of increasing access to and
utilization of staple foods, although 100% attribution to the activity is difficult. Another 29% said they
sell to traders. Except at Gatuna/Katuna border, the general trader to trader flow of commodities was such
that it was always flowing into Kenya which is a net grain deficit destination
In terms of the activity outcomes, the following had been achieved through this intervention: Firstly,
training of traders to engage in a structured registered cross-border grain trading. This has tremendously
increased transparency, efficiency and reliability among traders; reduced cost of doing business and
guaranteed quality of traded commodities.
In addition, the training to cross border traders has ensured that they efficiently manage their working
capital and profits by employing business management techniques. Secondly, demand creation activities
through trade fairs to link famers and traders of beans and sorghum in the project areas. This has greatly
smoothened demand and supply aspects of these commodities while at the same time improving
efficiency of cross border trade as well as saving costs along the commodities value chains.
7 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
FOSTER activity stakeholders were also interviewed to assess the general performance of the activity in
terms of its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Overall relevance, efficiency,
impact and sustainability of the project can be summarized as satisfactory. On relevance, the traders indicated that the project had come in handy to solve some of their key problem
in the market. The project was said to be efficient given that it undertook most of its planned activities in
time and the approach of training and networking of the cross border traders was particularly hailed to
have worked so well. On sustainability, most stakeholders felt that the project worked with every willing individual in the
community. The women were mainly involved in the project since they form the majority of grain traders
across the borders. This evaluation therefore hopes that CBTs will continue to use formal channels to
trade while leveraging services delivered through the government agencies and new skills acquired
through the FOSTER activity. However, the positive score on sustainability will to some extent be
masked by a number of constraints among them being limited access to credit to expand their business. Another factors that may hamper sustainability of the FOSTER-Trade activity is failure by AGMARK to
implement some activities that were promised at the inception of the project. Finally, it is the conclusion of this evaluation that FOSTER activity has had some desired outcomes on
the cross-border trade and traders as was envisaged at inception. Results in this report indicate that gains
have been made in areas such as; knowledge and skills on cross border trade, knowledge and skills on
basic business management, volumes traded have also increased, the costs of doing business have
reduced and business relationship with border officials improved. However, given the short project
period, it may be a little too early to realize significant project impacts
8 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
1.0 Introduction
1.1. Background and Rationale
An estimated 1.2 million MT of staple food commodities were informally traded within the eastern Africa
countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Burundi) between October
2011 and September 2012. Among these countries Uganda and Tanzania are generally food secure
generate most of the surplus staple food commodities traded informally in the region whereas as Kenya
and Rwanda are food deficit countries importing informally about three quarters of surpluses from Kenya
and Uganda1 The nature of trade in these countries is informal and characterized by low efficiencies, high
transaction costs and low competitiveness which are a reflection of existing barriers to formal trade, poor
enabling environment and restrictive trade policies and practices. Existence of such significant informal
trade, impacts negatively on the food security situation in the region as food commodities do not flow
efficiently and competitively from the surplus to the deficit countries. Improving regional trade in food
staples could have a direct and positive effect on food security in the deficit countries, reducing price
volatility in the region, enhancing producer incentives and accelerating agricultural growth.
Regional trade integration, food security and agricultural sector development are central themes in all the
eastern Africa countries who ascribe to Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program
CAADP Compacts and Investment plans. Additionally, the East African Community (EAC) has signed
the Agriculture and Rural Development Policy which engenders regional integration, food security and
agricultural sector growth. Feed the Future is the United States Government global hunger and food security initiative which
establishes a foundation for lasting progress against global hunger. The Foundation initiatives supports
partner countries in developing their agriculture sectors to spur economic growth that increases incomes
and reduces hunger, poverty and undernutrition. The efforts of the foundation are driven by country-led
priorities and rooted in partnership with governments, donor organizations, the private sector and civil
society to enable long-term success. A keystone activity of Feed the Future East Africa strategy is
‘opening up integrated regional markets for staple commodities with a focus on selected regional value
chains’. Agricultural Markets Development Trust (AGMARK) received funding from United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) under the African Institutions Innovation Mechanisms (AIIMs) to
implement a two year Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through Enhanced Regional Trade
(FOSTER-Trade) activity. The activity had the overall goal of increasing access to and utilization of
staple foods in Eastern Africa, to increase formal cross border trade flows of sorghum and beans across
the borders of Namanga (Kenya-Tanzania), Busia and Malaba (Kenya-Uganda), Katuna/Gatuna (Uganda- Rwanda) and Isebania/Sirare (Kenya-Tanzania).
AGMARK proposed to contribute to the above goal through enhancing: better integrated regional
markets for sorghum and beans; increased access to improved seeds and yield enhancing technologies
and increased private sector investors’ participation in cross border trade. To achieve better integrated
markets, the traders require knowledge on the cross border trade environment, trade opportunities and
contractual agreements as well as the goodwill of the broader stakeholder to address non-tariff barriers to
1 FEWS NET/FAO/ WFP October 2012 Report
9 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
trade encourage formal trade. These activities were expected to enhance efficiencies and cost reduction in
the cost of doing business across the borders. The objectives of FOSTER Trade activity directly contribute to the realization of the CAADP goal of
integrating regional markets and reducing the cost of doing business across the borders11), facilitating
access to inputs and yield enhancing technologies (Pillar IV) and directly contributing to the goal of the
Feed the Future initiative of increased access, availability and utilization of African grown staple foods in
regionally integrated markets.
2.0 Evaluation Objectives and Scope
The overall objective of this end of project evaluation is to assess the extent to which Feed the Future
FOSTER-Trade Activity has impacted the cross-border grain traders and whether the anticipated changes
have been realized, to examine which factors have proved critical in helping or hindering change and
draw lessons for future projects.
2.1 Specific Objectives
The main objectives of the evaluation were to:
1. Evaluate the outcomes and impact of FOSTER project against its objectives.
2. Assess progress made towards the achievement of results at the outcome and output levels.
3. Assess performance in terms of the relevance of results, sustainability, shared responsibility and
accountability, appropriateness of design and informed timely action.
4. Identify lessons learned and provide recommendations for increasing knowledge on cross border
procedures and regulation, interventions to reduce barriers to cross border trade, enhanced access
to improved seeds and private sector investor linkages.
10 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
3.0 Methodology and Approach
3.1 General approach
The study involved four main approaches for data and information gathering. These included: desk top
review, Semi structured questionnaire surveys, Key Informant Interviews and Focus group discussions.
3.1.1 Desk top reviews
This included reviewing all relevant project documents including programme plans, annual monitoring
reports and relevant published literature. The aim of desk review was to gain an understanding of the
project objectives, implementation strategies and envisaged milestones. These information is vital for
development of survey tools and scientific procedures, selection of respondents and planning the
evaluation process
3.1.2 Surveys
The consultant developed Semi structured questionnaires in conjunction with the client’s monitoring and
evaluation team and administered the same to FOSTER-Trade Activity beneficiaries including cross
border traders and agro dealers. Surveys were administered face to face to the majority of these two
groups while phone interviews were conducted where face to face was not possible. Even in situations
that necessitated phone interviews the same scripts were followed strictly. A simple random sampling
methodology for data collection from participating cross-border traders and agro dealers was agreed upon
with the client during the initial assignment planning stages.
3.1.3 Key Informant Interviews (KII)
Check list were prepared and used for Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with diverse activity stakeholder
groups including; government agencies (Revenue Authorities, Standards, Port health and Inspectorates),
Cross Border Traders Association (CBTA) officials, clearing agents and project implementing staff. Information gathered from opinion leaders greatly aid in filling gaps and triangulating inferences from
quantitative data and focus group discussions.
3.1.4 Focus Group Discussion
Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) were conducted with Cross-Border Traders Associations Members.
Interview guides were prepared and used to guide FGD sessions which comprised between 8 to 12 CBTs
each. A total of 8 FGDs were conducted comprising of 2 FGDs per border. Put in other words, we
conducted 1 FGD per Country at each border.
These techniques and tools were used to assess the cumulative progress towards realization of planned
results at various activity levels of process, output, and impact. Achievement was measured as percent
realization of the planned targets for the activities and results based on the predetermined key outputs and
outcome indicators as well as periodic milestones set in the project proposal and reviewed in the annual
work plans. Matched comparisons were also made with baseline data where such was available.
3.2. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size
This section explores and outlines data collection methods used in this evaluation. The sampling plan
comprised randomized selection technique as well as Purposive and snow balling. Foster Trade project
was implemented in five border-points in four countries. The border points were; (Katuna/Gatuna border
11 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
along Rwanda-Uganda, Busia and Malaba borders along Kenya-Uganda, Namanga and Sirare /Isebania
borders along Tanzania-Kenya, while the four countries include Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda. Four of the five border points (Busia, Malaba, Namanga and Gatuna/Katuna) were randomly selected for
this evaluation study. A total of eight CBTAs were sampled. The sampled CBTs and Agrodealers were
visited and interviewed by enumerators. Respondents who were unavailable for Face-to-face interviews
were interviewed over the phone. 3.2.1 Simple Random Sampling
A simple random sampling approach was used to identify CBTs and agro dealer respondents. Membership list of CBTA and that of FOSTER activity agro-dealers beneficiaries from the selected
border points were used as the sampling frames. In each case, proportion to size sampling approach was
applied to arrive at the actual number of CBTs and agro-dealers to be interviewed. Furthermore, between
8 and 12 members were randomly sampled from both the already surveyed respondents as well as those
not sampled for quantitative interviews to participate in the FGDs. A total of 126 CBTs and 40
Agrodealers were sampled from the four boarder points in the four project countries.
3.2.2 Purposive and snow ball sampling
Purposive and snowballing methods were used to sample Key Informants from among the stakeholders in
the project. These methods involved approaching key opinion persons identified from desk top reviews,
engaging them on the evaluation but also asking them to help identify other key persons who were also
involved in the FOSTER activity. This snow ball rolling continued until such a time as when all key
persons had been reached and interviewed or no new information was forthcoming. A total of 31 key
informants were interviewed across the four sampled borders.
3.3 Survey tools and procedure
Three sets of survey questionnaires were designed by the consultant, shared with client’s monitoring and
evaluation department and approved for collecting relevant data from Cross-border traders, agro dealers,
Key Informants as well as for Focus Group Discussions. Data collection through face-to-face interviews
with cross border traders and agro dealers was done using semi structured questionnaires while an
interview guide and a check list were prepared and used for FGDs and KIIs respectively. Selected field
supervisor and enumerators with relevant experience and qualification were trained for three days to
familiarize themselves with data collection. All enumerators conducted a role play, which is a practical
mock interview that mimics actual face to face interviews to further grasp required interviewing skills and
elicit deliberations and a standard agreement on areas that were still grey before embarking on the data
collection exercise. The training mainly focused on common understanding of each question on the
instrument to ensure all team members were administering the questions in similar manner so as to meet
the highest quality data collection standard, evaluation findings and validity.
3.4 Data collection and field visits
Quantitative data was collected in both sides of Kenya/Uganda in Busia and Malaba borders,
Kenya/Tanzania in Namanga border and Uganda/Rwanda in Gatuna/Katuna border through a survey of
randomly sampled Cross border traders who were mainly women. As already mentioned in this report, a
sample of 126 traders was selected from CBTA member lists from these four project areas. Using CBTA
members list as the sampling frame, the proportion to size sampling criteria was employed to arrive at the
statistically sufficient number of beneficiaries to be interviewed at each border point. Each cross border
12 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
trader was visited by an enumerator and a face to face interview conducted, the field supervisor
conducted spot and back checks to ensure the right respondents were being interviewed, completeness of
tools and flow of responses. Where a face to face interview was not possible, respondents were reached
and interviewed over the phone. 40 agro dealers were also sampled from lists of beneficiary across the
four countries. Given their sparse distribution and the numbers involved, it was not possible to interview
sufficient numbers by border. The 40 agro dealers were therefore drawn from all the four countries.
Qualitative data on the other hand, was obtained through Focus group discussions conducted with
between 8 and 10 cross border traders in each of the four countries, as well as with Key informants. Key
Informants were drawn from diverse border officials ranging from government agencies responsible for
Revenues, Standards, Port health and Inspectorates, Cross Border Traders Association (CBTA) officials
and leaders, clearing agents and project staff. A total of 8 FGDs (one per country) were conducted and
opinions of 29 Key informants collected and documented.
3.5 Data analysis and presentation
The quantitative data collected during field work was entered in SPSS entry program, cleaned and
analysed by parameters of interest. SPSS was mainly used to analyse the quantitative data to determine
frequencies, means and percentages; the findings are presented in tables and charts in the next section. Qualitative data, lessons learnt, best practices and project gaps was analyzed by cross tabulation, content
analysis and interpretation. For reporting purposes data was summarized in tables, graphs and flowcharts. Finding from quantitative data was triangulated with insights from qualitative engagements to provide a
nuanced position and feelings elicited by project beneficiaries. Conclusions and recommendations were
based on the analysis, data comparison with baseline and other project documents and included
consideration of issues raised by both internal and external resource persons.
3.6 Limitations of the evaluation
The main limitation of the evaluation was the limited time, and the geographical vastness of the study
area.
13 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
4.0 Evaluation Results and Discussions
4.1 Characteristics of Sampled Cross-Border Trader (CBTs)
To better understand the cross border traders involved in the FOSTER-Trade activity, the evaluation
established some general characteristics of CBTs. Findings indicate that majority (97%) of the cross- border cereal and pulses traders were women. Most of these traders are young adults with an average of
40 years. In addition, 77% were above 35 years of age, the rest being youths between the ages of 21 and
35 years. In terms of levels of education, a higher percentage are within the primary and secondary
schooling brackets, the results show that 52% of these traders had some secondary education while 31%
had some primary level. Only 10% had attained post-secondary education.
Majority of these businesses (94%) are individually owned and operated by individual cross-border
traders and only 25 percent of them had some employees. The main source of startup capital to most of
the cross-border grain traders in the project area was found to be individual’s own savings which
accounted for 72 percent, those who received credit capital were 17 percent while only a mere 3 percent
reported obtaining their capital from both own savings and credit. These findings on business ownership,
presence of employees and source of capital, point to small scale traders, a fact that is further explained
by the over reliance on own savings as a source of startup capital especially among the majority women
cross-border grain traders. Business startup capital is particularly a major impediment to entrepreneurship
and is even more pronounced among women who are faced with discrimination in property ownership,
access to basic services as well as unfair market place competition from their male counterparts.
Most women traders noted that the financial services providers were inaccessible given their stringent
requirements and products available were too expensive for their operational sizes. Majority of them are
therefore excluded from participating in the financial service sector as currently structured. These
sentiments notwithstanding, about 70% of the traders had a saving account with the highest proportion
being in Busia border while Namanga border reported the lowest proportion with savings account (Table
1).
Table 1: General characteristics of CBTs
Characteristics Busia Malaba Namanga Gatuna/ Katuna Overall
Female traders (%) 97 100 100 89 97
Age (years) 40 42 42 36 40
Adults (%) 73 79 84 70 77
Education (%) None 0 3 3 15 5
Primary 27 26 56 30 35
Secondary 63 53 38 54 52
Post-Secondary 10 18 3 2 8
Type of Business Sole Proprietor 90 91 100 98 95
Partnership 7 9 0 0 4
Family 3 0 0 2 1
% with employed staff in their business 40 26 9 6 20
Source of capital Own saving 73 70 72 78 72
Credit 10 21 19 16 17
Both 0 0 9 2 3
Donations 17 9 0 4 3
Account 80 71 59 67 69
14 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
 Commodities traded
Cross-border grain trainers were also asked to list all the grains they traded in between November 2015
and October 2016. Overall, 80% of traders reported that sell beans. Another 79% reported that they also
trade in maize and sorghum 35%. Other commodities stocked by these traders included green grams,
ground nuts, cowpeas and cassava. The trends were similar across the border-border-points where beans,
maize and the most commonly stocked commodities. Sorghum also featured prominently in Busia,
Malaba and Gatuna/Katuna border points (Figure 1).
47 50
9
36 36
67
85 88
80 80
70
79 78 79
0
20
40
60
80
100
Busia Malaba Namanga Gatuna/Katuna Overall
Percent
Sorghum Beans/soya Maize Rice Millet OtherCom
Figure 1: Commodities traded by cross-border traders  Nature and Direction of trade between Cross-border Traders (CBTs)
The evaluation also sort to establish FOSTER-Trade activity beneficiaries’ market segment. 52% of the
traders reported that they sell to consumers either within the country or across the border. Another 29%
sold to traders. The general trader to trader flow of commodities was such that it was always flowing into
Kenya. Put differently, traders from Uganda and Tanzania sell to their counterparts in Kenya which is a
net grain deficit destination. One cross-border transactions between traders from Kenya with their
counter-parts from Uganda and Tanzania featured prominently. Overall, 32% and 37% percent of traders
from Uganda and Tanzania reported selling to traders from Kenya respectively.
At Gatuna/Katuna border, trade was said to be a two way activity with commodities flowing from and to
either Uganda or Rwanda depending on the season and on who holds surpluses at a given time. Only 1%
of the traders sold to millers, another indication of the nascent nature of the cross border businesses. By
border point, 67% of the traders in Busia Uganda sold commodities to consumers from Kenya. Similarly,
in Malaba and Namanga 53% and 38% of traders reported that they mainly sell to consumers from Kenya
respectively.
15 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Figure 2: Business nature and direction of trade
4.2 Project Outcomes and Impacts
Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through Enhanced Regional Trade Project (Foster Trade
Activity) had the primary objective of increasing formal cross border trade flows of sorghum and beans in
Eastern Africa borders. The project promoted formal trade of beans and sorghum from countries of
surplus (Uganda and Tanzania) to countries of deficit (Kenya and Rwanda). The project activities
included training to CBTs and Agrodealers, linking traders to larger buyers and farmers through trade
fairs, linkages to financial institutions. Linking agrodealers to input suppliers, convening Joint Border
committee meetings to enhance cooperation among stakeholders in cross-border trade. These activities
were expected to enhance to encourage structured trading in cereals, enhance efficiencies and reduce cost
of doing business across the borders.
Some outcomes have been achieved through the interventions. These include; training of traders to
engage in a structured registered cross-border grain trading. This was expected to increase transparency,
efficiency and reliability among traders; reduce cost of doing business and guarantee quality of traded
commodities. In addition, the training to cross border women traders was to ensure that they efficiently
manage their working capital and profits by employing business management techniques.
Alongside capacity building for efficient business operations, Foster-Trade activity also engaged in
demand creation activities through trade fairs to link famers and traders of beans and sorghum in the
project areas.
16 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
4.2.1 Building traders capacity to enhance cross-border grain trade
AGMARK’s main areas of focus under FOSTER-Trade activity has been to increase formal cross border
trade flows of sorghum and beans in Eastern Africa borders. To achieve this, AGMARK has been
developing capacity of Cross-border women traders through training and business linkages, trade fairs to
enhance trade and utilization of sorghum and beans. In addition, AGMARK facilitated the joint border
committee meetings that brought together traders and the government officials to establish a positive and
seamless working relationships among all stakeholders to efficiently manage formal trade across the
borders  Services received by CBTs during FOSTER-Trade Activity
In order to improve the quality of grains traded, business incomes and reduce cost of doing business,
training of Cross-border women traders formed major components of FOSTER-trade Activities. Capacity
building targeted areas of; Structured cross border trade, basic business management, Linkage to
commodities suppliers and financial institutions.
Overall, about 83% of the traders interviewed had received some training in basic business management
which included but was not limited to; managing working capital, recording keeping, tracking inventory
and profit and loss. Further, 82% of traders reported that they had received training on structured cross- border trade requirements, processes and procedures. Another 27% reported to have been linked with
commodity suppliers whereas only a meagre 9% reported a linkage to financial institution but that the
linkage to financial intuitions had little or no impact on their business.
The little or no impact from linkage to financial institution was attributed to the high unaffordable cost of
credit from the mainstream banks in respective activity countries as well as the restrictive requirements to
access credit. Recommendations were brought to the fore to consider linkages with other financial service
providers (Micro finance institution, strengthening Informal groups like chamas) other than mainstream
banks
Figure 3: Services received by CBTs during FOSTER-Trade Activity  Benefits of participating in FOSTER-Trade Activity
17 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
In order to determine the impacts of FOSTER-Trade activity in the project areas, traders were asked to
outline any benefits they believed spanned out of working with AGMARK. Overall, 46% of the traders
noted that the business advice through training was the greatest benefit they received followed by reduced
cost of doing business across the border at 39%. 30% of traders interviewed reported that there was
marked increase in profits whereas 29% believed that their relationship with border authorities had
improved immensely. Other respondents (24%) believed that buyer confidence had improved while only
9% of the respondents thought that supplier confidence had improved (Figure 4). Noted marked increase
in profits partly due to reduced cost of doing business, was attributed to a radical shift from moving goods
through illegal routes to going through the border points. Traders alluded to the fact that using designated
border points greatly reduced cases of losing trade commodities, exorbitant informal payments were
eradicated and sexual harassment minimized (Figure 4)
Figure 4: Benefits of participating in FOSTER-Trade Activity  Quality of grains traded.
Value addition to cereals and pulses traded made up a substantial component of the training on quality of
grains traded and so the evaluation sort to the gains made in this front by inquiring from traders what
quality parameters they considered when sourcing commodities from suppliers. Overall, it emerged that
traders were well aware of the importance of trading in quality grains. 99% of the traders noted that the
moisture content was very important since high moisture content could not only lead to sprouting of
aflatoxins on the grains but also losses in revenue emanating from further drying of the grains to meet
acceptable moisture levels. By border-point, Namanga traders were more conscious about the quality
standards as compared to the other borders (Table 2).
18 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Table 2: Traders Consciousness when sourcing grains
Quality Parameters Busia Malaba Namanga Gatuna/Katuna Overall
Moisture content of grains 100 100 97 99 99
Presence of broken grains 93 100 100 100 98
Presence of lives pest 97 100 100 99 99
Presence of foreign matter 97 100 100 100 99
Presence of discolored grains 90 100 100 97
Type and size of package 80 79 91 83
4.2.2 Sources of Commodities traded and Mode of delivery
Having looked at the market segment for beneficiary cross border traders, this evaluation completed the
demand and supply curves by engaging traders on their source of traded commodities as well as preferred
modes of delivery. Over half of the traders (51%) obtain commodities from fellow traders, middlemen
and agents. Another 30% source from small scale farmers, these are probably in-country traders who are
able to traverse their country and buy from rural interior production zones, while 15% of the traders
reported sourcing from large scale farmers. It is noteworthy that only7%, 6% and 3% sourced from
certified warehouses, Food reserve agency and Farmer organizations respectively. This again speaks to
majority of cross border traders being small scale in operation and who may benefit from grain bulking
interventions by way of reduced time and transportation cost to and from commodity sources.
The most preferred mode of delivery is self-collection, a channel that was reported by 89% of the
respondents. Variations were noted across the borders but overall, only 11% reported having most of their
goods delivered by suppliers. Busia border led in reporting that most goods were delivered by suppliers,
perhaps indicating a higher concentration of medium and large scale traders compared to the other border
points. Table 3 depicts the various commodity sources and modes of delivery.
Table 3: Sources of commodities and mode of delivery
Source of commodities Busia Malaba Namanga Gatuna/ Katuna Overall
Other traders, middlemen, agents 55 48 59 41 51
Small-scale farmers 11 29 31 50 30
Larger farmers 21 13 10 15
Certified warehouses 11 3 7
Farmer organizations 1 4 3
Food Reserve Agency 3.0 9 6
Mode of Delivery (%)
Collect most by myself 86 90 93 97 89
Suppliers deliver most 14 10 7 3 11
4.2.3 Volumes traded between Nov 2015 – Oct 2016
Apart from commodity source and market, volumes traded is another key aspect whose change indicates
success or otherwise of an outcome oriented activity. This necessitated the need to investigate volumes of
19 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
various cereals and pulses moved and or traded in the sampled borders between November 2015 and
October 2016 (one year into working with FOSTRE –Trade activity). Overall, about 120 tons of sorghum
was traded within that period by the CBTs surveyed while approximately 90 tons of beans was traded
across the four borders. The same traders reported that they moved 240 and 178 tons of maize and rice in
the reference period respectively. Millet and other commodities traded was 76 and 174 tons in that order.
It is imperative however, to note that these are quantities reported by only those traders dealing in these
commodities among the project beneficiary respondents, and not the total quantities moved by all traders
in the respective borders. Also, notice should be given to seasonality of trade and that a one year
reference period does not necessarily imply 12 months of active trading. The quantities notwithstanding,
findings indicate that sorghum was prominently traded at Busia while beans featured mostly at Malaba.
both borders moving goods from Uganda into Kenya. Just as at baseline, Maize and beans still dominate
commodities traded across all the borders. Gatuna/Katuna border however, moved the most maize within
the reference period. Figure 5 shows volumes traded by border point.
Figure 5: Volumes traded among CBTs by Border-Point
4.2.4 Source of Market Information
Market information is paramount for trading activities not only because it aids decisions into what
commodities to purchase, in what quantities and at what time within the trading cycle, but also
management of investment, capital cash flow as well as predicting probable market behavior. This
evaluation therefore sort to understand the various channels through which cross border traders obtained
market information. Majority of the traders reported that personal knowledge of the market was their
major source of market information. Personal knowledge here implies discussions with fellow traders
during trade activities, at CBTA meetings or through friendly phone calls. Publicly available information
which includes among others radio adverts and programs, online platforms and posters came in second as
a source of market information while a very small majority reported prices set by the sellers as their way
of determining market activities.
20 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Figure 6: Market information sources
4.2.5 Duration of Payments for commodity purchases
Another important aspect of trade that the evaluation established was duration of payment and contractual
obligations. A large proportion of CBTs (92%) surveyed reported that they pay for their purchases within
the same day, this shows that the cross border business’ operations are heavily cash based and that
majority of the operators are concentrated within the ‘small scale’ bracket. Only about 7 percent of the
respondents showed some level of contractual agreement for payments, perhaps implied or based on trust,
this is so because even the few who reported paying after delivery of goods only do so within a week.
Again a characteristic of small scale, cash based, non-contractual business operation among the majority.
Figure 7 depicts the duration of payments as reported by the cross border traders.
Figure 7: Payments for commodity purchases
21 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
4.2.6 Main Source of revenue in grain trade before and after the project
Major sources of revenue to the traders were also analysed. The results show a 2% increase in the
proportion of traders who reported that sorghum is now their major source of revenue from trading grains.
However, there was significant 6 percent increase in the proportion of traders who consider beans as
major source of revenue in their grain trading business now compared to before the FOSTER-Trade
activity was implemented. It is noteworthy that those who consider maize as major source of revenue
reduced by 11%. This could perhaps be a spin off from the reduced amount of maize imports from the
East African regions to Kenya due to the various interventions by Kenya government targeting input
subsidy as well as irrigated maize production which may have resulted in increased local production of
maize, increased supply to the local markets and hence reduced prices.
Table 4: Major sources of income from commodity trade before and after FOSTER-Trade Activity
Commodity
Busia Malaba Namanga Gatuna / Katuna Overall
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Sorghum 0 7 11 9 7 6 2 6 5 7
Beans/Soya 36 30 39 59 57 63 53 57 46 52
Maize 41 37 39 18 36 31 45 37 40 31
Rice 5 7 0 0 0 0 2 2
Millet 14 13 7 12 0 0 8 8
4.3. CBTs operating formally (%)
One pillar within the overall objective of FOSTER-Trade is to increase formal cross border trade flows of
sorghum and beans across the border; operational word being ‘formal’. Trade policy disciplines has no
universal definition of informal cross-border trade. It generally refers to trade which may be legal
imports or exports on one side of the border and illicit on the other side and vice-versa, on account of not
having been subjected to statutory border formalities such as customs clearance.
It is upon this premise that this evaluation established from the CBTs surveyed whether they considered
their trading across the border as formal or informal, and to give reasons for categorization and their
understanding of informal trade. Overall, only 37% said they were operating registered businesses, had
trading license and were paying annual business levies to their respective governments. Busia border
recorded the highest percentage of businesses operating formally at 57%. Namanga border on the other
hand reported the lowest number of formal businesses at only 17%. Malaba and Gatuna/Katuna borders
reported 30 and 35% formal businesses operations respectively. Figure 8 outlines proportions of CBTs
operating formally by border point.
When asked why they considered their trade to be formal, majority of them noted that they declare the
commodities they import for verification and recording at the customs (Figure 8).
22 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Figure 8: CBTs operating formally
4.4 Proportion of informal traders that declare their goods
The study also established from those who responded that their cross-border trade was informal whether
they declare their merchandise at the customs for verification. Overall 9.7% of these informal traders
reported that they occasionally declare their goods for verification and recording at the customs.
Figure 9: CBTs Operating Informally but recording transactions
4.5 General Impediments to cross-border trade
Cross-border traders and women traders in particular are faced by a number of challenges some of which
are unique to the nature of business. The challenges range from: seasonality in supply of commodities
23 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
because agricultural system in these regions are largely rainfed; political willingness to develop cross
border cooperation by neighbouring countries; extortion and bribery; limited information market
opportunities and misinformation on trade rules and protocols leading to exploitation; delays at the border
post during peak periods and crime-cross border traders without proper documentation often resort to
crossing illegally (theft of cash or goods). Women traders also complained of stigmatization, sometime
referred to as smugglers.
Additionally, some most cross-border traders majority of whom are women, lack credit or financial
services with attractive interest rates for the nature of their businesses. This was blamed for the smaller
volumes of commodities traded and sometimes on the low quality of products. Language barriers was
also mentioned to impede trade but more importantly the complexities of cross border trade rules and
regulations. Some also complained that they lack proper documents to enable them benefit from paying
little or no customs duty. Finally some agro-dealers lack knowledge and technical skills in business
management, safe product handling. Most traders complained of high costs of transporting goods due to
poor infrastructure from the farms to the markets. Lack of market linkages that translate into actual
business transacted. As noted my many traders, they were linked to large buyers who never bought from
them even after aggregating to the volumes required. However this cannot be blamed on the project.
4.6 General Characteristics of Agrodealers
A random sample of 40 agrodealers was surveyed. 69 percent of the agro-input businesses were owned by
males. The average age of the owners surveyed was 45 years and 66% of these business had some
employees. These business mainly sold agro inputs (62%) whereas 38% of agro-input business survey
sold both agro-inputs and farm aggregate farm outputs.
4.7 Foster-Trade Activity Outcomes among Agrodealers
One of the objectives of Feed the Future FOSTER-Trade activity was to increase access to improved
seeds and yield enhancing technologies to increase productivity. The agrodealer survey therefore sort to
establish if there has been any changes in level of input sales among agrodealers who participated in the
project.
4.7.1 Proportion that reported change in Agri-inputs sales in the past 2 years
Most of the Agrodealers reported that their sales had increased in the past two years. By Agri-input type,
seed sales increase by 90%, 82%, 70% and 67% for others seeds, maize, beans and sorghum seeds
respectively. Additionally, over 70% of agrodealers interviewed reported that fertilizer sales increased.
(Figure 10). However, we cannot attribute these wholesomely these increases to the FOSTER-Trade
activity since there could be so many other projects in these countries which could also be promoting use
of yield enhancing inputs.
24 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Figure 10: Proportion reporting changes in Agro-inputs sales
4.7.2 Major source of income in Agri-Inputs Business
The evaluation asked the respondents their major source of income from Agro-inputs business. Similar
trend to sales increases above was noted where 62% of the respondents reported that their major source of
income was from seeds followed by fertilizer and Crop protection inputs at 25% and 13% respectively.
Again this cannot wholly be attributed to the project activity since prices of various inputs vary and so are
the use of the specific inputs.
Figure 11: Major income sources in Agri-input business
4.7.3 Main source revenue by seed type sold
Major sources of revenue from seed sales to the agrodealers were also analyzed It is noteworthy that
39% of the dealers reported that maize contributed the most to seeds sales revenue followed closely by
25 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
beans and horticulture seeds at 30 and 27 percent respectively. Only 4% reported that their source of
revenue from seed sales was sorghum.
Figure 12: Main revenue source from seed sales
4.8 Constraints Faced by Agrodealers
Agro-input businesses and their operators face a number of constraints some of which are unique to
nature of business. The challenges range from low business capital, to low demand for products due to
seasonality in use. Additionally, some agro-input businesses lack credit or financial services with
attractive interest rates. Finally some agro-dealers reported that product expiry and inconsistent supply of
preferred seeds and bad debts also affect their businesses. Generally low and seasonal demand because
agricultural systems in these countries are largely rainfed (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Constraints faced by Agrodealers
26 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
5.0 Assessment on Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability of FOSTER
Trade
Cross-border grain traders, Agrodealers, government agencies, Clearing agents, CBTAs officials and
project implementing staffs were interviewed to assess the general performance of the activity in terms of
its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Based on the information collected
through the interviews, overall relevance, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project can be
summarized as satisfactory.
5.1 Overall Relevance
To get information on this question the cross-border women traders and other stakeholders were
interviewed. The traders indicated that the project had come in handy to solve some of their key problem
in the market that included
1. Use of illegal routes (due to unawareness of border procedures and processes) whose ills were;  Police Harassment  Exorbitant informal charges (Bribes) making trade very expensive  Being taken advantage of and taxed heavily and unnecessarily.  Loss of goods and trade equipment  Sexual harassment among female traders and not feeling self-worth
 High transportation cost as goods have to be moved in bits  Restricted movement of goods (as sometimes they were forced to cross the border only at
night)  Delays in crossing the border
2. Low or no networking among both the traders, customers and the suppliers.
3. Informal or unregistered businesses – no trade certificate leading to high cost of doing business
owing to the high bribes paid to continue in business without business permits.
4. Loss of cereals due to improper storage, preservation and general post-harvest handling given the
lack of knowledge on handling and preservation products/chemicals to use.
5. Poor business record and general documentation e. g receipts, invoices, debts, sales and purchases
leading to losses that are un-accounted for.
6. Poor management of investment capital, poor planning and fear due to lacking knowledge on
rights and privileges at the borders
7. Lacking market information and no sharing of market information amongst the traders
8. Constant conflicts with border officials
They therefore felt the project as designed tackled most of their key challenges by providing them with
solutions to these pressing issues.
5.2 Overall Effectiveness and Efficiency
According to stakeholders interviewed the project undertook most the planned activities in time. The
approach of training and networking of the cross border traders worked so well. AGMARK activities
were well managed and communication was well channeled from the CBWTA leaders to members. All
27 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
supposed activities were organized and completed in time and challenges dealt with succinctly and with a
participatory approach where members or the leaders were consulted before any radical steps made.
As one respondent puts it “yes, AGMARK empowered us through targeted trainings in financial
management, management of investment capital, understanding border processes and procedures,
networking and the need to be sensitive to operational costs so as maximize margins. All these were key
and a priority as you will notice, sales volumes have increased and so is profit. We have also expanded
our markets, the border officials are friendly to us and we seldom lose our goods through informal
routes”---Treasurer, Malaba Kenya CBWTA.
There was networking with traders across the border through trade fairs, thus growth of business leading
to increased profits and expansion of market opportunities. Given the nature of the project and the
resultant benefits involved it was not possible to undertake cost benefit analysis to establish its efficiency.
5.3 Challenges experienced in project implementation
High turnover of both border officials and clearing agents creating a training ‘break’ which sometimes
resulted in periodic old ways of relationships between traders and border officials. Although EAC
member countries zero rated farm produce traded amongst themselves, country specific taxation regimes
made it a challenge to apply most training themes. For instance road user levy and market access or cess
levy made it expensive to legally utilize such public services especially for foreigner traders.
Given perhaps the concern on holding sufficient cereal reserves to feed her citizens, Tanzania imposed a
temporary burn on maize exports, a move that made it a challenge to traders in a net cereal deficit country
like Kenya to conduct their trade FOSTER activity not withstanding
5.5 Sustainability
Sustainability of any form of interventions has been and is still one of the major concerns in development
projects. The evaluation approaches the issues of sustainability at the institutional level and separately at
the level of project results. The interventions helped CBTs grain traders by improving efficiencies and
reducing costs of doing business at the border crossing points through training of CBTA members, facilitating and easing cross-border trade that encourages a shift from informal to structured formal trade.
This impacted positively on the profitability and long term sustainability of businesses involved. This
approach enhances self-sustaining strategies even after project has ended.
Additionally, AGMARKs’ facilitated Joint Border Committee meetings (JBC) to sensitize CBTs on cross
border procedures and processes in order to nurture the right culture through empowering target
population to demand the rightful services from the relevant offices at the cross border points. This
approached ensured ownership of the project by the CBTs and government agencies for various countries,
and other actors in the project area, a requirement for sustainability. In general, most stakeholders felt that
the project worked with every willing individual in the community. The women were mainly involved in
the project since they form the majority of grain traders across the borders. The evaluation therefore hope
that CBTs will continue to use formal channels to trade good services delivered through the government
agencies new skills acquired through the project.
28 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
However, the positive score on sustainability will to some extent be masked by a number of constraints.
A number of traders cited limited access to credit to expand their business because the financial products
in the market are not tailored to their needs coupled with high interest rates pose a threat to financial
sustainability of the project.
The evaluation has also found out among the factors that may hamper sustainability of the FOSTER- Trade activity include failure by AGMARK to implement some activities that were promised at the
inception of the project. A number of farmers claim that the linkages to large buyers did not translate to
actual business transactions as some large buyers signed contract to purchase from them but failed to turn
up to collect the commodities after the traders aggregated. Some CBTs also claim that certain government
agency officials at the borders still harass them. 5.7 Lessons Learnt
The main lesson learnt in the process is that although many stakeholders and the EAC talk of reducing
tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade the impact of the same has not been felt by the smallholder cross
border traders in the region. This lack of awareness on most of the cross border trader hampers the free
flow of good as corrupt official use the same to exploit vulnerable traders who was originally meant to
enjoy the benefits of the common market.
Although cross border trade capacity building was originally viewed as a straight forward activity, the
challenges of the ground are numerous and hence projects meant to achieve such an aim should never be
viewed as short one time activities.
29 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
6.0 Conclusions
From the findings of quantitative analysis, FGD sessions and KIIs, it is clear that FOSTER-Trade
Activity has had some desired outcomes on the cross-border trade and traders as was envisaged at
inception. Results in this report indicate that gains have been made in areas that include but are not
limited to; knowledge and skills on cross border trade, knowledge and skills on basic business
management, volumes traded have also increased, the cost of doing business have reduced and business
relationship with border officials improved.
As a result, cross border transactions and trade are more efficient and effective compared to the period
before the activity. Again, one of the main pillars of FOSTER-Trade activity was to increase formal cross
border trade flows of sorghum and beans. There was marked improvement in trade of these two
commodities among cross border traders which further supports the assertion that positive impacts are
being realized. On the same breadth, agro-dealers, who were also beneficiaries of the project, recorded
some increase in sales of most inputs. Although it may not be easy or even accurate to fully attribute this
increase in sales to FOSTER activity, it is all the same an indications that the intervention contributed to
positive change.
FOSTER-Trade activity has certainly made headways and shifts to more efficient cross border trade is
being achieved. However, certain challenges still abound among the cross border traders; top in the list is
access to capital credit. Even though linkages to financial institutions was done, the financial sector and
mainstream financial services providers as currently structured, excludes such small scale traders (as most
of the cross border traders) by their stringent and sometimes strict collateral requirements to access a loan
facility.
Other challenges include; differences in units of measure in different countries, Language barrier, lacking
knowledge on cross border trade among some traders and high turnover of some of the cross border trade
stakeholders such as custom and other border officials and clearing agents. Cross border trade thrives on
creation of good working relationships between traders and border officials, such high turnovers therefore
imply a break in seamless flow of trade activities.
Finally, in recognition of the project outcomes and the challenges thereof, it is the conclusion of this
evaluation that given the short project period, it may be a little too early to realize significant project
impacts. Giving some more time for follow up and monitoring could go a long way in consolidating
possible intervention gains as well as any spin offs.
6.1 Recommendations
Given the findings of this evaluation together with the conclusions, it is best for the client (AGMARK) to
put in place concrete sustainability structures so as to ensure full realization of the intended project
impacts. Areas of immediate focus would include; Strengthening cross-border traders associations and
creation of linkages with other existing cross-border trade initiatives.
There is also a need for continued capacity building of cross-border traders to not only achieve an all￾inclusive intervention but also to take advantage of the existing opportunities as well. Access to
investment capital was identified as a major challenge and a barrier to cross border cereal trade and
entrepreneurship. Working with Micro-finance institution (MFIs) and encouraging them to develop tailor
made products for cross border traders may act to mitigate financial access challenges.
30 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Strengthening informal financial services such as Chamas and ROSCAS by way of fortifying activities of
cross border traders associations, may be another avenue within which to heal the business capital access
malady.
This evaluation found that positive outcomes were being realized and that significant project impacts
were only subject to time, considerations should therefore target putting in place a follow on activity to
take advantage of the existing partnerships already created.
31 | P a g e
End of Feed The Future FOSTER-Trade Activity Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) November, 2016
Annex
Annex 1: Cross-border Survey Questionnaire
FOSTER CROSS-BORDER TRADERS QUESTIONNAIRE
END OF PROJECT EVALUATION (Nov 2016)
A. Business Products and service information
Name of enumerator ............... Date ............ Business Name...................... Owner (Proprietor) name: ................ GENDER .... (1=male 2=female) AGE .... (Years)
Country: ....... 1=Kenya 2=Uganda 3=Tanzania 4=Rwanda
Border: .......... 1=Busia 2=Malaba 3=Namanga 4=Sirare 5=Gatuna/Katuna
Trading Centre: .............Telephone ............. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Education level of the owner: EDUC__________
0=None 1= Primary 2. Secondary 3=College or Diploma 4= University
2(a) Have you employed staff in the shop? 1. Yes 2. No. EMPLOYEE______
2(b) How many persons are employed in your grain-business? (Male) MALEM________ (Female) FEMALEM_______
2(d) How many of these workers are family members? (Family male) FAMAL_______ (Family female) FAMFE______
3. (a) Business and Finance Related Information
Type of Business
Ownership
1=Sole Proprietor
2=Partnership
3=Family
3=Cooperative Society
4=Company
Commodity
Traded
1=Sorghum Only
2=Beans Only
3=Most grains
Nain grains
traded
(e.g sorghum)
What is the nature of your business
1=Sells to consumers across the border
2. Sells traders from across the border
3. Wholesaler– sells to other traders
4. Wholesaler – sells to millers
Year you
started
Starting
Capital
Amount
(Ksh)
Currency unit
1=Kenya shillings
2=Tanzania Shilling
3=Uganda Shilling
4=Rwandese Franc
Source of
Investment capital
1 =Own saving
2=Credit
3=Both
4= Donations
If
CSOURCE=2
Amount of
loan received
(use country
currency)
BUSTYPE COMMDTY MNCMDTY BUSNAT STATYR CAPITAL CUNIT CSOURCE CREDAMNT
32 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
4. Does your business have the following licenses?
Trade license TRDLS__________ (1=Yes 2=No)
Business registration certificate BUSCERT_______ (1=Yes 2=No)
Public health Certificate PHCERT________ (1=Yes 2=No)
Any other licenses (specify)__________________ (1=Yes 2=No)
5(a). Do you have a Bank Account? 1= Yes 2= No ACCNT_________
5(b). If Yes in 5(a), please indicate the type of account ACCTTYP________ 1= Personal Account 2=Business Account
C. Sourcing, Purchases and Sales Information of Commodities
6(a). In the past 12 months (Nov-2015 to Oct 2016) how many months have you been involved in grains trades
TRDMNTH_______
6(b). In your trading in commodities, do you consider the following when buying or selling commodities?
Dry/ level of Moisture content MOIS______ (1=Yes 2=No) Presence of foreign matter FMAT______ (1=Yes
2=No)
Presence of small and broken grains SZBRAK____ (1=Yes 2=No) Presence of discolored grains COLOR____ (1=Yes 2=No)
Presence of live pests PESTS _____ (1=Yes 2=No) Type and size of packaging PACKAG ___
(1=Yes 2=No)
6(c) Please, indicate the main means of transport you usually use to transport commodities?
1=Carried (head or back) 2=Bicycle 3=Hand cart/wheelbarrow 4=Ox-cart/donkey 5=Motorcycle 6=Car
7=Small truck/pickup 8=Large truck/lorry 9=Public transport 10=Boat/canoe
33 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
7. Please indicate the commodities you traded in over the past 12 months (Nov 2015-October 2016)
Commodity On average, about what
quantity do you buy at one
time from an individual
seller
Average
price per
unity
Currency
unit
How often
do you buy
this quantity
Duration
1=Day
2=Week
3=Month
4=Year
From whom
did you buy
most of this
commodity?
How do you
collect most of
the
commodities
you buy from
the sellers
About how many
days after
receiving the
commodities did
you usually pay
Main Mode of
payment for
purchases
from this
source 1=Cash
2=Mobile
money
3=Cheque
When selling this
commodity, who
is your main
buyer of this
commodity
Main Mode of
payment for
sales to this
source 1=Cash
2=Mobile
money
3=Cheque
Quanti
ty
unit Freque
ncy
COMM PQNTY UNIT PUNIT PCUNIT FREQ PDUR SOURCE CMDCLT PAYDUR PUCHMOD MBUYER SALEMOD
1=Sorghum
2=Beans
3=Maize
4=Rice
5=Other
Specify
Codes for UNIT
1=90kg bag
2=50kg bag
3=100kg bag 4=Tons
Codes for SOURCE
1=Small-scale farmers
2=Larger farmers
3=Farmer organizations
4=Other traders /middlemen /agents
5=Food Reserve Agency
6=Certified warehouses
Codes for CMDCLT
1=Collect most by myself
(80% or more)
2=Suppliers deliver most
(80% or more)
Codes for PUCHMOD, SALEMOD
1=Same day
2=Within the week
3=Within the month but after a week
4=Over a month
Codes for MBUYER
1=Consumers 2=Retailers
3=Millers/processors
4=Other large traders/warehouse operators
5=Government food reserve agency
6= International development agencies
7= National/international NGOs
8= Farmer organizations 9= schools, colleges
8 (a). What has been your major source of income from the commodity trade in in your shop in the last 3 years INCNOW_____
1=Sorghum 2=Beans 3=Maize 4=Rice 5= Other specify__________________________
8c.) What was your major source of income in your commodity trade three years ago INCPREV_______
1=Sorghum 2=Beans 3=Maize 4=Rice 5= Other specify__________________________
34 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Marketing information
In the past 12 months, which TWO MAIN SOURCES of market information did you mainly rely on to determine the price at which
you sold commodities? MKTINFO1___________ MKTINFO2 _______
1=Publicly available market information (e.g., radio/TV, commodity exchange, SMS, newspapers, etc.) 2= Personal knowledge of
market (e.g., talking with other traders/buyers, friends, etc.) 3= Price set by the buyer you sold to (e.g., set by buyer you represent)
4= Extension workers/warehouse operators
D. TRAINING & AFFILIATIONS
9(a) Are you a member of any grain trading association? 1=Yes 2=No GTRDMEM_______
9b. If YES to Qn. 9a. What are the three most important benefits you find most valuable from being a member.
BENF1_______BENF2________BENF3______
1=Training 2= Business advertisement 3=Access to credit/loan 4=Business linkages 5=Market information 6=Marketing
7=Commodity bulk sourcing 8=Supply linkages
9 (c) Has anyone in this business received any kind of training related to grain trade in the last 3 years? 1=Yes 2=No TRAIN_____
9 (d) If 11(c)=Yes, which type of training? TRAINON______
1=Cross border trade requirements 2=Business management 3=Both
9.f) if 11d=1 or 3, how do you use knowledge/skills that you gained from Cross border trade requirements training?
USESKIL1_______USESKIL2_______ USESKIL3_________
0=None 1=Reduced losses due to theft 2=Reduced time for commodity procurement 3=increased sales 4=better
relationship with commodity suppliers 5= 6=other (specify)___________
E. AFFIALIATION WITH AGMARK
10. (a) Do you work in collaboration with AGMARK? (1=Yes 2= No) (if no, Go to 10. f)
WAGMARK________
10. (b) If yes, since when have you been working with AGMARK AGMARKYR_____(year) AGMARKMN_____(month)
10c. (d) What services does AGMARK render to your business since you started working with them?
SERVICE1_______ SERVICE2_______ SERVICE3_______
1=Training on cross-border trade 2=Training in business management 3=Linkage with commodity supplier
35 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
4=Linkages with financial institutions 5=Other (specify) __________
10. (e) What benefits do you get from working with AGMARK? BENFT1_____ BENFT2______
1=Buyer confidence 2=Supplier confidence 3=Business Advice 4=Reduced cost of moving commodities across the border
4=Increased profits 5=Good relationship with Border authorities 6=Other (specify)
10. (f) What challenges did you experience in working with AGMARK?
36 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Annex 2: Agrodealer Survey Questionnaire
FOSTER AGRO-DEALERS QUESTIONNAIRE
END OF PROJECT EVALUATION (Nov 2016)
A. Business Products and service information
Name of enumerator ............... Date ............ Business Name...................... Owner/agro-dealer (Proprietor) name: ............ GENDER .... (1=male 2=female) AGE .... (Years)
Country: ....... 1=Kenya 2=Uganda 3=Tanzania 4=Rwanda
Border: .......... 1=Busia 2=Malaba 3=Namanga 4=Sirare/Isebania 5=Gatuna /Katuna
Trading Centre: .............Telephone ............. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Education level of the owner: EDUC__________
0=None 1= Primary 2. Secondary 3=College or Diploma 4= University
2(a) Have you employed staff in the business? 1. Yes 2. No. EMPLOYEE______
2 (b) Number of Permanent Employees EMPLYNUM______
3 (a) Business Related Information
Type of Business
Ownership
1=Sole Proprietor
2=Partnership
3=Family
3=Cooperative
Society
4=Company
Type of
Business
1= Agrovet
2= Agrovet – Chemist
3=Agrovet- hardware
4=Agrovet and
farm produce
5=Veterinary
Products only
6=Other
(Specify)
Is the
business
registered
?
1= YES
2=NO
What licenses does the
business require to
operate?
1=Trade license
2=Business registration
certificate
3=Public health
Certificate
4=Any other licenses
(specify)
Apart from
inputs do you
also trade in
cereals and
pulses
1=Yes
2=No
If yes, what are
the Main grains
traded
(e.g sorghum)
1=Sorghum
2=Beans
3=Rice
4=Maize
5=millet
6=Other
(specify)
What is the nature
of your business
1=Sells to farmers
directly
2. Sells to farmer
directly & Rural
based agrodealers
3. Wholesaler–
sells to other Rural
based agrodealers
and farmers
4. Wholesaler –
sells to Rural based
agrodealers only
Year you
started Starting
Capital
Amount
(Ksh)
Currenc
y unit
1=Kenya
shillings
2=Tanza
nia
Shilling
3=Ugand
a Shilling
4=Rwand
ese Franc
Source of
Investmen
t capital
1 =Own
saving
2=Credit
3=Both
4=
Donations
If
CSOURCE
=2
Amount of
loan received
(use country
currency)
BUSOWNTYPE BUSTYPE BUSREG BUSLICEN GRNSAL MNGRNTRADE BUSNAT STATYR CAPITAL CUNIT CSOURCE CRDAMNT
37 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
3 (b) other business Information and services offered
What business records do
you keep
1=Sales
2=Purchases
3=Debtors ledger
(Records)
4=Creditors Ledger
(Records)
5=Cash Book
6=Stock cards/Records
7=Customer Records
8=Profit and loss accounts
9= Other specify
How do you source your products and how
do you pay for them
What are the means you use
to create demand for your
products
1=Handbills / Leaflets
2=Radio
3=Agricultural Shows
4=Agricultural Exhibitions
5=Trade Fairs
6=Over the counter advice
7= Demonstration Plots
8=Other Specify
What are three major challenges, related to
trade in farm inputs
1=Lack of input Suppliers
2=Low Business capital
3=Transportation of Products
4=Low demand of products
5=Storage facilities Security
6=Lack of Creditors - Companies
7=Expiry of Products
8=Bad Debts
9= inconsistent supply of preferred seed
10=Lack of output market
11=Lack of information on cross border trade
What other services do you
offer customers
1=Transportation of
products
2=Training on products use
3=Over the counter advice
4=Credit to customers
5=Demonstrations of
products
6=Purchase of grain
produce
7=Other - specify
Are you a
member of
any
association/Co
operative/Gro
up
1=YES
2=NO
If YES, what type of
group are you a
member
1=Agro dealer
association
2=Cooperative
3=Joint border
committee
4=Women
Association
5= Other Specify
Source
1=other agro- dealers
2=Input suppliers
2=Input
manufacturers
Pay
1=Cash
2=Credi
t
3=Both
BUSREC PRODSOUC PPAY DDPROD TCHA
L1
TCHA
L2
TCHAL3 SERVOTHER GRPME
M
GRUPTYP
C. SALES input Acquisition &INFORMATION
4(a) What is your annual sale on average? SALVAL____________ CURR____________
4(b) Do you sell inputs on credit? (1=Yes 2=No CREDSAL_____________
4(c) If 4b=Yes, What percent of the farmers you serve do you give credit to? CREDPERC____________
4(d) Trend in sales of Agri-inputs in your shop since in the past 2 years
Inputs
Direction of change
0=No change 1=Increased 2=Decreased
CHANGE
Fertilizer Sales
Maize Seeds (Hybrid)
Beans
Sorghum
38 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Other seed including horticulture seed
Crop protection chemicals (CPC
Livestock Drugs
Farm Implements and equipment’s
Livestock feed
4e.) What has been your major source of income in your agro dealer business in the last 2 years INCNOW_____
1=Seed 2=Fertilizer 3=Crop Protection Chemical 4=Farm tools
4f.) If INCNOW=1 Specify the type of seed in order of importance INCNOW1 _____INCNOW2 _____INCNOW3 _____
1=Sorghum 2=Beans 3=Maize 4=Horticulture
4g.) What was your major source of income in your shop two years ago INCPREV_________
1=Seed 2=Fertilizer 3=Crop Protection Chemical 4=Farm tools
E. AFFIALIATION WITH AGMARK
5. (a) Has the Owner or any of the staff been trained by AGMARK? (1=Yes 2= No) WAGMARK________
5. (b) If yes, since when have you been working with AGMARK AGMARKYR_____(year)
5. (c) What trainings did AGMARK render to your business since you started working with them?
SERVICE1___________ SERVICE2______________SERVICE3____________________
1=Training on basic business management 2=Linkage with input suppliers 3=Linkages with financial institutions
5. (d) What benefits do you get from working with AGMARK? BENFT1______ BENFT2______ BENFT3______
1=Buyer confidence 2=Supplier confidence 3=Business Advice 4=Reduced cost of moving commodities across the border
5=Increased quantities sold and profits 6=Good relationship with Border authorities 7=Other
(specify)___________________
5. (e) What challenges did you experience in working with AGMARK?
1.
2
3.
5. (f) What are some of the recommendations you would advise to improve on such affiliations in the future?
1.
2.
3.
39 | P a g e
End of Feed The Future FOSTER-Trade Activity Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) November, 2016
Annex 3: Focus Group and Key Informant Guides
FOSTER TRADE Project _KII, FGD Guide
PROJECT EVALUATION
Checklist for Stakeholders
1. Relevance  What were the main problems/challenges facing cross-border traders initially before the project
commenced?  How did the project respond to these problems/challenges/needs?  What did the project do to solve these problems/challenges?  In which specific activities did you collaborate with the project and how was the collaboration
initiated and implemented?  Were the activities/strategies implemented by project in line with your priorities?  What, if anything, do you think should have been done differently?
2. Efficiency and Effectiveness  What were the main achievements of the project to this community?  What were the main challenges to the implementation of the project?  What is your view on the overall management of this project? How did the project team respond
to any issues arising in the field?  Were all plan activities accomplished in time? Probe further, If yes, what do you think enabled the
good performance of the project? If no, why?
 What if any, do you think should have been done differently?
3. Outcome and Impact  What major changes have you experienced through your involvement in the project? Probe for
changes in quantities traded, understanding of cross-border trade procedures, income for the
traders, reduced conflicts)  What have you been doing differently following the support received from the project? Can you
attribute the positive changes entirely to project?
 How has the project enabled you to better engage with potential clients (buyers of your product)?  What, if anything, do you think should have been done differently?
4. Sustainability
 What do you think will happen to the activities/initiatives started by the project ones it phases out?  What do you think should have been done to ensure the continuity of the activities/initiatives
started by the project even after phase out?
40 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
Annex 4: List of Key Informants Interviewed
Name Organization Contact Border Country
1 Evelyn Walela Port Health -
Busia
Kenya
2 Charles Cheruiyot KeBS - 3 Mr. Nyaga KEPHIS - 4 Florence Atieno CBTA-Kenya +254725204013
5 Wabukho Joseph KRA
6 Simon P. Lwanga URA +256780031971
Uganda
7 John Mark UNBS - 8 Daniel Phytosanitary - 9 Washington CBTA-UG +256774340012
10 Annet Clearing +256777054993
11 Justine Kiprono KeBS +254729252770
Malaba
Kenya
12 Edgar Ocharo KEPHIS +254721447697
13 Veronica Mweu KRA +254722629109
14 Charles Magomere Public Health +254711197117
15 Lorna Okutoi CBTA-Kenya +254728914728
16 Rahuka Milton URA - Uganda
17 Francis Lakonyi UNBS +256772958550
18 Janet Ashepat CBTA-UG +256738913660
19 Christine Amoit Clearing +256789960974
20 Edmund Rutebembewe Phytosanitary +256772354464
21 Zahord Makame TRA -
Namanga
Tanzania
22 Domician Leonardo TBS - 23 Ali Baraza MoA - 24 Salome Paul CBTA-TZ +255754971255
25 Aisha Salum CBTA +255796238003
26 Margaret Muleti KEBS - 27 Silas Mbuvi Port Health +254712503056 Kenya
28 Kennedy Moteti KEPHIS +254723954245
29 Jacky Kisavi CBTA +254728754338
30 Jean Bayere CBTA Gatuna Rwanda
41 | P a g e
Feed The Future East Africa FOSTER-Trade Evaluation Report. MOFORD MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (MMC) December, 2016
References
1. AGMARK Request for Proposal to undertake Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through
Enhanced Regional Trade Project- End of Project Evaluation Terms of Reference
2. Jean-Guy K. Afrika and Gerald Ajumbo: Informal Cross-Border Trade in Africa: Implications and
Policy Recommendation: African Economic Brief Vol 3-10, 2012
3. Baseline Report Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through Enhanced Regional Trade
Project April 2015
4. Approved project Document-Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through Enhanced
Regional Trade Project, Nov 2014
5. Milestone Quarterly Monitoring Reports: Feed the Future East Africa Food Security through
Enhanced Regional Trade Project