1 Feed the Future North Project (AVANSE) Midterm Performance Evaluation Report Phanol Philippe Wesner Antoine & Mathieu Lucius February 2017. BRIDES, primary contractor and CHASE, the subcontracting firm This Midterm Evaluation Report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development It was prepared by BRIDES 2 USAID/HAITI Feed the Future North Project (AVANSE) Midterm Performance Evaluation Report Contract Number: AID-521-O-16-00037 Phanol Philippe Wesner Antoine & Mathieu Lucius February 2017 BRIDES, primary contractor and CHASE, the subcontracting firm 35, Rue Borno, Pétion-Ville, Haïti DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government 3 i. CONTENTS III. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................14 2 THE FEED THE FUTURE NORTH PROJECT .................................................................................................................14 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS............................................................................................................................................ 15 3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS. ......................................................................................................................................16 4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................16 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN CONSIDERATION................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 USE OF DIFFERENT DATA COLLECTION METHODS .................................................................................................................. 17 4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND EVALUATION APPROACH ................................................................................................. 17 4.3.1 Literature review ............................................................................................................................................ 17 4.3.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ..................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.3 Semi-structured interviews with Key Informant ............................................................................................. 19 4.4 DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 20 4.5 GENDER SENSITIVE APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 20 4.5.1 Data Collection process .................................................................................................................................. 20 4.6 QUALITY MONITORING AND DATA CLEANING..................................................................................................................... 21 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................23 5.1 QUESTION ONE............................................................................................................................................................. 23 5.1.1 Question One Findings .................................................................................................................................... 23 5.1.2 Conclusions about question one ..................................................................................................................... 29 5.1.3 Recommendations on question one ............................................................................................................... 30 5.2 QUESTION TWO............................................................................................................................................................ 30 5.2.1 Findings about question two .......................................................................................................................... 30 5.2.2 Conclusions about question two ..................................................................................................................... 34 5.2.3 Recommendations on question two ............................................................................................................... 34 5.3 QUESTION THREE .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 5.3.1 Findings about question three ........................................................................................................................ 35 5.3.2 Question Three Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 39 5.3.3 Recommendations on question three ............................................................................................................. 39 4 5.4 QUESTION FOUR........................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.4.1 Question Four Findings ................................................................................................................................... 39 5.4.2 Question Four Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 43 5.4.3 Recommendations on question four ............................................................................................................... 43 ANNEX 1. EVALUATION MATRIX......................................................................................................................................45 ANNEX 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY ..................................................................................................................... 3 ANNEX 3. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ................................................................................................................................ 3 ANNEX 4. DATA SOURCES................................................................................................................................................14 ANNEX 5. SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................................17 5 ii. ACRONYMS LIST AAA Agro Action Allemande AVANSE Appui à la Valorisation du potentiel Agricole du Nord, à la Sécurité Economique et Environnementale BRIDES Bureau de Recherche en Informatique et en Développement Économique et Social CASEC Conseil d'Administration de la Section Communale CBO Community Based Organizations CECI Centre d'étude et de coopération internationale CHASE Collectif Haïtien pour l’Avancement du Suivi et de l’Évaluation DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DEED Projet de Développement Économique pour un Environnement Durable FENU Fonds d'Équipement des Nations Unies FFS Farmer Field School FGD Focus Group Discussions FONDEV Fond Haïtiano-Allemand pour Développement Rural. FTFN Feed the Future North GGIA (AIGG in French) Grison Garde Irrigators Association GoH Government of Haiti GUC Grants Under Contracts IDAI Institut de Développement Agricole et Industriel ITMP Improved Technologies and Management Practices KII Key Informant Interview LOP Life of Project MARNDR Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural 6 MAST Ministry of Social Affairs NRM Natural Resources Management ODN Organisme pour le Développement du OIG Office Inspector General PISA “Produits des Îles S.A. SIBA Système d’Incitation via les Bons d’Achat SRI Système Rizicole Intensif UNDDF UN Capital Development Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WUA Water User Associations 7 iii. SUMMARY This report presents the results of the mid-term performance evaluation of the $87.8 million USAID/Haiti Feed the Future North (FTFN) Project. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the extent of the FTFN (AVANSE) effectiveness and sustainability despite a substantive program revision based on recommendations from a recent audit. This evaluation will inform USAID and the implementing partner on how to improve the program effectiveness and sustainability. The evaluation addresses the following questions: A. Effectiveness: Q1. To what extent is the FTFN project on track to meet its Life of Project (LOP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which interventions are ineffective? Q2. How effective are the farmer field schools and the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices? Q3. To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapple and fruit trees, increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds improved? B. Sustainability: Q4. To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond the project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector, namely increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and access to finance. Methodology A descriptive study design was proposed for conducting the Mid-Term evaluation. Information was collected to demonstrate the extent of the relationships expressed in the evaluation questions. A qualitative approach was proposed to collect data for this evaluation. Data collection methods included in-depth project document review, Key Informant Interview (KII), Focus Group Discussions (FGD). The evaluation team conducted the literature review to refine approaches for collecting qualitative data, to fine-tune relevant qualitative data collection tools, and to seek compelling evidence to answer the evaluation questions. Relevant documents, including, among others, the USAID/Haiti country strategy, AVANSE project reports such as work plans, PMP, quarterly progress reports and technical reports were reviewed. FGDs were held with relevant beneficiaries to obtain viewpoints and provide appropriate information to answer the evaluation questions. FGDs were conducted with FFS Groups, Commercialization Groups, Water User Associations (WUA) and CBOs in order to respond to all four (4) evaluation questions. Thirty four (34) Key Informants Interviews (KII) were conducted with members of partner institutions directly involved in the implementation of the project such as “Enterprise Novella”, PISA (“Produit des îles S.A.”), suppliers, the financial institution Le Levier, the Government of Haiti (GoH) through MARNDR departmental representatives. Similarly, interviews were held with the DAI, USAID’s implementing partner for this activity, management staff. 8 Parallel data analysis was conducted, weighting answers from various sources. Triangulation of data from a variety of sources-- including both quantitative and qualitative data from the literature review and qualitative data collected in the field—were valued such that the evaluation produced evidence-based findings, conclusions, and recommendations for each evaluation question. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Q1: To what extent is the FTFN project on track to meet its Life of Project (LOP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which interventions are ineffective? Availability of Improved Production Technologies and Systems Increased. The project has introduced technologies and identified appropriate management practices to increase yields on three target value chains: Rice, Cacao and Plantain/Banana. The project reported that 27 technologies or management practices are available to farmers in the Northern Corridor. The target was set at 30. The project performance reported up to September, 2016 represents only 25 percent or 3686.05 ha of the total area in ITMP targeted by the project (LOP Target). Unlike for the other crops, the intervention in rice has exceeded expectations. The area of rice ITMP is 2835.8 ha, which represents 125 percent of the LOP target. Banana/Plantain completion percentage is at 20 percent of LOP target, and for cacao, only 2 percent of LOP target. Strengthened Extension of Agricultural Technologies and Access to Input. The project reached out to a significant number of farmers on the project area through training. The project reported that 33,857 farmers have received training, exceeding, by far, the 22,627 LOP target. Farmers received training via FFS and via SIBA. The project promotes the use of improved inputs through the voucher program by, according to AVANSE staff, strengthening input stores, making inputs available at subsidized prices and encouraging participants to use inputs. However, the project has not contributed yet to the improvement of irrigation systems in the corridor. The project chooses to strategically focus its intervention on degraded areas in the watershed above selected plains. The primary objectives of the intervention are to (1) protect soil against further degradation, (2) increase land productivity, (3) protect infrastructure constructed by the project in plains above the selected area in the watershed. The project contributed to the improvement of forest cover in the corridor by planting 255,937 seedlings to date, whereas the pre-fixed target was 240,000 seedlings. The number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable natural resource management and conservation as a result of USG assistance is 8535, which represents 122 percent of the target. The project reported that no processing facility has been established or improved due to USG assistance, although a target of four was established at the project’s inception. As of September 2016, the market information system has not been improved in the Northern Corridor as a result of USG assistance. As of September 2016, 3 PPPs were formed in the corridor due to USG assistance, one in agricultural production and two in agricultural post-harvest processing. Conclusions on Q1 The project reached out to farmers across the Northern Corridor through the FFS popularizing improved techniques and technologies to increase the productivity of cultivated plots. Farmers received training and benefited from inputs and services through the voucher program. Technologies have been made available and disseminated to increase productivity in the three targeted value chains. Cultivated areas, 9 where the project’s promoted technologies are applied, remain well below established targets. As opposed to the other value chains where significant improvements are needed, the intervention in rice has met the expectations of the target area under technologies. The project contributed as expected to stabilizing the critical slopes above project infrastructure in selected watersheds, but has not yet increased any area under irrigation and drainage. Major recommendations about project performance are the following: (1) Project activities must be intensified in the Northern Corridor (more FFS) to reach out to more farmers in order to increase the area under Improved Technologies and Management Practices (ITMP) for cacao and banana/plantain value chains. (2) Demonstration plots should be systematically established for banana/plantain and cacao, (at least one for every 2-4 FFS) to convince farmers of the effectiveness of the promoted ITMP through tangible results and increase confidence and likelihood of adoption. (3) The project should organize field visits between FFS to encourage application and adoption of the ITMP. (4) The project needs to take immediate measures to start the irrigation and drainage interventions. It is recommended that all studies pertaining to these interventions be completed urgently in order to award the contract. Q2: How effective are the farmer field schools and the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices? Findings Farmers Field Schools (FFS) Farmers in FFS for all three crops attested that they have been meeting regularly to receive training from AVANSE technicians in topics relevant to the cultivation of their crops. FFS received further support from AVANSE in terms of materials and equipment required for demonstrations on their fields. Rice farmers learned SRI (Système Rizicole Intensif) from FFS. Farmers in FGD were able to describe differences between SRI and traditional rice cultivation methods and have begun to understand the benefits of adopting SRI. Farmers reported that they received rice seeds for nurseries and training in preparing minimum water use nurseries at planting periods. Cacao farmers learned new techniques to improve cacao production through FFS. Cacao farmers learned how to establish and conduct cacao nurseries, how to establish and manage cacao plantations, and how to do pruning. Throughout the production area, cacao is being regenerated through FFS activities. A cuttings campaign was carried out on cacao production areas in the corridor, according to farmers. The project built on the new network of FFS to establish local nurseries. The cacao team established 50 new community nurseries producing about 10,000 seedlings each in 11 communities by building on the established FFS network. Plantain/banana producers learned management practices to increase productivity in plots in the FFS. Activities in the value chain include training of FFS participants in the application of improved technologies, distribution of compost to the FFS’s, and distribution of plantain suckers. Banana producer farmers receive free or subsidized inputs through the FFS. They receive manure in quantity and 500 banana seedlings for each quarter of “carreau.” Due to lack of service providers and/or accessibility to the farm, only some farmers received subsidized plowing. Better yielding plots were established through FFS in the project area. The voucher program strengthens institutions involved in agriculture. AVANSE’s voucher program (SIBA) has enrolled and supported five agricultural input stores and several microcredit outlets for 10 vouchers. Infrastructure and Environmental Compliance teams conducted environmental assessments of all five stores affiliated with the SIBA network. The project connects agricultural inputs stores to the importer COMAG to receive AVANSE promoted fertilizers directly and avoid a shortage on the market. The voucher program allows farmers to use inputs that increase productivity in their field. Rice and plantain farmers have effectively redeemed fertilizer vouchers at affiliated stores (NPK 20-20-10, DAP and Urea). Not all the farmers are following the recommendations of the voucher program. Rice and plantain farmers are still reluctant to use chemical fertilizers. Some newly enrolled rice farmers complained during FGD that they are not fully benefitting from the advantages offered by the voucher program. Conclusions on Q2 Rice farmers learned SRI from FFS, and have access to equipment and inputs via FFS to implement the technology on their fields. Cacao farmers learned new techniques to improve cacao production through FFS, like how to establish new plantations and how to regenerate old ones through pruning. The project built on a new network of FFS to establish local nurseries, favoring the establishment of new plantations. Plantain/banana producers learn management practices to increase productivity in plots in the FFS. They benefited from subsidized plowing, fertilizers, free manure and free suckers. Better yielding plots are established through FFS in the project area. Major recommendations for question two are as follows: Demonstration plots should be the center of all FFS established to show the increase in productivity associated with promoted technologies and management practices and to increase adoption rates. While the SRI is about to reducing the amount of mineral fertilizer used, a minimum of mineral fertilizer is required for optimal yield. FFS training should be ongoing until every participant is convinced of the advantage of the promoted technologies and has the ability to implement the technologies on their farms. More input stores should be involved in the voucher program to serve farmers over the targeted area. The project is encouraged to reach out to entrepreneurs interested in establishing input stores in the corridor. The voucher program should keep the subsidy rate high for newly enrolled farmers to encourage them in using promoted inputs and management practices. In order to encourage the adoption of certain practices which are time consuming and delicate, the project should facilitate farmers’ access to certain equipment and tools. The following equipment associated with operations should be made available through local enterprises for rental by farmers beyond the project: Roller markers for spacing rice seedlings during transplantation; Sower machines for rice seedling transplanting; Conical weeders for rice field weeding; Water pumps for plantain/banana fields irrigation with support to well drilling in some areas like Trou-du-Nord. Q3: To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapple and fruit trees increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds improved? Findings Cash crops and soil conservation crops are being promoted in targeted watersheds. Soil conservation activities are concentrated within two watersheds: Haut-du-Cap (Grison Garde) and Jassa. Activities are realized through “konbit1” in the targeted communities. Hundreds of thousands of linear meters of 1Konbit (in Haitian Creole): Group of workers put together to achieve collective farming work as a means of mutual aid. 11 contour canals have been reported on the various farmers’ adjacent plots. The structures established are: living ramps, grass strips, and sand bag or dry stone thresholds. The contour canals are established as platforms that will be used to erect living ramps made of fruit and forest species and grass. Seedlings given out for the purpose include: pineapple, sugar cane, elephant grass, acacia, cedar, mangoes, plantain, yam, pineapple, beans, corn, nuts, coconuts, citruses, oak, avocadoes, oranges, cassia, moringa, etc. At the same time, the team continues to train thousands of farmers on NRM techniques. CBOs visited expect to exceed the targets in terms of total area covered. The “konbits” make the establishment of the structures easier. The “konbits” are organized in all the participants’ plots with a group of 15 to 20 people, for 20 to 22 days a month over a 3-month period for each “konbit.” The agronomists train and assist farmers in level A production and use, in establishing anti-erosion structures, in protecting gullies and in agroforestry. In the fields, they conduct demonstrations on the establishment of structures that have been popularized. One CBO manages simultaneously, on average, 3 “konbits” and they only accept persons of full age, i.e. more than 18 years of age. The decentralized entities of MARNDR are not involved in the project’s soil conservation activities. MARNDR has been left out of the project, according to the departmental directors from the North and Northeast. According to MARNDR representatives, farmers usually take advantage of contour canals to grow fodder or peanuts, which further damages the hillsides. In these areas, peanuts should be progressively replaced. AVANSE is currently strengthening local organizations through grants. Organizations are usually selected through transparent call for tender processes. A 6-month extendable contract binds them with AVANSE. AVANSE directly supports the contracted CBOs through the supply of materials and equipment such as chairs, one portable computer, one desk, working tables, one printer and other office equipment. AVANSE always relies on the CBOs for the distribution of seedlings and other activities on the hillsides. The organization receives a fixed amount of money every month through AVANSE to cover the costs incurred by the projects’ implementation. One must note that, in order to be able to sign the contract, the organization had to recruit, from the very beginning, four agronomists, one logistician, one secretary and one coordinator. Conclusions about Q3 Farmers are usually more inclined to participate in the activities and care for the established structures because the crops used on the structures generate income. The option to work on adjacent plots has given good results in certain areas, with the exception of some farmers who own more than a 1-carreau plot in the hills and are not interested in this type project. For most farmers, the structures established should lead to good results, yet regional MARNDR representatives believe the sustainability of these interventions is compromised due to technical issues. They do not advise the use of contour canals where fodder and peanuts are being grown. Community organizations are sufficiently developed. They have a rather significant experience in managing similar projects with other organizations. However, broader monitoring committees for sub￾watersheds are not operational, which constitutes a challenge in terms of the interventions’ viability. Major recommendations are the following: (1) Enhance working relations with the various department offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, (2) Dissuade farmers from growing peanuts on the slopes, (3) Reduce the three-month workload of “konbits,” (3) Develop an alternate strategy to establish structures 12 in large mountainous plots, (4) Make the broader 21-member hillside management committee operational. Q4: To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and access to finance. Findings about Q4 Several local institutions involved in the targeted sectors are strengthened. Two local stores were strengthened to provide services to rice and plantain growers. The stores provide farmers with key inputs such as chemical fertilizers and herbicides. The input stores are linked together with farming input importers through a voucher program. Two institutions involved in the cacao sector have also benefited from the project. Enterprise Novella directly benefits from the farmers group network set up by AVANSE. PISA, a subsidiary of REBO S.A., has also received a grant from the project to a) build a fermentation center; b) improve the drying capacity, c) fund travels to the Dominican Republic to attend the international conference on cacao, and d) establish a nursery. On the other hand, in the rice sector, the organization working on the only irrigated plots where AVANSE has made interventions was left out in the initial works. The agricultural departmental offices (ADO) from the North and Northeast (who should be playing a decisive role in this project’s long-term sustainability) feel they were left out by AVANSE. The voucher program could have been more effective. Le Levier, the Federation of “Caisses Populaires,” the institution which signed the contract with AVANSE for the management of vouchers, works in partnership with several of its local credit unions members in order to provide proximity services to the project’s beneficiary farmers. Periodically, it receives from the project the vouchers with a list of certified farmers to be served. According to the established process, the certified farmer shows up to the local credit union. He/she pays the non￾subsidized part of the inputs and claims the vouchers ascribed to him/her and goes to the input stores to retrieve the products. Unfortunately, things don’t always go smoothly. Too often, the software associated to the process stops working, according to one of the credit union tellers. Such an issue may last for two to three days, leading to numerous back-and-forth trips by farmers. In general, 5 to 10 percent of vouchers are not claimed by farmers because of said challenges. Additionally, financial institutions sometimes only give out 60 percent of the available vouchers. Drought and lack of money to cover the non-subsidized portion are, among others, reasons that can explain the poor distribution of the vouchers. In order to ensure the sustainability of the system, the project had planned to gradually decrease the subsidy. The first groups of farmers were major beneficiaries of the subsidy while newly registered farmers benefitted less because of the decrease. This led to a reduction in the use of vouchers. Interventions aimed at improving cacao marketing have produced very encouraging results. Cacao farmers are organized into so-called marketing groups (MG), 20-member groups by AVANSE, each of which is led by a delegate chosen by the members. To improve the cacao’s quality, it is no longer dried on the soil. AVANSE distributed drying tables to the various groups (about 20 per group) and tarps (about 20 per group). Only the delegate is authorized to carry the group’s traditional cacao to Novella 13 Enterprise after its collection from the various members. The delegate uses the scale received from AVANSE to weigh it first and then the produce is weighed again in Novella Enterprise where farmers now state they receive a better price. PISA, the other project-sponsored cacao exporter, buys green cacao for fermentation, i.e. right after picking. Farmers see it as an advantage since, according to the needs, part of the production is reserved to PISA so that they can earn money from the first harvest days. AVANSE assists farmers through training sessions on post-harvest cacao processing, i.e. cacao picking, drying, storage or packaging, etc. From now on, Novella Enterprises, like other fermented cacao exportation institutions has a direct connection with farmers, which takes away two middle-men from the chain: the retailers and speculators. AVANSE supports Novella’s certification process. Besides the certification of the traditional cacao that they are trying to get through AVANSE, Novella helps get better cacao from farmers and, with the MGs, has better control and can show traceability, with the aim of selling with an “organic” label. As a result, the price will go up in everyone’s interest, including the farmer. Conclusion on Q4 The improvement of inter-institutional relations recommended by AVANSE to highlight the knowledge and expertise of local institutions is still going on without continuous investment or direct coordination from AVANSE. In that sense, institutions are becoming less and less dependent on AVANSE, which is one of the early signs of the long-term viability of interventions past the project’s life. The project supports several local organizations and invests in their reinforcement, which is apparently not the case for the Water User Association (WUA) of Grison Garde or the MARNDR. In fact, these institutions feel they have been left out from this project’s implementation while it should be of primary concern for them. The voucher program has begun to yield good results. However, some technical challenges or weather variations keep the program from reaching its full potential. Finally, farmers greatly appreciate the revitalization of the cacao production, which is still far from its height in the 1960s, but already represents a significant opportunity for both the sellers and buyers. Major recommendations on question four are the following: (1). The project needs to improve communication with the water users associations and the decentralized entities of MARNDR. For now, some key presumed project partners perceive AVANSE as working in isolation and it may be detrimental to the sustainability of the project. (2). The project needs to adjust the program used to authenticate the beneficiaries of the voucher program. Farmers also need to be sensitized more on using the vouchers made available to them. (3). New beneficiaries should enjoy the higher subsidy as old ones should get a different rate since they supposedly already witnessed the advantages of the promoted package. In the case where it is difficult to implement such approach, communication will need to be reinforced with beneficiaries who sometimes feel that the money owed to them would be misappropriated by local leaders. (4). Cacao-exporting entities feel that AVANSE is favoring one institution at the cost of others by encouraging all farmers to sell their produce to Novella. AVANSE must think of acting as a facilitator for all these entities. 14 1 INTRODUCTION In September 2016, USAID/Haiti awarded the consortium BRIDES/CHASE the contract to conduct the mid-term performance evaluation of the USAID/Haiti developed Feed the Future North (FTFN) Project, in French as “Appui à la Valorisation du potentiel Agricole du Nord, à la Sécurité Économique et Environnementale” (AVANSE). The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the extent of the AVANSE project’s effectiveness and sustainability despite a substantive program revision based on recommendations from a recent audit. This evaluation will inform USAID and the implementing partner on how to improve the program’s effectiveness and sustainability and how to better design future agriculture programs. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), the Government of Haiti (GOH), and the Ministry of Agriculture, particularly its regional office covering the North and the Northeast. This document presents the evaluation plan including a detailed methodology for the evaluation and tools for further use. 2 THE FEED THE FUTURE NORTH PROJECT 2.1PROJECT BACKGROUND Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with 58.5 percent of the population living under the poverty line 2 (estimation of 2012) and 54 percent in abject poverty. After the January 2010 earthquake, the Haitian agriculture sector was under increasing pressure to serve as a near-term engine for economic recovery and to generate employment opportunities. Agriculture did not suffer the effects of the earthquake, but it is central to the Haitian economy, generating nearly 25 percent of GDP and employing more than 60 percent of the population. The importance of jumpstarting agricultural productivity has been echoed strongly by the Government of Haiti (GOH), the U.S. Government (USG), and throughout the international community. USAID/Haiti developed the Feed the Future North (FTFN) Project to address this situation in Haiti’s northern corridor, one of three regions targeted for U.S. Government support since the January 2010 earthquake. The $87.8 million FTFN project under implementation since April 1, 2013 incorporated two U.S. Government priorities. First, the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative was launched in 2009 by the Obama Administration. FTF was created to address global hunger and food security challenges around the world. By supporting country-driven approaches, the Presidential Initiative seeks to address the root causes of hunger and poverty and find long-term solutions to under-nutrition and chronic food shortages by helping countries transform their own agricultural sectors to grow enough food sustainably to feed their people. The second priority was USAID Forward, also known as Local Solutions, the Agency’s ambitious reform agenda that builds the capacity of local organizations so that they can directly implement USAID-funded projects. A planned outcome of FTFN was to create a cadre of local organizations that would be able to 2 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The World Factbook. 15 meet USAID’s eligibility criteria for direct funding by the project’s third year so that they would become the primary implementers of USAID’s future agriculture projects in the northern corridor. To support this process, the primary implementation tool intended for AVANSE was sub-contracts and grants under contracts (GUCs) to Haitian organizations. Sub-awards would serve the dual purpose of program implementation as well as preparation for local firms to become eligible to receive direct USAID funding while AVANSE would serve as a management unit overseeing sub-awardees. As recently revealed by a performance audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the process of strengthening the capacity of local organizations as an implementation strategy has never taken place and DAI was unable to scale up activities to increase agricultural productivity, access to markets and to improve hillside stabilization. It should be noted that other significant problems related to the management contract have also undercut project implementation; for example, problems with baseline and performance data undermined project staff’s ability to adequately monitor/report project achievements. As a result, the initial project contract has been drastically reduced in scope (see annex 2). From 43,500 households initially targeted, the project aims now to double the income of 20,000 farm households involving in cacao, banana and rice production. The new project results framework is as follows:  IR 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased o 1.1: Knowledge & Availability of Improved Technologies and Systems Increased. o 1.2: Strengthened Extension Of Agricultural Technologies & Nutrition Information o 1.3: Access To Inputs Increased o 1.4: Irrigation Systems Rehabilitated/Constructed ▪ 1.4.1: Management Capacity Of User Associations Increased ● IR 2: Watershed Stability Above Selected Plain Improved o 2.1: Critical Slopes Stabilized Through Farmer-Level Investment ● IR 3: Agricultural Markets Strengthened o 3.1: Improved Access To Storage And Processing Facilities o 3.2: Improved Market Information Systems o 3.3: Relationships In Targeted Value Chains Strengthened The mid-term evaluation will cover the period after audit i.e. from September 2015 to September 2016. The modified results framework will guide the design of data collection tools and data analysis. 2.2DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS The project’s intermediate results and overall focus on increasing agricultural income are defined by three development hypothesis3 as stated in the USG 2011-2015 Multi-Year Strategy for Haiti: ● (IR1) Hypothesis: Increased agricultural production and productivity will increase the quantity and diversity of available foods, contributing directly to higher nutrition outcomes. It will also 3 AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan – January 2016. 16 boost incomes through sales and farm jobs, enabling households to increase consumption of nutritious foods and reducing income poverty. ● (IR2) Hypothesis: Stabilizing hillsides will both protect crops grown on the plains and boost production of mango, cashew, avocado, cacao and other crops. This will increase incomes and therefore enable households to increase consumption of nutritious foods and reduce income poverty; mango production spillovers to local consumption will also increase nutrition outcomes directly (vitamin A). ● (IR3) Hypothesis: Strengthening agricultural markets will create additional sales channels for farmers and agribusinesses and create new off-farm jobs along the agricultural value chain. This will increase incomes and therefore enable households to increase consumption of nutritious foods and reduce income poverty. 3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS. This mid-term performance evaluation assesses the effectiveness and sustainability of FTFN program interventions on the target communities in the context of its stated objectives. The evaluation addresses the following questions: A. Effectiveness: Q1. To what extent is the FTFN project on track to meet its Life of Project (LOP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which interventions are ineffective? Q2. How effective are the farmer field schools and the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices? Q3. To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapples and fruit trees increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds? B. Sustainability: Q4. To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and access to finance. 4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN CONSIDERATION A descriptive study design was proposed for conducting the Mid-Term evaluation. Information was collected to demonstrate the extent of the relationships expressed in the evaluation questions. A qualitative approach was proposed to collect data for this evaluation. The main units of analysis are individuals, Farmer Feed Schools (FFS), Commercialization Groups, Water User Associations (WUA), Community Based Organizations (CBO) and partner institutions. 17 Proposed units of analysis corresponding to each evaluation question and related to each project objective guided the data collection and analysis. The primary focus of the evaluation was to collect data and find evidence required to answer the evaluation questions. Data was collected using situationally appropriate methods (see data collection methods section below). 4.2 USE OF DIFFERENT DATA COLLECTION METHODS In this evaluation as in many cases, one data collection method was insufficient to answer all the questions included in the evaluation statement of work (SOW). Different methods were used to answer different parts of the same question. Data collection methods included: ● In-depth project document review, ● Key Informant Interview (KII), ● Focus Groups (FG) The above methods were used separately and the findings were not integrated until after the data were analyzed. Most of the document review took place at the beginning and findings from this step were used to inform the design and implementation of key informant interview and focus group methods. The same evaluation team was involved in implementing key informant interview and focus group methods, and the actual data collection and analysis happened over the same period of time. Given the magnitude of the evaluation, the team chose to conduct Focus Groups or KII, not only at the level of all entities or institutions targeted by the project, but also with other important stakeholders in the agriculture sector. At least one KII by institution, and two focus groups by selected Communes/sites, were needed. Therefore, 34 KII and 19 Focus Groups were conducted as part of this study. With this number of KII and FG, it was easier to reach content saturation. The details about the data collection process are provided in the annex. 4.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND EVALUATION APPROACH Qualitative methods were used to collect data for the evaluation, including an extensive literature review; key informant interviews and focus groups. Open-ended questions were employed in the interviews for the elicitation of undirected responses. Respondents were allowed to speak most of the time and freely. The evaluators met regularly to exchange unexpected findings and topics needing additional information. The team held debrief sessions on a daily basis for the first few days, and as needed thereafter, to take full advantage of each other’s findings. 4.3.1 Literature review BRIDES and its subcontractor CHASE proceeded to review the literature, and analyze existing documents, implementing a “Learning from Below approach.” This extensive review of the literature helped in understanding the theory of change behind the program and in describing typical activities and key project results. 18 The evaluation team drew on existing quantitative and qualitative data collected during the literature review to refine approaches for collecting qualitative data, to fine-tune relevant qualitative data collection tools, and to seek compelling evidence to answer the evaluation questions. Specifically, literature review data about performance reported by the project was collected and compared with targets in the IPTT, allowing the evaluation team to estimate to what extent the FTFN project is on track to meet Life of Project targets. The literature review allows, as well, information collection about what works and what does not work from the project perspective (question 1). Relevant documents, including among others the USAID/Haiti country strategy, AVANSE project reports such as work plans, USAID/Haiti’s PMP4 , quarterly progress reports and technical reports were reviewed. 4.3.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Focus Group Discussions were held with relevant beneficiaries to obtain viewpoints and provide appropriate information to answer the evaluation questions. Through focus group discussions with farmers, detailed information was collected about observed behavior changes, access and availability of services and resources in communities, complementing answers about project performance in evaluation question one. Specific information was gathered about the functioning of the voucher program and achievements of FFS from the beneficiaries’ perspective, providing key answers to the second project evaluation question. FGD with farmers in the upper watersheds allowed information collection about implementation and perception about improvements with regard to terracing techniques, infrastructure and management practices, and to gain the beneficiaries’ perspectives about the effectiveness and the usefulness of erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits thus providing answers to the third project evaluation question. FGDs with farmers sought from the beneficiaries’ perspective what type of relationships are created and how they benefit from those relationships with improved access to markets, and financing; this revealed whether or not relationships are created with private sectors in agricultural markets (evaluation question four). Small groups of 8 to 12 participants took part in one hour discussions around the main topics identified in the design phase. In accordance with the number and location of these target groups, nineteen (19) focus groups discussions (FGD) were needed (an exhaustive list of planned FGD is presented in Section 4.6). These discussions helped determine the status of the project implementation and address relevant evaluation questions related to the effectiveness, sustainability and lessons learned. During focus groups, discussions were conducted under the leadership of a facilitator. A note taker was responsible for data collection. An observer attended the focus groups as well to capture other significant information such as group dynamics, behaviors and reactions. A short list of 12-15 questions was communicated to the facilitator to guide the discussion. A training session was held for the data collection crew in order to make sure that the data was properly collected. Questions in focus groups aimed at orienting the discussions toward elicitation of responses to evaluation questions. This technique was applied to the FFS Groups, Commercialization Groups, Water User Associations (WUA) and CBOs in order to respond to all four (4) evaluation questions. 4 PMP: Performance Monitoring Plan 19 4.3.3 Semi-structured interviews with Key Informant Meeting with other key stakeholders The main objectives of these interviews were (1) to assess the relevance of the design of the project, (2) to study the effectiveness of the program’s activities, (3) to discuss best practices and activities that could lead to sustainability, and (4) to highlight lessons learned, keeping the focus on seeking evidence to answer the evaluation questions. Thirty four (34) Key Informants Interviews (KII) were conducted with members of partner institutions directly involved in the implementation of the project such as “Enterprise Novella” (or Novella), PISA suppliers, the financial institution Le Levier, and the GoH through MARNDR departmental representatives. Similarly, interviews were held with DAI management staff. These interviews, in addition to providing answers to the project evaluation questions, helped evaluate the role and level of participation of different stakeholders in the project’s implementation. KII were conducted with: - DAI staff (1) To collect qualitative data about performance, get more insight about project implementation, challenges and constraints on the field, and lessons learned (Question 1) (2) To collect information on the functioning and achievements of the FFS and the voucher program from the implementer’s perspective (Question 2) (3) To have more insight about what has been done about terracing, infrastructure and management practices and how; and to what extent they had access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits like pineapples and fruit trees (Question 3) (4) To learn about what types of institutions are involved in project implementation and how; To learn what mechanisms are in place to leverage the knowledge and expertise of local institutions from the implementers perspective; and, To know from project implementers what types of relationships they already created or intended to create with private sector actors in agricultural markets (Question 4) - Institutions and suppliers in the voucher program (1) To collect information on both the functioning and the achievement of the voucher program from the partners involved (Question 2) (2) To learn about the effectiveness of mechanisms in place to leverage the knowledge and expertise of local institutions (Question 4) - Local institutions (1) To collect information from stakeholders involved in project implementation about what works and what does not work. (Question 1) (2) To get more insight about the involvement of local institutions in project implementation and to capture challenges, successes and constraints; To learn about the effectiveness of mechanisms in place to leverage the knowledge and expertise of local institutions; and also To know what types of relationships are created with private sector actors in agricultural markets (Question 4) 20 - MARNDR departmental representatives (1) To learn about MARNDR’s involvement as the leader in the sector beyond the project’s timeframe (Question 4) The above described techniques were used to collect data and provide answers for all four evaluation questions. An exhaustive list of KII conducted is presented in the summary table of data collection. 4.4 DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS Parallel data analysis was conducted, weighting answers from various sources. Data from each source was analyzed independently using content analysis methodology, and the findings integrated and triangulated into coherent statements about the evaluation questions. Focus group reports were drafted daily. A synthesis framework was developed to coherently address the wealth of information collected. Evidence was clustered into findings that would lead to valid and relevant conclusions and recommendations about the evaluation questions. Triangulation of data from a variety of sources - including both quantitative and qualitative data from the literature review and qualitative data collected in the field - were valued such that the evaluation would produce evidence-based findings, conclusions, and recommendations. On the surface, focus group discussions may not appear to provide complete interpretations and insights. However, the content of the discussions was examined to discover the meaning and its particular implications through the evaluation questions. Every effort to interpret focus group/key informant interview data occurred through the analysis of content. 4.5 GENDER SENSITIVE APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS In gender-blind research, women’s experiences and contributions remain invisible, and, consequently, important aspects of an issue remain undocumented and underestimated and, therefore, may be misunderstood (Leduc5 , 2009). To include a gender-sensitive approach in this evaluation, the evaluation team sought, wherever possible, to establish gender balance in the choice of key informants. In the FG, the team ensured gender balance was met through invitations sent to participants. At each FG, about 2 to 4 participants are women. That's about 20% to 25% of women in groups of about 10 to 12 people. 4.5.1 Data Collection process Once the step of designing the evaluation and identifying needs and data sources was completed by the approval of the evaluation plan and tools, the next step was to carry out the data collection. At first, BRIDES and its subcontractor CHASE proposed to meet with the AVANSE COR and USAID M&E staff involved in monitoring the AVANSE program. It was an opportunity to better understand how the program was doing from these stakeholders’ perspectives, to record long term issues regarding the program and the evaluation, and to identify other influential key stakeholders. Meetings were scheduled with the DAI COP and key staff to obtain a geographical mapping of activities and to identify 5Leduc, Brigitte. 2009. Guidelines for Gender Sensitive Research, November, ICIMOD. 21 additional groups and human resources who would be able to provide their opinions, perspectives, achievements, stories, and feedback about program activities. Data collection was carefully planned in collaboration with AVANSE field staff. The FG team determined that 13 days were needed to complete the Focus Groups. The groups were chosen per value chain according to the coverage of project interventions in the Northern Corridor. Table 1 below summarizes the focus groups conducted in the field. Table 1. Focus groups to be conducted for AVANSE Mid-Term Evaluation Interventions Groups # of groups Communes Rice Water User Association 1 Acul du Nord (Grison garde) Farmers Field Schools 2 Acul du Nord (Grison garde), Ferrier Cacao Farmers Field Schools 5 Grande Rivière du Nord, Bahon, Acul du Nord, Plaisance, Limonade, Commercialization Groups 3 Acul du Nord, Limbé, Plaine du Nord Banana Farmers Field Schools 4 Ouanaminthe, Terrier rouge, Quartier Morin, Bas Limbé Watersheds management Community-Based Organization 4 Savanne Longue, Perches Total 19 Concurrent with focus groups, key informant interviews were conducted with AVANSE staff, local institutions such as Le Levier, suppliers such as input stores, and MARNDR representatives. The list of KII is presented in Annex 3 In general, the primary data collected was analyzed upon collection. This approach has the advantage of allowing time to readjust certain themes in order to deepen the new and different aspects of the first findings and to regularly fill knowledge gaps. 4.6 QUALITY MONITORING AND DATA CLEANING Data collection is a process of selective choice of empirical phenomena and their relevant attributes in relation to the research questions. As such, it carries certain subjectivity. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure the quality of the data by ensuring that there is rigor in the design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Some aspects that the team took into account to ensure data quality include: • The instrument sufficiently addresses the research questions; 22 • Questions are clear; • Internal coherence of the collection instrument; • Facilitators ensured that they had knowledge of what was understood by the participant, and made sure that the analysis of data from the interview questions would lead to sound conclusions; • The validity of the data was checked during the collection process. This refers to the degree to which descriptive information such as events, subjects, settings, times, and places were accurately reported; • No biases related to facilitators were found before the analysis and triangulation of data; and • The data were triangulated using multiple sources and collection methods. 23 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 QUESTION ONE To what extent is the FTFN project on track to meet its Life of Project (LOP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which Interventions are ineffective? 5.1.1 Question One Findings In this section, key project performances are presented by analyzing indicators that have been identified to describe project accomplishments. They were measured by the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) staff of the project. Comparison of performances versus targets also allows identification of what interventions are on track and what interventions are problematic. USAID’s Food Security Development Objective is ‘Increased Agricultural Income’, and AVANSE’s modified Results Framework now includes three (previously four) Intermediate Results (IRs) and nine (previously sixteen) Sub-Results as follows:  IR 1: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED o The sub-results were as follows (1) availability of improved production technologies and systems increased, (2) strengthened extension of agricultural technologies, (3) access to inputs increased, (4) irrigation systems constructed/rehabilitated and management capacity increased, (5) management capacity of user associations increased  IR 2: WATERSHED STABILITY ABOVE SELECTED PLAINS IMPROVED o The sub-result was that (1) critical slopes stabilized through farmer-level investments  IR 3: AGRICULTURAL MARKETS STRENGTHENED o The sub-results were (1) improved access to storage and processing facilities, (2) improved market information systems, (3) relationships in targeted value chains strengthened A. IR 1: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED Availability of Improved Production Technologies and Systems Increased The project led activities to increase productivity in three targeted value chains, namely rice, cacao and banana/plantain. The project targeted reaching out to 24295 farmers with improved technologies on their lands, and expected that 14674 ha would be under improved technologies as a result of project activities. Progress is measured by calculating the indicators for this purpose, and they are presented in table 2. Table 2. Outreach for improved technologies and management practices Indicators FY2016 Target 2016 Performance up to 2016 LOPT* Accomplishment (%)*** Volume of cacao exports as a result of USG assistance (TM) 1,359 797 2,358 2,800 84 percent Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management 9,098 5,120 29,814 24,295 123 percent 24 practices as a result of USG assistance (RiA) (WOG) Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance (Summary by activity type) 4,790 9,603 8,612 14,674 59 percent Number of hectares of rice under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 554 1,512 1,978 2,268 87 percent Number of hectares of Plantain/Banana under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 518 2257 1,889 3,385 56 percent Number of hectares of cacao under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance - 4,824 3,050 7,521 41 percent Number of hectares in NRM6 under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 667 1,000 1,695 1,500 113 percent *LOPT: Life of Project Target ***: Compared to LOPT The project was successful in mobilizing farmers and encouraging them to apply technologies that are promoted in the Northern Corridor. The previous table shows the performance of the project in terms of the number of farmers being trained and areas covered by improved technologies and Management Practices (ITMP) in the Northern Corridor. The program performed beyond expectations when it came to reaching out to farmers, training them and having them apply ITMP. The project reported that 9,098 farmers applied ITMP in 2016, reaching 177 percent of the FY2016 target (5,120). The overall project performance in terms of number of farmers applying ITMP (29,814 farmers) also clearly exceeded the Life of Project (LOP) target (24,295 farmers). AVANSE uses the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach to reach out to farmers in the Northern Corridor. Farmers participating in Farmer Field Schools were visited through municipalities randomly chosen on the Northern Corridor. They all confirmed the existence and operation of FFS through these municipalities and the three value chains. FFS are specific for each type of value chain. The project has introduced technologies and identified appropriate management practices to increase yields on three target value chain. The project reported that 27 technologies or management practices 6NRM: Natural Resources Management 25 are available to farmers for the three target crops (rice, cocoa, banana/plantain) in the Northern Corridor (Table 3). The target was set at 30. The target is likely to be met by the end of the project, The area covered by improved technologies and practices is however significantly below expectations. The project performance reported up to September 2016 (8,612 ha) represents only 59% of the total area in ITMP targeted by the project (LOP Target). At this rate, the target is less likely to be met by the end of the project. Unlike the other crops, the intervention in rice has exceeded expectations. The area of rice ITMP is 1978 ha, which represents 87% of the LOP target. Banana/Plantain completion percentage is at 56 % of LOP target, and for cacao, 41 % of LOP target. Farmers met at Grison Garde and Ferrier were very enthusiastic about the “Système Rizicole Intensif” (SRI), the rice production system promoted by the project. The farmers said that SRI allows tremendous yield increases, and demonstration fields always speak for themselves. While the target is likely to be met at the end of the project for rice, it is less likely for cacao and banana/plantain. The indicator about the area covered by new technologies may be poorly estimated. As indicated in table 3, while the target for “the number of farmers applying ITMP” is reached, the trend does not follow consistently for the target about “area under project promoted ITMP”. According to Project staff, the area reported to be covered by new technologies to date has been limited to the area actually measured to be under new technologies. The decision to report only area measured is supported by findings from a random survey of 200 plus parcels (rice, cacao and plantain) in late 2015 revealing that areas reported by farmers were inaccurate and not consistently related to the actual areas. For rice, the area measured corresponds more or less to the area measured because rice parcels are comparatively easier to geo-reference as discrete parcels on flat land and located in clusters. On the other hand, plantain and cacao are on scattered plots, often intercropped. Especially, cacao are often at some distance from roads and on uneven terrain with a variable population of trees, and are more difficult to be geo-referenced. Therefore, the project actual performance is better than the reported performance for cocoa and banana/plantain in terms of area under new technologies and management practices. Strengthened extension of agricultural technologies and access to input Table 3. On improved technologies Indicators FY2016 Target 2016 Performanc e up to 2016 LOPT Accomplish ment (percent) Number of technologies or management practices made available to farmers as a result of USG assistance 4 4 27 30 90 percent Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (RiA) (WOG) 14,833 3,821 33,857 22,627 150 percent 26 Number of farmers who have access to improved agricultural inputs due to USG assistance 10,356 5000 29,401.00 27,721 114 percent The project reached out to a significant number of farmers in the project area through training. Indeed, the project reported that the number of farmers trained already widely exceeded the target. The project reported that 33,857 farmers received trainings, exceeding by far the 22,627 target. In 2016 alone, the project reached out to 12,743 farmers, surpassing the target. Farmers received training mainly via FFS and via SIBA stimulation. Despite the performance above described, additional trainings are required in all three value chains for a more substantial effect on the rate of adoption and on effects on farmer incomes. Farmers have better access to inputs in the project area. The use of agricultural inputs is a prerequisite to increase productivity on cultivated lands. According to AVANSE staff, the project promotes the use of improved inputs through the voucher program by strengthening input stores, making inputs available at subsidized prices, and encouraging participants to use inputs. Thus, the project surpassed the set target (27,721), since 29,401 farmers have access to improved agricultural inputs (data from distribution lists). Irrigation systems constructed/rehabilitated and management capacity increased Table 4. Status of interventions in irrigation and drainage systems Indicators FY2016 Performance up to 2016 LOPT Accomplish ment ( percent) Hectares under new or improved/rehabilitated irrigation and drainage services as a result of USG assistance 0 0 1,414 0 percent Number of kilometers of irrigation systems repaired due to USG assistance 0 - 27 0 percent Number of water management associations strengthened and functioning well 0 - 6 0 percent The project has not contributed significantly to the improvement of irrigation systems on the corridor. The indicators used to assess this component are all zero. New cultivated areas under irrigation, whose target was fixed at 1,414 ha, are still at zero, as well as the number of kilometers of repaired irrigation systems. DAI did contribute to the cleaning of the Grison Garde irrigation system in 2015, and to the repair of seven out of 30 gates on the system, but such contributions were not included in the project performance monitoring system. The staffs of FTFN said they plan to work on two irrigated perimeters (at Grison Garde and Dubré) and two drainage systems (at Bas-Limbé and Ferrier). Feasibility studies have been realized for the Dubré drainage system and the procurement transaction was completed. Additional studies require a delay in the award for the implementation of the activities. A feasibility study has also been realized for the drainage system of Bas-Limbé. 27 According to Bas-Limbé farmers, lack of drainage is a major cause of crop loss. Farmers in the corridor maintained that they are relying on the availability of water pumps to grow banana/plantain, and such equipment are not readily available to provide water and meet the plants’ water demands in a timely manner. Even cacao producers are complaining about losses due to the 2015 severe drought, and stressing the importance of irrigation systems in the corridor. The project has not contributed to an increase in the Management Capacity of User Associations as reported in project documents. B. IR 2: WATERSHED STABILITY ABOVE SELECTED PLAINS IMPROVED The project chose to strategically focus its natural resources management (NRM) interventions on degraded areas in the watersheds above selected plains. The primary objectives of the interventions are to (1) protect soil against further degradation and (2) increase land productivity. Another important objective is to protect infrastructures constructed by the project in plains above the selected areas in the targeted watershed. Table 5. Critical Slopes Stabilized through Farmer-Level Investments Indicators FY2016 FY2016 target Performance up to 2016 LOPT Accomplish ment (%) Number of hectares of biological significance and/or natural resources under improved natural resource management as a result of USG assistance 667 1250 1708.3 1,500 114 percent Number of hectares of biological significance and/or natural resources showing improved physical conditions as a result of USG assistance 500 938 1,497 1,126 133percent Number of trees planted with USG assistance 78987 100,000 255,937 240,000 107 percent Number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable natural resource management and conservation as a result of USG assistance 2775 1,000 8,535 7,000 122 percent Number of people receiving USG supported training in natural resources management and /or biodiversity conservation 2,504 2000 5,757 5,000 115 percent 28 The area of biological significance and/or natural resources under improved natural resource management as a result of USG assistance was measured by the project to be 1,708 ha, which represents 114 percent of the target. This coverage area is the result of sub-grants to CBOs in degraded areas in both the Haut du cap and Jassa watersheds. The project contributed to the improvement of forest cover in the corridor by planting 255,937 seedlings to date, according to project IPTT. The performance surpassed the pre-fixed target, which were 240,000 seedlings. According to project reports, most of the time, species for shade over-story were selected to create a microclimate favorable to young cacao trees and to diversify revenue sources for cacao farmers. Interventions in NRM were not only to allow farmers to protect soil in degraded areas, they were also to enable them to generate economic benefits from their fields, and train them on the management of natural resources. The number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable natural resource management and conservation as a result of USG assistance is 8,535, which represents 122 percent of the target. The number of people receiving USG supported training in natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation was 5,757, which represents 115 percent of the target. C. IR 3: AGRICULTURAL MARKETS STRENGTHENED Improved access to storage and processing facilities Table 6. Project performance related to storage and processing facilities Indicators FY2016 Performanc e up to 2016 LOPT Accomplishment ( % Number of processing facilities established or improved due to USG assistance 0 0 4 0 percent Number of farmers accessing market information due to USG assistance 0 0 20,000 0 percent The project reported that no processing facility has been established or improved due to USG assistance. Target was established at four at the project inception. A grant was signed however with ‘Produits des Iles S.A.’ (PISA) to expand their cacao fermentation facilities in Plaine du Nord. As of September 2016, the farmers do not have information about markets through USG assistance. The project reported that a grant is in process with MARNDR for making value chains market information available to farmers. Table 7. Performance about Strengthening Relationships in Targeted Value Chains 29 Indicators FY2016 Performance up to 2016 LOPT Accomplish ment ( percent) Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of FTF assistance (S) 1 3 7 43 percent Number of food security private enterprises, producer organizations, water users associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance 34 1,182 1,170 101 percent Number of private enterprises, producer organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 26 32 36 89 percent As of September 2016, 3 PPPs were formed in the corridor with USG assistance, one in agricultural production and two in agricultural post-harvest transformation. The project reported that assistance was provided to about 1,182 different groups such as food security private enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs). The project fully met its target of 1,170. Among these groups, the project reported that six had applied technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance. 5.1.2 Conclusions about question one The project has successfully reached out to farmers across the northern corridor to popularize improved techniques and technologies to increase the productivity of cultivated plots. Farmers received training through the FFS or benefitted from inputs and services through the voucher program. Technologies were developed and disseminated to increase productivity in the three targeted value chains. However, the trend in the number of farmers trained does not translate with the same intensity when it comes to the area where improved farming practices and technologies were applied. Cultivated areas where the project’s promoted technologies were applied remained below established targets. Unlike the other value chains (cocoa and banana/plantain) where significant improvements are needed, the intervention in rice has met the expectations. The target for area under technologies has been met proportionally to the time elapsed in the project life. The farmers seem to have been convinced of the superiority of the FTFN- promoted SRI compared to the traditional method of rice cultivation and have adopted the technology. The project contributed as expected to stabilizing critical slopes above project infrastructure in selected watersheds, but has not yet increased any area under irrigation and drainage in the Northern Corridor. 30 The project made great strides in strengthening relationships in selected value chains, but it remains to start working on storage and processing facilities, and helping farmers get better access to market information. 5.1.3 Recommendations on question one Major recommendations about project performance are the following: ● Project activities must be intensified in the Northern corridor (More FFS) to reach out to more farmers to increase the area under Improved Technologies and Management Practices (ITMP), mainly for cacao and banana/plantain value chains. ● Demonstration plots should be systematically established for banana/plantain and cacao, (at least one for every 2-4 FFS) to convince farmers of the effectiveness of the promoted ITMP through tangible results and increase their confidence in them and the likelihood of their adoption. ● The project should organize field visits between FFS to encourage application and adoption of the ITMP ● The project needs to take immediate measures to start the irrigation and drainage interventions. Mainly all studies pertaining to these interventions should be completed urgently in order to award the contract. The project should push the staff involved in this intervention to complete this assignment as soon as possible. 5.2 QUESTION TWO How effective are the farmer field schools and the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices? 5.2.1 Findings about question two To ensure increased productivity in the project’s promoted key value chains, FTFN proposed to capitalize on four key guiding principles, namely, (1) farmer field schools (FFS) to introduce improved technologies and practices; (2) vouchers to facilitate declining subsidies and to secure farmer contributions; (3) commercial supply of the quality inputs tailored to each crop to increase both their productivity and profitability; and (4) improved water management, all within a market driven approach (Project Annual Work Plan, 2015). As reported by the project, promoted packages included: improved inputs, improved production, harvesting, seed multiplication methodologies, good management practices and access to inputs, services, markets and market information. This section describes how effective the FFS and voucher program are with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices. A. Farmers Field Schools Farmers are engaged in the AVANSE activities in the Northern Corridor through Farmer Field Schools. According to AVANSE field staff, farmers growing rice, banana/plantain, or cacao, are gathered regularly in crop-specific small groups of 20, to learn about new technologies and improved management practices in order to improve productivity in their plots. 31 Farmers in FFS for all three crops attested that they have been meeting regularly to receive training from AVANSE technicians in topics relevant to the cultivation of their crops. FFS received further support from AVANSE in terms of materials and equipment required for demonstrations on their fields. From Rice farmers AVANSE is working with rice, establishing rice specific FFS in five communes in the Northern Corridor, namely at Plaine du Nord and Acul du Nord in the North, and Ferrier, Ouanaminthe and Fort Liberté in the North East. Rice farmers learned SRI through FFS. Rice farmers who met at Grison Garde and Ferrier were able to describe techniques implemented in their field as part of the SRI technology. They met once a month and practices are held in farmers’ fields to allow them to master the technology. Farmers in FGD were able to describe differences between SRI and traditional rice planting method. Farmers reported that they had received rice seeds for nurseries and training on nursery implementation, sowing techniques, proper fertilizer types and formulas, fertilization techniques, water management techniques and rice field maintenance including weeding and pesticides use. Rice farmers have access to equipment and inputs via FFS. They have access to equipment like roller markers and conical weeders via FFS to apply SRI techniques. They learned how to use 2-4-D as an herbicide to reduce weeds, and how to establish their plantation to increase yields, how to manage water in the field, and how to fertilize to maximize yield. Most of the farmers claimed that they are realizing yield increases with the new technologies promoted by AVANSE and this is most likely triggering the high adoption rates seen in just a few seasons. Rice farmers have begun to understand the benefits of adopting SRI. Farmers reported that SRI techniques allow rice seedlings to produce more tillers. Yields increased up to 100 percent after implementing SRI technologies in some farmers’ plots, according to farmers in FGD. Farmers reported that SRI Fields speak for themselves in terms of advantages in using the technology. They seem to be convinced of the advantages of using SRI beyond the AVANSE project. From Cacao Farmers Cacao farmers learned new techniques to improve cacao production through FFS. Farmers confirmed that they met regularly to learn about cacao production. They reported that during FFS activities, they usually met in one location for theoretical trainings and then moved to the field for practical training. Cacao farmers learned how to establish and manage cacao nurseries, how to establish and manage cacao plantations, and how to do pruning. Throughout the production area, cacao is being regenerated through FFS activities. A cuttings campaign was carried out on cacao production areas in the corridor, according to farmers. Not only the plantations of farmers participating in the FFS, but all neighboring plantations were regenerated due to the activity of the FFS. Farmers say that with the regeneration, yield can double on cacao plantations. The project built a new network of FFS to establish local nurseries. The cacao team established 50 new community nurseries producing about 12,000 seedlings each in 11 communities by building on the established FFS network. However, in some of the nurseries, there was a delay before seedlings distribution and farmers feared that they may have become too mature for successful replanting. Nevertheless, farmers were happy with the project’s new strategy that supports them to locally produce cacao seedlings. This strategy reduces costs, provides plants that are locally available and that are agro- 32 ecologically adapted with a reduced risk of transferring diseases from other infected areas. It also develops local capacity for sustainable seedling production. From Banana Farmers The project reported that FFS for banana/plantain producers were set up in the production areas: Bas￾Limbe, Limbe, Acul de Nord, Plaine du Nord, Milot, Limonade-Quartier Morin, Trou du Nord, Bas and Haut Maribarhoux. Each one of the fifteen plantain field agents is responsible for training/providing extension support to 4-5 FFS; or approximately 100-125 farmers per agent. Plantain/banana producers learn management practices to increase productivity in plots in the FFS. Banana producers met during the focus groups explained how they learned to treat the seedlings against insects through “pralinage/pralining,” how to apply the right fertilizer formulas to their banana field, prepare the banana seedlings and establish and maintain the plantation. Banana producers have better access to inputs and services through FFS. Activities in the value chain include training of FFS participants in the application of improved technologies, distribution of compost to FFS, and distribution of plantain suckers. Banana producer farmers receive free or subsidized inputs through FFS. They receive 14 bags of manure and 500 banana seedlings for each quarter of ‘carreau’ of land. Some farmers received subsidized plowing. Better yielding plots are established through FFS in the project area. The banana FFS have established some plots where the application of improved technologies for density (1,600 plants/Ha), inter row spacing (2.5 meters), sucker management, fertilizer and composting regimes, preparing old plants for the next harvest, trimming, leaf removal and deflowering are all being demonstrated, according to farmers. According to program staff, training programs are underway for maintenance and harvest/post￾harvest practices. Water is the main limiting factor in most banana/plantain production areas according to farmers in Bas Limbé and Trou du Nord. B. The Voucher Program The project proposed to facilitate access to agricultural inputs through its partial-subsidy program for agricultural inputs, or the voucher system. The voucher program called SIBA (“Système d’Incitation via les Bons d’Achat”) is a sliding scale subsidy system set up by the program to encourage ownership and use of improved technologies and practices. According to the program staff, it is a sustainable way to track the subsidized agricultural inputs. There are several entities in the chain of the voucher program. The voucher program strengthens institutions involved in agriculture. AVANSE’s voucher program (SIBA) has enrolled and supported five agricultural input stores and several microcredit outlets for vouchers. Infrastructure and Environmental Compliance teams conducted environmental assessments of all five stores affiliated with the SIBA network, according to program’s staff. However, only two of the supported agricultural input stores remain functional in the corridor. Farmers, who are qualified to receive a voucher, buy it at a microfinance outlet. The voucher empowers the farmer to recover his/her agricultural input or service from a supplier. The supplier will submit collected bonds subsequently to the Unibank against its remuneration. An amount of money equivalent to issued bonds is kept in financial custody bank by the project as a guaranty fund. The project connects agricultural input stores to the importer COMAG to receive AVANSE promoted fertilizer formulas directly and to avoid market shortages. This intervention functions in parallel with the 33 MARNDR subsidized fertilizer program. Another strategy would be to connect the suppliers directly to the MARNDR subsidized fertilizer program, and to have COMAG involved in the MARNDR program. But, MARNDR subsidizes the offer, while AVANSE subsidizes the demand. According to USAID staffs, discussions are ongoing with donors and MARNDR officials to improve their subsidized system. The voucher program allows farmers to use inputs that increase productivity in their field. The project has wisely chosen inputs and technologies to enter the voucher program, with the intent of initiating their use and allowing farmers to see the benefits for themselves. Rice and Banana producers have better access to inputs and services via the voucher program. The program reported that rice farmers have effectively redeemed fertilizer vouchers at affiliated stores (NPK 20-20-10, DAP and Urea). Banana farmers reported that they benefited from fertilizer vouchers as well. Banana producer farmers receive free or subsidized inputs through FFS. They receive 14 bags of manure and 500 banana seedlings for each quarter of “carreau” or 3225 square meters (m2) of land. Some farmers received subsidized plowing. The project reported that it has promoted plowing services through the voucher program, currently providing a subsidy rate of 64 percent for plowing. The eligibility criteria to benefit from plowing subsidies were: (1) willingness to pay the remaining part of the cost, and (2) having the appropriate land (sufficient size and ready for cultivation). The SIBA team identified five firms offering custom plowing services with a combined fleet of 10 tractors. Accordingly, SIBA issued both plowing and fertilizer vouchers for banana plantations last year. Banana farmers in all growing areas reported during FGD that some of them benefited from the plowing program. Pitfalls of the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices. Rice and plantain farmers are still reluctant to use chemical fertilizers. The program reported that 2015 drought conditions significantly decreased demand for fertilizer in certain rice production zones. The 2015 drought also limited plantain farmers demand for fertilizer (NPK 20- 10-20). Input store owners confirmed that the demand for fertilizers is not as expected because all the farmers are not yet adopting all of the new management practices promoted by the program. Some newly enrolled rice farmers complained during FGD that they are not fully benefitting from the advantages offered by the voucher program. For the first year in the program, they expected to be able to pay the same low price that farmers paid last year for fertilizers. But in fact, fertilizers from the voucher program are becoming more expensive with years. Because they joined the program one year later, they are not exposed to the gradual increase in fertilizers price and may fail to see the return of investment associated with the use of fertilizers. Farmers in Bas Limbé reported that the plowing intervention under the voucher program met with difficulties in accessing farmers’ plots. Tractors could not reach all of the plots targeted by the program due to a lack of rural penetration roads. Farmers had sometimes to travel from the municipality where they live (Ferrier for ex.) to another municipality where the input stores are (Ouanaminthe for ex.), in order to have access to subsidized fertilizers for their crops. Farmers in FGD complained of the time sometimes they waste in going to the input stores and failed to find the inputs they needed due to technical difficulties (internet access to verify vouchers for example…) 34 5.2.2 Conclusions about question two Farmers are engaged in the FTF activities in the Northern corridor through FFS. Farmers are engaged satisfactorily in AVANSE activities in the Northern corridor through FFS for rice, banana/plantain, and cacao. New technologies and management practices are introduced as planned, promoted through AVANSE and disseminated to farmers via FFS. The project relied on FFS to reach out to farmers, and to provide equipment like water-pumps, services like plowing, and inputs like manure and fertilizers to increase productivity. Rice farmers learned SRI from FFS. Rice farmers in the Northern Corridor, more specifically in Ferrier and Plaine du Nord, learned how to apply SRI in their fields. They were able to describe the technology and stated that it would be adopted as farmers witnessed the positive effects in demo plots. Rice farmers have access to equipment and inputs via FFS to implement the technology on their fields. Cacao farmers learned new techniques to improve cacao production through FFS. They learned how to establish new plantations and how to regenerate old ones through cuttings. Farmers with the help of the project started a campaign to regenerate all old plantations in the production areas. Farmers attested that this technique alone could double cacao yields. The project built on new networks of FFS to establish local nurseries, create new plantations and increase the area under cacao cultivation. Plantain/ banana producers learned management practices to increase productivity in plots in the FFS. They learned how to establish new plantations, treat suckers against nematodes, manage diseases like sigatoka, and fertilize plants. Banana producers have better access to inputs and services through FFS due to project activities like the voucher program. They benefited from subsidized plowing, fertilizers, free manure and free suckers. Better yielding plots were established through FFS in the project area. The project proposed to facilitate access to agricultural inputs through its partial-subsidy program for agricultural inputs, or the voucher system. The voucher program strengthens institutions involved in agriculture such as the five agricultural input stores that now have better infrastructure and that are in business with the farmers, and microfinance institutions that are in contact with farmers and have started to develop financial products for them. However, input stores are not enough to cover the widely spread area targeted by AVANSE. The voucher program allows farmers to use inputs that increase productivity in their fields by having access to high return to investment inputs. However, the project has too few input stores in the network to satisfy input demands in banana and rice production area. Despite subsidies, the demand for inputs has not been following the trends in the number of farmers participating in trainings, this is due partly to severe drought recorded in 2015 and to slow adoption rates. Specifically for rice, the full SRI packages may not be applied by all beneficiary-farmers; some farmers seem to skip the fertilizer application. 5.2.3 Recommendations on question two Major recommendations for question two are as follow: ● Demonstration plots should be the center of all FFS established to show the increase in productivity associated with promoted technologies and management practices and to increase 35 adoption rates. Specifically for rice, since some farmers are reluctant to use chemical fertilizers, demonstration plots should be established to show the benefits of using the right amount of fertilizers. While the SRI is about reducing the amount of mineral fertilizer used, a minimum of mineral fertilizer is required for optimal yield. ● FFS training should be ongoing until every participant is convinced of the advantage of the promoted technologies and has the ability to implement the technologies on their farms. ● More input stores should be involved in the voucher program to serve farmers over the targeted area. The project is encouraged to reach out to entrepreneurs interested in establishing input stores in the corridor. ● The voucher program should keep the subsidy rate high for newly enrolled farmers to encourage them in using promoted inputs and management practices. ● In order to encourage the adoption of certain practices which are time consuming and delicate, the project should facilitate farmers’ access to certain equipment and tools. The following equipment associated with the following operations should be made available through local enterprises for renting by farmers beyond the project: o Roller markers for spacing rice seedlings during transplantation o Sower machines for rice seedling transplanting o Conical weeders for rice field weeding o Water pumps for plantain/banana fields irrigation with support to well drilling in some areas like Trou-du-Nord 5.3 QUESTION THREE To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, such as pineapples and fruit trees increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds? 5.3.1 Findings about question three Cash crops and soil conservation crops are being promoted in targeted watershed. As planned in the amendments, soil conservation activities are concentrated within two watersheds: Haut-du-Cap (Grison Garde) and Jassa. On a continual basis, the second intermediary result team holds work activities as “konbit” in the targeted communities. Many hundreds of thousands of linear meters of contour canals have been reported, with structures being established on the various farmers’ overlapping plots. The structures established are: living ramps, grass strips, and sand bag or dry stone thresholds. The contour canals are established as platforms that will be used to erect living ramps made of fruit and forest species and grass. The team spent a maximum of two days in every garden to allow for visits to all the gardens selected for the “konbit.” The seedlings given out for the purpose included: pineapple, sugar cane, elephant grass, acacia, cedar, mangoes, plantain, yam, pineapple, beans, corn, nuts, coconuts, citruses, oak, avocadoes, oranges, cassia, moringa, etc. It should be noted that farmers have the 36 opportunity to select the varieties they want to use in their lots. Except for the elephant grass and lima beans, all seedlings given out have adapted well, and some farmers claim that they are already earning income from the pineapple and corn grown on the contour canals. The team continues training thousands of farmers on the NRM techniques. The project, through its Monitoring and Evaluation team, provides georeferenced data for the lots and also determines their size, which helps not only to know beforehand the amount of materials to be used but also to constantly measure progress in comparison to the set target in terms of area to be covered by the project. Over several quarters, the project experienced delays of the rainy seasons. This is the main reason behind the frequent delays in the establishment of living ramps. With these new circumstances, the project simply established mechanical structures and made preparations for the establishment of living ramps on the contour canals. The soil conservation structures made popular by the project are used not only by the farmers who are “konbit” members on the non-selected mountain plots, but also by farmers who are not “konbit” members. However, farmers also stated that the structures established without the support of technicians leave more space in order to let cattle freely roam. Depending on the slope, the recommended spaces are between 4 and 10 meters. According to one of the CBOs visited, the 135 hectares required in the contract are not difficult to achieve. The contract stated that they should enroll 400 farmers into various “konbit” in order to cover 135 hectares. They have now covered 104 hectares and it is 4 weeks until the termination of the contract. Therefore, they expect to exceed the targets. The “konbits” make the establishment of the structures easier AVANSE encourages farmers to set up “konbits” in order to establish soil conservation structures in the damaged areas over the hillsides. The “konbits” are organized in all the participants’ gardens with a group of 15 to 20 people, for 20 to 22 days a month over a 3-month period for a particular “konbit.” The number of days to be spent on a particular participant’s plot is one or two. All the participants must comply with the many pre-established criteria, especially the requirement to own mountain plots or to own land. A team leader is selected to lead the group. The agronomists train and assist farmers in level A production and use, in establishing anti-erosion structure in protecting gullies and agroforestry. In the fields, they conduct demonstrations on the establishment of structures that have been popularized. “Konbits” are established by the CBOs for about a three-month period. To carry out their work, the “konbits” receive pickaxes, hoes, shovels, tape measures, wire rolls, wheelbarrows, and machetes (short and long). One CBO manages simultaneously, on average, 3 “konbits” and they only accept persons of more than 18 years of age. With a level A, an agronomist shows how to work on the elevation contours while observing the distances and the number of structures to establish on each plot. The decentralized entities of MARNDR are not involved in the project’s soil conservation activities. In the planning, MARNDR has been left out, according to the departmental directors from the North and Northeast. Work plans are not shared, the Communal Agricultural Offices (CAO) are not informed, nor 37 are they involved. The MARNDR representatives have noted technical issues they are not able to address, for lack of interlocutors. For example, for some time, MARNDR has advised against the use of contour canals while those are currently part of AVANSE interventions. According to MARNDR representatives, farmers usually take advantage of contour canals to grow fodder or peanuts, further damaging the hillsides. In these areas, peanuts should be progressively replaced. The sustainability of this project, according to the MARNDR representatives, is thus jeopardized with regards to its own strategy. Some major constraints may restrict the project’s outcomes: Peanuts are the main crop in most of Jassa’s sub-watersheds. The main crop grown on the slopes by farmers, especially in the sub-watersheds of Les Perches, before and after interventions, is peanut. AVANSE is not promoting the growing of peanuts. However, we have noted that peanut farming, despite being potentially erosive, is practiced as one of the cash crops. This is a situation that can jeopardize the effectiveness of erosion-reducing structures established in the project. Some farmers are still not willing to work on their plots under the “konbit” Several projects before AVANSE have tried to stabilize slopes through various approaches. According to farmers, cash-for-work was often used for soil conservation activities. That approach did not yield good results, according to the same farmers, but it is necessary to move from such a model to the “konbit.” In other areas, however, people were used to working in “konbits” for other types of farming operations or soil conservation with FONDEV for example. This practice was dropped, but is being revived through AVANSE. This will certainly continue after AVANSE, according to a very confident farmer. For most of the farmers we met, the daily 125 Gourdes7 fee provided for food during the work day (in the practice phase of the training), is not enough. For an active group, about 20 to 22 work days a month over three months are required to cover the plots of all the members, and the work day runs from 7:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Feeding the household remains a challenge since most of one’s time is devoted to these activities that provide no income in return. Therefore, those who sell their labor wish to receive more of an incentive to be able to continue feeding their families. On the other hand, there are farmers who are relatively better off, i.e. who have more resources and are not used to working on their own plots but ordinarily pay for farming activities. Not only don’t they work on their own plots, but they do not work either in other farmers’ plots under the “konbits.” For that reason, they are not interested in the AVANSE project. AVANSE is currently strengthening local organizations through grants The CBOs we met with existed long before the launching of AVANSE in the communities. In fact, before AVANSE, they had various and diverse experiences: ● Restoration of community road stretches in collaboration with the government (MTPTC/FER) or by themselves ● Well-drilling with FENU ● Spring catchment in collaboration with the Spanish Red Cross using their own resources 7 1.92 USD a day/ rate: 1 USD: 65 Gourdes 38 ● Restoration of the homes of needy community members (roofs for 13 houses) ● A Soil conservation project in collaboration with WFP, 2011 (4 months) ● A Reforestation project in collaboration with CECI (role: coordinate activities/establish teams/do the farmers’ payroll) ● A Hog repopulation project in collaboration with MARNDR ● A Local governance reinforcement project with support from the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) ● A Cholera prevention project Most organizations now have more than 300 members. At times, they are also involved in politics. They may choose, for example, to support one person’s candidacy for CASEC, Deputy, Mayor, etc. and, for that purpose, they also make alliances. Organizations are usually selected through the transparent call for tender processes. A 6-month extendable contract binds them with AVANSE. AVANSE directly supports the contracted CBOs through the supply of materials and equipment such as chairs, one portable computer, one desk, working tables, one printer and other office equipment. One must also note that AVANSE holds training sessions for these organizations on organizational strengthening, namely three working sessions over a 10-day period. The CBOs we met with have an acceptable level of operation. They have an 11-member management committee (4 women and 7 men). In general, these committees include a president, a vice-president, a secretary and deputy secretary, a treasurer, delegates, advisors and members. The organizations’ leaders entertain good relationships with the members. Relationships are also good between organizations and community members. The leaders are selected, according to bylaws, through elections during general meetings. There are clear mechanisms provided for the selection and replacement of leaders. In general, in the organizations, decisions are made within the management committee to be approved by the members. These organizations often resort to voting. They hold monthly meetings, after each of which a meeting report is written to ensure follow-up on the decisions made. CBOs are legally recognized by the Ministry of Social Affairs (MAST), and by the relevant City Hall. CBO registration is renewed annually. A bank account exists in the name of each organization. The organizations act as intermediaries between AVANSE and the beneficiaries. In that sense, AVANSE always goes through the CBOs for the distribution of seedlings or any other activity on the hillsides. CBOs hold visits on the different plots where soil conservation activities are carried out in order to evaluate the work and make relevant recommendations. One of the core roles of the organization within this project is to build a list of people (farmers) who need to be part of “konbits,” whether they are members of the organization or not. The organization receives a fixed amount every month through AVANSE in order to cover the costs brought about by the projects’ implementation. One must note that, in order to be able to sign the contract, the organization had to recruit, from the very beginning, four agronomists, one logistician, one secretary and one coordinator. 39 5.3.2 Question Three Conclusions As a result of the species used in the living ramps, farmers are usually more prone to participate in the activities and care for the established structures because these crops generate income. The option to work on overlapping plots has given good results in certain areas, yet it must be mentioned that some farmers who own more than a 1-carreau plot in the hills are not interested by such a project. If, for most farmers, the structures established should lead to good results, this is not the shared opinion of the regional MARNDR representatives who believe the sustainability of these interventions is compromised due to technical issues. They do not advise for the use of contour canals where fodder and peanuts are being grown. Community organizations are sufficiently developed; their underlying structures are in place and the renewal process for management committees is clearly established and respected. They have rather significant experience in managing similar projects with other organizations. Otherwise, one is tempted to say that organizations are ready to support the interventions’ impact and viability within their respective area. 5.3.3 Recommendations on question three  Reinforce communication and organize joint site visits with MARNDR Departmental Directors beside some presentations and discussions about AVANSE approach to soil conservation and watershed protection;  Dissuade farmers from growing peanuts on the slopes;  Reduce the three-month workload of “konbits;”  Develop an alternate strategy to establish structures in large mountainous plots. 5.4 QUESTION FOUR To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and access to finance. 5.4.1 Question Four Findings Several local institutions involved in the targeted sectors are strengthened. Five local stores were strengthened to provide services to rice and plantain growers. In fact, through the project, they improved their ability to meet the requirements for produce storage and handling and they increased their storage capacity. The stores meet the standards related to environmental risks. The stores provide farmers with key inputs such as chemical fertilizers and herbicides. The input stores are linked together with farming input importers through a voucher program in order to make these necessary farming inputs accessible to farmers on a continual basis. Two institutions involved in the cacao sector have also benefited from the project. As part of that, Enterprise Novella directly benefits from the farmers group network set up by AVANSE. However, other institutions involved in exportation feel that AVANSE is favoring one exporter in the field over the others. This sounds unfair. They think they have an innovative project document, but feel like they 40 should get stronger support from the project. Additionally, AVANSE also supports Enterprise Novella in the certification process for the traditional cacao they have chosen to export. PISA, a subsidiary of REBO S.A., who prepares and exports fermented cacao, has also received benefits from the project. They have received knives and benefitted from an AVANSE grant. The contract was signed and they have received the first payment as planned. Three goals exist: a) Build a fermentation center; b) Improve the drying capacity, and c) Fund travels to the Dominican Republic in order to attend the international conference on cacao. On the other hand, in the rice sector, the organization working on the only irrigated plot where AVANSE has made interventions until now, was left out. In fact, the Grison Garde Irrigators Association (AIGG) that exists since 2002 feels it has been weakened by the AVANSE project. This is not the opinion of the irrigation technical managers. On such point, the managers of the irrigation section acknowledge there have been bad precedents in the collaboration but that the local organization mainly wished to consider AVANSE like some of their previous partners who directly provided them with funding so they could undertake their own activities. Unfortunately, DAI strategy and policies do not allow for that. The local organization now offers, at a lower level, usual services such as the sale of agricultural inputs through their own store, plowing with their own tractor, and transportation and produce processing using their own mill. There were about 800 users on the irrigation system. For now, the committee has no idea of the number of irrigators. Over the years 2009-2010, there was a major drought that caused a shortage of water in the system and, since then, its usage became free, i.e. with no time control and no payment by the users. There are currently repeated conflicts because of this situation. Because of its low flow and the very poor condition of the controlling gates, it would be extremely difficult to establish control of the flow. There are no doors where needed, and there is much waste. In the past, several organizations worked on the system: ODN, IDAI, and AAA to mention a few. Their goal was to maintain or increase the flow in the canals and strengthen the irrigators’ association. With the support of AVANSE, 30 new controlling gates were installed in the system in March 2016 and cleaning work was carried out for about 5 days. Yet, according to the local organization’s leaders, the doors were not installed where there was the most need since AVANSE chose to work alone. Then, the organization complained that the materials used were not adequate. This is the reason why, six months down the line, most of these doors no longer exist. Through AVANSE, AIGG claims that they only received 10 days of training in 2015 on leadership, organizational strengthening, members’ roles, etc. Besides this training, they never had the opportunity to gather together or work with someone from the project. Finally, the agricultural departmental offices (DDA) from the North and Northeast, who should be playing a decisive role in this project’s long-term sustainability, feel that they were left out by AVANSE. In fact, they mentioned that while the funding allocated by USAID for the project is officially assigned to MARNDR, there are no connections with MARNDR in the field. MARNDR directors claim that the program is not implemented transparently and that reports have not been shared with them. In terms of field strategy, MARNDR has a representative in each area and they had expected the project to work with, train, and share information with these field managers so that they would have adequate knowledge of the program. For the agricultural departmental offices, MARNDR representatives claim that their strategies and policies are not respected by the project. 41 Relations have been established recently between DDAs and one of the project’s technical managers, on a more personal level. Some adjustments are necessary to ensure that the results of the voucher program are sustainable. Le Levier, the financial institution who signed the contract with AVANSE for the management of vouchers, works in partnership with several local credit unions in order to provide proximity service to the project’s beneficiary farmers. According to the credit union managers, this is a risk-free program for the financial institution. The vouchers and a list of certified farmers are periodically submitted to the institution. The farmer shows up, pays the non-subsidized part of the inputs and claims the vouchers ascribed to him/her in order to retrieve the products in the partner input stores. One must note that the farmer’s authentication is done remotely through an AVANSE staff dedicated to this aspect of the program using an internet-based tool. At the end of each month, a report is written to establish the amount of vouchers cashed and, after comparison with the AVANSE report, the percentage due to Le Levier and its partners is redistributed. However, things don’t always go that way. Too often, the software used to authenticate beneficiaries stops working, according to one of the credit union tellers. In many circumstances, the number assigned to the farmer is keyed into the system and an error message is received saying that the number is not activated even though a phone communication with the AVANSE staff confirms that the number is indeed activated. Such an issue may last for two or three days, leading to numerous back-and-forth trips by the farmer who wants to take advantage of the rainy season but often ends up discouraged. In general, 5 percent to 10 percent of vouchers are not claimed by farmers because of the said challenges and financial institutions sometimes only give out 60 percent of the available vouchers. Besides the system-related issues already mentioned, inadequate rainfall or a lack of money to cover the non￾subsidized portion are among the reasons for the poor distribution of the vouchers. With AVANSE, the farmer must provide between 30 percent to 40 percent of the voucher’s amount to make up the difference for the agricultural credit offered by credit unions. To take advantage of this particular service, farmers do not have to be part of a credit union, although the credit unions prefer for them to become members. Some farmers have eventually made the decision to join the credit unions. In order to ensure the sustainability of the system at the end of the funding, the project had planned to gradually decrease the subsidy until the pattern of working with the input stores through financial institutions is totally developed. One must note however that, in the current system, the first groups of farmers were major beneficiaries of the subsidy; the groups visited during the evaluation, including former program beneficiaries and newly registered farmers, benefitted at a lower level because of the decrease of the subsidy. This led to a reduction in the use of vouchers. To receive credit, outside the project, from the credit unions farmers must be a landowner or be farming a leased piece of land, and describe which crops they will invest in. Normally, very few farmers apply for agricultural credits which represent a very small proportion of the bank’s portfolio. The interest rates applied are around 24 percent but can go down to 18 percent, depending on the amount. The risks are high for agricultural credits, according to credit union managers, even though losses are estimated to be only 7 percent to 8 percent. In case of a loss, a second line of credit is often awarded to the farmer to help him/her with the reimbursement. Interventions aimed at improving the cacao marketing have produced very encouraging results 42 Cacao farmers are organized into 20-member groups by AVANSE, each group is led by a delegate chosen by the members. This so-called marketing group also makes a Farmer Field School. To improve the cacao’s quality, AVANSE distributed drying tables to the various groups (about 20 per group) and tarps (about 20 per group). Cacao is no longer dried on the soil as before and this practice is the same with several community members who are not part of the project. The immediate result of this intervention is that the product is now much cleaner than before. Only the delegate is authorized to carry the group’s traditional cacao to Novella Enterprise after its collection from the various members. The delegate uses the scale received from AVANSE to weigh it first and then the produce is weighed again in Novella Enterprise where farmers now state they receive a better price. A member from one of the marketing groups boasts of having purchased an ox last year from the income earned in cacao sale. Even the prices of retailers, who usually buy at a very low rate, went up providing the cacao farmer with several options. PISA, the other project-sponsored cacao exporter, buys green cacao for fermentation, i.e. right after picking. Farmers see it as an advantage since, according to the needs, part of the production is reserved to PISA so that they can earn money from the first harvest days. One must note that part of the harvest is given to the speculators who sometimes give loans to farmers before production. Finally, most of the harvest is reserved to be sold to Novella Enterprise that ensures the delegate’s transportation fees, keeps a rebate for the farmers at the end of the year, and provides a premium to the delegate in December. To every group member, AVANSE gave four sacks to help drain the cacao. This process improves the drying and therefore the quality of the cacao brought to Novella. One must also note that, in spite of the satisfaction expressed by farmers, prices are not known beforehand but they are disclosed once farmers get to Novella Enterprise. AVANSE assists farmers through training sessions on post-harvesting cacao processing, i.e. cacao picking, drying, storage or packaging, etc. Contrary to the traditional way of measure produce by “cups,” the delegates receive a training session on using the scale, keeping the books and delivering receipts through AVANSE. Due to the double weighing (by the delegate and Novella), weights are often different and the delegate has to reimburse the balance. This is so because of the continuous drying process and a lack of trust from group members towards delegates who are being accused of fraud. It is important to note that many of the delegates we met with are former retailers (“voltijè”) who previously bought cacao at a cheap price for resale to speculators. These retailers are aware of the inner workings of the local cacao market and seek to maximize their own profit at the expense of the producers. According to delegates, the space for cacao collection and storage (cacao received from members to be delivered to Novella) is often a challenge, i.e. there is not enough space to store the product. From now on, Novella Enterprise, like other fermented cacao exportation institutions, has a direct connection with farmers, which takes away two links from the chain: the retailers and speculators. In fact, the Novella Enterprise managers are pleased by the opportunity to be able to buy directly from farmers. However, Novella, according to the managers, is not as involved in the AVANSE project based on the original plans. Before the AVANSE project, Novella worked closely with another USAID project known as DEED8 . According to the institution’s manager, over 96 years, this had been the first time they 8 DEED (January 2008 – November 2012): “Projet de Développement Économique pour un Environnement Durable” 43 had agreed to partner with another institution (DEED) and that it had worked well. Novella invested between $200,000 and $250,000 USD in the DEED framework, but nothing has yet been spent with AVANSE because of an absence of clarity due to a lack of communication. AVANSE chose to completely remove Novella from the “production” aspect while, in the beginning, Novella was supposed to be involved in all the production’s aspects. It is in the interest of Novella that these activities continue after the project’s funding and, according to the managers, they will continue. Besides the certification of the traditional cacao that they are trying to get through AVANSE, the price will go up in everyone’s interest, including the farmer. AVANSE supports Novella’s certification process. Between August 2015 and the end of January 2016, Novella, the largest national cacao exporter, purchased only 21 percent of what they had purchased during the previous year because of the drought. They believe that some of the cacao trees may have not withstood the drought and have disappeared. On the other hand, according to exporters we met with, the harvest was good starting in April 2016. However, cacao exporters do not say that production increased following the interventions of AVANSE. They think it is too early to draw such conclusion, said who? While it is recognized that there has been an improvement in the quality of the produce, many think this should not be attributed only to AVANSE. DEED invested much in improving the quality of cacao in the region, they feel. Novella helps get better cacao from farmers and allows better control and traceability for it, with the aim of selling with an “organic” label. 5.4.2 Question Four Conclusions The improvement of interinstitutional relations recommended by AVANSE to highlight the knowledge and expertise of local institutions is still going on without continuous investment or direct coordination from AVANSE. Institutions are becoming less and less dependent on AVANSE, which is one of the early signs of the long-term viability of interventions past the project’s life. The project supports several local organizations and invests in their reinforcement, although not in the case for the Water User Association (WUA) of Grison Garde or the MARNDR. In fact, these institutions feel they have been voluntarily left out from this project’s implementation when it should be of primary concern for them. While the voucher program has begun to give good results, small technical challenges or weather variations keep the program from reaching its full potential. Finally, farmers greatly appreciate the revitalization of the cacao production which is still far from the climax of the 1960s but already presents good results for both the sellers and buyers, particularly as compared to the results from the past two decades. The voucher program strengthens institutions involved in agriculture like the agricultural input stores and microfinance institutions. However, input stores are not enough to cover the widely spread area targeted by AVANSE. 5.4.3 Recommendations on question four ● The project needs to improve communication with the water users associations and the decentralized entities of MARNDR. For now, some key presumed project partners perceive AVANSE as working in isolation and it may be detrimental to the sustainability of the project. 44 ● The project needs to adjust the program used to authenticate the beneficiaries of the voucher program. Farmers also need to be made more aware of using the vouchers available to them. ● New beneficiaries should enjoy the rate of beginners; those older members already witnessing the advantages of the promoted package should get a different rate. In the case where it is difficult to implement such an approach, communication will need to be reinforced with beneficiaries who sometimes feel that the money owed to them would be misappropriated by local leaders. ● Cacao-exporting entities feel that AVANSE is favoring one institution at the cost of others by encouraging all farmers to sell their produce to Novella. AVANSE must think of acting as a facilitator for all these entities. ANNEX 1. EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Questions Data collection Methods Data collection instrument Data sources Data analysis method 1. To what extent is the FTFN project on track to meet its Life of Project (LOP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which Interventions are ineffective?  Literature review  Key Informants interview (KII)  Focus Group (FG)  Annotated bibliography/ checklists, project plans and reports  Interview protocol Desk review:  Project staff  Project managers  USAID FTFN evaluation COR  Thorough data analysis  Content analysis  Triangulation techniques KII:  USAID Haiti COR & M&E (2)  DAI COP/DCOP (2)  DAI cacao, rice and banana team leaders (3)  DAI cacao, rice and banana marketing team leaders (2)  Extension workers (3)  M&E staff (2)  Local authorities (3)  Financial institutions (2)  Suppliers (2) Focus Group: Farmer Feed Schools, Water User Associations and commercialization groups (16) : 46  Plaisance/ Acul-du-Nord/ Acul-Samedi/Bahon/ Grison-garde/ Ferrier/ Ouanaminthe/ Terrier￾Rouge/ Quartier￾Morin/Bas-Limbé 2. How effective are the farmer field schools and the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices?  Desk review  Key Informants interview (KII)  Focus Group (FG)  Annotated bibliography/ checklists, project plans and reports Desk review:  Project staff  Project managers  USAID FTFN evaluation COR  Thorough data analysis  Content analysis  Triangulation techniques  Interview protocol KII:  USAID Haiti COR & M&E (2)  DAI COP/DCOP (2)  DAI cacao, rice and banana team leaders (3)  Extension workers (3)  M&E manager (1)  Local authorities (2)  Financial institutions (2)  Suppliers (2) 47 Focus Group: Farmer Feed Schools, Water User Associations and commercialization groups (16) : Borgne/ Plaisance/ Acul-du￾Nord/ Acul-Samedi/Bahon/ Grison-garde/ Ferrier/ Ouanaminthe/ Terrier-Rouge/ Quartier-Morin/Bas-Limbé 1. 3. To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapples and fruit trees increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds? 1. Desk review/ data quality review 2. Key Informants interview (KII) 3. Focus group (FG)  Annotated bibliography/ checklists, project plans and reports Desk review:  Project staff  Project managers USAID FTFN evaluation COR  Thorough data analysis  Content analysis  Triangulation techniques  Interview protocol KII:  DAI COP/DCOP (2)  Extension workers (3)  MARNDR: -- 2 regional and 1 in P-au-P -- (3)  Local authorities (2)  Suppliers (2) FG:  Jassa OCB (2)  Haut-du-Cap OCB (2) 48 4. To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post -harvest storage, processing, and access to finance 1. Desk review/ data quality review 2. Key Informants interview (KII) 3. Focus group (FG)  Annotated bibliography/ checklists, project plans and reports Document review: Project periodic reports, evaluation reports, design documents, any other relevant documentation. KII:  Partner institutions: Novella/ PISA: (2)  USAID Haiti COR & M&E (2)  DAI COP/DCOP (2)  DAI cacao, rice and banana team leaders (3)  DAI cacao, rice and banana marketing team leaders (2)  MARNDR: -- 2 regional and 1 in P -au -P -- (3)  Local authorities (2)  Financial institutions (2)  Suppliers (2) Focus Group: Farmer Feed Schools, Water User Associations, OCB and commercialization groups (26) : Borgne/ Plaisance/ Acul -du - Nord/ Acul -Samedi/Bahon/ Grison -garde/ Ferrier/ Ouanaminthe/ Terrier -Rouge/ Quartier -Morin/Bas -Limbé 1. Thorough data analysis 2. Content analysis 3. Triangulation techniques  Interview protocol Page 3 of 33 ANNEX 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY Activities and project objectives Before Audit After Audit Geographic focus Northern Corridor of Haiti Northern Corridor of Haiti Target crops or VCs Rice, bean, cacao, Banana and corn Rice, cacao and banana Watershed management Establishment of revenue￾generating agroforestry systems for hillside stabilization Micro catchments where AVANSE is working in the three targeted value chains Target beneficiaries 63,500 rural households, including 43,500 households with doubled agricultural income due to AVANSE assistance 20000 farm households Objectives To increase agricultural incomes in Haiti’s Northern Corridor To increase agricultural incomes in Haiti’s Northern Corridor ANNEX 3. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS Evaluation questions Q1. To what extent is the FTF North project on track to meet its Life of Project (LoP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which interventions are ineffective? Q2. How effective are the farmer field schools (FFF) and the voucher program (VP) with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices (IMP)? Q3. To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapples and fruit trees increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds strengthened for overall improved watershed stability above selected plains? Q4. To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and access to finance. Page 4 of 33 Page 5 of 33 A. Questions and Sub-questions for beneficiaries IR1 . AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED ACTIVITY QUESTIONS (DATA SOURCES) A. 1. Knowledge and availability of improved technology Value chains  Rice  Cacao  Banana/Plantain Questions - What new technologies are being promoted in ? - To what extent were promoted in ? - What works well and are replicated in your own plot? - What did not work about , and can be improved? Why? What are the challenges in using ? What are constraints to adoption? - How could the intervention in be improved? - What did you apply in your field and why? - What did you not apply and why? - To what extent yield have changed in your plots due to ? - To what extent will be used after the project? - How the promoted is appreciated compared to the old ones? - To what extent you have learned something from FFS? - Please describe how the FFS operates? - To what extent were FFS equipped properly to apply new technology and techniques? - How could the FFS be improved? A.2. Extension of agricultural Technologies and nutrition information - Where did you hear first about ? - To what extent you access to knowledge about ? - To what extent did you participate in training about ? - To what extent do you receive information about agriculture via cell phone? - Did you receive advantages for using ? - To what extent these advantages motivated you to adopt ? Page 6 of 33 IR1 . AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED ACTIVITY QUESTIONS (DATA SOURCES) - To what extent would you use < new technologies> without the subsidies? - To what extent were you visited by project’s field agents? By GoH field agents? - To what extent did you participated in field visits to other farmers? - To what extent MARNDR will continue with the dissemination of or subsidies of at the end of the project? A.3Access to input Value chains  Rice  Cacao  Banana/Plantain Questions - How were you selected as beneficiaries? - What are the inputs associated with ? - Do you know where to find this ? - To what extent you can find the specific inputs that you need and when you need it? - To what extent you find all the inputs you need to grow ? - Can you afford this on your own? What are the levels of subsidies? - How does the voucher system facilitate access to input? - To what extent did the project help you in having access to through the voucher system? - To what extent would you apply the technology without subsidies? - What are the conditions associated with getting the voucher for the project? - To what extent do you think you will generate enough revenue from the use of the technology - To what extend you will be able to afford those inputs after the project ends? - What are the challenges in using ? - How does this input affect yield in - What institutions are involved in this ? - To what extent this institution will continue to work after the project? Page 7 of 33 IR1 . AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED ACTIVITY QUESTIONS (DATA SOURCES) A4.1. Irrigation system rehabilitated/Constructed A4.2 Management capacity of user associations - What were the critical AVANSE inputs/actions that facilitated your participation in the project? Give examples and explain - Did AVANSE provide training and other supports to the members of your groups/organizations? Give examples (Which/what?, how?, where?) - Did the members of your groups/enterprises apply the techniques/technologies promoted by AVANSE project? Give examples (How? Which techniques? Where? ) - What are most important/critical actions or inputs by AVANSE to strengthen the key inputs in the values chain including water availability? - Did the farmers produce quality crops due to AVANSE’s support? Give examples (Which crops?, How?) - Did AVANSE help to establish network users to better manage the irrigation system? Give examples - Do you now pay any user fee to the committee? - To what extent the committees have the capacity to do maintenance work in the system without subventions from outside organization? - Did AVANSE facilitate the access to information about production, marketing and conservation technologies? Give examples and explain? (How? Which/what) - At AVANSE ends, will your groups/organizations be able to continue using water for irrigation? Justify. - How did your groups/organizations strengthen as a result of AVANSE interventions? Give examples. - Are there women involved in the leadership of your groups/organization? Give examples - What are the lessons learned during the implementation of Up to now? In order words: a. What worked and could be maintained? b. What did not work and must be changed in the future? How? - What would you recommend as the project continues? Page 8 of 33 IR2. Watershed Stability above selected plain ACTIVITY QUESTIONS/DATA SOURCES B.1 Critical slopes stabilized through farmer level investment - What were the critical AVANSE inputs/actions that facilitated multi-stakeholders participation and integrated management of the watershed as a whole? - How the watershed management systems operate? - How are the farmers participated in watershed management? - To what extent the watershed management association (or CBO) is sufficiently organized to assure stabilization of the watersheds within which they reside? - As AVANSE support will end, will the watershed management association continue to operate? - What have been done under AVANSE as infrastructure and other management practices to protect the watershed? - How farmers do organized them to implement water management techniques in the watershed? - What new technologies and practices have been done with AVANSE to protect watersheds? - To what extent new species promoted by AVANSE can protect soils against erosion? - To what extent new species promoted by AVANSE to protect soils against erosion allow you to make money? - Did the farmers initially supported by AVANSE continue to apply the technologies/ techniques promoted by AVANSE for hillside stabilization in their agricultural activities in the watershed? Were there any changes in their agricultural practices after AVANSE intervention? - Did the farmers NOT supported by AVANSE or NOT in association apply the technologies/techniques promoted by AVANSE for hillside stabilization? Justify. - What is the current status of the watershed? Has watershed management improved? Are the slopes stabilized? Are there women involved in the watershed management association? What are their functions? What are the lessons learned during the implementation of AVANSE? In order words: a. What worked and could be maintained? b. What did not work and must be changed in the future? How? c. What would you recommend for a similar project in other watersheds? Page 9 of 33 IR2. Watershed Stability above selected plain ACTIVITY QUESTIONS/DATA SOURCES IR3. Agriculture markets strengthened ACTIVITY QUESTIONS/DATA SOURCES C1. Improved access to storage and processing facilities 1. To what extent did the program develop collaboration with local actors in developing storage and processing facilities? 2. What role did the program play? 3. To what extent have they contributed to increase storage capacity? 4. To what extent has the program strengthened local capacity in storage and processing capacity? Which groups and/or organizations were strengthened? How were they strengthened? 5. To what extent did the program help communities in the targeted areas conserve their production? 6. How many people did the program help in increasing storage capacity? How were they selected? 7. How many people did the program help in increasing storage capacity? How were they selected? 8. What works in the process? 9. What did not work in the process? C.2 Improved market information system 1. How were you recruited for the market association? 2. What benefits have you for participating in market association? 3. How did the program/association help dissemination of market information? 4. What are the challenges in participating in associations 5. How do you have price information? 6. What is the number of people having information from SIMA? 7. To what extent did the program improve conditions in markets in targeted areas? 8. How many information systems were considered? Where? 9. What services did the program provide for farmers to ease sells? C.3 Relationships in targeted value chain 1. What did the project do to strengthen the relationships of farmers and ultimate buyers (Novella, Ti Malice) and suppliers in the ? 2. What did the project do to strengthen the relationships of suppliers and financial institution in the ? 3. How do these new relationships benefit the farmers? 4. To what extent these relationships will last beyond AVANSE? B. Questions for AVANSE staff Program effectiveness - What technologies were promoted in ? - How much lands were involved? - What worked in project’s intervention? And why? - What did not work and why? Page 10 of 33 - What are the external factors affecting project implementation? o How? - What are the internal factors affecting project implementation? o How? - What are the major challenges for the success of the adoption of ? - What could keep the project from reaching targets in ? Lessons learned - What would you do differently? - What would you build upon? Specific questions about hillside stabilization - To what extent did the program have an integrated upper and lower watershed stabilization approach to mitigate damage to infrastructures in the plains? - Did the program expand the number of hectares under improved technologies? - Which technologies and how were they introduced? How are they better than those used before? - Did the program expand the number of hectares under improved management practices? - Which management practices and how were they introduced? How are they better than those used before? - What erosion control measures were taken as a result of the program? Were any of the following measures taken? o Flood control o Soil stabilization o Irrigation system repair o Riverbed clean-up and ravine control o Water user association support - If yes, please describe which measures (type, location, surface, etc.) - To what extent did the program expand production and markets in the lowlands? - To what extent MARNDR and other partners will continue program activities at the end of AVANSE? Sustainability - To what extent the MARNDR are willing to continue at the end of AVANSE? - To what extent the farmers will be able to support the cost of new technologies at the end of AVANSE? - To what extent the technologies can self –spread at the end of the project? - To what extent inputs will still be available at the end of AVANSE? - What have been done to secure the activity of partners institution at the end of AVANSE? - What have been done to strengthen the capacity of CBOs and associations? - To what extent the CBO can provide services at the end of AVANSE? C. Financial Institutions Financial Institutions 1. How long have you been participating in the voucher system with AVANSE? 2. Do you have an agreement with AVANSE and what are the main points of this agreement? Page 11 of 33 3. Have you confronted any difficulties with AVANSE regarding the voucher system? What types of difficulties? 4. What steps does the institution takes prior to this partnership to effectively manage risk? 5. What risks are posed by the environment and how are those risks minimized? 6. Are the project beneficiaries registered members of the institution as well? 7. To what extent do you have any direct relationship with AVANSE partners and beneficiaries? 8. Do you think there is a possibility for a type of relationship with AVANSE partners and beneficiaries to remain after the project ends? Do you have any concerns at this level? 9. What this partnership with the Communities will look like after the departure of AVANSE? 10. What could facilitate the relationship to remain after the project ends? 11. Is there any role that some other organizations or government entities could play to facilitate a direct relationship with AVANSE partners and beneficiaries after the project ends? 12. Any specific recommendations for the improvement and /or sustainability of the voucher system? D. Input Suppliers Suppliers 1. Do you have an agreement with AVANSE to supply the project with any inputs? What types of inputs? 2. What are the main points of the agreement in terms of quantity, timing, and types of inputs? 3. To what extent do you deliver those inputs directly to AVANSE warehouses or to its partners? 4. What kind of relationship do you have with AVANSE partners/beneficiaries? 5. To what extent do the relationship will remain after the project ends in terms of doing business together or supplying them with inputs? 6. What formulas of fertilizers AVANSE usually request from you? Have you been able to fulfill those requests? 7. Have the MARNDR been involved to facilitate any transaction between your company and AVANSE regarding the purchase of inputs? Page 12 of 33 8. What could the MARNDR/Government do to facilitate farmers’ access to quality inputs/fertilizers at reasonable prices? 9. What the project could do during this period so that the number of customers who are now using subsidized inputs do not decrease with the reduction of the grant or after the project ends? 10. Any specific thoughts/suggestions regarding the market of inputs (fertilizers) and the project you could share with us. 11. What changes do you observe in the profile of farmers attending your agriculture input store? 12. Did you notice any change in the types of farmers due to AVANSE? Any change in the number of clients with AVANSE? 13. For which products have you noticed an increase or decrease in demands as a result of AVANSE intervention? 14. Have you been able to meet the demand for products introduced by? 15. Do you have any direct relationship with the bulk supplier such as COMAG? 16. What level of subventions your clients benefit from AVANSE through these products? E. MARNDR MARNDR Offices 1. Are you aware of AVANSE activities in your Communes of intervention? 2. What are the challenges and opportunities of such a project in Haiti? 3. What kind of collaboration do you have with AVANSE? Please describe the collaboration. 4. Do you think that the project is on the right track in terms of increasing agricultural productivity for farmers? 5. What worked very well and what could be done better (AVANSE)? 6. What do you think are the strengths of AVANSE? Its weaknesses? 7. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the Department? Why (if yes)? 8. Do you think that the positive results of the project will remain after it ends? 9. What role could the MARNDR play in terms of maintaining the activities and positive results of the project after it ends? Page 13 of 33 10. What AVANSE should do now to make sure that results remains and the activities continue after the project ends? 11. What are some suggestions for improving the AVANSE project? Page 14 of 33 ANNEX 4. DATA SOURCES List of people met Institutions Name Position 1. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Jonathan Greenham Project COP 2. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Marcorel Saint-Élien Project DCOP 3. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Helene Kiremidjian SIBA Coordinator 4. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Fidèle Nkulu Operations Director 5. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Elodie Manuel Project Associate 6. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Stephane Jean-Pierre Cacao marketing team leader 7. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Yves Gossin Banana production team leader 8. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Raul Dominique Cacao production team leader 9. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Samuel Alce Data Entry Manager 10. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Jean-Claude Pierre-Louis NRM team leader 11. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Jean Buddy Lucien Rice production team leader 12. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Sarah Mangones Engineer 13. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Pierre Leger Infrastructure Consultant 14. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Jean-Marc Racine Environmental Compliance Officer 15. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Eril Joseph M&E manager 16. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Encadreurs de terrain 17. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Encadreurs de terrain Page 15 of 33 18. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Encadreurs de terrain 19. DAI/AGRIDEV/AVANSE Junior Paul Rice and Banana Marketing team lead 20. MARNDR - NORD Desravines Edouard North Agriculture Departmental Director 21. MARNDR – NORD-EST Erick Auguste North-East Agriculture Departmental Director 22. Mairie Bahon 23. Caisse Populaire Fraternité de Plaine du Nord Josette Jean-Baptiste Director 24. Association des Irrigants de Grison-Garde (AIGG) Antoine Fils-Aimé, coordonnateur Coordinator 25. Association des Irrigants de Grison-Garde (AIGG) Zamy Verseau Member 26. Intrants/Jaden Lakay – Ouanaminthe Doudy PIERRE Administrator 27. Intrants/ Dieu le sait boutique – Grison Garde Telcide Lamour Owner 28. Établissement Novella Daniel Zéphir Director 29. PISA Aline Etlicher Senior staff 30. USAID James Wooley Project COR 31. USAID Harry François Project evaluation COR 32. OPP (Òganizasyon Peyizan Pèch) Présinor Jean-Rénel President 33. OPP Jacqueline Joseph Member 34. OPP Destinor Joseph Member Page 16 of 33 FOCUS GROUPS  FFS cacao – Grande Rivière du Nord, Mazère (16 participants)  FFS cacao – Bahon (12 participants)  FFS cacao – Plaisance (8 participants)  FFS cacao – Acul du Nord (8 participants)  FFS cacao – Limonade (14 participants)  Marketing Group cacao – Déricourt (9 participants)  Marketing Group cacao – Limbé (10 participants)  Marketing Group cacao – Plaine du Nord (12 participants)  FFS Banane – Quartier-Morin (10 participants)  FFS Banane – Bas-Limbé (10 participants)  FFS Banane – Ouanaminthe (14 participants)  FFS Banane – Trou du Nord (14 participants)  FFS Riz – Ferrier (13 participants)  FFS Riz – Grison-Garde (9 participants)  FG watershed management – « konbit » FODEPS9 , Savane Longue (8 participants)  FG watershed management – “konbit” OPP, Perches (5 participants)  FG watershed management - OPP committee (3)  FG watershed management – FODEPS committee (8) 9 FODEPS: « Fwon Oganizasyon Pou Defann Enterè Peyizan Savann Long » Page 17 of 33 ANNEX 5. SCOPE OF WORK Page 18 of 33 Page 19 of 33 SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE B.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Mid-Term performance evaluation is to assess the extent of the Feed the Future North Project’s (AVANSE) effectiveness and sustainability despite a substantive program revision based on recommendations from a recent audit. B.2 PURCHASE ORDER TYPE This contract will be a Firm Fixed Price Purchase Order. For the consideration set forth in the contract, the Contractor shall comply with all contract requirements. B.3 PAYMENT SCHEDULE The firm fixed price for the performance of work is $TBD. For the satisfactory completion and acceptance of all work and services, including the submission of required reports described herein, USAID shall pay the Contractor a fixed price in US Dollars. The schedule of payments shall be as follows: CONTRACT LINE ITEMS AMOUNT 1. A detailed work plan $_TBD 2. An evaluation plan $_TBD 3. A first draft of the evaluation report $_TBD 4. Briefing $_TBD 5. Final Report $_TBD TOTAL $_TBD B.4 OBLIGATION AND PAYMENT a) USAID hereby obligates the amount of $TBD for the submission of required reports/deliverables as described in the Statement of Work. b) The payment will be made upon completion, submission and acceptance by the USAID COR of the required work. The Contractor shall submit an invoice, SF-1034 "Public Voucher for Purchases" (a copy of SF1034 is attached to this Purchase Order) and other supporting documents to usaidhaitivouchers@usaid.gov when requesting payment. Page 20 of 33 c) Payment will be made no later than the 30 calendar days after the designated paying office has received a proper invoice from the Contractor and has verified acceptance of reports and services with the COR. The fixed price includes the delivery and acceptance of the COR of duties performed and received. Payment will be rendered upon completion of work assigned. d) The Contractor shall forward copies of all submitted invoices to the COR designated in section G.2. [END OF SECTION B] Page 21 of 33 SECTION C –STATEMENT OF WORK I. Evaluation Purpose The purpose of this Mid-Term performance evaluation is to assess the extent of the Feed the Future North Project’s (AVANSE) effectiveness and sustainability despite a substantive program revision based on recommendations from a recent audit. This evaluation shall inform USAID and the implementing partner on how to improve the program effectiveness and sustainability. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, Development Alternatives Inc (DAI), the Feed the Future West Partnership project, namely “Chanje lavi Plante”, the Government of Haiti (GOH), and the Ministry of Agriculture along with its regional direction in the North and the Northeast. II. Background Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with 55 percent of the population living below the poverty line of $1.25 per day. Agriculture is central to the Haitian economy, generating nearly 25 percent of GDP and employing more than 60 percent of the population. Although agriculture did not suffer the effects of the January 12, 2010 earthquake as severely or directly as other sectors, it is under increasing pressure to serve as a near-term engine for economic recovery and to generate employment opportunities. The importance of jumpstarting agricultural productivity immediately has been echoed strongly by the Government of Haiti (GOH), the U.S. Government (USG), and throughout the international community. USAID/Haiti developed the Feed the Future North (FTFN) Project 1 to address this situation in Haiti’s northern corridor, one of three regions targeted for U.S. Government support since the January 2010 earthquake. The project aimed to double agricultural incomes for at least 43,500 rural households and double the export volume of cacao produced by supported farmers. These goals were to be achieved through four Intermediate Results (IRs): IR1: Agricultural productivity increased through improved farming techniques and management practices, increased access to agricultural inputs, and irrigation. IR2: Watershed stability above selected plains improved through better hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices; increased access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapples and fruit trees; and strengthened local capacity to manage watersheds. IR3: Agricultural markets strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and finance; and road rehabilitation to connect farmers to markets. IR4: Capacity of local organizations strengthened through training, capacity-building grants, and sub-awards to local organizations to implement project activities. The full project results framework can be depicted in the chart below: 1 The FTFN Project is also known as AVANSE, an abbreviation for the project title in French Appui à la Valorisation du Potentiel Agricole du Nord, à la Sécurité Économique et Environnementale. Page 22 of 33 Sub-Result 2.1: Watershed Governance Sub-Result 2.3: Critical Objective: Increased Agricultural Incomes Intermediate Result 1: Agricultural Productivity Intermediate Result 2: Watershed Stability above Intermediate Result 3: Agricultural Markets Sub-Result 1.1: Availability of Improved Production Technologies Sub Result 1.3: Access to Inputs Increased Sub-Result 1.5: Property Security Strengthened Sub-Result 1.2: Strengthened Extension of Ag. Sub-Result 1.4: Irrigation Systems Rehabilitated Slopes Stabilized Sub-Result 2.2: Critical Slopes Stabilized Sub-Result 2.4: Crisis Management Capacity Strengthened Sub-Result 3.1: Improved Transportation Infrastructure Sub-Result 3.3: Increased Access to Financial Products Sub-Result 3.5: Relationships in Targeted Value Chains Sub-Result 3.2: Improved Access to Storage and Processing Sub-Result 3.4: Improved Market Information Intermediate Result 4: Capacity of Local Organizations Strengthened The $87.8 million FTFN project, which began on April 1, 2013 incorporated two U.S. Government priorities. The first was Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s interagency initiative to combat hunger and food insecurity worldwide by boosting agricultural productivity, and the second was USAID Forward, also known as Local Solutions, the Agency’s ambitious reform agenda that builds the capacity of local organizations so that they can directly implement USAID-funded projects. A planned outcome of FTFN was to create a cadre of local organizations that would be able to meet USAID’s eligibility criteria for direct funding by the project’s third year so that they would become the primary implementers of USAID’s future agriculture projects in the northern corridor. To support this process, the primary implementation tool intended for AVANSE was sub-contracts and grants under contracts (GUCs) to Haitian organizations. Sub-awards would serve the dual purpose of program implementation as well as preparation for local firms to become eligible to receive direct USAID funding while AVANSE would serve as a management unit overseeing sub-awardees. However, a recent Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended a drastic reduction in the scope of the project for the following reasons: ● Key activities such as irrigation that were considered foundational for increasing agricultural productivity have not started; Page 23 of 33 ● Activities under IR4 “Capacity of local organization strengthened” were not implemented as planned and, as a result, the implementer was unable to scale up activities for agricultural productivity, hillside stabilization, and market access or complete planned capacity-building activities; ● Other significant problems related to the management contract have undercut project implementation; for example, problems with baseline and performance data undermined project staff’s ability to adequately monitor/report project achievements. To follow-up on the audit recommendation, AVANSE has been extended through the option years but reduced in scope. Activities were reduced to limit contract targets to 16,208 hectares and 20,000 farm households. Impacts on the individual IRs was as follows: a. IRI. IR l activities implemented in the corn and bean value chains are terminated. The following targets are maintained: at least 2,268 hectares of rice; 3,885 hectares of plantain/banana (with the priority given to banana); 7,521 hectares of cacao (old and new plantations). Some residual activities in corn, cassava, cowpea, and bean farming will continue, but only where complementary with the target crops and farming systems that will continue to be emphasized under the reduced program. b. IR2. Most of IR2 activities are terminated. c. IR3. Activities implemented under IR3 are partially terminated. Only post-harvest and processing activities already negotiated with the private sector may be considered. d. IR4. All activities implemented under IR4 are terminated. Selected capacity building may be provided through the other IRs, as needed but will not be part of IR4. e. Infrastructure. All road activities and hillside public works are terminated. Activities supporting access to irrigation water in the remaining value chains remain. As of October 2015 Project General Information: Project Title: Feed the Future North; AVANSE Award Number: AID-521-C-13-00006 Award Dates: April 1, 2013-March 31, 2018 (3-year base implementation period (April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016) and two 1-year options (April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2018)) Funding Level: $87.8 million (original contract) Implementing Partners: DAI Contracting Officer Representative (COR): James Woolley Page 24 of 33 III. Evaluation Questions This mid-term performance evaluation will assess the effectiveness and sustainability of FTFN program interventions on the target communities in the context of its stated objectives. A. Effectiveness: Q1. To what extent is the FtF North project on track to meet its Life of Project (LOP) targets? If the project is on track, which interventions are working well? If not, which interventions are ineffective? Q2. How effective are the farmer field schools and the voucher program with regard to new technologies dissemination and improved management practices? Q2. To what extent were hillside terracing techniques, infrastructure, and management practices improved; access to erosion-reducing plants with economic benefits, like pineapples and fruit trees increased; and local capacity to manage watersheds strengthened for overall improved watershed stability above selected plains? B. Sustainability: Q4. To what extent are there mechanisms in place to leverage knowledge and expertise from existing local institutions to continue project operations beyond project timeframe? Describe the extent to which agricultural markets were strengthened through relationships with the private sector; increased access and capacity for post-harvest storage, processing, and access to finance. IV. Methodology The evaluation team shall propose an overall research design plan with a qualitative data collection approach to collect and analyze the data in order to answer the evaluation questions. While bidders are encouraged to propose additional data collection and analysis methods, the following are recommended at a minimum: a. Review of literature and analysis of relevant documents; b. In-depth interviews with key informants; c. Focus group discussions (FGD); V. Composition of the Evaluation Team The composition of the evaluation team shall mirror the diverse technical areas of the FTFN project, and shall include at a minimum a Team Leader, an Assistant Team Leader, and Technical Expert. The complexity of the program also requires that the team members have broad experience in their relevant fields and are able to apply this expertise to a multi￾disciplinary environment. The evaluation team is expected to have expertise in the following areas: 1. Evaluation 2. Qualitative data collection and analysis Page 25 of 33 3. Agriculture, livelihoods, 4. Food Security and natural resources management Above all, the Team Leader shall have significant knowledge of agricultural economics and natural resources management. In addition, the Team Leader shall demonstrate experience in monitoring and evaluating food security and watershed management projects. The Team Leader shall have at least 5 years of rural development experience as well as at least 3 years of evaluation experience (using qualitative methods) with agriculture or food security programs. He/She shall have at least a Master’s degree in Agricultural Economics or other relevant social field (agronomy, agri-business or economy), must be fluent in both English and French, and have team management and evaluation experiences. He/she will be responsible for planning the evaluation, coordinating the implementation of the evaluation, assigning evaluation responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the report which will include the findings, conclusions and recommendations. The Assistant Team Leader shall have experience in designing, implementing and analyzing qualitative research methods such as Focus Groups, Key Informant Interviews in the agriculture sector or in any relevant development related sector. He/she must have at least a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in any of the social science field (agronomy, economy, or sociology). The Technical Expert shall have combined expertise that will best complete the Team Leader (TL) and the Assistant Team Leader (ATL) profile to ensure that all areas of expertise required for the evaluation are effectively covered. He/she shall serve as a technical expert in agriculture and have at least 10 years rural development/food security experience, preferably in Haiti and must at have at least a Bachelor degree in agriculture and have prior experience managing agriculture or food security program. Note that the entire evaluation team must be external so that the evaluation is not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest or other factors. VI. Logistics and Illustrative Timeline USAID/Haiti will only provide basic logistics (clearances in liaison with the GOH and USAID partners, lodging recommendations, etc.). The evaluation team’s primary contact person within USAID/Haiti will be the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) assigned to manage this Evaluation. Tasks Actions Number of days Planning the evaluation Key documents to be reviewed 6 Evaluation Plan 6 Implementing the evaluation Data Collection Fieldwork 14 Analysis and Reporting Data Analysis 10 Reporting 20 Briefing to Mission 1 Total number of days 57 Page 26 of 33 VII. Deliverables The consulting team will submit or produce the following deliverables: a. A detailed work plan describing the evaluation team’s timeline for completing all tasks within the specified timeframe. Due 6 working days after award. b. An evaluation plan detailing the methodology and data collection methods. The evaluation plan is to be submitted to USAID for comment and approval. Due 6 working days after award. c. A first draft of the evaluation report to be submitted to the USAID/Haiti Mission for review and feedback. Due 10 working days after fieldwork. d. Evaluation draft report to be presented during a briefing to USAID/Haiti Mission staff. Due 12 working days after fieldwork. e. A final evaluation report (an electronic version in Microsoft Word 2003 format and five hard copies) which shall be submitted within 5 working days after receiving USAID/Haiti’s feedback, and which will be publically released on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) (http://dec.usaid.gov). Details on writing an evaluation report can be found in the USAID publication Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS: Constructing an Evaluation Report, available at: http://www.usaid.gov/policy/evalweb/documents/TIPS- Constructing an Evaluation Report.pdf. The report must comply with the USAID Evaluation Policy as follows: ● The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why. ● The evaluation report should address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work. ● The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an Annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline, shall be agreed upon in writing by the USAID Mission M&E Specialist and the Evaluation COR. Page 27 of 33 ● Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex to the final report. ● Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impacts using gender disaggregated data. ● Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). ● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. ● Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ● Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an Annex, including a list of all individuals interviewed. ● Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. ● Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. [END OF SECTION C] Page 28 of 33 SECTION D: BRANDING AND MARKING D.1 BRANDING POLICY: Markings under this contract shall comply with the USAID “Graphic Standards Manual available at www.usaid.gov/branding or any successor branding policy. D.2 BRANDING STRATEGY: USAID's framework legislation, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, section 641, requires that all programs under the Foreign Assistance Act be identified appropriately overseas as "American Aid." ADS 320 contains USAID’s policy directives and required procedures on branding and marking USAID-funded programs, projects, activities, public communications, and commodities with the USAID “Standard Graphic Identity” (or “USAID Identity.”) To comply with the requirement in 320.1, Overview, that all USAID-funded foreign assistance must be branded through use of a “Branding Strategy” and marked through use of a “Marking Plan,” employees involved in program/project implementation must ensure that our implementing partners communicate that the assistance is from the American people. In accordance with ADS 320, USAID policy is to require exclusive branding and marking in USAID direct acquisitions using any source of funds. Contractors and subcontractors' corporate identities or logos must not be used on USAID-funded program materials. Marking is not required on contractor vehicles, offices, office supplies or other commodities used solely for administration of the USAID-funded program. Marking is not permitted on any communications that are strictly administrative, rather than programmatic, in nature. USAID identity is also prohibited on contractor and recipient communications related to award administration, such as hiring/firing of staff or renting office space and/or equipment. [END OF SECTION D] Page 29 of 33 SECTION E: INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE E.1 INSEPCTION AND ACCEPTANCE USAID inspection and acceptance of services, reports and other required deliverables or outputs shall take place at: U.S. Embassy – Port au Prince, Haiti USAID/Haiti Bvd 15 Octobre, Tabarre 41 Or at any other location where the services are performed and reports and deliverables or outputs are produced or submitted. The COR has been delegated authority to inspect and accept all services, reports and required deliverables or outputs. All activities will also be approved and accepted by the COR who will also certify that work for which payment is requested by the contractor has been satisfactorily completed. [END OF SECTION E] Page 30 of 33 SECTION F: DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE F.1 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance for the Purchase Order is 4 months. F.2 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE The place of performance is Haiti. F.3 DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE DELIVERABLES DUE DATES Detailed Work Plan Due 6 working days after award Evaluation Plan Due 6 working days after award First draft of the Evaluation Report Due 10 working days after fieldwork Briefing Due 12 working days after fieldwork. Final Report Due within 5 working days after receiving USAID/Haiti’s feedback 752.7005 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTS (Sept. 2013) (a) Contract Reports and Information/Intellectual Products. (1) Within thirty (30) calendar days of obtaining the contracting officer representative's approval, the contractor must submit to USAID's Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) one copy each of reports and information products which describe, communicate or organize program/project development assistance activities, methods, technologies, management, research, results and experience. These reports include: Assessments, evaluations, studies, technical and periodic reports, annual and final reports, and development experience documents (defined as documents that: (i) Describe the planning, design, implementation, evaluation, and results of development assistance; and (ii) Are generated during the life cycle of development assistance programs or activities.) The contractor must also submit copies of information products including training materials, publications, videos and other intellectual deliverable materials required under the Contract Schedule. The following information is not to be submitted: (A) Time-sensitive materials such as newsletters, brochures or bulletins. (B) The contractor's information that is incidental to award administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing or management information. (2) Within thirty (30) calendar days after completion of the contract, the contractor must submit to the DEC any reports that have not been previously submitted and an index of all reports and information/intellectual products referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause. Page 31 of 33 (b) Submission requirements. The contractor must review the DEC Web site for the most up-to-date submission instructions, including the DEC address for paper submissions, the document formatting and the types of documents to be submitted. The submission instructions can be found at: https://dec.usaid.gov. (1) Standards. (i) Material must not include financially sensitive information or personally identifiable information (PII) such as social security numbers, home addresses and dates of birth. Such information must be removed prior to submission. (ii) All submissions must conform to current USAID branding requirements. (iii) Contract reports and information/intellectual products can be submitted in either electronic (preferred) or paper form. Electronic documentation must comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (iv) The electronic submissions must consist of only one electronic file, which comprises the complete and final equivalent of the paper copy. (v) Electronic documents must be in one of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)-approved formats as described in NARA guidelines related to the transfer of permanent E-records. (See http://www.archives.gov/records￾mgmt/initiatives/transfer-to-nara.html). (2) Essential bibliographic information. Descriptive information is required for all contractor products submitted. The title page of all reports and information products must include the contract number(s), contractor name(s), name of the USAID contracting officer's representative, the publication or issuance date of the document, document title, (if non-English, provide an English translation of the title), author name(s), and development objective or activity title (if non-English, provide a translation) and associated number, and language of the document (if non-English). In addition, all hard copy materials submitted in accordance with this clause must have, attached as a separate cover sheet, the name, organization, address, telephone number, fax number, and internet address of the submitting party. [END OF SECTION F] Page 32 of 33 SECTION G – PURCHASE ORDER ADMINISTRATION DATA G.1 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING OFFICE The Contracting Officer is: Julie Ota The Administrative Contracting Office is: Local Address International Address USAID/Haiti USAID/Haiti Office of Acquisition and Assistance Office of Acquisition and Assistance US Mission Compound 3400 Port au Prince Place Boulevard 15 Octobre Dulles VA, 20189 Tabarre 41 P.O. Box 1634 Port au Prince, Haiti Phone: (509) 2229-8000 Fax: (509) 2229-8066 G.2 CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (COR) The Contracting Officer’s Representative for this contract is: “USAID HAITI COR” (To Be Determined at Award) U.S. Agency for International Development USAID/HAITI Office of Health Boulevard 15 Octobre, Tabarre 41 Tabarre, HAITI E-mail: To be determined. G.3 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS/RELATIONSHIPS WITH USAID (a) Technical Directions is defined to include: (1) Written directions to the Contractor which fill in details, suggest possible lines of inquiry, or otherwise facilitate completion of work; (2) Provision of written information to the Contractor which assists in the interpretation of drawings, specifications, or technical portions of the work statement; (3) Review and, where required, provide written approval of technical reports, drawings, specifications, or technical information to be delivered. Technical directions must be in writing, and must be within the scope of the work as detailed in Section C. (b) The COR is authorized by designation to take any or all action with respect to the following which could lawfully be taken by the Contracting Officer, except any action specifically prohibited by the terms of this Contract: Page 33 of 33 (1) Assure that the Contractor performs the technical requirements of the contract in accordance with the contract terms, conditions, and specifications. (2) Perform or cause to be performed, inspections necessary in connection with a) above and require the Contractor to correct all deficiencies; perform acceptance for the Government. (3) Maintain all liaison and direct communications with the Contractor. Written communications with the Contractor and documents shall be signed as "Contracting Officer’s Representative " with a copy furnished to the Contracting Officer. (4) Issue written interpretations of technical requirements of Government drawings, designs, and specifications. (5) Monitor the Contractor's production or performance progress and notify the Contractor in writing of deficiencies observed during surveillance, and direct appropriate action to effect correction. Record and report to the Contracting Officer incidents of faulty or nonconforming work, delays or problems. (6) Obtain necessary security clearance and appropriate identification if access to Government facilities is required. If to be provided, ensure that Government furnished property is available when required. (c) In the absence of the designated COR, the COR may designate someone to serve as COR in their place. However, such action to direct an individual to act in the COR's stead shall immediately be communicated to the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. (d) Contractual Problems - Contractual problems, of any nature, that may arise during the life of the contract must be handled in conformance with specific public laws and regulations (i.e. Federal Acquisition Regulation and Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation). The Contractor and the COR shall bring all contracting problems to the immediate attention of the Contracting Officer. Only the Contracting Officer is authorized to formally resolve such problems. The Contracting Officer will be responsible for resolving legal issues, determining contract scope and interpreting contract terms and conditions. The Contracting Officer is the sole authority authorized to approve changes in any of the requirements under this contract. Notwithstanding any clause contained elsewhere in this contract, the said authority remains solely with the Contracting Officer. These changes include, but will not be limited to the following areas: scope of work, price, quantity, technical specifications, delivery schedules, and contract terms and conditions. In the event the Contractor effects any changes at the direction of any other person other than the Contracting Officer, the change will be considered to have been made without authority. (e) LIMITATIONS: The COR is not empowered to award, agree to, or sign any contract (including delivery or purchase orders) or modifications thereto, or in any way to obligate the payment of money by the Government. The COR may not take any action which may impact on the contract schedule, funds, scope or rate of utilization of LOE. All contractual agreements, commitments, or modifications which involve prices, quantities, quality, and schedules shall be made only by the Contracting Officer. Page 34 of 33 G.4 PAYING OFFICE The paying office for this contract is: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) USAID/HAITI Office of Financial Management Boulevard 15 Octobre, Tabarre 41 Tabarre, HAITI One (1) original of each invoice shall be submitted on an SF-1034 Public Voucher for Purchases and Services Other Than Personal to USAID/HAITI /Office of Financial Management. One copy of the voucher and the invoice shall also be submitted to the Contracting Officer and the COR. Electronic submission of invoices is encouraged. Submit invoices to the Office of Chief Financial Officer to this address: usaidhaitivouchers@usaid.gov The invoice must be signed, and it must be submitted along with any other documentation in Adobe. If submitting invoices electronically, do not send a paper copy. G.5 ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA: [TO BE INSERTED AT AWARD] G.6 INVOICING AND PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS Submit electronic invoices. Electronic invoice shall be submitted in the following manner: Sent via email, one invoice, all other required supporting documents, and SF-1034 Public The invoice shall be submitted to the Controller Office usaidhaitivouchers@usaid.gov, with a courtesy copy to the COR. The invoice shall provide the bank account details which shall include the bank account number, the bank name and address, the SWIFT Code and the ABA number. END OF SECTION G Page 35 of 33 SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS H.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by citation number, title, and date) in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.252-2 "CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract. The full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this address: http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/ads/300/aidar.pdf FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) 48 CFR Chapter 1 NUMBER TITLE DATE 752.7027 PERSONNEL DEC 1990 752.225-70 SOURCE AND NATIONALITY REQUIREMENTS FEB 2012 H.2 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this contract is: 937 H.3 LOGISTICS The Contractor is responsible for providing all logistical support. Office space shall not be provided by USAID/Haiti. The Contractor will be responsible for organizing and procuring office space, supplies and equipment (computers, copiers, printers, etc.), as well as for translation services (if needed) and in-country travel and transportation arrangements. USAID will, however, assist the consultants with setting up meetings with GOH officials. H.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MANAGEMENT The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, Section 117 requires that the impact of USAID‘s activities on the environment be considered and that USAID include environmental sustainability as a central consideration in designing and carrying out its development programs. This mandate is codified in Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200, 700) and in USAID‘s Automated Directives System (ADS) Parts 201.5.10g and 204 (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/), which, in part, require that the potential environmental impacts of USAID-financed activities are identified prior to a final decision to proceed and that appropriate environmental safeguards are adopted for all activities. In addition, the Contractor must comply with host country environmental regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by the COR. In case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the latter shall govern. H.5 GENDER CONSIDERATIONS USAID policy requires that gender issues be addressed as appropriate in all USAID-funded activities. The technical quotation shall describe how gender considerations will be integrated Page 36 of 33 throughout the program and into specific activities as appropriate. The Contractor must look for gender implications or opportunities in the program, seeking to address embedded gender issues and promote gender equity, as appropriate, in all phases of program implementation and internal management. This program must address gender concerns in a fundamental way. Gender indicators shall be defined and tracked by the Contractor. H.6 USAID DISABILITY POLICY (DEC 2004) (a) The objectives of the USAID Disability Policy are: (1) To enhance the attainment of United States foreign assistance program goals by promoting the participation and equalization of opportunities of individuals with disabilities in USAID policy, country and sector strategies, activity designs and implementation; (2) To increase awareness of issues of people with disabilities both within USAID programs and in host countries; (3) To engage other U.S. Government agencies, host country counterparts, governments, implementing organizations and other donors in fostering a climate of nondiscrimination against people with disabilities; and (4) To support international advocacy for people with disabilities. The full text of USAID's policy can be found at the following Web site:http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDABQ631.pdf. (b) USAID therefore requires that the contractor not discriminate against people with disabilities in the implementation of USAID programs and that it make every effort to comply with the objectives of the USAID Disability Policy in performing this contract. To that end and within the scope of the contract, the contractor's actions must demonstrate a comprehensive and consistent approach for including men, women, and children with disabilities. H.7 LIMITATION ON OTHER NON-CONTRACT ACTIVITIES The contractor shall not engage in other commercial activities which will create a conflict of interest with respect to, or increase the cost of, the performance of this contract. H.8 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST Any concerns/issues related to Organizational Conflict of Interest MUST are brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative as soon as it appears. See CIB 99-17: http://www.usaid.gov/business/business_opportunities/cib/pdf/cib9917.pdf H.9 EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TERRORISM FINANCING (FEB 2002) The Contractor/Recipient is reminded that U.S. Executive Orders and U.S. law prohibits transactions with, and the provision of resources and support to, individuals and organizations Page 37 of 33 associated with terrorism. It is the responsibility of the contractor/recipient to ensure compliance with these Executive Orders and laws. This provision must be included in all subcontracts/sub￾awards issued under this contract. A list of these names can be found at the web site of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the Department of Treasury, http://treasury.gov/ofac. H.10 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS The contractor may submit any and all documents that required under this contract, to be provided to USAID or its’ representatives, electronically via the appropriate software (diskette or CD), or as an electronic mail attachment, and the submission should consist of only one electronic file that comprises the complete and final equivalent of the paper copy, otherwise a hard copy should be provided. Acceptable software formats for electronic documents include, Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, Microsoft Excel, and Portable Document Format (PDF). USAID will accept an electronic signature from the contractor’s duly appointed or specifically identified engagement authority for a given contract action. H.11 PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS USAID reserves the right to terminate this Contract, to demand a refund or take other appropriate measures if the Contractor or sub-awardees are found to have been convicted of a narcotics offense or to have been engaged in drug trafficking as defined in 22 CFR Part 140. H.12 CONFIDENTIALITY AND OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY All reports generated and data collected during this project shall be considered confidential and shall not be reproduced, disseminated or discussed in open forum, other than for the purposes of completing the tasks described in this document, without the express written approval of the CO. All findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be considered confidential and proprietary. H.13 LANGUAGE AND MEASUREMENT (JUN 1992) (a) The English language shall be used in all written communications between the parties under this contract with respect to services to be rendered and with respect to all documents prepared by the contractor except as otherwise provided in the contract or as authorized by the contracting officer. (b) Wherever measurements are required or authorized, they shall be made, computed, and recorded in metric system units of measurement, unless otherwise authorized by USAID in writing when it has found that such usage is impractical or is likely to cause U.S. firms to experience significant inefficiencies or the loss of markets. Where the metric system is not the predominant standard for a particular application, measurements may be expressed in both the metric and the traditional equivalent units, provided the metric units are listed first. [END OF SECTION H] Page 38 of 33 SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES I.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the clause at FAR "52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract. See FAR 52.252-2 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a clause. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) PROVISIONS NUMBER TITLE DATE 52.222.50 COMBATING TRACFFICKING IN PERSONS MARCH 2015 52.223.18 ENCOURAGING CONTRACTOR POLICIES TO BAN TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING AUG 2011 52.227.14 RIGHTS IN DATA-GENERAL MAY 2014 I.2 TERMS AND CONDITIONS—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL ITEMS) (JUN 2016) (a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses that are incorporated by reference: (1) The clauses listed below implement provisions of law or Executive order: (i) 52.222-3, Convict Labor (Jun 2003) (E.O. 11755). (ii) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Apr 2015). (iii) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Apr 2015) (E.O. 11246). (iv) 52.225-13, Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (Jun 2008) (E.O.s, proclamations, and statutes administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury). (v) 52.233-3, Protest After Award (Aug 1996) (31 U.S.C. 3553). (vi) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004) (Pub. L. 108-77, 108-78 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)). (2) Listed below are additional clauses that apply: (i) 52.232-1, Payments (Apr 1984). (ii) 52.232-8, Discounts for Prompt Payment (Feb 2002). (iii) 52.232-11, Extras (Apr 1984). (iv) 52.232-25, Prompt Payment (Jul 2013). (v) 52.232-39, Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (Jun 2013). (vi) 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Dec 2013) (vii) 52.233-1, Disputes (May 2014). (viii) 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (Jun 2016). (ix) 52.253-1, Computer Generated Forms (Jan 1991). Page 39 of 33 (b) The Contractor shall comply with the following FAR clauses, incorporated by reference, unless the circumstances do not apply: (1) The clauses listed below implement provisions of law or Executive order: (i) 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (OCT 2015) (Pub. L. 109-282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note) (Applies to contracts valued at $30,000 or more). (ii) 52.222-19, Child Labor—Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies (Feb 2016) (E.O. 13126) (Applies to contracts for supplies exceeding the micro-purchase threshold.) (iii) 52.222-20, Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment Exceeding $15,000 (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 65) (Applies to supply contracts over $15,000 in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands). (iv) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (Oct 2015) (38 U.S.C. 4212) (applies to contracts of $150,000 or more). (v) 52.222-36, Equal Employment for Workers with Disabilities (Jul 2014) (29 U.S.C. 793) (Applies to contracts over $15,000, unless the work is to be performed outside the United States by employees recruited outside the United States.) (For purposes of this clause, “United States” includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Wake Island.) (vi) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (Feb 2016) (38 U.S.C. 4212) (Applies to contracts of $150,000 or more). (vii) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67) (Applies to service contracts over $2,500 that are subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and will be performed in the United States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Johnston Island, Wake Island, or the outer Continental Shelf). (viii)(A) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (Mar 2015) (22 U.S.C. chapter 78and E.O 13627) (Applies to all solicitations and contracts). (B) Alternate I (Mar 2015) (Applies if the Contracting Officer has filled in the following information with regard to applicable directives or notices: Document title(s), source for obtaining document(s), and contract performance location outside the United States to which the document applies). (ix) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Dec 2015) (Applies when52.222-6 or 52.222-41 are in the contract and performance in whole or in part is in the United States (the 50 States and the District of Columbia)). (x) 52.223-5, Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information (MAY 2011) (E.O. 13423) (Applies to services performed on Federal facilities). (xi) 52.223-11, Ozone-Depleting Substances and High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons (JUN 2016) (E.O. 13693)(applies to contracts for products as prescribed at FAR 23.804(a)). (xii) 52.223-12, Maintenance, Service, Repair, or Disposal of Refrigeration Equipment and Air Conditioners (JUN 2016) (E.O. 13693) (Applies to maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of refrigeration equipment and air conditioners). (xiii) 52.223-15, Energy Efficiency in Energy-Consuming Products (DEC 2007) (42 U.S.C. 8259b) (Unless exempt pursuant to 23.204, applies to contracts when energy-consuming products listed in the ENERGY STAR® Program or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)) will be— Page 40 of 33 facility; (A) Delivered; (B) Acquired by the Contractor for use in performing services at a Federally-controlled (C) Furnished by the Contractor for use by the Government; or (D) Specified in the design of a building or work, or incorporated during its construction, renovation, or maintenance). (xiv) 52.223-20, Aerosols (JUN 2016) (E.O. 13693) (Applies to contracts for products that may contain high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons as a propellant or as a solvent; or contracts for maintenance or repair of electronic or mechanical devices). (xv) 52.223-21, Foams (JUN 2016) (E.O. 13693) (Applies to contracts for products that may contain high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons or refrigerant blends containing hydrofluorocarbons as a foam blowing agent; or contracts for construction of buildings or facilities. (xvi) 52.225-1, Buy American—Supplies (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67) (Applies to contracts for supplies, and to contracts for services involving the furnishing of supplies, for use in the United States or its outlying areas, if the value of the supply contract or supply portion of a service contract exceeds the micro-purchase threshold and the acquisition— (A) Is set aside for small business concerns; or (B) Cannot be set aside for small business concerns (see 19.502-2), and does not exceed $25,000). (xvii) 52.226-6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (May 2014) (42 U.S.C. 1792) (Applies to contracts greater than $25,000 that provide for the provision, the service, or the sale of food in the United States). (xviii) 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—System for Award Management (Jul 2013) (Applies when the payment will be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT) and the payment office uses the System for Award Management (SAM) database as its source of EFT information). (xix) 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Other than System for Award Management (JUL 2013) (Applies when the payment will be made by EFT and the payment office does not use the SAM database as its source of EFT information). (xx) 52.247-64, Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (Feb 2006) (46 U.S.C. App. 1241) (Applies to supplies transported by ocean vessels (except for the types of subcontracts listed at 47.504(d)). (2) Listed below are additional clauses that may apply: (i) 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (JUN 2016) (Applies to contracts when the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier may have Federal contract information residing in or transiting through its information system. (ii) 52.209-6, Protecting the Government’s Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment (OCT 2015) (Applies to contracts over $35,000). (iii) 52.211-17, Delivery of Excess Quantities (Sept 1989) (Applies to fixed-price supplies). (iv) 52.247-29, F.o.b. Origin (Feb 2006) (Applies to supplies if delivery is f.o.b. origin). (v) 52.247-34, F.o.b. Destination (Nov 1991) (Applies to supplies if delivery is f.o.b. destination). Page 41 of 33 (c) FAR . This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): www.acquisition.gov (d) Inspection/Acceptance. The Contractor shall tender for acceptance only those items that conform to the requirements of this contract. The Government reserves the right to inspect or test any supplies or services that have been tendered for acceptance. The Government may require repair or replacement of nonconforming supplies or reperformance of nonconforming services at no increase in contract price. The Government must exercise its postacceptance rights— (1) Within a reasonable period of time after the defect was discovered or should have been discovered; and (2) Before any substantial change occurs in the condition of the item, unless the change is due to the defect in the item. (e) Excusable delays. The Contractor shall be liable for default unless nonperformance is caused by an occurrence beyond the reasonable control of the Contractor and without its fault or negligence, such as acts of God or the public enemy, acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, unusually severe weather, and delays of common carriers. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing as soon as it is reasonably possible after the commencement of any excusable delay, setting forth the full particulars in connection therewith, shall remedy such occurrence with all reasonable dispatch, and shall promptly give written notice to the Contracting Officer of the cessation of such occurrence. (f) Termination for the Government's convenience. The Government reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination, plus reasonable charges that the Contractor can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government, using its standard record keeping system, have resulted from the termination. The Contractor shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the Contractor’s records. The Contractor shall not be paid for any work performed or costs incurred that reasonably could have been avoided. (g) Termination for cause. The Government may terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for cause in the event of any default by the Contractor, or if the Contractor fails to comply with any contract terms and conditions, or fails to provide the Government, upon request, with adequate assurances of future performance. In the event of termination for cause, the Government shall not be liable to the Contractor for any amount for supplies or services not accepted, and the Contractor shall be liable to the Government for any and all rights and remedies provided by law. If it is determined that the Government improperly terminated this contract for default, such termination shall be deemed a termination for convenience. (h) Warranty. The Contractor warrants and implies that the items delivered hereunder are merchantable and fit for use for the particular purpose described in this contract. Page 42 of 33 (End of clause) [END OF SECTION I] Page 43 of 33 SECTION J- LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS N/A [END OF SECTION J] Page 44 of 33 SECTION K – REPRESENTATION, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHERS Not Applicable [END OF SECTION K] Page 45 of 33 SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS L. 1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the clause at FAR "52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract. See FAR 52.252-2 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a clause. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) PROVISIONS NUMBER TITLE DATE 52.204-7 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT JUL 2013 L.2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS A. Technical Quotation Electronic responses are required for this solicitation. 1. The Offeror must submit the quotation via e-mail with up to 4.5 MB limit per email compatible with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.) and/or WordPerfect in a MS Windows environment. There has been a problem with the receipt of *.zip files due to anti-virus software. Therefore, Offeror is discouraged from sending files in this format as we cannot guarantee their acceptance by the internet server. 2. Please submit your quotations to the e-mail addresses below by August 10, 2016 at 15:00 pm (Local Haiti Time). Receipt by any one addressee below in accordance with the deadline, will constitute timely receipt for this RFQ. You will receive a confirmation from us via e-mail. Note that electronic signatures are acceptable by USAID. 3. The Technical Quotation is limited to 10 pages and shall be written in English. Appendices which contain biographical and or other information (i.e., resumes, CVs, letters of commitment, and other documentation provided by the other provided by the offeror) are not included in this page limit. 4. The addresses for receipt of quotations are ybernard@usaid.gov and usaidhaitioaa@usaid.gov. 5. Hand delivered quotations (including commercial courier) and facsimile transmission will not be accepted. Offerors should write a quotation describing their technical approach to design and implement the Youth Assessment and should also propose a price for carrying out the assessment. (1.) Technical Evaluation of the Quotation: Your quotation should be specific, complete, and concise. The offeror shall provide detailed methodology and work plan to carry out the Scope of Work. The offeror is urged to examine this solicitation in its entirety and to assure that his Page 46 of 33 quotation contains all the necessary information, provides all required documentation and is complete in all respects since evaluation of the quotation will be based on the actual material presented and not on the basis of what is implied. The Technical Quotation in response to this solicitation should address how the offeror intends to carry out the Scope of Work (SOW) in Section C of the RFQ. It should also contain a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken and the responsibilities of all parties involved. The offeror shall provide information on how they will incorporate best practices into their evaluation. Additionally, the offeror shall provide a draft work plan as an attachment. You should ensure that your Price Quotation is consistent with your Technical Quotation in all respects since the Price Quotation may be used as an aid to determine the offeror's understanding of the solicitation. (2.) Personnel: The Contractor must provide Curriculum Vitae of the three (3) key staff and/or any other relevant budgeted staff. The offeror shall demonstrate the team structure and the role of each team member. Each resume shall be accompanied by a signed letter of commitment from the candidate indicating his/her availability to serve in the stated position. A minimum of three references must be submitted for the Team Leader, the Assistant Team Leader and the Technical Expert together with current telephone number and email address. The offeror shall present a narrative on the additional staff needed to complete the work, providing information on the team structure and the role of each team member. The offeror shall include details on the professional experience of relevant staff, and shall provide CVs for relevant technical staff that is considered critical to the completion of the evaluation. (3.) Institutional Capacity: The Contractor shall provide evidence of the organization and key partners’ technical resources, expertise and capabilities for implementing activities similar to those described in the Statement of Work (SOW). The Contractor shall demonstrate depth and breadth of experience in technical areas identified in the SOW, as well as depth of organizational experience in managing relevant projects of this type (4.) Past Performance: Relevant past performance information including recipient and key partner organizations: Contractors must supply 3 names of organizations from which they have received contracts or assistance awards for similar activities over the past three years, samples of a recent study report authored by the Team Leader. Reference information should include addresses, current telephone numbers, current e-mail addresses, points of contact, award numbers (if available), the overall dollar value of the program, and brief descriptions of the work performed. B. Price Quotation The price quotation shall include all costs necessary for the Offeror to perform the services described in Section C of this RFQ. Price will be evaluated separately from the technical quotation, and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The Government will also conduct an appropriate analysis to determine whether the quoted price is realistic. Page 47 of 33 A total firm fixed-price should be proposed, as well as the price for each of the four deliverables required in Section C of the SOW. In addition please provide the following supporting information: a. Proposed salary per day to perform the requirements in the SOW, b. Proposed transportation and per diem expenses, and c. Any other costs that will be incurred in performing the requirements specified in the SOW. The offeror must provide this information through the use of detailed spreadsheets and budget notes. L.3 OFFEROR’S RESPONSIBILITIES Offerors are expected to review, understand, and comply with all aspects of this RFQ. Failure to do so will be at the Offeror’s risk. Any prospective Offeror desiring an explanation or interpretation of this RFQ must request it in writing by emailing Yena D. Bernard at ybernard@usaid.gov and usaidhaitioaa@usaid.gov . Any inquiries must be submitted no later than the designated date on the Cover Letter of this RFQ. Oral explanations or instructions given before award of the Contract will not be binding. Any information given to a prospective Offeror concerning this RFQ will be furnished promptly to all other prospective Offerors as an amendment of this RFQ, if that information is necessary in submitting quotes or if the lack of it would be prejudicial to any other prospective Offerors. Offerors are to ensure that the authorized representative signs the quotation and print or type his/her name and title on the Cover Page of the quote. Erasures or other changes must also be initialed by the person signing the quote. Quotations signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office. Similarly, the price volume of the Offeror's quote must identify the individual(s) having authority to bind the Offeror. Offerors who include data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the U.S. Government except for evaluation purposes, should: Mark the title page with the following legend: "This quote includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the U.S. Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate this quote. If, however, a Contract is awarded to this Offeror as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this data, the U.S. Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting Contract. This restriction does not limit the U.S. Government's rights to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]"; and Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend: "Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this quote." [END OF SECTION L] Page 48 of 33 SECTION M – EVALUATION AND AWARD M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION (a) The Government may award a Purchase Order without discussions with offerors. (b) The submitted technical information will be scored by a technical evaluation committee using the technical criteria shown below. The evaluation committee may include industry experts who are not employees of the Federal Government. When evaluating the competing Offerors, the Government will consider the written qualifications and capability information provided by the Offerors, and any other information obtained by the Government through its own research. For overall evaluation purposes, technical factors are considered significantly more important than price. (c) The Government intends to evaluate Purchase Order Quotes in accordance with Section M of this RFQ and award to the responsible contractor(s) whose quote represents the best value to the U.S. Government. (d) Quotations will be evaluated using the best value acquisition procedure (see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.106-1(a) (2)). “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Using the best value acquisition methodology, the evaluation will be adjectival and rated according to the following descriptions: Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Quote contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Satisfactory Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote is unawardable. Award will be made based factors listed below. Evaluation criteria are in descending order of importance. M.2 TECHNICAL QUOTE EVALUATION CRITERIA The Evaluation Criteria are as follows: 1. Technical Approach 2. Personnel 3. Institutional Capacity 4. Past performance in similar work 1. Technical Approach The technical evaluation of the quotation will assess the appropriateness of the proposed methodology with regard to the requirements detailed in Section C. The offeror incorporates best practices that will facilitate a quality evaluation being completed on time. 2. Personnel The proposed team meets the requirements described in the SOW and has the capacity to implement this activity. 3. Institutional Capacity The offeror demonstrates the capacity to implement this activity and relevant organizational experience. 4. Past Performance Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. An offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when the offeror lacks relevant performance history or information on performance is not available. M.3 PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA The proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness and consistency with the technical quotation. This analysis is intended to determine the degree to which the price included in the price quotation is fair and reasonableness of proposed labor rates and fee. Technical evaluation factors are more important than price factors in determining the award. However, as the difference in technical merit between quotations becomes less significant, the relative importance of the price will increase. Price may be the determining factor where quotations are essentially of equal technical merit. The overall standard for judging price will be whether the quotation presents the best value for the price. The price quotation will be judged on: a) whether it is realistic and consistent with the technical quotation; and b) overall price. [END OF SECTION M] [END OF SOLICITATION] Page 50 of 33