September 23, 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently with contributions from Peter Appleton, Nivine Ramsis, Basem Fayyad, Gebril Osman, Ehab Sakr, Youmna Khalil, and Maha El Said under The QED Group, LLC, Egypt SIMPLE Project. End-of-Term Performance Evaluation of the Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) and the Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers (Premium) under Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) Smallholder Farmers Harvesting String Beans in Sohag Governorate, Egypt; 2017. Photo courtesy of USAID/Egypt. END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ADVANCED MARKETING AND AGRIBUSINESS LOGISTICS (AMAL) AND THE PREMIUM PROJECT FOR SMALL GROWERS (PREMIUM) UNDER AGRIGBUSINESS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASING INCOMES (ARDII) September 23, 2018 Task Order: AID-263-I-15-00001/72026318F00003 COVER PHOTO: Smallholder Farmers Harvesting String Beans in Sohag Governorate, Egypt, 2017. Photo courtesy of USAID/Egypt. 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. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) evaluation team was tasked to conduct the end-of-term performance evaluation of two USAID-funded agricultural projects: the Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project and the Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers (Premium). The evaluation team would like to thank all those organizations and individuals who contributed to our understanding of these USAID-funded activities. In particular, the team would like to thank Dr. Walid Sallam (Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance [ACDI/VOCA] Country Representative and Chief of Party of the AMAL Project) and Manal Saleh (General Manager of Blue Moon Ltd. and responsible party for implementation of the Premium Project) and their respective implementation teams for coordinating site visits and introducing the evaluation team to key activity-related stakeholders in Cairo as well as in the governorates of Aswan, Beheira, Luxor, Matrouh, Qena, and Sohag. USAID’s support and guidance of the evaluation team was fundamental to the evaluation’s success. We would like to especially thank Annie Steed, Deputy Director of the Office of Economic Growth and Activity Manager for the AMAL Project; Mohamed Abo ElWafa, Agribusiness Program Manager for the Office of Economic Growth and Activity Manager for Premium; and Ayat El-Dersh, Monitoring and Evaluation Point of Contact for the Office of Economic Growth, each of whom met with the evaluation team to provide background documentation on the activity; reviewed and commented on draft task order deliverables; and coordinated with implementing partners and ministries as needed. The team also thanks Hanan Abbas (Evaluation Manager and Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative [COR] for SIMPLE Egypt Project) and Seba Auda (SIMPLE COR) for their technical guidance to the team and for helping resolve inevitable scheduling complications with stakeholders. The team also thanks all those who gave their time freely to participate in key interviews and group discussions. Their participation added greatly to the content and quality of this evaluation. i | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................ii BIOGRAPHIES ............................................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 Background Information ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description................................................................................................................................................ 2 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions................................................................................................. 3 Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations................................................................................................... 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................13 Evaluation Question 1: In what ways were ACDI/VOCA and Premium’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”?...................................................................................................... 13 Evaluation Question 2: In what ways were the relationship between USAID, HEIA, and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results?................................... 16 Evaluation Question 3: To what extent were the ATS activities supported successful in improving students’ employability under Blue Moon?..................................................................................................... 18 Evaluation Question 4: To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of the ATS students and farmers under Blue Moon and of farmers under AMAL?.................................................. 19 Evaluation Question 5: To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability institutionalized or adopted by the activities’ Packhouses and Center of Excellence?........................ 21 Evaluation Question 6: How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors?...................................................................................... 22 Overall Recommendations................................................................................................................................. 22 ANNEXES Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work ........................................................................24 Annex II: Tables and Graphs..............................................................................................45 Annex III: Evaluation Methods and Limitations ............................................................ 141 Annex IV: Evaluation Collection Instruments .............................................................. .147 Annex V: Data Collection Schedule................................................................................ 202 Annex VI: Bibliography..................................................................................................... 208 Annex VII: Work Plan and Timeline .............................................................................. 210 Annex VIII: List of Project-Related Personnel (Public release) ................................... 213 Annex VIIII: List of Main Activities, Objectives, and Results of AMAL and PREMIUM Projects ………………………………………………………………………………………… 217 ii | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ACRONYMS ACDI-VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AERI Agriculture Exports and Rural Incomes AMAL Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics ARDII Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes ATS Agriculture Technical Schools CAPMAS Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics CDC Career Development Center COR Contracting Officer’s Representative DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse EGP Egyptian Pounds GAP Good Agricultural Practice GDA Global Development Alliance GOE Government of Egypt HEIA Horticulture Export Improvement Association ICT Information and Communications Technology IDIQ Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development KII Key Informant Interview METE Ministry of Education and Technical Education M&E Monitoring and Evaluation SIMPLE Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluating SOW Statement of Work SPO Small Producer Organization SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government iii | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV BIOGRAPHIES Peter Appleton, Team Leader, Agriculture and Food Security Specialist, is an experienced professional with more than 25 years of experience as a team leader and technical expert in agriculture, food security, food production, research, survey design, program M&E, strategy formulation, and capacity building in rural and difficult environments in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific, and Europe for a variety of donors including USAID, DFID, CIDA, AGRA, UNDP, UNOPS, EU, and the World Bank Group. As a senior evaluation specialist, he has designed monitoring and evaluation systems to measure the impact of interventions in natural resource, climate change, agriculture, water, aquaculture, education, and rural economic livelihood projects for USAID, CIDA, UNDP, and other international agencies. Dr. Appleton has a Ph.D. in international development and finance and an MSc in agricultural economics. Gebril Mahjoub Osman Khalil, Agricultural Specialist, is an agronomist with 36 years of experience in socio-economic and rural development, agriculture extension services, food security, agribusinesses, tailored capacity building, monitoring and evaluation, and training. His professional record demonstrates diverse capacities through work with international organizations in Egypt and Sudan, with an emphasis on agricultural development and small-scale household empowerment. He has worked on several projects sponsored by multilateral development organizations, including USAID, CIDA, FAO, and UNIDO. He holds a Ph.D. in environmental agriculture from Ain Shams University in Egypt and a Master’s degree in horticulture from Suez Canal University. Nivine Ramsis, M&E Specialist, has more than 20 years of experience in development and humanitarian work and has built expertise in organizational development, program implementation, and program review. She has an extensive background working with national and international NGOs, as well as with the operations of UN Agencies. She has specifically demonstrated success in providing technical and programmatic guidance to organizations to ensure higher quality and increased accountability to stakeholders. In particular, she has a proven record of accomplishment in organizational assessment and strengthening, results-based management program design, and building monitoring and evaluation systems. Her skills include design of baseline and endline surveys, impact evaluations, situation assessments, project and organizational evaluations, research and analyses, strategic planning, and building capacities of multi-disciplinary teams and organizations. Youmna Khalil, M&E Specialist, is a development practitioner and M&E specialist with more than 15 years of experience across projects in basic and higher education, youth, leadership development, financial education, economic empowerment for women, rural communities, health, housing rehabilitation, microfinance, vocational training, and crafts development for regional and international development organizations in the MENA region. She has a solid background in managing, monitoring, assessing, and evaluating project activities by using and applying quantitative and qualitative research methods, as well as strong analytical and writing skills for examining policies and practices in local and global contexts. She has conducted multiple regional and national baseline studies and midterm/final project evaluations in different development areas and has wide experience with international organizations such as USAID, CIDA, GIZ, Embassy of Finland, Plan International, IFAD, and the U.S. Department of State. She is currently teaching monitoring and evaluation at the American University in Cairo. Basem Fayyad, Agricultural Economist, has 30 years of experience in agricultural economics research, development studies, and project evaluation. He holds a Ph.D. in economics of agribusiness projects. His professional record demonstrates expertise in applying agricultural economics and econometric approaches and tools, for example in evaluating agribusiness projects, studying impacts of social and economic changes, studying the marketing service problems of agricultural products and designing alternatives, preparing local development plans for Egyptian governorates, and designing alternatives for an optimal crop pattern with a special focus on water shortages. He was an economic consultant for the National Water Resources Plan (NWRP) Coordination Plan, Egypt at the Ministry iv | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) for five years. He has worked on several projects sponsored by bilateral and multilateral development organizations, including UNDP, FAO, Oxfam Novib, SOMO, and University of the Third World-Third World Forum (Japan/Cairo). Ehab Sakr, Statistician, is an assistant lecturer in the Department of Demography and Bio-statistics, Institute of Statistical Studies and Research, Cairo University in Egypt, and holds a Master’s degree in statistics from the Faculty of Economics and Political Science. He is pursuing his Ph.D. at the Institute of Statistical Studies and Research. He has more than15 years of experience in research, working at both the national level (e.g., National Population Council and the Industrial Modernization Centre) and the international level (e.g., UNFPA, DHS, and the ILO). He contributes to the design of questionnaires and provided guidance on the quality of data collection, data entry, and data analysis using statistical packages including STATA and SPSS. He has experience in software and Web development, as well as in digital marketing. Ehab Zaghloul Kotb, Evaluation Manager, has a strong background in economic development, spanning more than 25 years and acquired in developing countries such as Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan. He is highly skilled in management, leadership, business administration, agriculture, agribusiness, public-private development, private sector development, and planning. He has extensive knowledge and experience in various areas of market research: market chain and market analysis, legal processes, internal bylaws and structures, organizational development, and project management. He also has in-depth knowledge of USAID rules and regulations. Maha El Said, Education Specialist, has 25 years of experience in international development programs and has designed and evaluated several donor-funded educational programs. Dr. El Said is the vice president of the Egyptian Evaluators and Researchers Network (EERN), the Chair of Evalgender+ Chapter of EvalMENA, and a member of the Evalgender+ Management Group. She has acted as a consultant for UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, DEDI, Save the Children, GAC, Aguirre International, Creative Associates, EDC, IIE, AMIDEAST, KfW, and national ministries. v | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agriculture is the largest employer of all Egypt’s economic sectors, accounting for more than 24% of all employment and 40% of female employment in 2015, according to the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). In short, farming is the most important source of income and jobs for the rural poor. Increasing smallholder farmers’ productivity and income is critical if agriculture is to reach its full potential. The vast majority of Egyptian smallholder farmers follow traditional cropping patterns that have been used for decades and remain focused on local food production. However, the demand for seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables is growing in both the domestic and export markets. Despite high comparative advantages in climate, soil, and seasonal variation, Upper Egypt has been slow to exploit these demands. Poor agricultural practices, fragmented supply chains, inefficient transport, and unfavorable financing are all factors that hinder the shift to high-value crops. Project Description The goals of the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) assistance agreement—under which both AMAL and Premium activities fall—were to contribute to the USAID mission’s development objective for accelerated private sector-led growth. The project identified poorly maintained transportation routes, insufficient cold chain infrastructure, and a lack of adequate information about domestic and international markets as key challenges that hinder farmers. The AMAL and Premium projects aimed to address these challenges and increase the incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through sustainably intensifying agricultural productivity, increasing the efficiency of post-harvest processes, and improving the domestic and international marketing of these goods. By the end of the project, smallholder beneficiaries should exhibit significantly higher sustained incomes in comparison to the baseline data from farmers who grow more traditional, natural-resource exploitive crops. Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) The AMAL cooperative agreement aims to increase the incomes of 4,300 rural households in Upper Egypt (Aswan, Luxor, Qena, and Sohag), including smallholder farmers, landless laborers, women, unemployed youth, and small and medium entrepreneurs, through the development of sustainable horticulture value chains. In cooperation with the Horticultural Export Improvement Association (HEIA), the project was designed to sustainably intensify farmers’ productivity, increase the efficiency of post-harvest processes, and improve the marketing of these goods as addressed in the AMAL Global Development Alliance (GDA). Recognizing the aforementioned challenges, AMAL’s activities were divided into four components, implemented in coordination with the Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA) to ensure the sustainability of project interventions: 1) Improve access to market intelligence, including: (a) market data capture and analysis, (b) development of marketing agents, (c) farmer capacity to integrate market data in production decisions, and (d) developing information and communications technology (ICT) tools to disseminate market data. 2) Facilitate value-chain linkages, including: (a) forward contracting, (b) domestic linkages, and (c) linkages to service providers. vi | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 3) Catalyze market-oriented production practices, including: (a) food quality and safety, (b) perishable terminal/packhouse management, and (c) integrated crop management and improved production techniques and technologies. 4) Organize and strengthen producer organizations. Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers In August 2011, USAID signed a unilateral cooperative agreement under the Egyptian Economic Support Annual Program Statement to fund the “Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers,” implemented primarily by Blue Moon, Ltd. with a project completion date in August 2014. The Premium award was designed to address the challenges farmers are facing in Upper Egypt. In May 2014, under the Agriculture Exports and Rural Incomes (AERI) Bilateral Agreement with the government of Egypt, the program description of the activity was revised to reflect a change in geographic area from Menia to Luxor. In August 2014, it was extended for an additional two years and two months, to September 2016. In September 2016, the award was extended to February 28, 2018 under the ARDII program. In addition to the original scope—supporting the certification of small growers to reach international quality standards and linking them with growing markets—the award was expanded to include career development centers and capacity building for academic years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 for 10 agricultural technical schools (ATS): three in Aswan, three in Beheira, one in Luxor, and three in Qena. Recognizing the same challenges, Premium’s activities were divided into two principal components: one focused on strengthening the capacity of smallholder farmers and their organizations for increasing farmers’ productivity and income, and the other focused on strengthening the capacity of agricultural technical schools. Regarding small producers, Premium’s activities included: (a) establishing a robust traceability system for small-producer organizations and small growers registered with GLOBALG.A.P and Fairtrade based on USAID-approved products, (b) developing a food safety and quality management system that meets GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade standards, (c) training small producers to comply with these standards, and (d) independently monitoring products, including sampling and testing of food contaminants (i.e., pesticide residues, chemical or microbiological contaminants) to ensure that products comply with legal levels in export countries. Regarding agricultural technical schools, Premium’s activities included: (a) supporting 10 ATS in Aswan, Beheira, Luxor, and Qena where students are prepared for opportunities and challenges in this industry; (b) creating a capacity-building program for teachers and students covering lesson plans, work ethics, responsible use of pesticides; (c) establishing links among the 10 ATS and business organizations in the agriculture sector to give students first-hand experience; (d) offering ATS students opportunities to design and implement small projects that provide sustainable income; and (e) developing Career Development Centers (CDC) to act as hubs where students can learn, prepare, grow, and connect to the agricultural job market. Audience and Intended Uses The results of the performance evaluation will be shared with different stakeholders, including the Ministry of Agriculture, USAID/Egypt mission, implementing partners, and the Ministry of Investment and International Cooperation. The final report and executive summary will be posted on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for public access and use. vii | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Evaluation Purpose and Questions The end-of-term performance evaluation was designed to: (a) learn to what extent AMAL and Premium results were achieved as described in their respective results frameworks, and (b) inform the design of future USAID-funded agricultural activities. Evaluation questions included: 1. In what ways were ACDI/VOCA and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest-level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? 2. In what ways were the relationships between USAID, HEIA, and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? 3. To what extent were the ATS activities supported successful in improving students’ employability under Blue Moon? 4. To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of the ATS students and farmers under Blue Moon and of farmers under AMAL? 5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability institutionalized or adopted by the activities’ Packhouses and Center of Excellence? 6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations The end-of-term evaluation utilized a mixed-methods methodology that relied on a combination of key informant interviews (KIIs), group discussions (GDs), and survey of a randomly selected representative sample of smallholder farmer beneficiary households. USAID and implementing partners ACDI/VOCA and Blue Moon, Ltd. provided electronic copies of their project documents to assist the evaluation team in the design of evaluation tools. Following USAID approval of data collection tools, 272 individual key stakeholders and beneficiaries were consulted through the use of 17 English and Arabic KIIs and GD protocols, and a total of 484 farmers were surveyed (of 417 AMAL farmers and 480 Premium farmers targeted) through the smallholder farmer agricultural household income surveys of the 2015 and 2017 agricultural production cycles. Team members conducted KIIs and group discussions and collected smallholder survey information between March 6 and May 24, 2018. After data collection, the evaluation team conducted a data analysis workshop to analyze and code qualitative information according to recurring themes. The Smallholder Farmer Household Survey was one of two principal sources of quantitative data for estimating annual smallholder farmers’ household incomes for AMAL and Premium beneficiary growers in response to Evaluation Question 1. The second source of data was the AMAL baseline survey conducted in 2015 by ACDI/VOCA. The SIMPLE evaluation survey team collected the 2017 end line data for AMAL beneficiary farmers and the 2015 baseline (based on beneficiary farmer recall) and 2017 end line data for Premium beneficiary farmers. The survey instrument, developed by the evaluation team, was based on the 2015 AMAL baseline survey to ensure comparability between the baseline and end line datasets. The survey instrument was reviewed and approved by CAPMAS. Limitations 1. The Premium Project did not conduct a baseline survey prior to its 2011 intervention. Given the absence of Premium baseline data, the evaluation team constructed a survey instrument that sought to capture pre-intervention data through the farmers’ recollection of 2015 production costs, crop viii | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV yields, and sale prices. Survey results are therefore subject to recall bias since reported findings are dependent on individual farmer’s truthful recollections of 2015 and 2017 production costs and sales data. 2. Despite the random selection of qualified farmer households, reduced sample size constraints limit the statistical significance and associated generalizability of findings to the project level as opposed to the governorate level. 3. Site visits to the randomly selected Premium Project agricultural technical schools (4 of 10) were conducted 20 months after the intervention end date (September 2016), resulting in a significantly reduced pool of direct beneficiary students and graduates for evaluating improved employment outcomes. From an experimental research perspective, sound generalizability requires data on large populations. The larger the sample population, the more one can generalize the results. The reduced sample size of smallholder farmer households at the smallholder producer organization or governorate level means that the evaluation team is restricted to generalizability at the project level. Although this enables the researcher to make more generalizable observations on the respondent population at the project level, it limits the researcher’s ability to analyze results at smaller units of analysis, such as (a) production per feddan of GLOBALG.A.P. versus non-GLOBALG.A.P. producers (b) comparative analysis of profitability among smallholder producer organizations or (c) comparative analysis of profitability across governorates. The same applies to ATS beneficiary students and graduates: in other words, the margin of confidence by which results can be generalized across the entire population is reduced relative to smaller sample sizes. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Evaluation Question 1: In what ways were ACDI/VOCA and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? Conclusion 1.1: The AMAL and Premium project implementation approach of applying modern agricultural practices and facilitating contracted marketing linkages between agricultural cooperatives and community development associations with local and international markets successfully increased net agricultural income among smallholder beneficiary farmers. Finding 1.1.1: Survey results in the AMAL Project reflect an average 21.5% annual increase in agricultural income across the five landholding sizes in the Luxor governorate. The annual net income per farmer increased from US$3,863.50 in 2015 to US$5,517.0 in 2017 with an average annual increase of US$826.70.1 Finding 1.1.2: Survey results in the Premium Project reflect an average 10.7% annual increase in agricultural across the 5–10 and 10+ feddan (managed in addition to owned)2 landholding sizes in the Beheira governorate. The annual net income per farmer increased from US$5,334.10 in 2015 to US$6,478.60 in 2017 with an annual average increase of US$572.20. 1 For the three AMAL intervention governorates (Luxor, Qena and Sohag), only Luxor has complete data across all five feddan landholding sizes for the 2015/2017 agricultural cycles. 2 As per survey design, total land holdings (expressed in feddans) is the sum of (a) land rented, (b) land owned, (c) land held in partnership, and (d) leased land. Accordingly, reported landholdings can exceed 10 feddans despite smallholder farmers being defined as “owning” less than 10 feddans. ix | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 1.1.3: In the context of modern farming technologies and practices, AMAL and Premium farmers reported that there were three principal causes of increased farm productivity and decreased costs: 81.4% of AMAL’s surveyed farmers (n=145) and 56.6% of Premium’s farmers (n=212) cited "using pesticides, effectively and safely and in compliance with international standards." 80.7% of AMAL and 59.9% of Premium farmers cited "using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner." 77.2% of AMAL and 52.4% of Premium farmers reported "using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings." Conclusion 1.2: Both the AMAL and Premium projects successfully facilitated contracted marketing linkages between agricultural cooperatives and community development associations with local and international markets. Finding 1.2.1: According to ACDI/VOCA, AMAL facilitated 30 contracts between farmer associations and high-end markets. Finding 1.2.2: According to Blue Moon, Ltd., Premium established 45 supply contracts with numerous market channels to sell products from Egyptian small-grower products both locally and internationally. Recommendation 1.1: Systematic market analyses need to be disseminated in a manner that ensures that farmers and farmer associations gain access to relevant market intelligence and thereby facilitate informed decision-making regarding best practices, crop promotion, and market destinations. Recommendation 1.2: Associations of small landholders should mobilize their members with adjacent non-member smallholder landholdings to collaborate in production and marketing to benefit from economies of scale. Recommendation 1.3: HEIA should consider developing and maintaining current and forecasted agricultural market information, based on a fee-for-service financed by small-producer organization subscription fees, entitling its farmers to free information via a cell phone application to the HEIA information portal. Recommendation 1.4: USAID future project designs should develop a training and technical assistance program that increases the capacity of smallholder farmers who are not required to maintain records under Fairtrade or GLOBALG.A.P. certification to properly document (in a simplified manner) production costs, crop yields, land cultivated, post-harvest loses, value of crops sold, etc., to enable participating smallholder farmers to identify areas in which they can further contain costs, reduce losses, and increase household agricultural income in a self-directed manner. Evaluation Question 2: In what ways were the relationships between USAID, HEIA and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? The Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project is a Global Development Alliance (GDA) between USAID and the Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA) implemented by ACDI/VOCA. Succinctly stated, a GDA is a partnership involving USAID and the private sector designed to develop and implement activities that leverage and apply the collaborating parties’ respective assets and expertise to advance core business interests, achieve USAID’s development objectives, and increase the sustainable impact of USAID's development investments. x | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Toward this end, AMAL’s activities were implemented in close coordination with HEIA and designed to: (1) improve access to the use of market intelligence, (2) facilitate value chain linkages, (3) catalyze market-oriented production practices, (4) organize and strengthen producer organizations. AMAL would thereby ensure sustainability of USAID project interventions in order to achieve its primary development objective of accelerated private sector-led growth. The GDA between USAID and HEIA, implemented by ACDI/VOCA, aimed to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt intervention areas through sustainably intensifying agricultural productivity, increasing the efficiency of post-harvest processes, and improving both the domestic and international marketing of these goods. Conclusion 2.1: The GDA relationship between USAID and HEIA, implemented by ACDI/VOCA, effectively supports AMAL’s capacity-building component for small producers. However, the HEIA model (servicing large landholder farms and exporters) does not optimize linkages between HEIA member exporters and small-producer organizations, which therefore does not maximize the impact of USAID's development investments. Finding 2.1.1: A core characteristic of a GDA is to foster and advance market-based or market-driven approaches to development. Although not part of the project’s original design and despite geographic proximity to smallholder farmers, current packhouse operations are not providing direct services (e.g., sorting, grading, pre-cooling, cooling, packaging, storage) to AMAL’s smallholder producers in Luxor. Finding 2.1.2: A second core characteristic of a GDA is to leverage respective expertise, capabilities, networks, and other resources to address business challenges and opportunities while also fostering or accelerating sustainable, transformational development impact. As reported in the “Business and Operational Plan for the HEIA Packhouse,” the packhouse was only operational 35–50 days per year during the 2015 to 2017 timeframe. It is important to note that in order to increase the number of packhouse operational days, it may be necessary to acquire additional crop-specific processing equipment/machinery. Finding 2.1.3: A third core characteristic of a GDA is for collaborating partners to work together to mobilize, leverage, and more effectively apply respective assets, expertise, and resources. According to the HEIA Business and Operation Plan, in order to optimize the 6 million EGP USAID investment (of a 30 million EGP investment) in the purchase of packhouse machinery, equipment, furniture, and trucks, the packhouse and 90 metric tons storage facility needs to operate 270 days per year to be commercially viable. Finding 2.1.4: A fourth core characteristic of a GDA is that contributions should generate significant development results and impact that would otherwise be difficult or impossible for USAID to achieve in the absence of private sector involvement. In this regard, according to ACDI/VOCA training records, a total of 1,744 course offerings on 113 subjects were delivered through the Center of Excellence conference room facilities to male and female farmers, community development association staff, HEIA staff, packhouse laborers, graduate trainers, and HEIA trainers over the 2015-2018 implementation period. Recommendation 2.1: Prior to the expiration of the AMAL project in September 2018, the USAID, AMAL, and HEIA partnership should establish a financially stable two-year implementation plan that incorporates local community development associations and ensures the provision of capacity building, technical assistance, and packhouse services to include small and medium grower production. Evaluation Question 3: To what extent were the ATS activities supported successful in improving students’ employability under Blue Moon? xi | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Conclusion 3.1: The lack of Premium project consultations with direct beneficiaries resulted in lesser teacher and student satisfaction with the design, content, and delivery of the training component than otherwise might have occurred if direct beneficiaries were consulted. Finding 3.1.1: Although the Premium Project conferred with high-level Ministry of Education and Technical Education and Egyptian Suppliers Ethical Trade Forum stakeholders, direct beneficiaries from academic year 2017/2018 (school principals, administrators, teachers, students), three of the four schools visited (Esna, Kom Ombo, Nobareya, and Qena) reported that they were not consulted regarding the design of the capacity-building program. Finding 3.1.2: Teachers and students from academic year 2017/2018 reported that the training content, course durations, course loads, and mix of theoretical versus practical training were unsatisfactory. Finding 3.1.3: Although not offered through the training component, students from academic year 2017/2018 reported a preference for training in the management of small projects, animal and/or horticulture production, operation of farm equipment, aromatic plant-related production, etc. Conclusion 3.2: The Internship Program contributed to the ATS students’ improved understanding of the workplace. However, the impact of the Internship Program and/or the Entrepreneurship Program on student employability is unclear given the absence of tracer studies of 2014-2016 graduates. Note: A tracer study or graduate survey is a survey (written or oral) of graduates from education institutions that takes place sometime after graduation or the end of the training. Finding 3.2.1: According to the Premium project’s administrative records: • Eleven companies provided internship opportunities to 522 students from 10 agricultural schools during the implementation period (September 2014–September 2016) • Daltex signed an internship agreement with the Ministry of Education and the National Service Project Organization seeking to employ 500 ATS graduates • Students from the ATS Entrepreneurship Program were reported to have implemented 92 projects in March 2015 and 64 projects in March 2016 Finding 3.2.2: The ATS Internship Program was highly regarded by students from academic year 2017/2018 due to its practical nature and the financial compensation they received for services rendered. Recommendation 3.1: USAID should commission a needs assessment of agricultural and agribusiness labor market skills requirements that involves direct consultation with students, teachers, and school administration to aid in the formulation of future project design. Recommendation 3.2: USAID should consider conducting a tracer study of ATS graduates of academic years 2014–2016 from the 10 participating schools utilizing the ATS web-enabled database (designed and implemented during the Premium Project) in order to: (a) evaluate employment outcomes, including graduated student employment and retention rates and sector-specific financial compensation; (b) ensure alignment of ATS curriculum with labor-market skill requirements; and (c) enable analyses of gender-differentiated outcomes. Note: A tracer study or graduate survey is a survey of graduates from education institutions that takes place sometime after graduation or the end of the training. Evaluation Question 4: To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of the ATS students and farmers under Blue Moon and of farmers under AMAL? xii | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Conclusion 4.1: Select training courses increased students’ technical and life skills, while the Internship Program and the Entrepreneurship Program contributed to students’ improved understanding of the workplace. Finding 4.1.1: 100% of the ATS enrolled students and graduates consulted agreed that pesticide training was the most useful of the training subjects for building capacity because: (a) it was practical, not just theoretical, (b) they learned how to properly handle pesticide equipment and apply pesticides safely, and (c) subsequent to being trained, they were temporarily employed on farms for 50 EGP per day as pesticide application workers. Enrolled students also spoke favorably of business ethics training, a coaching/mentoring-type training, that taught them how to better communicate with others and changed their behavior by changing their attitude and outlook on life. Student testimonials included such statements as “be more positive in everything” and “with will, you can do anything.” Conclusion 4.2: Training provided under Premium was directed toward fulfilling the requirements of the GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade certification, as opposed to being geared toward technical agricultural assistance. Finding 4.2.1: Of the 532 multi-choice responses provided by surveyed Premium smallholder farmers (n=212), 76.9% cited “farm and agricultural training” and 63.7% cited “marketing training” as the activities that helped transition the grower from traditional to non-traditional crops. Finding 4.2.2: According to Premium administrative records, training on Fairtrade standards was provided to 55.2% of participating association’s general assembly members (n=5235), while 35.8% received training on GLOBALG.A.P. Finding 4.2.3: The project covered the compliance/certification cost of participating small producer organizations (SPO) throughout the term of the project with a cost share of 25% from the SPOs. Two SPOs in Beheira are continuing payment for GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade. Three of the six farmer group discussions indicated that they lack the financial means to renew the GLOBALG.A.P. certificates. Conclusion 4.3: Training and technical assistance was considered highly effective by both AMAL and Premium farmers. Finding 4.3.1: As reported in six of six male farmer GDs, respondents considered the technical assistance highly effective in improving production practices, decreasing costs, and subsequently increasing agricultural household incomes. In four of six GDs, farmers expressed a stronger preference for field technical support as compared to classroom instruction (i.e., applied versus theoretical support). Conclusion 4.4: There is little potential for sustaining the project’s capacity-building component for the farmers beyond the life of the project due to the limited financial and technical resources available to participating associations. Finding 4.4.1: Only one of nine community development associations interviewed reported having the operational capacity to provide technical assistance to its member farmers. (Three agricultural engineers serve on the board of governors). Recommendation 4.1: USAID should ensure that the capacity building strategy for farmers includes a capacity needs assessment and training/technical assistance tailored to the educational attainment, landholding sizes, and agricultural/marketing conditions of the targeted population. xiii | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Recommendation 4.2: In future project designs, USAID and implementing partners should ensure that participating SPOs have the institutional and financial capacity to provide ongoing technical support to members by the end of the project. Evaluation Question 5: To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability institutionalized or adopted by the activities’ Packhouses and Center of Excellence? Conclusion 5.1: Appropriate systems or processes for establishing logistical services to support smallholders linked to value chains for the export of high value horticultural products while sustaining HEIA packhouse and Center of Excellence operations on a commercial basis have not yet been adopted. Finding 5.1.1: No evidence was provided to the evaluation team demonstrating that an action plan for operating the Luxor packhouse and Center of Excellence on a commercially viable basis has been developed or is in early stages of implementation. Recommendation 5.1: Prior to the termination of the project in September 2018, ACDI/VOCA should assist HEIA to operationalize the technical guidance provided in the study titled “Business and Operational Plan for HEIA Luxor Packhouse” in order to adopt a commercially viable business model for sustaining packhouse operations. Conclusion 5.2: The Premium Project affiliated packhouses have the needed systems and processes in place to provide for commercially viable operations. Finding 5.2.1: The Esna packhouse is jointly owned by three community development associations and is operating at near capacity for 10 months of the year providing sorting, grading, packaging, cooling, and storage services of high-value horticultural crops for member smallholder growers. Finding 5.2.2: The Nobareya packhouse, managed by an agricultural cooperative, is a rented facility that operates on a part-time basis according to demand as determined by seasonal agricultural production. Recommendation 5.2: Prior to the termination of the project in September 2018, ACDI/VOCA should develop an action plan for the Center of Excellence to provide ongoing training and technical support to neighboring SPOs. Recommendation 5.3: In future project design, USAID should consider building on the success of the Esna and the Nobareya packhouse models in underserved governorates (e.g., Aswan, Qena, and Sohag). Evaluation Question 6: How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Conclusion 6.1: Targeted female participation in the AMAL and Premium projects had mixed results. Finding 6.1.1: Premium partially achieved its targeted 25% participation rate of female beneficiaries. As per Premium’s administrative records, out of 13 participating SPOs, 13.3% of 5,186 total project beneficiaries (n=691) were reported as females, 263 of which were reportedly registered with GLOBALG.A.P. Finding 6.1.2: As a result of evaluation team site visits and the findings of the 2015–2017 Smallholder Farmer Household Survey, the actual number of female “growers/producers” xiv | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV for both the AMAL and Premium projects is extremely small relative to the number of total female “beneficiaries” reported. Recommendation 6.1: Future USAID project designs should consider programming additional agribusinesses activities that respond directly to female farmer requests/needs for training, technical assistance, and marketing of small animal husbandry production and agriculture-related small enterprises. 1 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2018, USAID/Egypt issued a task order to QED under the Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluating (SIMPLE) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract AID-263-I-15-00001 requesting that SIMPLE conduct an end-of-term performance evaluation of the Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project and the Premium Project for Small Growers (Premium) under Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) of the Office of Economic Growth. Table I. Summary Information Activity/Project Name Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Global Development Alliance (GDA) Implementer ACDI-VOCA Cooperative Agreement GDA with the Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA), AID-263-A-15-00014 Total Estimated Cost $5,500,000 Life of Project/Activity February 4, 2015–September 30, 2018 Active Geographic Regions Sohag, Qena, Luxor, and Aswan Development Objective Private Sector-Led Growth Accelerated USAID Office Office of Economic Growth Government of Egypt Counterpart Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Activity/Project Name Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers Implementer Blue Moon Ltd. Cooperative Agreement AID-263-A-11-00008 Total Estimated Cost $7,344,215 Life of Project/Activity August 3, 2011–February 28, 2018 Active Geographic Regions Beheira, Luxor, Qena, Aswan, Matruah Development Objective Private-Sector-Led Growth Accelerated USAID Office Office of Economic Growth Government of Egypt Counterpart Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation This evaluation report answers USAID’s evaluation questions specified in the November 5, 2017 Statement of Work. Refer to Annex I for the Statement of Work. Background Information According to CAPMAS, agriculture is the largest employer of all economic sectors in Egypt, providing more than 24% of all employment and 40% of female employment in 2015. In short, farming is the most important source of income and jobs for the rural poor. Political and social upheaval in 2011 and 2013 created severe instability that affected the agriculture and agribusiness sectors. Egyptian farmers continue to face an array of challenges, including poor access to inputs; insufficient water management systems; inadequate extension services; lack of skilled labor; an inefficient system of food safety standards; and the absence of quality market access, both international and domestic. Agricultural workers are struggling to overcome these challenges on their own. Raising smallholder farmers’ productivity and incomes is critical if agriculture is to reach its full potential. The vast majority of Egyptian smallholder farmers follow traditional cropping patterns that 2 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV have been in use for decades and remain focused on local food crop production. In recent years, substantial USAID/Egypt resources have been allocated to increasing the volume of high-value horticultural crop production for both the domestic and export markets. The demand for seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables is growing in both the local and export markets. According to the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), international trade in high￾value horticultural products is also increasing at an average of 6.6% per annum to replace traditional agricultural export commodities. Consumers have also become more demanding about the quality and safety of their fresh produce. Despite enjoying a high comparative advantage, Upper Egypt has been slow to exploit these demands. Poor agricultural practices, fragmented supply chains, inefficient transport, and unfavorable production financing have all been factors hindering the region’s shift to growing high-value cash crops. The goals of the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) project, under which both activities are authorized, were to contribute to the USAID mission’s development objective to accelerate private sector-led growth. The ARDII project, including both Premium and AMAL, aimed to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through sustainably intensifying agricultural productivity, increasing the efficiency of post-harvest processes, and improving both the domestic and international marketing of these goods. The ARDII project focuses on bringing targeted beneficiaries into environmentally appropriate, high￾value commercial horticulture value chains. At the same time, work addresses complementary, cross￾cutting sector support, such as extension services, irrigation infrastructure (delivery) and efficiency, and the development of infrastructure and research that improve the sector (generally) and value chains (specifically). By the end of the project, smallholder beneficiaries should register significantly higher sustained incomes in comparison to the baseline data from farmers who continue to grow traditional crops that are not only less profitable, but also often exploit natural resources. Project Description Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) The AMAL cooperative agreement aims to increase the incomes of 4,300 rural households in Upper Egypt (Aswan, Luxor, Qena, and Sohag), including smallholder farmers, landless laborers, women, unemployed youth, and small and medium entrepreneurs, through the development of sustainable horticulture value chains. In cooperation with the Horticultural Export Improvement Association (HEIA), the project was designed to sustainably intensify farmers’ agricultural productivity, increase the efficiency of post-harvest processes, and improve the marketing of these goods. The problems of long, poorly maintained transportation routes and insufficient cold chain infrastructure were also addressed in the AMAL Global Development Alliance (GDA). Recognizing the aforementioned challenges, USAID partnered with HEIA to help small farmers increase their earnings through the provision of equipment necessary to the operation of the packhouse built by HEIA. In addition, experts have identified a chronic lack of adequate and appropriate information about domestic and international markets as a factor that prevents farmers from making prudent decisions on what crops to plant and when and where to market them. HEIA’s regional training center became an essential component of AMAL’s activities directed at teaching farmers the business of agriculture and helping them identify market opportunities that could increase their revenue. Refer to Annex X for a list of main activities, objectives, and timebound results to date. 3 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers On August 3, 2011, USAID signed a unilateral cooperative agreement under the Egyptian Economic Support Annual Program Statement to fund the “Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers” implemented by Blue Moon Ltd. ($2,444,215.00; end date August 1, 2014). The Premium award was designed to address the challenges smallholder farmers have been facing in Upper Egypt. In May 2014, the program description of the activity was revised to reflect a change in the geographic area covered by the project from Menia to Luxor. USAID determined that the project was very successful and, on August 1, 2014, it was given an exception to competition and extended for two years until August 1, 2016, followed by an additional two-month, no-cost extension to September 30, 2016. At that time, it fell under the Agriculture Exports and Rural Incomes (AERI) bilateral agreement with the government of Egypt (GOE). In September 2016, the award shifted under the scope of the ARDII program and was extended to February 28, 2018. In addition to its original scope—supporting the certification of small growers to reach international quality standards and linking them with growing markets—the award was expanded to include career development centers and capacity building for academic years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 for 10 agricultural technical schools (ATS): three in Aswan, three in Beheira, one in Luxor, and three in Qena. It is worth noting that the outputs of the Premium Project are accompanied by cultural change in the following areas: 1) Empowering small growers as well as small producer organizations (SPOs) in Beheira and Luxor to improve their income and reach beyond borders through direct market links. 2) Enabling students of 10 ATS in Aswan, Beheira, Luxor, and Qena to create their own business models through a carefully designed and supervised entrepreneurship program that has enabled them to generate sustainable income. 3) Enabling multiple stakeholders such as governmental extension officers and retailers of crop protection products in the villages, as well as teachers and students/graduates of agriculture technical schools, to understand and comply with good practice as outlined in international standards such as the good agricultural practices (GAP) certification. The product scope of the Premium Project is limited to fruits and vegetables. Blue Moon Ltd. submitted bumper and import sensitivity analysis studies for 13 products, all approved by USAID. They included apricots, artichokes, capsicum, clementines and mandarins, lemons, melons, onions, oranges, peaches, peas, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and watermelons. USAID issued previous approvals for green beans, grapes, olives, potatoes, strawberries, and tomatoes. Refer to Annex X for a list of main activities, objectives, and timebound results to date. Audience and Intended Uses The results of the performance evaluation will be shared with different stakeholders, including the Ministry of Agriculture, USAID/Egypt mission, implementing partners, and the Ministry of Investment and International Cooperation. The final report and executive summary will be posted on the DEC for public access and use. Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions The end-of-term performance evaluation was designed to learn to what extent AMAL’s and Premium’s results have been achieved as described in their respective results frameworks, and to inform the design of future USAID-funded agricultural activities. 4 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 1. In what ways were ACDI/VOCA and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? 2. In what ways were the relationships between USAID, HEIA, and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? 3. To what extent were the ATS activities supported successful in improving students’ employability under Blue Moon? 4. To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of the ATS students and farmers under Blue Moon and of farmers under AMAL? 5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the activities’ Packhouses and Center of Excellence? 6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations Overview The end-of-term evaluation utilized a mixed methods methodology that relied on a combination of key informant interviews (KIIs), group discussions (GDs), and survey of a randomly selected representative sample of smallholder farmer beneficiary households. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data/information enabled the evaluation team to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, thereby strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of observed findings. Timeline Key informant interviews and group discussions with AMAL and Premium stakeholders were originally scheduled for February 15–26, 2018. However, the evaluation team was placed on a hold (February 7 to April 22, 2018) by the contractor’s senior evaluation specialist, thereby obliging the team to suspend fieldwork until security clearances were issued and national elections (March 26–28, 2018) were concluded. This circumstance resulted in the fieldwork being extended to May 14, 2018. Upon receipt of appropriate security clearances from the Ministry of Education and Technical Education, select members of the evaluation team conducted key informant interviews and group discussions with four randomly selected schools from the pool of 10 participating ATS from March 25–March 29 and on April 18, 2018. Refer to Annex V for a detailed account of the evaluation team’s site visit schedule. Project Debriefing Materials The USAID requesting technical office (Office of Economic Growth) and the implementing partners ACDI/VOCA (AMAL) and Blue Moon, Ltd. (Premium) provided electronic copies of their respective cooperative agreements, annual reports, quarterly reports, monitoring and evaluation plans, indicator tracking tables, training reports, gender assessments and strategies, cost benefit analyses, baseline data (as available) and SPO farmer registries. The SIMPLE evaluation team reviewed these documents to construct an overview of the projects’ respective implementation designs, performance over time, and targeted stakeholders to assist in the design of evaluation tools in response to the evaluation questions stated in the USAID scope of work. Refer to Annex I for a statement of work and Annex VI for a bibliography of materials consulted. Qualitative Data Sources and Content Analysis 5 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV A total of 272 individuals were consulted through the use of 17 English and Arabic key informant interview (KII) and group discussion (GD) protocols involving: 12 KIIs with USAID, ACDI/VOCA, Blue Moon, and HEIA project management personnel 7 KIIs with exporters 1 KII and 1 group discussion with HEIA staff 9 group discussions with AMAL farmers 3 group discussions with AMAL smallholder farmer producer organization personnel 3 group discussions with AMAL farmer trainers 6 group discussions with Premium farmers 3 group discussions with Premium smallholder farmer producer organization personnel 1 KII with Premium packhouse management 2 group discussions with Premium packhouse staff 4 group discussions with ATS students 2 group discussions with ATS graduates 6 group discussions with ATS teachers 2 group discussions with ATS Career Development Center staff 4 KIIs with ATS Career Development Center managers 4 KIIs with ATS school principals The evaluation team systematically met after site visits to digitize hand-written meeting notes gathered from the 272 individuals consulted, consolidate findings, and confer about lessons learned while ensuring that the quality of the qualitative data met USAID standards. After completing the fieldwork, the evaluation team conducted a data analysis workshop to analyze and code qualitative data according to recurrent themes, an exercise referred to as content analysis. As part of this analysis, recurring themes are organized and tabulated using Microsoft Excel to quantify the number and percentages of instances respondents answered in a similar manner, in what is referred to as a tally sheet. Content analysis of key stakeholder individual interviews and group discussions provide insight into the interpretation of quantitative data by contextualizing reported survey findings. Quantitative Data Sources A total of 417 AMAL farmers and 480 Premium farmers were targeted for the survey. Of those, a total of 484 farmers provided information via the application of the Smallholder Farmer Household Survey of the 2015 and 2017 agricultural production cycles. However, 127 survey respondents were subsequently removed from the analysis due to missing values or unreliable data. The tables below provide a breakdown of reported active growers/producers, targeted sample sizes, actual completed surveys, and margins of error disaggregated by project and governorate. It is important to note that the targeted sample sizes are determined by calculations based on a 95% confidence interval, with a 5% margin of error. Table 2. Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics Project Date Governorate IP Reported Growers Targeted Sample* Actual* Margin of Error May 9 2018 Qena 104 83 14 24.48% May 9–10 2018 Luxor 199 132 36 14.82% May 12 2018 Sohag 421 202 95 15.64% 6 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Total 724 417 145 7.28% Table 3. Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers Date Governorate IP Reported Growers Targeted Sample* Actual* Margin of Error March 5–13 2018 Luxor 1,105 286 71 11.26% May 6 2018 Beheira 259 155 125 6.32% May 10 2018 Aswan 43 39 16 19.64% Total 1,407 480 212 6.20% Notes: The margin of error is the amount of error that a researcher is willing to tolerate. The margin of error refers to the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, in the case of the AMAL smallholder farmer, the 7.28% “actual” margin of error at the project level (as opposed to governorate level) indicates that if 81.7% of AMAL’s randomly selected/surveyed farmers (n=145) that reported “using pesticides safely, effectively, and in compliance with international standards” as one of three principal causes of increased farm productivity and/or decreased production costs, the researcher can be “reasonably certain” that if he or she were to have asked the question of the entire population, between 74.42% (81.7-7.28) and 88.98% (81.7+7.28) would respond in the same manner. The confidence level is the amount of uncertainty a researcher is willing to tolerate. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the population would be likely to select a particular answer. Confidence interval calculations necessarily assume that the researcher picked a genuine random sample of the population. Non-random samples usually result from some flaw in the sampling procedure, such as only conducting a household telephone survey during the day when only non￾working people tend to be at home. The wider the confidence interval, the more certain the researcher can be that the whole population’s response would be within that range. Smallholder Farmer Household Survey The Smallholder Farmer Household Survey was one of two main sources of quantitative data for estimating annual smallholder farmer household income for AMAL and Premium beneficiary growers in response to Evaluation Question 1: “In what ways were ACDI/VOCA and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? The second source of information was the AMAL baseline survey data conducted in 2015 by ACDI/VOCA. The SIMPLE evaluation survey team collected the 2017 end line data for AMAL beneficiary farmers and the 2015 baseline (based on beneficiary farmer recall) and 2017 end line data for Premium beneficiary farmers. The survey instrument, developed by the evaluation team, was based on the 2015 AMAL baseline survey instrument in order to ensure comparability between the baseline and end line datasets. It was divided into eight basic subject areas: (1) enumerator basic information, (2) farmer basic information, (3) landholding size data (expressed in feddans), (4) crop production and cost of production-related data for the 2015 and 2017 agricultural cycles, (5) local and/or international market-related information, and farmer perceptions related to (6) effectiveness of project activities, (7) adoption of modern technologies and practices, and (8) training/technical assistance. The survey instrument was reviewed and approved by the CAPMAS for data collection. A total of 45 enumerators, seven field supervisors, one survey controller, and one survey team leader were recruited and trained. Enumerators were recruited from the intervention governorates to contain costs and to increase the probability of 7 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV collecting higher-quality data, given that the enumerators were members of the local community and therefore more likely to put respondents at ease. Refer to Annex IV for a copy of the questionnaire (English and Arabic). The evaluation smallholder farmer survey team entered into individual agreements with participating AMAL and Premium cooperatives and/or community development associations for conducting farmer household surveys. Some farmers were interviewed at pre-announced alternative central meeting locations, so as to facilitate farmer response rates to achieve the targeted sample sizes. Possible selection bias was attenuated as the randomized selection of farmers was preserved by requiring farmers to present their national identification documents to confirm their identities prior to being interviewed/surveyed. Nevertheless, although not necessarily subject to selection bias, survey results are subject to possible recall bias, as reported findings are dependent on individual farmer’s recollection of 2015 and 2017 production costs and sales data and the farmer’s willingness to truthfully inform the enumerator. The extent of overstated or understated results is impossible to know without verifying with farmer and/or small producer association paper-based records. It is important to note that when calculating agricultural household income from the 2015 and 2017 datasets, EGP and USD values are expressed as devaluation and inflation-adjusted measures. Smallholder farmer agricultural household income is adjusted for a 55.7% devaluation of the Egyptian pound on November 3, 2016 and a 39.8% 2017 inflation rate, given that these financial pressures are reflected in 2017 agricultural production costs and crop prices. In order to compare the results of the 2015 baseline data (AMAL’s “actual” baseline and Premium’s “recall” baseline) with results of the 2017 end line smallholder farmer household survey for both the AMAL and Premium projects, 2017 reported production costs and sales data were converted into fixed prices by multiplying said sales and cost data by 0.6, the equivalent to the average 2017 inflation rate. To convert 2015 reported production cost and sales data from EGP to USD, production costs and sales data were divided by the average 2015 exchange rate of 7.8 EGP to 1 USD. In order to convert 2017 reported production cost and sales data from EGP to USD, production costs and sales data were divided by the average 2017 exchange rate of 17.6 EGP to 1 USD. The resulting value was thereafter multiplied by 0.6, the equivalent of the average 2017 inflation rate. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for generating frequency distributions, cross-tabulations, and descriptive analyses of primary smallholder farmer household survey data. Data Analysis Methods This use of mixed methods enables triangulation using several means (e.g., methods, data sources, evaluators) to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, thus strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of the observed findings. Primary and secondary quantitative data and qualitative findings were integrated to cross-validate results, draw conclusions, and develop short-term and longer-term recommendations for future project design and implementation that are actionable, practical, specific, and with a defined responsible party. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative results, the evaluation team gained a deeper understanding and corroboration of the subjects under study, offsetting weaknesses inherent in using either approach alone. Sampling 8 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV In response to SIMPLE’s original request for the number of project-affiliated beneficiary farmers, AMAL reported 5,199 “producers” as beneficiaries (3,153 males and 2,046 females) and Premium reported 5,186 “growers” within its beneficiary small-producer organizations, of which 1,823 were reported as GLOBALG.A.P. certified (1,561 males and 263 females). See Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Table 4. Samples of AMAL Smallholder Farmers by Governorate and Gender Governorate Growers Disaggregated by Gender Sample Size of Growers to be Surveyed Disaggregated by Gender Males Females Total Males Females Total Aswan 272 78 350 160 65 225 Luxor 1,153 925 2,078 289 272 561 Qena 808 520 1,328 261 222 483 Sohag 921 523 1,444 272 222 494 Totals 3,154 2,046 5,200 982 781 1,763 Notes: 10% oversampling to adjust for farmer absence from farm plot, refusals, incomplete data or other data challenges to ensure achievement of minimal sample sizes is not included in calculations. Sample sizes are determined based on a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error. Table 5. Premium Growers in the Small Producer Organization and Registered with GLOBALG.A.P by Governorate and Gender Governorate Growers in the Cooperative Growers Registered with GLOBALG.A.P. Total Males Females Total Males Females Luxor 1,054 955 99 314 302 12 Aswan 249 221 28 33 30 3 Beheira 3,883 3,319 564 1,476 1,228 248 Total 5,186 4,495 691 1,823 1,560 263 In the first round of sampling, a statistically representative stratified sample applying a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error was drawn from AMAL’s 5,199 reported producers and Premium’s 1,823 reported GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers. For AMAL, samples were stratified by governorate and gender only, as gender disaggregation by community development association was not provided. For Premium, samples were stratified by governorate, by cooperative within a given governorate, and by gender within a given cooperative. The first round of sampling resulted in a statistically representative sample of 3,027 observations, equivalent to 1,763 for AMAL (982 males and 781 females) and 1,264 for Premium (1,047 males and 217 females). See Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Table 6. Sample Sizes of Smallholder Farmer Beneficiary Households by Project and Gender 9 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Note: 10% oversampling to adjust for farmer absence from farm plot, refusals, incomplete data, or other data challenges to ensure achievement of minimal sample sizes is not included in calculations. Sample sizes are determined based on a 95% confidence interval with 5% margin of error. Table 7. Population and Sample Size of Premium Project Farmer Households Registered with GLOBALG.A.P. by Governorate and Gender Governorate Male Female Grand Total Registered GlobalG.A.P. Grower Not Registered GlobalG.A.P. Grower Sub￾total Registered GlobalG.A.P. Grower Not Registered GlobalG.A.P. Grower Sub￾total Aswan 73 99 172 5 22 27 199 Luxor 209 237 446 9 61 70 516 Beheira 313 317 630 159 154 313 943 Total 595 653 1,248 173 237 410 1,658 However, on further consideration, the evaluation team decided to compare household incomes of Premium GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers to those of Premium non-GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers. Consequently, Premium provided the number of GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers and non￾GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers disaggregated by intervention governorate and gender. Accordingly, the evaluation team revised its statistically representative sample estimates, again applying a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error, to the revised beneficiary population numbers, resulting in a representative sample of 768 GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers (595 males and 173 females) and 890 non-GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers (653 males and 237 females). See Table 8. Table 8. Population of Premium GlobalG.A.P. Certified Growers and Non-GlobalG.A.P. Certified Growers Disaggregated by Governorate and Gender Governorate Population of Growers Registered with GLOBALG.A.P. Disaggregated by Gender Sample Size of GLOBALG.A.P. Growers to be Surveyed Disaggregated by Gender Males Females Total Males Females Total Luxor 302 12 314 269 12 281 Aswan 30 3 33 29 3 32 Beheira 1,228 248 1,476 749 202 951 Total 1,561 263 1,823 1,047 217 1,264 Following successive rounds of requests from AMAL and Premium of direct beneficiary growers, final numbers were ultimately reduced to 724 for AMAL and 1,449 for Premium. Resulting sample sizes, continuing to apply the 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error selection criteria, for targeted smallholder farmer households were established at 417 for AMAL and 480 for Premium. It is important to highlight that, given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, results can only be generalized at the project level as opposed to the cooperative, gender, and/or GAP versus non-GAP certified growers levels of analysis. Project Sample Size Disaggregated by Project and Gender Total Sample Males Females Premium Project for Small Growers 1,047 217 1,264 AMAL 982 781 1,763 Total 2,029 998 3,027 10 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV As per the statement of work, the minimum sample size for AMAL should not be less than 10% of beneficiaries and the minimum sample size for Premium GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers should not be less than 7% of beneficiaries. AMAL growers were reported by ACDI/VOCA as 724. Premium GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers were reported by Blue Moon, Ltd. as 1,449. A total of 228 (31.5%) AMAL growers of a reported population of 724 were surveyed. A total of 256 (17.7%) Premium growers of a reported population of 1,407 were surveyed. However, survey respondents with missing values or unreliable reported data were removed from the analysis, thereby reducing the samples to 145 beneficiary farmers for AMAL and 212 beneficiary farmers for Premium. Accordingly, the scope of work minimum sample size requirements have been exceeded for both AMAL (20.0% compared to the minimum requirement of 10%) and Premium (15.1% compared to the minimum requirement of 7%). As survey results are the product of a randomized purposive sample, evaluators are able to use statistical inferential analyses for generalizing findings across the overall population given representative sample sizes. Limitations The Premium Project did not conduct a baseline study prior to its 2011 intervention. Given the absence of Premium baseline data, the evaluation team constructed a survey instrument that sought to capture pre-intervention data through the farmers’ recollections of 2015 production costs, crop yields, and sale prices. Survey results are subject to possible recall bias, as reported findings are dependent on individual farmer’s recollections of 2015 and 2017 production costs and sales data as well as the farmers’ willingness to truthfully inform the enumerator. The extent to which results are overstated or understated is impossible to know without verification against farmer and/or SPO paper-based records. Had the sampling methodology been implemented as proposed, survey results would have permitted a detailed analysis by: (a) governorate, (b) small producer organization, (c) gender for both projects, and (d) GAP certified versus non-GAP certified levels for the Premium project. However, the implementing partners reduced the number of active growers over three successive rounds of data requests owing to an overstatement of active beneficiary farmers. Consequently, despite the random selection of qualified farmer households, reduced sample-size constraints limit the statistical significance and associated generalization of findings to the project level. For the three AMAL intervention governorates, only Luxor has complete survey data across all five feddan landholding sizes (less than 1 feddan, 1-3 feddans, 3-5 feddans, 5-10 feddans, and 10+ feddans) for the 2015 baseline and 2017 end line agricultural cycles. (Note: A feddan is an Egyptian unit of land area equal to 4200 square meters, equivalent to 1.038 acres and/or 0.42 hectares.) For the three Premium intervention governorates, only Beheira has complete data across the 5-10 feddan and 10+ feddan land holdings for the 2015 and 2017 agricultural cycles. Site visits to the randomly selected Premium Project agricultural technical schools (4 of 10) were conducted 20 months after the intervention end date (September 2016) resulting in a significantly reduced number of available direct beneficiary students and graduates for evaluating improved employment outcomes. From an experimental research perspective, sound generalizability requires data on large populations. The larger the sample population, the more one can generalize the results. The reduced sample size of smallholder farmer households at the SPO or governorate level means that the evaluation team is restricted to generalizability at the project level. Although this enables the researcher to make more 11 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV generalizable observations on the respondent population at the project level, it limits the researcher’s ability to analyze results at smaller units of analysis, such as (a) production per feddan of GLOBALG.A.P. versus non-GLOBALG.A.P. producers (b) comparative analysis of profitability among smallholder producer organizations or (c) comparative analysis of profitability across governorates. The same applies to ATS beneficiary students and graduates: in other words, the margin of confidence by which results can be generalized across the entire population is reduced relative to smaller sample sizes. SUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF 2017 SAMPLE Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project Age of beneficiary farmers: Of the 145 AMAL smallholder farmers surveyed, 51% are between the ages of 20 and 49, 29% of the sampled farmers are between the ages of 50 and 59, and 20% are age 60 or older. Educational attainment of beneficiary farmers: Of the 145 AMAL smallholder farmers surveyed, approximately 28% are unschooled (unable to read or write), 14% had some form of formal and/or informal education, 30% have reported educational attainment as secondary and/or technical school, and 28% report university and postgraduate education. Land holdings: Of the 145 AMAL smallholder farmers surveyed in 2017, 78% reported land holdings of 1-3 feddans, 9% report 3-5 feddans, 10% report 5-10 feddans, and 3% report 10+ feddans. Note: A feddan is an Egyptian unit of area equal to 1.038 acres (0.42 hectares), subdivided into 24 kirats (1 kirat equals 175 square meters). Crops by governorate: In 2017, of the 473 AMAL smallholder farmer plots (horticultural and traditional) surveyed across the Luxor, Qena, and Sohag intervention governorates, 26% of farm plots were cultivated in eight of the USAID approved high-value horticultural crops: green beans (20.9%), onions (1.7%), tomatoes (1.1%), peas (0.8%), grapes (0.6%), lemons (0.4%), melons (0.2%), and capsicum (0.2%). Of the farm plots, 13.5% were cultivated in “other” horticultural crops: beans, spinach, sesame, date palm, eggplant, mango, okra, cucumber, peanuts, cabbage, and bananas. Findings also show that 60.5% of farm plots were cultivated in five traditional crops: 20.1% wheat, 12.7% clover, 3.4% sugarcane, 24.1% corn/maze, and 0.2% barley. Of the 145 AMAL smallholder farmers surveyed in 2017, 19 high-value horticultural crops (equivalent to 106.9 feddans) and five traditional crops (equivalent to 74.6 feddans) were cultivated in Luxor; nine high-value horticultural crops (equivalent to 10.3 feddans) and four traditional crops (equivalent to 14.5 feddans) were grown in Qena; and 10 high-value horticultural crops (equivalent to 119.3 feddans) and four traditional crops (equivalent to 216.3 feddans) were grown in Sohag. In 2017, of a total of 541.91 feddans cultivated by surveyed AMAL growers, 27.3% of cultivated land across the three AMAL intervention governorates, was cultivated in 8 USAID approved high-value horticultural crops, including, green beans (20.68%), tomato (2.8%), peas (1.1%), onions (0.6%), grapes (0.6%), melons (0.6%), lemons (0.7%), and capsicum (0.2%). The balance of cultivated landholdings (equivalent to 72.7%) for AMAL farmers was in “other” crops. In 2017, 43.7% of cultivated land (n=541.9 feddans) was in “all” horticultural crops (USAID approved and “other”) and 56.3% was cultivated in traditional crops. 12 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV In 2017, of a total of 541.91 feddans cultivated by surveyed AMAL growers, 56.34% of cultivated land, was in traditional crops, i.e., 1) 18.29% in wheat, 2) 7.73% in sugarcane, 3) 22.27% in corn/maize, 4) 7.78% clover, and 5) 0.28% in barley. Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers Age of beneficiary farmers: Of the 212 Premium smallholder farmers surveyed, 26.4% are between the ages of 20 and 49, 62.3% are between 50 and 59 years of age, and 11.3% are age 60 or older. Educational attainment of beneficiary farmers: Of the 212 Premium smallholder farmers surveyed, 16% are unschooled (unable to read or write), 8.1% report having some form of formal and/or informal education, 60.8% report having completed some or all technical or secondary school education, and 15.1% report having a university or postgraduate education. Land holdings: Of the 212 Premium smallholder farmers surveyed in 2017, 11.8% report land holdings from 1-3 feddans, 6.1% report from 3-5 feddans, 73.6% report from 5-10 feddans, and 8.5% report 10+ feddans (managed in addition to owned).3 Crops by governorate: Of the 532 Premium smallholder farmers surveyed, 69.9% reported production in the following USAID approved high-value horticultural crops: mandarins (14.8%), lemons (7.5%), oranges (15.6%), onions (7.2%), grapes (6.1%), and tomatoes (12.5%); and 6.2% cultivate “other” horticultural crops, including eggplant, mango, okra, cucumber, peanuts, hibiscus, cabbage, and banana. Of the 532 Premium smallholder farmers surveyed, 32.5% of farmers from the combined Beheira, Luxor, and Aswan governorates reported cultivating the following traditional crops: wheat (27.2%), clover (27.8%), sugar cane (24.3%), and corn (20.7 %). In 2017, of the 1043.6 feddans cultivated by the 212 Premium smallholder farmers surveyed, high-value horticultural crops across the three intervention governorates constituted 208.2 feddans in mandarin (20.0%), 188.7 feddans in tomatoes (18.1%), 174.5 feddans in oranges (16.7%), and 99 feddans in grapes (9.5%). In 2017, 53.46% of Premium smallholder farmer cultivated land (n=1511.9 feddans) was cultivated in USAID-approved, high-value horticultural crops across the three intervention governorates: mandarins (13.8%), tomatoes (12.5%), oranges (11.5%), grapes (6.6%), lemons (5.0%), and artichokes (4.1%). The number of feddans cultivated in “all” horticultural crops (“USAID-approved” and “other horticultural”) increased from 53.5% to 69.0% of cultivated land, whereas 31.0% is cultivated in traditional crops. In 2017, 30.97% of cultivated land (n=1511.9) of Premium smallholder farmers was cultivated in traditional crops: wheat (9.4%), sugarcane (8.8%), clover (6.6%), and corn/maze (6.2%). 3 As per survey design, total land holdings (expressed in feddans) is the sum of land rented, land owned, land held in partnership, and leased land. Accordingly, reported landholdings can exceed 10 feddans despite smallholder farmers being defined as “owning” less than 10 feddans. 13 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Evaluation Question 1: In what ways were ACDI/VOCA and Premium’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? Conclusion 1.1: The AMAL and Premium project implementation approach of applying modern agricultural practices and facilitating contracted marketing linkages between agricultural cooperatives and community development associations with local and international markets successfully increased net agricultural income among smallholder beneficiary farmers. Finding 1.1.1: Survey results in the AMAL Project reflect an average 21.5% annual increase in agricultural income across the five landholding sizes in the Luxor governorate. The annual net income per farmer increased from US$3,863.50 in 2015 to US$5,517.0 in 2017 with an average annual increase of US$826.70. Finding 1.1.2: Survey results in the Premium project reflect an average 10.7% annual increase in agricultural across the 5–10 and 10+ feddan (managed in addition to owned)4 landholding sizes in the Beheira governorate. The annual net income per farmer increased from US$5,334.10 in 2015 to US$6,478.60 in 2017 with an annual average increase of US$572.20. 4 As per survey design, total land holdings (expressed in feddans) is the sum of a) land rented, b) land owned, c) land held in partnership, and d) leased land. Accordingly, reported landholdings can exceed 10 feddans despite smallholder farmers being defined as “owning” less than 10 feddans. 177% 188% 83% 36% 5% 4% -14% 55% -29% -22% -63% -4% -21% -11% -200% 0% 200% 400% Green Beans Mango Okra Tomato Onion Corn Wheat Figure 1. AMAL Change in Income and Production Costs 2015–2017 Percentage Change in Income Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 14 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 1.1.3: In the context of modern farming technologies and practices, AMAL and Premium farmers reported that increased farm productivity and decreased costs could be attributed to three principal causes: 1) 81.4% of AMAL’s surveyed farmers (n=145) and 56.6% of Premium’s farmers (n=212) cited “using pesticides, effectively and safely and in compliance with international standards.” 2) 80.7% (AMAL) and 59.9% (Premium) cited “using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner.” 3) 77.2% (AMAL) and 52.4% (Premium) reported “using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings.” (See Table A-25 in Annex II for a comprehensive list of activities reported by surveyed farmers as “helpful in shifting from traditional cultivation patterns to non-traditional methods disaggregated by governorate” and Table A-26 for a comprehensive list of modern farming practices reported by surveyed farmers as “helping to increase productivity and/or decrease production costs” disaggregated by governorate.) Conclusion 1.2: Both the AMAL and Premium projects successfully facilitated contracted marketing linkages between agricultural cooperatives and community development associations with local and international markets. However, farmers’ access to market intelligence as provided by small producer organizations was of limited effectiveness. Finding 1.2.1: According to ACDI/VOCA, AMAL facilitated 30 contracts between farmer associations and high-end markets. Finding 1.2.2: According to Blue Moon, Ltd., Premium established 45 supply contracts with numerous market channels to sell products from Egyptian small grower producers both domestically and internationally. 121% 218% 49% 142% -96% -52% -50% -64% -73% 230% -29% -58% -37% -7% -34% -35% -22% -35% -62% -44% --200% --100% -0% -100% -200% -300% Capsicum Lemon Green Beans Beans Mango Figure 2. Premium Percentage Change in Average Income and Average Production Costs in EGP between 2015 and 2017 Percentage Change in Income Per Feddan Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan 15 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 1.2.3: Of the 145 AMAL smallholder farmer survey respondents, the second most frequently cited problem faced in 2017 was “lack of information regarding prevailing prices of products in local markets” across its three intervention governorates (7.0% of 473 multi-choice responses). Finding 1.2.4: Of the 212 Premium smallholder farmer survey respondents, the second most frequently cited problem faced in 2017 was “lack of information regarding prevailing prices of products in local markets” across its three intervention governorates (20.9% of 532 multi￾choice responses). Finding 1.2.5: For international markets, AMAL most frequently cited challenge to export (14% of the 473 farmers sampled) cited “dealing with exporters and traders” as a challenge when transporting export crops. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 3. AMAL Top Challenges Identified by Farmers while Selling in Local Markets 16 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Conclusion 1.3: The Premium project successfully supported the GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade certification for its beneficiary farmers and participating SPOs. Finding 1.3.1: Premium worked with 15 farmer cooperatives and/or community development associations in the Aswan, Beheira, and Luxor governorates serving 5,235 members, of which 35.8% (n=1,873) received GLOBALG.A.P. Certification, while 55.2% (n=2,888) received Fairtrade Certification from 11 SPOs. Recommendation 1.1: Systematic market analyses need to be disseminated in a manner that ensures that farmers and farmer associations gain access to relevant market intelligence and thereby facilitate informed decision-making regarding best practices, crop promotion, and market destinations. Recommendation 1.2: Associations of small landholders should mobilize their members with adjacent non-member smallholder landholdings to collaborate in production and marketing to benefit from economies of scale. Recommendation 1.3: HEIA should consider developing and maintaining current and forecasted agricultural market information, based on a fee-for-service financed through small-producer organization subscription fees, that would enable member farmers to access free information access via a cell phone application for to the HEIA information portal. Recommendation 1.4: USAID future project designs should develop a training and technical assistance program that increases the capacity of smallholder farmers who are not required to maintain records under GLOBALG.A.P. or Fairtrade certification to properly document, in a simplified manner, production costs, crop yields, land cultivated, post-harvest loses, value of crops sold, etc., so as to enable participating smallholder farmers to identify areas in which they can further contain costs, reduce losses, and increase their household agricultural income in a self-directed manner. Evaluation Question 2: In what ways were the relationship between USAID, HEIA, and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Figure 4. AMAL- Top Challenges Identified by Farmers while Transporting Export Crops 17 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV The Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project is a Global Development Alliance (GDA) between USAID and the Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA) implemented by ACDI/VOCA. Succinctly stated, a GDA is a partnership involving USAID and the private sector designed to develop and implement activities that leverage and apply the collaborating parties’ respective assets and expertise to advance core business interests, achieve USAID’s development objectives, and increase the sustainable impact of USAID's development investments. Toward this end, AMAL’s activities, implemented in close coordination with HEIA, were designed to: (1) improve access to the use of market intelligence, (2) facilitate value chain linkages, (3) catalyze market-oriented production practices, and (4) organize and strengthen producer organizations. AMAL would thereby ensure sustainability of USAID project interventions in order to achieve its primary development objective of accelerated private sector-led growth. The GDA between USAID and HEIA, implemented by ACDI/VOCA, aimed to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt intervention areas through sustainably intensifying agricultural productivity, increasing the efficiency of post-harvest processes, and improving both the domestic and international marketing of these goods. Conclusion 2.1: The GDA relationship between USAID and HEIA implemented by ACDI/VOCA effectively supported AMAL’s capacity building component for small producers. However, the HEIA model (servicing large landholder farms and exporters) does not optimize linkages between HEIA member exporters and SPOs, which therefore does not maximize the impact of USAID's development investments. Finding 2.1.1: A core characteristic of a GDA is to foster and advance market-based or market-driven approaches to development. Although not part of the project’s original design and despite geographic proximity to smallholder farmers, current packhouse operations are not providing direct services (e.g., sorting, grading, pre-cooling, cooling, packaging, storage) to AMAL’s smallholder producers in Luxor. Finding 2.1.2: According to ACDI/VOCA training records, a total of 1,744 course offerings on 113 subjects were delivered through the Center of Excellence conference room facilities to male and female farmers, community development association staff, HEIA staff, packhouse laborers, graduate trainers, and HEIA trainers over the 2015–2018 implementation period. Sources: (a) six of six farmer group discussions , (b) two of two KIIs and one group discussion with HEIA packhouse staff, and (c) one KII with the HEIA exporter. Finding 2.1.3: A second core characteristic of a GDA is to leverage respective expertise, capabilities, networks, and other resources to address business challenges and opportunities while also fostering or accelerating sustainable, transformational development impact. As reported in the “Business and Operational Plan for the HEIA Packhouse,” the packhouse was only operational 35–50 days per year during the 2015 to 2017 timeframe. It is important to note that in order to increase the number of packhouse operational days, it may be necessary to acquire additional crop-specific processing equipment/machinery. Finding 2.1.4: A third core characteristic of a GDA is for collaborating partners to work together to mobilize, leverage, and more effectively apply respective assets, expertise, and resources. According to the HEIA Business and Operation Plan, in order to optimize the 6 million EGP USAID investment (of a 30 million EGP investment) in the purchase of packhouse machinery, equipment, furniture, and trucks, the packhouse and 90 metric tons storage facility needs to operate 270 days per year to be commercially viable. 18 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 2.1.5: According to two of two KIIs (HEIA and ACDI/VOCA senior management) and two group discussions (Center of Excellence/packhouse staff and HEIA trainers), the relationship between HEIA and ACDI/VOCA is focused on the provision of classroom facilities for training purposes. Finding 2.1.6: A fourth core characteristic of a GDA is that contributions should generate significant development results and impact that would otherwise be difficult or impossible for USAID to achieve in the absence of private sector involvement. In this regard, according to ACDI/VOCA training records, 1,744 course offerings on 113 subjects were delivered through the Center of Excellence conference room facilities to male and female farmers, community development association staff, HEIA staff, packhouse laborers, graduate trainers, and HEIA trainers over the 2015-2018 implementation period. Recommendation 2.1: Prior to the expiration of the AMAL Project in September 2018, the USAID, AMAL, and HEIA partnership should establish a financially stable two-year implementation plan that incorporates local community development associations and ensures the provision of capacity building, technical assistance, and packhouse services to include small grower and medium grower production. Evaluation Question 3: To what extent were the ATS activities supported successful in improving students’ employability under Blue Moon? Conclusion 3.1: The lack of Premium project consultations with direct beneficiaries resulted in lesser teacher and student satisfaction with the design, content and delivery of the training component than otherwise might have occurred if direct beneficiaries were consulted. Finding 3.1.1: Although the Premium project conferred with high-level Ministry of Education and Technical Education and Egyptian Suppliers Ethical Trade Forum stakeholders, direct beneficiaries from academic year 2017/2018 (e.g., school principals, administrators, teachers, students), three of the four schools visited (Esna, Jom Ombo, Nobareya, and Qena) reported that they were not consulted regarding the design of the capacity building program. (Sources: three of four KIIs with Career Development Center (CDC) managers, three of four school principals, and four of six group discussions with teachers.) Finding 3.1.2: Teachers and students from the 2017/2018 academic year reported that the training content, course durations, course loads, and mix of theoretical versus practical training were reported as unsatisfactory. Finding 3.1.3: The Premium Project sought to achieve its goal of improving communication skills of ATS teachers through the provision of 18 training modules. Subsequently, students were trained by upskilled teachers in business ethics and the responsible use of pesticides. Finding 3.1.4: Although not offered through the training component, students from academic year 2017/2018 reported a preference for training in the management of small projects, animal and/or horticulture production, operation of farm equipment, aromatic plant-related production, etc. (Sources: ATS training records, four of four student GDs, and three of four teacher GDs) 19 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 3.1.5: The training content, course durations, course loads and mix of theoretical versus practical trainings were reported as unsatisfactory by teachers and students from the 2017/2018 academic year. (Sources: four of four teacher GDs, and four of four student GDs) Conclusion 3.2: The Internship Program contributed to the ATS students’ improved understanding of the workplace. However, the impact of the Internship Program and/or the Entrepreneurship Program on student employability is undetermined, given the absence of tracer studies of 2014–2016 graduates. Finding 3.2.1: According to the Premium project administrative records: • Eleven companies provided internship opportunities to 522 students from 10 agricultural schools during the implementation period (September 2014–September 2016), • Daltex signed an internship agreement with the Ministry of Education and the National Service Project Organization seeking to employ 500 ATS graduates, and • Students from the ATS Entrepreneurship Program were reported to have implemented 92 projects in March 2015 and 64 projects in March 2016. Finding 3.2.2: The ATS Internship Program was highly regarded by students from the academic year 2017/2018 due to its practical nature and the financial compensation they received for services rendered. (Source: four of four student GDs) Conclusion 3.3: The transition of the ATS Career Development Centers from the Premium Project remains pending since 2016. Finding 3.3.1: None of the four ATS Career Development Centers visited by the evaluation team (Esna, Kom Ombo, Nobareya, and Qena) were operating. According to field consultations, the Ministry of Education and Technical Education (METE) has not yet recognized the CDC as a legal entity within the school system. Accordingly, it is currently without funding. (Sources: four of four CDC KIIs, one of one CDC GD) Recommendation 3.1: USAID should commission a “needs assessment” of agricultural and agribusiness labor market skill requirements that involves direct consultation with agribusinesses, students, teachers, and school administration to aid in the formulation of future project design. Recommendation 3.2: USAID should consider conducting a tracer study of ATS graduates of academic years 2014–2016 from the 10 participating agricultural technical schools utilizing the ATS web-enabled database (designed and implemented during the Premium Project) in order to: (a) evaluate employment outcomes, including graduated student employment and retention rates, sector-specific financial compensation; (b) ensure alignment of ATS curriculum with labor-market skill requirements; and (c) enable analyses of gender differentiated outcomes. Note: A tracer study or graduate survey is a survey (in written or oral form) of graduates from education institutions, which takes place sometime after graduation or the end of the training. Recommendation 3.3: METE should ensure the successful transition of CDC operations to the ATS to ensure the sustainability of USAID investments. Evaluation Question 4: To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of the ATS students and farmers under Blue Moon and of farmers under AMAL? 20 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Conclusion 4.1: Select training courses increased students’ technical and life skills while the Internship Program and the Entrepreneurship Program contributed to students’ improved understanding of the workplace. Finding 4.1.1: 100% of ATS enrolled students and graduates consulted agreed that pesticide training was the most useful of the training subjects for building capacity because (a) it was practical, not just theoretical, (b) they learned how to properly handle pesticide equipment and apply pesticides safely, and (c) subsequent to being trained, they were temporarily employed on farms for 50EGP per day as a pesticide application workers. Enrolled students also spoke favorably of business ethics training, a coaching/mentoring-type training, that taught them how to better communicate with others and changed their behavior by changing their attitude and outlook on life. Student testimonials included such statements as “be more positive in everything” and “with will you can do anything.” (Sources: four student group discussions, two graduate group discussions, six teachers group discussions, two CDC staff group discussions, four KIIs CDC management, four KIIs school principals.) Conclusion 4.2: Training provided under Premium was directed toward fulfilling the requirements of the GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade certification, as opposed to being geared toward technical agricultural assistance. Finding 4.2.1: Of the 532 multi-choice responses provided by surveyed Premium smallholder farmers (n=212), 76.9% cited “farm and agricultural training” and 63.7% cited “marketing training” as the activity that helped transition the grower from traditional to non-traditional crops, making these two activities the most frequently referenced in this category. Finding 4.2.2: Although training is open to all members of participating smallproducer organizations, according to Premium administrative records, training on Fairtrade standards was provided to 55.2% of participating associations’ general assembly members (n=5235), while 35.8% received training on GLOBALG.A.P. Finding 4.2.3: The project covered the compliance/certification cost of participating SPOs throughout the term of the project with a cost share of 25% from the SPOs. Two SPOs in Beheira are continuing payment for GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade. Three of the six farmer group discussions indicated that they lack the financial means to renew the GLOBALG.A.P. certificates. Finding 4.2.4: Two of nine associations interviewed indicated that they intended to renew the Fairtrade certificate, while one association declared that the general assembly refused to renew. Conclusion 4.3: Training and technical assistance was considered highly effective by both AMAL and Premium farmers. Finding 4.3.1: As reported in six of six male farmer GDs, respondents considered the technical assistance as highly effective in improving production practices, decreasing costs, and subsequently increasing their agricultural household income. In four of six GDs, farmers expressed a stronger preference for field technical support as compared to classroom instruction, i.e., applied versus theoretical support. 21 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 4.3.2: Of the 145 AMAL smallholder farmers surveyed in the three intervention governorates, 84.8% primarily credited farm and agricultural training for their transition from traditional to non-traditional crops. Conclusion 4.4: There is little potential for sustaining the project’s capacity-building component for the farmers beyond the life of the project due to the limited financial and technical resources available to participating associations. Finding 4.4.1: Only one of nine community development associations interviewed stated that it had the operational capacity to provide technical assistance to its member farmers. (Three agricultural engineers serve on the board of governors). Recommendation 4.1: USAID should ensure that capacity-building strategies for farmers include a capacity needs assessment and training/technical assistance tailored to the educational attainment, landholdings, and agricultural/marketing conditions of the targeted population. Recommendation 4.2: In future project designs, USAID and implementing partners should ensure that participating small-producer organizations have the institutional and financial capacity to provide ongoing technical support to its members by the end of the project. Evaluation Question 5: To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability institutionalized or adopted by the activities’ Packhouses and Center of Excellence? Conclusion 5.1: Appropriate systems or processes for establishing logistical services to support smallholders linked to value chains for the export of high value horticultural products while sustaining HEIA packhouse and Center of Excellence operations on a commercial basis have not yet been adopted. Finding 5.1.1: A detailed study titled “The Business and Operational Plan for HEIA Luxor Packhouse” provides technical guidance on how to implement a commercially viable business plan. The aforementioned study makes no reference to the Center of Excellence as that was outside of its scope. Finding 5.1.2.: No evidence was provided to the evaluation team demonstrating that an action plan for operating the packhouse or Center of Excellence on a commercially viable basis has been developed. (Sources: two of two KIIs and one of one group discussions with packhouse/Center of Excellence staff) Recommendation 5.1: Prior to the termination of the project in September 2018, ACDI/VOCA should assist HEIA to operationalize the technical guidance provided in the study titled “Business and Operational Plan for HEIA Luxor Packhouse” in order to adopt a commercially viable business model for sustaining packhouse operations. Recommendation 5.2: Prior to the termination of the project in September 2018, ACDI/VOCA should develop an action plan for the Center of Excellence to provide ongoing training and technical support to neighboring small producer organizations. Conclusion 5.3: The Premium Project affiliated packhouses have the needed systems and processes in place to provide for commercially viable operations. 22 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Finding 5.3.1: The Esna packhouse is jointly owned by three community development associations and is operating at near-capacity for 10 months of the year providing sorting, grading, packaging, cooling, and storage services of high-value horticultural crops for member smallholder growers. (Sources: One KII with packhouse manager, one GD with packhouse staff, one GD with community development associations managers and staff) Finding 5.3.2: The Nobareya packhouse, managed by an agricultural cooperative, is a rented facility that operates on a part-time basis based on demand as determined by seasonal agricultural production. Finding 5.3.3: Both the Esna and Nobareya packhouse models serve smallholder farmers. Recommendation 5.3: In future project design, USAID should consider building on the successes of the Esna and the Nobareya packhouse models in underserved governorates (Aswan, Qena, and Sohag.) Evaluation Question 6: How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Conclusion 6.1: Targeted female participation in the AMAL and Premium projects had mixed results. Finding 6.1.1: Premium partially achieved its target of a 25% participation rate for female beneficiaries. As per Premium’s administrative records, among 13 participating small￾producer organizations, 13.3% of 5,186 total project beneficiaries (n=691) were reported as “female growers,” 263 of which were reportedly registered with GLOBALG.A.P. Finding 6.1.2: As a result of evaluation team site visits and the findings of the 2015–2017 Smallholder Farmer Household Survey, the actual number of female “growers/producers” for both the AMAL and Premium projects is extremely small relative to the number of total female “beneficiaries” reported. Recommendation 6.1: Future USAID project designs should consider programming additional agribusiness activities that respond directly to female farmers’ requests/needs for training, technical assistance, and marketing of small-animal husbandry production and agricultural related small enterprises. Overall Recommendations In order to advance the promotion and development of sustainable horticulture value chains, the following overall recommendations are proposed: 1. Prior to the expiration of the AMAL Project, ACDI/VOCA should assist HEIA to: • Operationalize the technical guidance provided in the study titled “Business and Operational Plan for HEIA Luxor Packhouse” in order to adopt a commercially viable business model for sustaining packhouse operations. • Establish a financially stable two-year implementation plan that incorporates local community development associations and ensures the provision of capacity building, technical assistance, and packhouse services to include small and medium grower production. • Develop an action plan for the Center of Excellence to provide ongoing training and technical support to neighboring SPOs. • Conduct and disseminate systematic market analyses in a manner that ensures that farmers and farmer associations gain access to relevant current and forecast market intelligence to 23 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV facilitate smallholder farmer informed decision-making regarding best practices, crop promotion, and market destinations. HEIA should provide access to current and forecast agricultural market information, based on a fee-for-service financed by small-producer organization subscription fees, entitling its members to free information via a cell phone application to the HEIA information portal. 2. SPOs should mobilize their members with adjacent non-member smallholder landholdings to collaborate in production and marketing to benefit from economies of scale. 3. As a follow-up evaluation activity to the close out of the Premium Project, USAID should consider conducting a tracer study of graduates of academic years 2014–2016 from the 10 participating agricultural technical schools utilizing the ATS web-enabled database (designed and implemented during the Premium Project) in order to: (a) evaluate employment outcomes, including graduated student employment and retention rates and sector-specific financial compensation; (b) align ATS curriculum with labor-market skill requirements; and (c) enable analyses of gender differentiated outcomes. 4. In future project designs, USAID should: • Require rigorous data quality assessments at early stages of project implementation to ensure that implementing partners comply with quality assurance standards intended to eliminate inaccurately reported performance and/or beneficiary data. • Ensure that a capacity-building strategy for smallholder farmers includes a capacity needs assessment and training/technical assistance component tailored to the educational attainment, landholding sizes, and agricultural/marketing conditions of the targeted population. • Require implementing partners to develop a training and technical assistance component that increases the capacity of smallholder farmers to properly document, in a simplified manner, production costs, crop yields, land cultivated, post-harvest loses, value of crops sold, etc., so as to enable participating smallholder farmers to identify areas in which they can further contain costs, reduce losses, and increase household agricultural income in a self-directed manner. • Ensure that participating SPOs have the institutional and financial capacity to provide ongoing technical support to its members by the end of the project. • Consider building on the success of the Esna and the Nobareya packhouse models in underserved intervention governorates; e.g., Aswan, Qena and Sohag. • Consider programming agribusiness activities that respond directly to female farmers’ needs for training, technical assistance, and marketing of small animal husbandry production and agricultural related small enterprises. • Ensure that implementing partners implement a rigorous monitoring and evaluation system to: (a) inform senior management, (b) improve the likelihood of achieving outcomes, and (c) take corrective actions to mitigate risk associated with changing market conditions. 24 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this statement of work is to procure an end of project performance evaluation of the following two activities under the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) bilateral agreement #263- 299, namely Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers and Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Global Development Alliance (GDA). The end of project evaluation will serve a dual purpose: 1) to learn to what extent the activities’ results have been achieved as described in the results framework; and 2) to inform the design of future agriculture activities. Lessons learned and challenges disclosed from the evaluation results will be considered when programming future projects while success stories will be replicated going forward. The results of the performance evaluation will be shared with different stakeholders including the Ministry of Agriculture, USAID mission, the Implementing Partners, and the Ministry of Investment and International Cooperation and will be posted on the DEC (Development Experience Clearinghouse) for public access within 90 days of report completion. II. SUMMARY INFORMATION The two activities below are planned to be evaluated: Activity/Project Name Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers Implementer Blue Moon Ltd Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-263-A-11-00008 Total Estimated Cost (TEC) $7,344,215 Life of Project/Activity August 3, 2011 – February 28, 2018 Active Geographic Regions Beheira, Luxor, Aswan Development Objective(s) (DOs) Private sector-led growth accelerated USAID Office Office of Economic Growth GOE Counterpart Ministry of Agriculture Activity Manager Mohamed Abo-Elwafa Activity/Project Name Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) GDA Implementer ACDI/VOCA Cooperative Agreement/Contract # GDA with The Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA), AID-263-A￾15-00014 Total Estimated Cost (TEC) Total USAID amount: $5,500,000 Life of Project/Activity February 4, 2015 – February 3, 2018 25 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Active Geographic Regions Sohag, Qena, Luxor, and Aswan (partially) Development Objective(s) (DOs) Private sector-led growth accelerated USAID Office Office of Economic Growth GOE Counterpart Ministry of Agriculture Activity Manager Annie Steed III. BACKGROUND Context, history, goals and objectives, current status of the activity/project Agriculture is the largest employer of all economic sectors in Egypt, providing more than 24% of total employment and 40% of total female employment in 2015 according to CAPMAS. Accordingly, agriculture is the most important source of income and employment to the rural poor. Political and social transition in 2011 and 2013 has created severe instability that affected the agriculture and agribusiness sectors. These sectors continue to face many challenges, such as poor access to inputs, insufficient water management systems, inadequate extension services, lack of skilled labor, inefficient food safety standard system, and the absence of quality market access, both international and domestic. Egyptian farmers are struggling to overcome these challenges on their own. Increasing smallholder farmers’ productivity and income is a critical need if agriculture is to reach its full potential. The vast majority of Egyptian smallholder farmers follow traditional cropping patterns that have been used for decades and remain focused on local food crop production. In recent years, substantial USAID/Egypt resources have been allocated toward increasing the volume of high value horticultural crop production for both the local and export markets. The goals of the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) project, under which both activities are authorized, were to contribute to the Economic Growth Objective. The ARDII project, including both activities, aims to increase incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through sustainably intensifying agricultural productivity, increasing the efficiency of post￾harvest processes, improving the marketing of these goods, and improving the nutritional status of women and children. The ARDII project focuses on bringing targeted beneficiaries into environmentally appropriate high value commercial horticulture value chains. At the same time, work will be undertaken to address complementary, cross-cutting sectorsupportsuch as extension services, irrigation infrastructure (delivery), irrigation efficiency, infrastructure and research that affect the sector generally and contribute to improving value chains specifically. In five years, smallholder beneficiaries should exhibit significantly higher sustained incomes in comparison to the baseline data of farmers who grow more traditional, natural resource exploitive, crops. 26 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV It was anticipated that the ARDII project would achieve the following results: PREMIUM PROJECT FOR EGYPTIAN SMALL GROWERS: A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis(es), and Theory of Change The demand for seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables is growing in both the local and export markets. According to the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), international trade in high value horticultural products is also increasing at an average of 6.6% per annum to replace traditional agricultural export commodities. Consumers are also becoming more demanding for products quality and safety. Despite high comparative advantage, Upper Egypt has been slow in exploiting these demands. Poor agricultural practices, fragmented supply chains, inefficient transport and unfavorable production financing were all factors hindering against the shift to growing high value cash crops. In view of the problems defined above, the Premium award supported the implementation of good agricultural practice to increase productivity, reduce post￾harvest losses, and reduce costs of smallholder farmers. Shifting from traditional crops to high value horticultural crops and strengthening the links between farmers and the local and international markets is expected to increase farmers’ income. 26 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV B. Results Frameworks 27 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV C. Summary Activity/Project/Program to be evaluated On August 3, 2011, USAID signed a unilateral cooperative agreement under the Egyptian Economic Support Annual Program Statement to fund the “Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers,” implemented primarily by Blue Moon Ltd. ($2,444,215.00: End date August 1, 2014). The Premium award was designed to address the challenges farmers are facing in Upper Egypt. In May 2014, the program description of the activity was revised to reflect a change in the geographic area coverage from Menia to Luxor. The activity was very successful and on August 1st, 2014, it was given an exception to competition and was extended for two years until August 1st, 2016 then two more months until September 30th, 2016. At that time it fell under the Agriculture Exports and Rural Incomes (AERI) Bilateral Agreement with the Government of Egypt. In September 2016, the award moved under the ARDII program and was extended to February 28, 2018. In addition to their original scope—supporting the certification of small growers to reach international quality standards and linking them with growing markets—the award was expanded to include career development centers and capacity building for ten (10) Agriculture Technical Schools (ATS); three in Aswan, three in Beheira, one in Luxor, and three in Qena. To increase the incomes of smallholder farmers and ATS students and graduates, the Premium award started in August 2011 with the following objectives: • To empower small growers as well as Small Producer Organizations in Matruh, Beheira and Luxor to improve their income and reach beyond borders through direct market links. • To enable students of 10 Agriculture Technical Schools in Beheira, Qena, Luxor and Aswan to create their own business models through a carefully designed and supervised entrepreneurship program that has generated a sustainable income for them. • To enable multi-stakeholders such as governmental extension officers, retailers of crop protection products in the villages, as well as teachers, students/graduates of agriculture technical schools to understand and comply with good practice as outlined in international standards such as the GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) certification. The product scope of the “Premium Project” is limited to fruits and vegetables. Blue Moon submitted bumper and import sensitivity analysis studies for thirteen (13) products and they were all approved by USAID: Apricots, Artichokes, Capsicum, Clementine and Mandarin, Lemon, Melons, Onion, Oranges, Peaches, Peas, Potatoes, Sweet Potato, and Water Melon. USAID has issued previous approvals for green beans, grapes, olives, potato, strawberry, and tomato. The award’s main activities included: • Established a robust traceability system for small producer organizations (SPO) and small growers, identifying geographical coordinates for each small grower’s field with GPS technology, and enabling traceability of products within 15 minutes. Based on confirmed traceability information, an identification card is placed in each 28 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV registered field for transparency and traceability at the plot level. SPO and its growers are registered with GLOBALG.A.P and Fairtrade based on the USAID￾approved products. • Developed a Food Safety and Quality Management System that meets of GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade standards. System drives convergence and enables transparency and traceability of activities and products. • Trained small producers to comply with GLOBALG.A.P. and Fairtrade standards, covering food safety, hygiene, governance, strategic planning and marketing. Also, trained agronomists and village extension officers with the aim of establishing “Export Oriented Extension Officers.” • Independently monitored products, including sampling and testing of food contaminants (pesticide residues, chemical or microbiological contaminants) to ensure that products comply with legal residue levels in the countries of destination. • Developed www.smallgrowers-eg.com and a newsletter to raise awareness of the project activities • Developed 10 ATS in Beheira, Qena, Luxor and Aswan where students are prepared for opportunities and challenges they will face as graduates in this industry • Created capacity building program for teachers and students covering lesson plans, work ethics, responsible use of pesticides and providing spray services • Established links between the 10 ATS and business organizations in the agriculture sector to offer students first-hand experience • Offered ATS students opportunities to design and implement small projects that can provide them with a sustainable income • Developed Career Development Centers to act as hubs where students can learn, prepare, grow and connect to the agricultural job market It is worth noting that the Outputs of the Premium activity are accompanied by a cultural change in the following areas: 1. Improve awareness among small growers and their stakeholders for responsible practice 2. Strengthen the skills of “extension officers” to guide small growers towards responsible practice.” 3. Promote a positive culture for "continual improvement" 4. Establish direct and sustainable links between the small producer organizations and higher tiers of the supply chain. Gender Consideration: There was a high consideration to gender equality within the beneficiaries of the activity. All capacity building sessions were accessible by both men and women. When situations arose where it was difficult to reach women in the villages, due to cultural barriers, the activity took the initiative to organize women capacity building sessions within their homes. On a whole the award aimed at maintaining an average of 23% female participation rate in all aspects. 29 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV D. Summary of the Premium Activity/Project M&E Plan: In June 2017, the activity’s achievements were reported as follows: • A total value of approximately $8,726,000 income on sales contracts to the Egyptian fruit and vegetable supply chain through targeted export sales. • Farmers within the scope of the project have received approximately $3,169 increase in their gross margins per hectare of land. • The number of households benefiting directly from USAID assistance under the Feed the Future program within the scope of the Premium Project is 3,690 beneficiaries, 20% of which are women headed households. • Established 45 supply contracts with numerous market channels to sell products from Egyptian small grower products, both locally and internationally • Implemented and received certification for both GLOBALG.A.P and Fairtrade’s internationally recognized standards for 11 small producer organizations, enabling them to sell product on the export market. • 2,060 beneficiaries under the project have implemented improved technologies with USAID assistance to improve current practices and comply with international standards in traceability, record keeping, product safety and packaging specifications. • Small growers participating in the activities of the project have generated $392,605 more, through export sales contracts, then they would have by selling products on the local market. • Implemented and received British Retailers’ Consortium certificate fortwo produce handling units, enabling farmers to sell product on the export market. By the end of the award, it is expected that Premium would continue to achieve the following results: • Increase small growers’ income in Upper Egypt by directly linking them to export markets. This will result in an approximate $5,650 increase in annual income per participating grower. • Establish and implement 10 new supply contracts worth approximately $4,364,000 to be sourced with products from Upper Egypt. • Identify 2,826 new hectares of land to receive USAID assistance to implement improved technologies. • Secure 25% participation by female beneficiaries to address gender equality issues. Due to the absence of female small holders within the geographic locations under the project scope, 50% female participation cannot be achieved. 30 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ADVANCED MARKETING AND AGRIBUSINESS LOGISTICS (AMAL) A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis(es), and Theory of Change The demand for seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables is growing in both the local and export markets. According to the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), international trade in high value horticultural products is also increasing at an average of 6.6% per annum to replace traditional agricultural export commodities. Consumers are also becoming more demanding for products quality and safety. Despite high comparative advantage, Upper Egypt has been slow in exploiting these demands. Fragmented supply chains, inefficient storage, transport and logistics systems in addition to the lack of agriculture information were all factors hindering against the shift to growing high value cash crops. To counter these problems, the AMAL Cooperative Agreement aims to increase incomes of 4300 smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt by building their capacity to integrate into high-value commercial horticulture markets. In cooperation with HEIA (Horticultural Export Improvement Association), the activity will sustainably intensify farmers’ agricultural productivity, increase the efficiency of post- harvest processes, and improve the marketing of these goods along with the nutritional health of women and children. Long, poorly maintained, transportation routes and insufficient cold- chain infrastructure were also addressed in the AMAL GDA. Recognizing the above-stated problems, USAID partnered with HEIA to help small farmers increase their income through the provision of equipment necessary to the operation of the pack house built by HEIA. Moreover, the lack of appropriate and adequate information about domestic and international markets is a problem that hinders farmers from taking the right decision on what and when to crop and where to market. Therefore, HEIA’s regional training center became an essential component of this activity to teach farmers on how to learn farming as business and helping them to identify the market opportunities that will increase their income. 31 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV B. Results Frameworks C. Summary Activity/Project/Program to be evaluated The purpose of this GDA is to increase the incomes of 4,300 rural households in Upper Egypt, including smallholder farmers, landless laborers, women, unemployed youth, and small and medium entrepreneurs, through the development of sustainable horticulture value chains. Using a market driven approach, the implementing partner will improve the capacity of smallholder farmers to respond to market signals, produce high quality produce, and maintain quality through cold-chain infrastructure, increasing access to national and international markets through the facilitation of direct linkages with exporters and processors. The four primary objectives of this activity are: 32 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 1) Provide technical assistance to smallholder farmer associations (“FAs”) at the “Center of Excellence” providing leadership, best practices, research and training. 2) Production planning using timely market and logistical information 3) Utilization and maintenance of a state-of-the-art post-harvest collection center 4) Facilitate forward contracts between FAs and the domestic and export markets through a competitive marketing system. Gender considerations: Gender is integral to the success of the project. In addition to women-specific activities, gender considerations are cross cutting across all project activities. Females make up 41% of AMAL beneficiaries including university graduates, association staff, farmers and women. Women specific activities include general training topics such as safe use of pesticides and first aid among others. Such activities are critical for the development of the rural community. For instance, there are many challenges associated with farm rescues since it can take over 30-60 minutes for ambulance to arrive on-scene, especially to remote locations such as fields. In addition, youth women are encouraged to join AMAL business training to help them develop the basic business concepts and implement their project ideas. 33 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV D. Summary of the AMAL Activity/Project M&E Plan: 34 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV During FY16 first and second quarters, the AMAL activity has achieved the following results: • 100% of AMAL farmers who grew green beans under contract applied at least one form of improved technology to 100% of the land cultivated. • Eight associations developed their initial marketing plans to supply the export market with high quality produce. • Twelve associations engaged with AMAL to date. • Through the successful contractual agreements between AMAL beneficiary associations and the exporters, small growers received $ 43,300 of advance from the buyers in different forms - cash advances and in-kind inputs. • 68% of AMAL farmers' produce of green beans were sold through export channels. Green beans exports amounted to $ 217,000 worth of supply. As for the third and fourth quarter results, these are expected to include: • At least 500 Jobs would be created during the seasons of grapes, green beans mint, Sinameki and onions. • At least 2000 beneficiaries to get engaged with the project. • 80% of AMAL farmers to adopt at least one form of technology improvement. • Improved institutional capacity of AMAL beneficiary associations. IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation is an end of project performance evaluation for Premium and AMAL projects that are scheduled to come to an end in February 2018. USAID will use the result of the report to inform implementation of ongoing and new activities. It is expected that Blue Moon, ACDI/VOCA, HEIA and the smallholder farmers will have the opportunity to discuss the results of the evaluation. Evaluation Questions for both Projects in Order of Importance Relevance: 1. In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? Effectiveness: 2. In what ways were the relationship between USAID, HEIA and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? 3. To what extent were the ATS activities supported successful in improving students’ employability under Blue Moon? Outcome: 35 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 4. To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of the ATS students and farmers under Blue Moon and of farmers under AMAL? Sustainability: 5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the activities’ Pack Houses and Center of Excellence? 6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? V. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Evaluation Design This is an end of project performance evaluation and is intended to focus on how the activities have been implemented, what they have achieved, whether expected results have occurred according to the projects’ design and in relation to the development hypothesis and how activities are perceived, valued, and sustained. Evaluators will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to generate answers. The evaluation must follow the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (Updated October 2016) https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluationPoli cy.pdf 1. Data collection methodology and corresponding data sources: The Evaluation Team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information which is required to assess the evaluation objectives. The evaluation team shall share data collection tools, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The survey tools should draw upon both subjective and objective input of the programs’ stakeholders and should be disaggregated to the relevant level along the value chain. Illustrative disaggregation and program areas for the surveys of the respective clients should consider geographical coverage, type of crops, participation time at the program, gender, processing facility type, size of businesses and schools, and other factors, as applicable. The data collection methodology will include a mix of tools appropriate to the evaluation questions and include document review, in-depth interview with the key stakeholders, surveys and focus group discussions with beneficiaries. USAID/Egypt will provide the Evaluation Team with electronic access to key Program-related documents prior to the start of the in-country work. All team members shall review these documents in preparation for the initial Team Planning Meeting. Relevant documents to the evaluators include: 36 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV • ARDII bilateral agreement and amendments; • AMAL and Premium contracts; • AMAL and Premium work plans; • Quarterly and annual reports; • Monitoring and evaluation plan and results; • AMAL baseline data collected, including income and sales data; • AMAL and Premium Gender Assessment; • AMAL cost-benefit analysis; • Premium gap analysis for farmers skills and compliance with Global GAP; and • Any other relevant technical reports; In addition to the above list, the evaluator document review shall consider other secondary literature determined relevant by the evaluation team. The evaluation team should propose a methodology that takes into consideration that Premium does not have baseline data for some indicators including income and sales. The evaluation team will complete site visits to three governorates for the Premium project, and three governorates for the AMAL project. Surveys, key informants interviews, and focus group discussions will be conducted with counterparts, stakeholders, and beneficiaries according to the sample size highlighted in the below table. For AMAL GDA, a representative sample size of at least 10% of beneficiaries (4,300 beneficiaries) in the governorates should be collected at a minimum, and the method for determining the representative sample should be discussed with USAID. For the Premium project, a representative sample size of at least 7% (8,000 beneficiaries) should be collected as per the table below. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assess the appropriate sample size for each award and inform USAID. Governorate Project Beneficiaries* Representative sample size (%)* Representative sample size (#)* AMAL 4300 10% At least 430 Suhag Qena Luxor Premium 8000 7% At least 560 Beheira Luxor Aswan Total 12300 17% At least 990 * The evaluator can distribute the sample size as appropriate. 2. Interviews, Surveys, and Site Visits: The Evaluation Team will conduct in-depth interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions, at a minimum, with the following organizations/staff: 37 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV • Ministry of Agriculture and Land reclamation (MALR); • Ministry of Education (MOE); • Representatives of the GDA private sector participants; • Representatives of the private sector participants; • USAID Staff (CORs and AORs); • Smallholder farmers (project beneficiaries in selected governorates); and • ATS students, teachers, headmasters, and parents (project beneficiaries in selected governorates). 3. Data analysis plan: Prior to the start date of data collection, the evaluation team must develop and present, for USAID/Egypt review and approval, a data analysis plan that details how focus groups and key informant interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative and quantitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from performance indicators and the activity performance monitoring records to reach conclusions about the areas of this evaluation. It is worth noting that AMAL has baseline data for income and sales while Premium does not. The latter works with farmers on compliance with international standards and certificates, which eventually leads to higher income. The table below suggests data sources, collection and analysis methods for each of the evaluation question. The evaluation team should submit a complete table with proposed data collection and analyses methods, as convenient. Questions’ main points Suggested Data Source Suggested Data Collection Method Data Analysis Method AMAL and Blue Moon’s approach and performance Surveys/AMAL and Blue Moon officials, farmers benefitting from the activity, Project documents /work plans and secondary data. Individual interviews, surveys, and FGD (Focus Group Discussion) Analyze results of survey and key informant interviews Relationship between HEIA and ACDI VOCA and its effect HEIA, ACDI VOCA, and AMAL, USAID officials Individual interviews Interpretation and participants observation 38 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Questions’ main points Suggested Data Source Suggested Data Collection Method Data Analysis Method Improving students’ employability Surveys/ATS tutors and students in the targeted area and secondary data. Group interviews of students and farmers , surveys Analyze results of survey and key informant interviews. Capacity building of the ATS students and farmers Farmers and students of ATSs in the targeted area Group interviews of students and farmers Focus groups discussions Systems and processes for sustainability Surveys Focus groups discussions Participants observation and analysis of results. Women’s participation Women beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the targeted area Group interviews and key informant interviews Analyze results of survey and key informant interviews. Also the gender analyses under ARDII and for both activities and secondary data. To the extent possible, data and information need to be disaggregated by gender, landholding size, and location VI. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: USAID Team Planning Meeting: • Work plan: During the Team Planning Meeting, the Team will prepare a detailed work plan which will include the methodologies to be used in the evaluation, timeline, and detailed Gantt chart. The work plan will be submitted to the Evaluation Program Manager at USAID/Egypt for approval no later than the 3rd day of work. • Methodology Plan: A written methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps and detail, and operational work plan will be prepared during the team planning meeting and discussed with and approved by USAID prior to implementation. • List of Interviewees and Schedule: USAID will provide the Evaluation Team an initial list of interviewees, from which the Evaluation Team can work to create a more comprehensive list. Prior to starting data collection, the Evaluation Team will provide USAID with a list of interviewees and a schedule for conducting the interviews. The Evaluation Team will continue to share updated lists of interviewees and schedules as meetings/interviews take place and stakeholders are added 39 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV to/deleted from the schedule. • Data collection tools: Prior to starting fieldwork, the Evaluation Team will share the data collection tools with the USAID Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion and approval. Stakeholder Debrief Meetings: • Discussion of preliminary draft evaluation report: The Evaluation Teamwill submit a preliminary draft of the report to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager, who will provide preliminary comments prior to final Mission debriefing. This will facilitate preparation of a more final draft report that will be left with the Mission upon the evaluation team’s departure. • Debriefing with USAID: The team will present the major findings of the evaluation to USAID/Egypt through a PowerPoint presentation after submission of the draft report and before the team’s departure from country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as recommendations for the future activities designs and implementation. The team will consider USAID/Egypt comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. • Debriefing with Partners: The team will present the major finding of the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint presentation prior to the team’s departure from country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and activities and will incorporate partners’ comments accordingly, as appropriate. Deliverables: • Draft Evaluation Report: A draft report of the findings and recommendations should be submitted to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager prior to the Team’s departure from Egypt. The written report should clearly describe findings, conclusions and recommendations for future programming. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, it must undergo a peer review and the Mission will have 5-7 business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft using the checklist for assessing evaluation reports. After this point, the Evaluation Manager will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. • Final Report: The Evaluation Team will submit a final report that incorporates responses to Mission comments and suggestions no later than five working days after USAID/Egypt provides written comments on the Team’s draft evaluation report (see above). If USAID/Egypt determines that there are still content issues to be addressed or that previous feedback has not been satisfactorily addressed, the final unedited report will be considered second draft and further feedback will be given to the team no later than 5 days of receipt of the second draft. If USAID/Egypt determines that there is no need for further changes, the report will be considered final unedited draft and no further feedback will be given. All sources of information should be properly identified and listed. • Data sets: All data instruments, data sets, presentations, meeting notes and final report for this evaluation will be presented to USAID on three (3) flash drives to 40 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV the Evaluation Program Manager. Data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or evaluation. All data on the flash drive will be in an unlocked, editable format. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. • The report will include the evaluation of the two activities under ARDII project. • The proposed format for the final evaluation report, to be provided in English, should be organized as follows: • Acronyms • Table of Content; • Executive Summary; • Introduction; • Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions; • Project (or Activities) Background; • Evaluation Methodology; • Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations; • References; • Annexes, including the following: o The evaluation SOW; o Any “statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; o Data collection and analysis tools used such as questionnaires, checklists, survey instruments, and discussion guides; and o Bios and summary info about the evaluation team members. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not including appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The report must be submitted initially in English, electronically, and later, an Arabic translation of the Executive Summary must be submitted within seven business days. At the time of submission the final English language report, the survey instruments, interviews and data sets must be submitted on a flash drive to the evaluation program manager. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine- readable, non-proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The anonymized data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the activity or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. 41 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report5 , draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report. • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well￾organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately 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 simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. VII. TEAM COMPOSITION The team shall include the following personnel, and all attempts should be made for the team to be comprised of an equal number of male and female members. • Team Leader: This international or local individual shall have a minimum of a Master’s degree in agriculture economics or related fields with 10 years’ experience, preferably in the monitoring, evaluation and analysis of agricultural development projects. Experience in designing surveys and development assistance program monitoring systems is required. Advanced English writing skills are also 5 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 42 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV required. • Senior Technical Advisor - Agriculture: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Agriculture Technical Advisor in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic language, agricultural extension, value chain, agri-business development, marketing, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive field experience in Egypt or the region, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. A minimum of 10 years of experience is required. • Technical Advisor - Education: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Education Technical Advisor in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic language, training in basic education and technical education field, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive experience in Egypt or the region, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. A minimum of 10 years of experience is required. • Local Surveyors: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Local Surveyors in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic and English language, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive field experience in Egypt, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. The applicant may propose another evaluation team composition plan that has a complete listing of personnel with position descriptions. The Offeror will discuss the assigned levels of skill within the categories of personnel, as they relate to carrying out the evaluation applicable (including proposed use of local counterpart organizations and sub- contractors if applicable). The Offeror will demonstrate the extent to which the staffing plan maximizes the utilization of local and other (Expat) expertise and demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to conduct the evaluation and the proposed technical approach proposed. The evaluation team composition plan should clearly indicate key personnel; their qualifications, depth, and breadth of their experience; the complementary of skills; and relevance to the Offerors approach for conducting a high quality evaluation. Resumes of proposed key personnel (five pages maximum per position) and other proposed staff (three pages maximum per position) is to be included in an annex. Each resume should include three recent (within the past 3 years) references including current telephone numbers and email addresses for the contacts. Letters of commitment are required for all key personnel and should be included in an annex, indicating his/her (a) availability to serve in the stated position, in terms of days after award; and (b) intention to serve for a stated term of the service. 43 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV VIII. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT 1. Logistical Support USAID/Egypt will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. USAID/Egypt will identify key stakeholders prior to the initiation of field work. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging vehicle rental and drivers as needed for their site visits around Cairo and in the specified governorates (including air travel when/if necessary). They will also need to arrange their own hotel arrangements if necessary and procure their own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing and photocopying. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own payments. USAID/Egypt personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. The evaluation team is responsible for obtaining any approval from the GoE that might be necessary to perform the activities contemplated in this Statement of Work. 2. Period of Performance Work will be carried out over a period of ten weeks, beginning (o/a) End of November/Beginning of December 2017. Within three months of issuing the final report it should be submitted to the USAID DEC. The following is the time and activities allocations expected for this evaluation: Activity Time Team planning and introductory meetings, background meetings, report reading, survey preparation in preparation for site visits, training of survey administrators (in-country) 2 Weeks Site Visits (two weeks for each activity) 4 Weeks Data analysis, first draft, review and feedback; final report 4 Weeks 3. Estimated LOE Budget Task/Deliverable Team Leader Technical Advisors (2) Surveyors (6) Travel to Egypt 2 days - Review background documents, draft work plan, methodology and data collection tools 8 days 8 days x 2 1 day x 6 Team Planning meeting and meeting with USAID/Egypt 2 days 2 day x 2 - Information and data collection. Includes interviews with key stakeholders (stakeholders 14 days 14 days x 2 14 days x 6 44 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Task/Deliverable Team Leader Technical Advisors (2) Surveyors (6) and USAID staff) and site visits Discussion, analysis, and draft evaluation report in country 6 days 6 days x 2 2 day x 6 Debrief meeting with USAID and key stakeholders (preliminary report due to USAID); and presentation to Mission 3 days 3 days x 2 - Depart Egypt/travel to US 1 day - USAID/Egypt and partner provide comments on draft report 7 days - - Team revises draft report and submits final to USAID 3 days 3 days x 2 - Submission of the final report to the USAID DEC Submission of the Arabic translated version 7 days Total estimated LOE 53 days 36 days x 2 17 days x 6 45 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX II: TABLES AND GRAPHS Part A: AMAL Smallholder Farmer Household Survey Table A-1. Distribution of AMAL Smallholder Farmers in FY2017 by Gender, Governorate, Age, and Educational Attainment Governorate Male Female Total N % N % N % Governorates Sohag 92 0.7 3 0.4 95 0.7 Luxor 36 0.3 0 0.0 36 0.2 Qena 9 0.1 5 0.6 14 0.1 Age <20 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 20 - 24 6 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.0 25 - 29 9 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.1 30 - 34 12 0.1 3 0.4 15 0.1 35 - 39 12 0.1 2 0.3 14 0.1 40 - 44 10 0.1 1 0.1 11 0.1 45 - 49 18 0.1 0 0.0 18 0.1 50 - 54 26 0.2 1 0.1 27 0.2 55 - 59 15 0.1 0 0.0 15 0.1 60+ 28 0.2 1 0.1 29 0.2 System Missing 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Education Illiterate 37 0.3 3 0.4 40 0.3 Incomplete School Education 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 Informal Education 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Literacy Programs 5 0.0 1 0.1 6 0.0 Post graduate degree 9 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.1 Preparatory Education 4 0.0 1 0.1 5 0.0 Primary school 7 0.1 0 0.0 7 0.0 Secondary School 7 0.1 0 0.0 7 0.0 Technical School 34 0.3 2 0.3 36 0.3 University degree 31 0.2 0 0.0 31 0.2 System Missing 1 0.7 1 12.5 2 1.4 Total 137 8 145 Table A-2. AMAL Smallholder Farmers’ Landholdings in FY2015 by Governorate 46 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 2015 Total Land in Feddans Suhag Luxor Qena Subtotal # % # % # % # % 0 - 1 33 34.7 5 13.9 10 71.4 48 33.1 1 - 3 50 52.6 13 36.1 2 14.3 65 44.8 3 - 5 7 7.4 7 19.4 0 - 14 9.7 5 - 10 5 5.3 7 19.4 2 14.3 14 9.7 10+ 0 - 4 11.1 0 - 4 2.8 Subtotal 95 100.0 36 100.0 14 100.0 145 100.0 Table A-3. AMAL Smallholder Farmers’ Landholdings in FY2017 by Governorate 2017 Total Land in Feddans Suhag Luxor Qena Subtotal # % # % # % # % 0 - 1 32 33.7 5 13.9 10 71.4 47 32.4 1-3 51 53.7 13 36.1 2 14.3 66 45.5 3-5 7 7.4 7 19.4 0 - 14 9.7 5-10 5 5.3 7 19.4 2 14.3 14 9.7 10+ 0 - 4 11.1 0 - 4 2.8 Subtotal 95 100.0 36 100.0 14 100.0 145 100.0 Table A-4. Change in AMAL Smallholder Farmers’ Landholdings from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Change in Landholding between 2015 to 2017 Suhag Luxor Qena Total # % # % # % # % Decreased 1 1.1 0 - 0 - 1 0.7 Equal 91 95.8 35 97.2 14 100.0 140 96.6 Increased 3 3.2 1 2.8 0 - 4 2.8 Subtotal 95 100.0 36 100.0 14 100.0 145 100.0 47 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-5. Distribution of Crops Cultivated by AMAL Smallholder Farmers in FY2015 and FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Crops 2015 2017 Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Total w/o Aswan Luxor Qena Suhag Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Capsicum 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% Lemon 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% Melons 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 1 0.3% 0 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.2% Onion 7 2.7% 1 1.3% 7 22.6% 0 0.0% 15 3.8% 15 3.8% 1 1.0% 5 12.2% 2 0.6% 8 1.7% Green Beans 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 1.0% 4 1.0% 6 6.1% 2 4.9% 91 27.3% 99 20.9% Grapes 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 1 1.0% 1 2.4% 1 0.3% 3 0.6% Tomato 39 15.2% 13 16.7% 9 29.0% 3 12.0 % 64 16.4% 61 16.4% 3 3.0% 1 2.4% 1 0.3% 5 1.1% Total 51 14 16 4 85 81 12 11 96 11 9 Beans 3 1.2% 0 0.0% 2 6.5% 1 4.0% 6 1.5% 5 1.5% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 8 2.4% 9 1.9% Eggplant 8 3.1% 5 6.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 3.3% 13 3.3% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% Mango 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 1.0% 4 1.0% 23 23.2 % 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 24 5.1% Okra 5 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 1.3% 5 1.3% 5 5.1% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 6 1.3% Palm 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 12.1 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 2.5% Garlic 2 0.8% 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.8% 3 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Cucumber 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% 6 1.5% 4 1.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 2 0.4% Basil 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 4.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.8% Spinach 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% Sesame 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.9% 3 0.6% Peanuts 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 3 0.6% Cabbage 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% Banana 0 0.0% 3 3.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.8% 3 0.8% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 2 0.4% 48 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Crops 2015 2017 Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Total w/o Aswan Luxor Qena Suhag Total # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Cantaloup e 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 2 0.5% 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Green onions 2 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.5% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Hibiscus 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 5 1.3% 4 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Pepper 4 1.6% 6 7.7% 0 0.0% 3 12.0 % 13 3.3% 10 3.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sorghum 0 0.0% 2 2.6% 1 3.2% 0 0.0% 3 0.8% 3 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Squash 2 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.5% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 39 17 3 8 67 59 49 3 16 68 Alfalfa 20 7.8% 13 16.7% 5 16.1% 2 8.0% 40 10.3% 38 10.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Barley 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% Wheat 58 22.7% 20 25.6% 6 19.4% 4 16.0 % 88 22.6% 84 22.6% 10 10.1 % 8 19.5% 77 23.1% 95 20.1% Bressem 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 11.1 % 8 19.5% 41 12.3% 60 12.7% Sugar Cane 58 22.7% 4 5.1% 0 0.0% 3 12.0 % 65 16.7% 62 16.7% 11 11.1 % 5 12.2% 0 0.0% 16 3.4% Maize 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 73 21.9% 74 15.6% Corn 29 11.3% 9 11.5% 1 3.2% 2 8.0% 41 10.5% 39 10.5% 4 4.0% 6 14.6% 30 9.0% 40 8.5% Other 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% 3 0.8% 1 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 16 6 47 12 13 238 225 38 27 221 28 6 Grand Total 25 6 78 31 25 390 365 99 41 333 47 3 49 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-6. Comparative Analysis of USAID-Approved High-Value, Other High-Value and Traditional Crops Cultivated by AMAL Smallholder Farmers from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Crops 2015 2017 % Change Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Luxor Qena Suhag Luxor Qena Sohag Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % USAID Approved High-Value Crops Capsicum 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% Lemon 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% Melons 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% Onion 7 2.7% 1 1.3% 7 22.6% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 5 12.2% 2 0.6% -86% 400% -71% Green Beans 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 6.1% 2 4.9% 91 27.3% 50% Grapes 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 1 2.4% 1 0.3% 0% Tomato 39 15.2% 13 16.7% 9 29.0% 3 12.0% 3 3.0% 1 2.4% 1 0.3% -92% -92% -89% Total 51 14 16 4 12 11 96 -76% -21% 500% Other High Value Crops Beans 3 1.2% 0 0.0% 2 6.5% 1 4.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 8 2.4% -67% 300% Eggplant 8 3.1% 5 6.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% -100% -80% Mango 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 23 23.2% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 475% Okra 5 2.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 5.1% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 0% Palm 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 12.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Garlic 2 0.8% 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% -100% Cucumber 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% -100% Basil 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 4.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Spinach 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sesame 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.9% Peanuts 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% Cabbage 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Banana 0 0.0% 3 3.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% -100% Cantaloupe 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% 50 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Green onions 2 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% Hibiscus 4 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% Pepper 4 1.6% 6 7.7% 0 0.0% 3 12.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% -100% Sorghum 0 0.0% 2 2.6% 1 3.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% -100% Squash 2 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% Total 39 17 3 8 49 3 16 26% -82% 433% Traditional Crops Alfalfa 20 7.8% 13 16.7% 5 16.1% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% -100% -100% Barley 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0% Wheat 58 22.7% 20 25.6% 6 19.4% 4 16.0% 10 10.1% 8 19.5% 77 23.1% -83% -60% 1183% Bressem 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 11.1% 8 19.5% 41 12.3% Sugar Cane 58 22.7% 4 5.1% 0 0.0% 3 12.0% 11 11.1% 5 12.2% 0 0.0% -81% 25% Maize 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 73 21.9% Corn 29 11.3% 9 11.5% 1 3.2% 2 8.0% 4 4.0% 6 14.6% 30 9.0% -86% -33% 2900% Other 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 0 0.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% Total 166 47 12 13 38 27 221 -77% -43% 1742% Grand Total 256 78 31 25 99 41 333 -61% -47% 974% Table A-7. Comparative Analysis of Cultivated Area in Feddans of USAID-Approved High-Value Crops and Traditional Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Crops Areas Planted in Feddans 2015 2017 Change Percentage Sohag Luxor Qena Aswan Total Total w/o Aswan Sohag Luxor Qena Total Suhag Luxor Qena Total w/o Aswan "USAID Approved" High Value Crops: Capsicum 0 1.00 1.00 Lemon 0 0.29 0.08 0.38 Melons 1.00 1.00 0 3.00 3.00 51 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Onion 25.00 4.19 0.50 29.69 29.688 2.50 0.50 0.38 3.38 -90% -88% -25% -89% Green Beans 6.50 6.50 6.5 97.79 13.50 0.75 112.04 108% 1624% Grapes 5.00 5.00 5 1.00 2.00 0.04 3.04 -60% -39% Tomato 47.50 127.75 57.00 2.85 235.10 232.25 1.50 7.75 6.00 15.25 -97% -94% -89% -93% "USAID Approved" High Value Crops: Beans 2.00 3.83 1.00 6.83 5.825 3.63 1.50 5.13 81% -61% -12% Eggplant 13.50 6.33 19.83 19.83 1.00 1.00 -100% -84% -95% Mango 4.50 4.50 4.5 52.20 1.00 53.20 1060% 1082% Okra 5.47 5.47 5.4725 4.21 0.08 4.29 -23% -22% Palm 0 15.21 15.21 Garlic 0.58 0.50 1.08 1.083 -100% -100% -100% Cucumber 7.00 15.13 22.13 7 2.67 2.67 -100% -62% Basil 0 6.00 6.00 Spinach 0 0.17 0.17 Sesame 0 4.50 4.50 Peanuts 0 2.50 0.58 3.08 Cabbage 0 1.00 1.00 Banana 2.08 2.08 2.083 0.25 2.00 2.25 -100% 8% Cantaloupe 4.00 15.00 19.00 4 -100% -100% Green onions 1.00 1.00 1 -100% -100% Hibiscus 11.00 2.00 13.00 11 -100% -100% Pepper 2.50 7.79 11.13 21.42 10.292 -100% -100% -100% Sorghum 2.00 0.59 2.59 2.586 -100% -100% -100% Squash 1.50 1.50 1.5 -100% -100% Total 76.50 196.82 74.79 48.10 396.21 348.11 119.33 106.91 10.33 236.58 56% -46% -86% -32% Traditional Crops Alfalfa 5.00 21.55 11.71 1.50 39.77 38.266 -100% -100% -100% -100% Barley 3.00 3.00 3 1.50 1.50 -50% -50% Wheat 12.60 104.00 38.94 11.00 166.53 155.53 80.50 14.42 4.19 99.10 539% -86% -89% -36% 52 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Bressem 0 26.29 12.00 3.88 42.17 Sugar Cane 162.44 8.21 7.00 177.65 170.65 38.04 3.83 41.88 -77% -53% -75% Maize 0 79.67 1.00 80.67 Corn 1.00 33.49 10.29 4.50 49.29 44.788 29.79 7.67 2.56 40.02 2879% -77% -75% -11% Other 1.00 11.00 12.00 1 -100% -100% Total 18.60 324.49 69.14 24.00 436.23 412.23 216.25 74.63 14.46 305.33 1063% -77% -79% -26% Total Crops 95.10 521.30 143.94 72.10 832.44 760.34 335.58 181.54 24.79 541.91 253% -65% -83% -29% Table A-8. Distribution of Non-traditional and Traditional Crops planted by AMAL Smallholder Farmers in FY201q5 and FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Crops % of Areas Planted Per Crop from Total Area Planted 2015 2017 Sohag Luxor Qena Aswan Total Total w/o Aswan Sohag Luxor Qena Total Non-Traditional Crops Capsicum - - - - - - - - 4.03 0.18 Lemon - - - - - - - 0.16 0.34 0.07 Melons - - - 1.39 0.12 - 0.89 - - 0.55 Onion 26.29 0.80 0.35 - 3.57 3.90 0.74 0.28 1.51 0.62 Green Beans - 1.25 - - 0.78 0.85 29.14 7.44 3.03 20.68 Grapes - 0.96 - - 0.60 0.66 0.30 1.10 0.17 0.56 Tomato 49.95 24.51 39.60 3.95 28.24 30.55 0.45 4.27 24.20 2.81 Beans 2.10 0.73 - 1.39 0.82 0.77 1.08 0.83 - 0.95 Eggplant - 2.59 4.40 - 2.38 2.61 - - 4.03 0.18 Mango - 0.86 - - 0.54 0.59 - 28.76 4.03 9.82 53 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Okra - 1.05 - - 0.66 0.72 - 2.32 0.34 0.79 Palm - - - - - - - 8.38 - 2.81 Garlic - 0.11 0.35 - 0.13 0.14 - - - - Cucumbers - 1.34 - 20.98 2.66 0.92 0.79 - - 0.49 Basil - - - - - - - 3.31 - 1.11 Spinach - - - - - - - 0.09 - 0.03 Sesame - - - - - - 1.34 - - 0.83 Peanuts - - - - - - 0.74 0.32 - 0.57 Cabbage - - - - - - - 0.55 - 0.18 Bananas - - 1.45 - 0.25 0.27 0.07 1.10 - 0.42 Cantaloupe - 0.77 - 20.80 2.28 0.53 - - - - Green onions - 0.19 - - 0.12 0.13 - - - - Hibiscus - 2.11 - 2.77 1.56 1.45 - - - - Peppers - 0.48 5.41 15.43 2.57 1.35 - - - - Sorghum 2.10 - 0.41 - 0.31 0.34 - - - - Squash - 0.29 - - 0.18 0.20 - - - - Total 80.44 37.75 51.96 66.71 47.60 45.78 35.56 58.89 41.68 43.66 Traditional Crops Alfalfa 5.26 4.13 8.14 2.08 4.78 5.03 - - - - Barley - 0.58 - - 0.36 0.39 - 0.83 - 0.28 Wheat 13.25 19.95 27.05 15.26 20.01 20.46 23.99 7.94 16.89 18.29 Bressem - - - - - - 7.83 6.61 15.63 7.78 Sugar Cane - 31.16 5.70 9.71 21.34 22.44 - 20.96 15.46 7.73 54 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Maize - - - - - - 23.74 0.55 - 14.89 Corn 1.05 6.43 7.15 6.24 5.92 5.89 8.88 4.22 10.34 7.39 Other - - 0.69 15.26 1.44 0.13 - - - - Total 19.56 62.25 48.04 33.29 52.40 54.22 64.44 41.11 58.32 56.34 55 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-9. Change in per-Feddan Production Cost in Luxor Governorate from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Crop Crops 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) % Change Melons 0.0 0.0 Onion 5599.7 5983.0 7% Green Beans 4918.8 3461.6 -30% Grapes 49650.0 11966.0 Tomato 13498.0 4786.4 -65% Mean Total 12449.9 4825.3 -61% Beans 2711.0 1130.8 -58% Eggplant 5905.9 0.0 -100% Mango 5581.8 8637.8 55% Okra 8843.7 7682.2 -13% Cucumber 6259.0 0.0 -100% Banana 0.0 4487.3 Mean Total 8146.3 8090.0 -1% Barley 4940.0 1994.3 -60% Wheat 3444.8 2982.8 -13% Sugar Cane 8638.3 6854.9 -21% Corn 3437.4 1458.4 -58% Total 5516.8 4348.5 -21% Total All Crops 7182.6 6102.0 -15% Table A-10. Change in per-Feddan Production Cost in Qena Governorate from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Crop Crops 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) % Change Melons 0.0 0.0 Onion 5500.0 8184.7 49% Green Beans 0.0 3589.8 Grapes 0.0 14359.2 Tomato 11475.0 4786.4 -58% Mean Total 11048.2 7472.1 -32% Beans 0.0 0.0 Eggplant 9339.4 1196.6 -87% Mango 0.0 8675.4 Okra 0.0 2871.8 Cucumber 0.0 0.0 Banana 14108.1 0.0 -100% Mean Total 13316.1 4247.9 -68% Barley 0.0 0.0 56 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Wheat 3881.3 2913.7 -25% Sugar Cane 9847.4 11211.3 14% Corn 4301.4 2303.9 -46% Total 4719.0 4904.7 4% Total All Crops 7262.2 5586.5 -23% Table A-11. Change in per-Feddan Production Cost in Sohag Governorate from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Crop Crops 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) Sohag Melons 0.0 2991.5 Onion 9839.8 5609.1 -43% Green Beans 0.0 4287.1 Grapes 0.0 0.0 Tomato 13199.0 4786.4 -64% Mean Total 11729.3 4306.5 -63% Beans 7940.0 1130.8 -86% Eggplant 0.0 0.0 Mango 0.0 0.0 Okra 0.0 0.0 Cucumber 0.0 2318.4 Banana 0.0 5504.4 Mean Total 7939.3 1744.3 -78% Barley 0.0 0.0 Wheat 3878.3 3230.0 -17% Sugar Cane 0.0 0.0 Corn 3900.0 3117.5 -20% Total 3881.4 3198.6 -18% Total All Crops 9228.8 3623.6 -61% 57 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-12. Change in per-Feddan Production Cost of High-Value Crops and Traditional Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (Egyptian Pounds) Crops Production Cost Per Feddan - 2015 in EGP Production Cost Per Feddan - 2017 in EGP (Fixed Price - 1US$*17.6*0.6) Percentage Change in Production Cost Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 - EGP Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Luxor Qena Sohag Total Luxor Qena Sohag Total "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Melons 0.0 0.0 0.0 1425.0 1425.0 0.0 0.0 2991.5 2991.5 110% Onion 5599.7 5500.0 9839.8 0.0 7571.7 5983.0 8184.7 5609.1 7265.6 7% 49% -43% -4% Green Beans 4918.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4918.8 3461.6 3589.8 4287.1 4223.0 -30% -14% Grapes 49650.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49650.0 11966.0 14359.2 0.0 13162.6 Tomato 13498.0 11475.0 13199.0 8763.9 12823.1 4786.4 4786.4 4786.4 4786.4 -65% -58% -64% -63% Mean Total 12449.9 11048.2 11729.3 6929.2 11823.6 4825.3 7472.1 4306.5 4603.9 -61% -32% -63% -61% Other High Value Crops Beans 2711.0 0.0 7940.0 2565.0 4429.7 1130.8 0.0 1130.8 1130.8 -58% -86% -74% Eggplant 5905.9 9339.4 0.0 0.0 7226.5 0.0 1196.6 0.0 1196.6 -100% -87% -83% Mango 5581.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5581.8 8637.8 8675.4 0.0 8639.4 55% 55% Okra 8843.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8843.7 7682.2 2871.8 0.0 6880.5 -13% -22% Cucumber 6259.0 0.0 0.0 57655.0 23391.0 0.0 0.0 2318.4 2318.4 -100% -90% Banana 0.0 14108.1 0.0 0.0 14108.1 4487.3 0.0 5504.4 4995.8 -100% -65% Mean Total 8146.3 13316.1 7939.3 17875.0 10114.8 8090.0 4247.9 1744.3 6241.6 -1% -68% -78% -38% Traditional Crops Barley 4940.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4940.0 1994.3 0.0 0.0 1994.3 -60% -60% Wheat 3444.8 3881.3 3878.3 2960.0 3551.5 2982.8 2913.7 3230.0 3176.2 -13% -25% -17% -11% Sugar Cane 8638.3 9847.4 0.0 8308.3 8697.5 6854.9 11211.3 0.0 8216.3 -21% 14% -6% Corn 3437.4 4301.4 3900.0 1847.0 3560.8 1458.4 2303.9 3117.5 2822.1 -58% -46% -20% -21% Total 5516.8 4719.0 3881.4 4495.4 5275.9 4348.5 4904.7 3198.6 3616.8 -21% 4% -18% -31% Total All Crops 7182.6 7262.2 9228.8 11628.2 7582.2 6102.0 5586.5 3623.6 4360.3 -15% -23% -61% -42% Table A-13. Change in per-Feddan Production Cost of High-Value and Traditional Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 58 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Disaggregated by Governorate (U.S. Dollars) Crops Production Cost Per Feddan - 2015 in US$ Production Cost Per Feddan - 2017 in US$ Percentage Change in Production Cost Per Feddan - US$ Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Luxor Qena Sohag Total Luxor Qena Sohag Total "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Melons 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.3 187.3 283.3 283.3 51% Onion 735.8 722.7 1293.0 0.0 995.0 566.6 775.1 531.2 688.0 -23% 7% -59% -31% Green Beans 646.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 646.4 327.8 339.9 406.0 399.9 -49% -38% Grapes 6524.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6524.3 1133.1 1359.8 1246.5 Tomato 1773.7 1507.9 1734.4 1151.6 1685.0 453.3 453.3 453.3 453.3 -74% -70% -74% -73% Total 1636.0 1451.8 1541.3 910.5 1553.7 456.9 707.6 407.8 436.0 -72% -51% -74% -72% Other High Value Crops Beans 356.2 0.0 1043.4 337.1 582.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 -70% -90% -82% Eggplant 776.1 1227.3 0.0 0.0 949.6 113.3 113.3 -100% -91% -88% Mango 733.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 733.5 818.0 821.5 818.1 12% 12% Okra 1162.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1162.1 727.5 272.0 651.6 -37% -44% Cucumber 822.5 0.0 0.0 7576.2 3073.7 219.5 219.5 -100% -93% Banana 0.0 1853.9 0.0 0.0 1853.9 424.9 521.2 473.1 -100% -74% Total 1070.5 1749.8 1043.3 2348.9 1329.1 766.1 402.3 165.2 591.1 -28% -77% -84% -56% Traditional Crops Barley 649.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 649.1 188.9 188.9 Wheat 452.7 510.0 509.6 389.0 466.7 282.5 275.9 305.9 300.8 -38% -46% -40% -36% Sugar Cane 1135.1 1294.0 0.0 1091.8 1142.9 649.1 1061.7 778.1 -43% -18% -32% Corn 451.7 565.2 512.5 242.7 467.9 138.1 218.2 295.2 267.2 -69% -61% -42% -43% Total 724.9 620.1 510.0 590.7 693.3 411.8 464.5 302.9 342.5 -43% -25% -41% -51% Total All Crops 943.8 954.3 1212.7 1528.0 996.3 577.8 529.0 343.1 412.9 -39% -45% -72% -59% Table A-14. Change in per-Feddan Net Income from High-Value and Traditional Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (Egyptian Pounds) 59 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Crops Average Net Income Per Feddan - 2015 in EGP Average Net Income Per Feddan - 2017 in EGP - Current Price Percentage Change in Average Income Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 - EGP Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Mean Luxor Qena Sohag Total Mean Luxor Qena Sohag Total w/o Aswan "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Melons - - - 5,864.00 5,864.00 - - 8,974.50 8,974.50 Onion 3,398.38 7,912.42 2,809.73 - 3,541.18 9,572.80 3,669.58 10,894.05 6,213.60 182% -54% 288% 75% Green Beans 1,512.50 - - - 1,512.50 8,475.92 8,974.50 6,718.18 6,993.02 460% 362% Grapes - - - - - 3,988.67 95,728.05 - 49,858.36 Tomato 8,398.19 7,883.24 13,790.30 6,789.27 9,065.52 23,710.42 9,971.67 21,937.68 20,608.12 182% 26% 59% 127% Mean Total 7452.6 7885.7 9868.7 6558.0 7951.8 14520.7 16627.8 7892.2 11035.0 95% 111% -20% 39% Other High Value Crops Beans 4,291.98 - 7,939.29 4,335.00 5,514.92 5,793.54 - 5,793.54 5,793.54 35% -27% 5% Eggplant 5,506.30 4,820.87 - - 5,232.13 - 9,223.80 - 9,223.80 -100% 91% 76% Mango 3,409.98 - - - 3,409.98 15,752.15 30,912.18 - 16,383.82 362% 380% Okra 16,703.38 - - - 16,703.38 50,197.39 55,043.63 - 51,005.10 201% 205% Cucumber 7,852.67 - - 24,645.00 13,450.11 - - 8,600.57 8,600.57 -100% -36% Banana - 24,643.01 - - 24,643.01 37,393.77 - 38,690.08 38,041.93 -100% 54% Mean Total 8,146.25 13,316.07 7,939.29 17,875.00 10,114.77 21,882.46 31,726.53 9,294.50 19,406.66 169% 138% 17% 92% Traditional Crops Barley - - - - - 4,015.26 - - 4,015.26 60 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Wheat 3,609.19 2,945.15 4,378.91 3,350.08 3,505.34 4,347.15 4,462.32 4,075.07 4,136.32 20% 52% -7% 18% Sugar Cane 9,670.42 5,912.65 - 10,958.33 9,498.61 16,872.18 13,678.61 - 15,874.19 74% 131% 67% Corn 1,710.61 2,413.01 2,038.92 4,428.00 2,078.88 5,116.42 4,763.66 5,040.72 5,006.73 199% 97% 147% 141% Mean Total 5,946.07 3,216.65 4,044.62 6,125.70 5,429.07 16,058.17 12,029.18 5,291.92 9,070.42 170% 274% 31% 67% Mean Total - All Crops 6,494.14 5,802.86 7,928.36 8,436.76 6,600.09 16,058.17 12,029.18 5,291.92 9,070.42 147% 107% -33% 37% Table A-15. Change in per-Feddan Net Income from High-Value and Other Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (Egyptian Pounds) Crops Average Net Income Per Feddan - 2015 in EGP Average Net Income Per Feddan - 2017 in EGP - Fixed Price (Inflation subtracted) Percentage Change in Average Income Per Feddan - EGP Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Mean Luxor Qena Sohag Total Mean Luxor Qena Sohag Total w/o Aswa n "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Melons - - - 5,864.00 5,864.00 - - 5,384.70 5,384.70 -8% Onion 3,398.38 7,912.42 2,809.73 - 3,541.18 5,743.68 2,201.75 6,536.43 3,728.16 69% -72% 133% 5% Green Beans 1,512.50 - - - 1,512.50 5,085.55 5,384.70 4,030.91 4,195.81 236% 177% Grapes - - - - - 2,393.20 57,436.83 - 29,915.01 Tomato 8,398.19 7,883.24 13,790.30 6,789.27 9,065.52 14,226.25 5,983.00 13,162.61 12,364.87 69% -24% -5% 36% Total 7452.6 7885.7 9868.7 6558.0 7951.8 8712.4 9976.7 4735.3 6621.0 17% 27% -52% -17% Other High Value Crops Beans 4,291.98 - 7,939.29 4,335.00 5,514.92 3,476.12 - 3,476.12 3,476.12 -19% -56% -37% 61 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Eggplant 5,506.30 4,820.87 - - 5,232.13 - 5,534.28 - 5,534.28 -100% 15% 6% Mango 3,409.98 - - - 3,409.98 9,451.29 18,547.31 - 9,830.29 177% 188% Okra 16,703.38 - - - 16,703.38 30,118.44 33,026.18 - 30,603.06 80% 83% Cucumber 7,852.67 - - 24,645.00 13,450.11 - - 5,160.34 5,160.34 -100% -62% Banana - 24,643.0 1 - - 24,643.01 22,436.26 - 23,214.05 22,825.16 -100% -7% Total 8146.3 13316.1 7939.3 17875.0 10114.8 13129.5 19035.9 5576.7 11644.0 61% 43% -30% 15% Traditional Crops Barley - - - - 2,608.29 - - - 2,409.16 -8%- -- -- - Wheat 3,609.19 2,945.15 4,378.91 3,350.08 3,505.34 10,123.31 2,677.39 2,445.04 2,481.79 180% -9% -44% -29% Sugar Cane 9,670.42 5,912.65 - 10,958.33 9,498.61 3,069.85 8,207.16 - 9,524.51 -68% 39% 0% Corn 1,710.61 2,413.01 2,038.92 4,428.00 2,078.88 9,634.90 2,858.20 3,024.43 3,004.04 463% 18% 48% 45% Mean Total 5946.1 3216.7 4044.6 6125.7 5429.1 9634.9 4189.7 2607.5 3360.1 62% 30% -36% -38% Total 6494.1 5802.9 7928.4 8436.8 6600.1 9634.9 7217.5 3175.2 5442.3 24% -18% Table A-16. Change in per-Feddan Net Mean Crop Income from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (U.S. Dollars) Crops Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2015 in US$ Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2017 in US$ % Change in Average Income Per Feddan, 2015 to 2017 in US$ Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Total Luxor Qena Sohag Total Luxor Qena Sohag Total "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Melons 0.0 0.0 0.0 770.6 770.6 509.9 509.9 -34% Onion 446.6 1039.7 369.2 0.0 465.3 543.9 208.5 619.0 353.0 22% -80% 68% -24% Green Beans 198.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 198.8 481.6 509.9 381.7 397.3 142% 100% Grapes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 226.6 5439.1 2832.9 62 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Tomato 1103.6 1035.9 1812.1 892.2 1191.3 1347.2 566.6 1246.5 1170.9 22% -45% -31% -2% Mean Total 979.3 1036.2 1296.8 861.8 1044.9 825.0 944.8 448.4 627.0 -16% -9% -65% -40% Other High Value Crops Beans 564.0 0.0 1043.3 569.6 724.7 329.2 329.2 329.2 -42% -68% -55% Eggplant 723.6 633.5 0.0 0.0 687.5 524.1 524.1 -100% -17% -24% Mango 448.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 448.1 895.0 1756.4 930.9 100% 108% Okra 2194.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2194.9 2852.1 3127.5 2898.0 30% 32% Cucumber 1031.9 0.0 0.0 3238.5 1767.4 488.7 488.7 -100% -72% Banana 0.0 3238.2 0.0 0.0 3238.2 2124.6 2198.3 2161.5 -100% -33% Mean Total 1070.5 1749.8 1043.3 2348.9 1329.1 1243.3 1802.6 528.1 1102.7 16% 3% -49% -17% Traditional Crops Barley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 228.1 228.1 Wheat 474.3 387.0 575.4 440.2 460.6 247.0 253.5 231.5 235.0 -48% -34% -60% -49% Sugar Cane 1270.8 777.0 0.0 1440.0 1248.2 958.6 777.2 901.9 -25% 0% -28% Corn 224.8 317.1 267.9 581.9 273.2 290.7 270.7 286.4 284.5 29% -15% 7% 4% Mean Total 781.3 422.7 531.5 805.0 713.4 554.1 396.8 246.9 318.2 -29% -6% -54% -55% Mean Total - All Crops 853.4 762.5 1041.8 1108.6 867.3 912.4 683.5 300.7 515.4 7% -10% -71% -41% 63 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table/Figure A-17. Change in AMAL Smallholder Farmers’ Income and Production Costs from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Crop (%) Crops Percentage Change in Income Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan Green Beans 177% -14% Mango 188% 55% Okra 83% -22% Tomato 36% -63% Onion 5% -4% Corn 4% -21% Wheat -29% -11% 177% 188% 83% 36% 5% 4% -29% -14% 55% -22% -63% -4% -21% -11% -200% 0% 200% 400% Green Beans Mango Okra Tomato Onion Corn Wheat Percentage Change in Income Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 64 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-18. Change in Farmers’ Net Mean Income by Number of Feddans Cultivated from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (U.S. Dollars) Total Land in Feddans Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2015 ($) Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2017 ($) Change Percentage for complete data Luxor Qena Sohag Aswan Mean Total Luxor Qena Sohag Mean Total Luxor Qena Sohag Mean Total w/o Aswan 0 - 1 675.8 61.6 - 267.7 455.4 1,309.3 228.1 283.9 381.1 94% 1 - 3 1,508.2 731.1 - 1,626.1 1,340.7 2,217.2 1,164.0 664.9 985.8 47% 3 - 5 3,852.2 10,035.8 4,032.2 4,643.7 4,185.6 5,647.0 1,471.8 3,559.4 47% 5 - 10 5,548.7 5,378.3 5,651.9 4,497.3 5,438.4 8,536.7 2,783.5 2,343.3 5,502.9 54% -48% -59% 1% 10+ 8,262.3 19,084.9 12,551.6 49,196.3 14,799.5 15,988.7 15,988.7 94% Total 3,863.5 5,580.2 9,467.8 18,305.3 5,535.2 5,517.0 726.9 684.4 1,888.3 43% 70% -88% -45% Table A-19. Change in Farmers’ Net Mean Income by Number of Feddans Cultivated from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (Egyptian Pounds) Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2015 (LE) Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2017 (LE) Change Percentage for complete data 65 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Total Land in Feddans Sohag Luxor Qena Aswan Mean Total Suhag Luxor Qena Mean Total Luxor Qena Sohag Mean Total w/o Aswan 0 - 1 5,203.4 474.3 - 2,061.6 3,506.6 13,826.4 2,408.8 2,997.8 4,024.5 166% 1 - 3 11,613.1 5,629.2 - 12,520.8 10,323.7 23,414.2 12,291.9 7,021.8 10,410.3 102% 3 - 5 29,662.1 77,275.4 31,047.8 35,756.5 32,229.4 59,631.9 - 15,542.3 37,587.1 101% 5 - 10 42,725.0 41,412.9 43,519.5 34,629.4 41,875.5 90,148.0 29,393.8 24,744.8 58,110.6 111% -29% -43% 39% 10+ 63,620.0 146,953.9 96,647.4 378,811.8 113,955.8 168,841.0 - - 168,841.0 165% Total 29,748.9 42,967.6 72,901.9 140,950.4 42,621.2 58,259.4 7,675.7 7,227.0 19,940.4 96% 70% -88% -45% 66 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-20. Exported Crops Reported by AMAL Smallholder Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate (Metric Tons) Crops Governorate Suhag Luxor Qena Total Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Onion 1 1 Green Beans 411 1,540,500 55 204,375 5 17,813 470 1,762,688 Grapes 6 36,000 1 3,000 7 39,000 Basil 6 138,000 6 138,000 Total 417 1,576,500 61 342,375 6 20,813 483 1,939,688 Table A-21. Farmers Responses to Growing Crops Based on Forward Contracts Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Answer Codes Choices # % per choice % from governorate (S - N=333, L￾N=99, Q￾N=41) % from total sample N= 473 Sohag Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 62 19.0% 18.6 13.1 No 264 81.0% 79.3 55.8 Luxor Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 2 2.0% 2.0 0.4 No 97 98.0% 98.0 20.5 Qena Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 2 5.6% 4.9 0.4 No 34 94.4% 82.9 7.2 Total Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 66 14.3% 14.0 14.0 No 395 85.7% 83.5 83.5 Table A-22. Farmers’ Details Regarding Forward Contracts Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Answer Codes Choices # % per choice % from governorate (S - N=333, L￾N=99, Q-N=41) % from total sample N= 473 Sohag Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 62 19.0% 18.6 13.1 No 264 81.0% 79.3 55.8 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 57 91.9% 17.1 12.1 No 5 8.1% 1.5 1.1 Cash Advance Yes 46 90.2% 13.8 9.7 No 5 9.8% 1.5 1.1 Inputs Yes 36 75.0% 10.8 7.6 67 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV No 12 25.0% 3.6 2.5 Infrastructure Development Yes 4 9.5% 1.2 0.8 No 38 90.5% 11.4 8.0 Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 59 96.7% 17.7 12.5 No 2 3.3% 0.6 0.4 If the answer is No please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 2 100.0% 0.6 0.4 decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 57 95.0% 17.1 12.1 No 3 5.0% 0.9 0.6 If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 1 33.3% 0.3 0.2 low quality 2 66.7% 0.6 0.4 Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 28 45.2% 8.4 5.9 No 34 54.8% 10.2 7.2 If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 26 92.9% 7.8 5.5 FAIRTRADE 2 7.1% 0.6 0.4 Other 0 0.0% - - Luxor Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 2 2.0% 2.0 0.4 No 97 98.0% 98.0 20.5 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 1 50.0% 1.0 0.2 No 1 50.0% 1.0 0.2 Cash Advance Yes 1 100.0% 1.0 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Inputs Yes 0 0.0% - - No 1 100.0% 1.0 0.2 Infrastructure Development Yes 0 0.0% - - No 1 100.0% 1.0 0.2 Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 1 50.0% 1.0 0.2 No 1 50.0% 1.0 0.2 If the answer is No please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 1 100.0% 1.0 0.2 decreased yield 0 0.0% - - 68 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 1 50.0% 1.0 0.2 No 1 50.0% 1.0 0.2 If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 1 100.0% 1.0 0.2 low quality 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 2 100.0% 2.0 0.4 If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 0 0.0% - - FAIRTRADE 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Qena Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 2 5.6% 4.9 0.4 No 34 94.4% 82.9 7.2 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Cash Advance Yes 1 100.0% 2.4 .2 No 0 0.0% - - Inputs Yes 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Infrastructure Development Yes 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - If the answer is No please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 0 0.0% - - decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 0 0.0% - - 69 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV low quality 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 1 100.0% 2.4 0.2 FAIRTRADE 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Total Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 66 14.3% 14.0 14.0 No 395 85.7% 83.5 83.5 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 59 90.8% 12.5 12.5 No 6 9.2% 1.3 1.3 Cash Advance Yes 48 90.6% 10.1 10.1 No 5 9.4% 1.1 1.1 Inputs Yes 37 74.0% 7.8 7.8 No 13 26.0% 2.7 2.7 Infrastructure Development Yes 5 11.4% 1.1 1.1 No 39 88.6% 8.2 8.2 Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 61 95.3% 12.9 12.9 No 3 4.7% 0.6 0.6 If the answer is No please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 3 100.0% 0.6 0.6 decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 59 93.7% 12.5 12.5 No 4 6.3% 0.8 0.8 If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 2 50.0% 0.4 0.4 low quality 2 50.0% 0.4 0.4 Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 28 43.1% 5.9 5.9 No 37 56.9% 7.8 7.8 If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 27 93.1% 5.7 5.7 FAIRTRADE 2 6.9% 0.4 0.4 Other 0 0.0% - - 70 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-23. Problems Reported by Farmers While Transporting Export Crops Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Problems Faced # % from governorate (S - N=333. L-N=99 Q-N=41) % from total sample N= 473 Sohag Dealing with Exporters and Traders. 11 3.3 2.3 Lack of Technical Experience. 6 1.8 1.3 Difficulty in Getting Funds. 2 0.6 0.4 Lack of Financial Resources. 3 0.9 0.6 The Inability to Bear the Risks. 6 1.8 1.3 Lack of Training Opportunities 2 0.6 0.4 Lack of Good Input Supplies. 6 1.8 1.3 Lack of Export Information. 2 0.6 0.4 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies. 4 1.2 0.8 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 1 0.3 0.2 Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc. 4 1.2 0.8 Others 9 2.7 1.9 Luxor Dealing with Exporters and Traders. 41 41.4 8.7 Lack of Technical Experience. 13 13.1 2.7 Difficulty in Getting Funds. 1 1.0 0.2 Lack of Financial Resources. 7 7.1 1.5 The Inability to Bear the Risks. 9 9.1 1.9 Lack of Training Opportunities 4 4.0 0.8 Lack of Good Input Supplies. 11 11.1 2.3 Lack of Export Information. 16 16.2 3.4 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies. 6 6.1 1.3 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 13 13.1 2.7 Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks.. Etc. 18 18.2 3.8 Others 8 8.1 1.7 Qena Dealing with Exporters and Traders. 14 34.1 3.0 Lack of Technical Experience. 8 19.5 1.7 Difficulty in Getting Funds. 9 22.0 1.9 Lack of Financial Resources. 7 17.1 1.5 The Inability to Bear the Risks. 9 22.0 1.9 Lack of Training Opportunities 9 22.0 1.9 Lack of Good Input Supplies. 6 14.6 1.3 Lack of Export Information. 3 7.3 0.6 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies. 5 12.2 1.1 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 6 14.6 1.3 71 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc. 3 7.3 0.6 Others 4 9.8 0.8 Total Dealing with Exporters and Traders. 66 14.0 14.0 Lack of Technical Experience. 27 5.7 5.7 Difficulty in Getting Funds. 12 2.5 2.5 Lack of Financial Resources. 17 3.6 3.6 The Inability to Bear the Risks. 24 5.1 5.1 Lack of Training Opportunities 15 3.2 3.2 Lack of Good Input Supplies. 23 4.9 4.9 Lack of Export Information. 21 4.4 4.4 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies. 15 3.2 3.2 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 20 4.2 4.2 Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc. 25 5.3 5.3 Others 21 4.4 4.4 72 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-24. Problems Reported by Farmers While Selling Products in Local Markets Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Problems Faced # % from governorate (S - N=333, L-N=99 Q-N=41) % from total sample N= 473 Sohag Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 4 1.2 0.8 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash 1 0.3 0.2 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 8 2.4 1.7 Lack of Storage Facilities 5 1.5 1.1 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 3 0.9 0.6 Prices are below the Expectations 9 2.7 1.9 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 5 1.5 1.1 Others 3 0.9 0.6 Luxor Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 17 17.2 3.6 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash. 8 8.1 1.7 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 17 17.2 3.6 Lack of Storage Facilities 4 4.0 0.8 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 16 16.2 3.4 Prices are below the Expectations 31 31.3 6.6 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 13 13.1 2.7 Others 8 8.1 1.7 Qena Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 12 29.3 2.5 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash 8 19.5 1.7 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 8 19.5 1.7 Lack of Storage Facilities 8 19.5 1.7 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 7 17.1 1.5 Prices are below the Expectations 8 19.5 1.7 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 8 19.5 1.7 Others 12 29.3 2.5 Total Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 33 7.0 7.0 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash 17 3.6 3.6 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 33 7.0 7.0 Lack of Storage Facilities 17 3.6 3.6 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 26 5.5 5.5 Prices are below the Expectations 48 10.1 10.1 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 26 5.5 5.5 Others 23 4.9 4.9 73 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-25. Activities Reported by Farmers as Helpful in Shifting from Traditional Cultivation Patterns to Non-Traditional Methods Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Activities # Respondents % from Gov. (S-N=95 L-N=36 Q-N=14) % from Total Sample (N=145) Sohag Farm and agricultural training 77 81.1 53.1 Marketing training 33 34.7 22.8 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 64 67.4 44.1 Market Intelligence activities 13 13.7 9.0 Establish linkages with high value markets 10 10.5 6.9 Facilitate forward contracting 23 24.2 15.9 Post-harvest operations 48 50.5 33.1 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 31 32.6 21.4 Luxor Farm and agricultural training 34 94.4 23.4 Marketing training 19 52.8 13.1 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 26 72.2 17.9 Market Intelligence activities 18 50.0 12.4 Establish linkages with high value markets 12 33.3 8.3 Facilitate forward contracting 7 19.4 4.8 Post-harvest operations 17 47.2 11.7 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 22 61.1 15.2 Qena Farm and agricultural training 12 85.7 8.3 Marketing training 12 85.7 8.3 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 9 64.3 6.2 Market Intelligence activities 8 57.1 5.5 Establish linkages with high value markets 5 35.7 3.4 Facilitate forward contracting 5 35.7 3.4 Post-harvest operations 6 42.9 4.1 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 8 57.1 5.5 Total Agricultural training 123 84.8 84.8 Marketing training 64 44.1 44.1 Improving techniques 99 68.3 68.3 Market Intelligence activities 39 26.9 26.9 Establish linkages with high value markets 27 18.6 18.6 Facilitate forward contracting 35 24.1 24.1 Post-harvest operations 71 49.0 49.0 Use sustainable production systems 61 42.1 42.1 74 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-26. Modern Farming Practices Farmers Reported as Helpful for Increasing Productivity and/or Decreasing Production Costs Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Technology/Practice # Respondents % from Gov. (S-N=95, L￾N=36, Q￾N=14) % from Total Sample (N=145) Sohag Using modern irrigation methods. 39 41.1 26.9 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 68 71.6 46.9 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 80 84.2 55.2 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 74 77.9 51.0 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 78 82.1 53.8 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 76 80.0 52.4 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing 60 63.2 41.4 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 34 35.8 23.4 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 9 9.5 6.2 Luxor Using modern irrigation methods 8 22.2 5.5 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 17 47.2 11.7 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 27 75.0 18.6 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 29 80.6 20.0 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 29 80.6 20.0 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 25 69.4 17.2 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing 17 47.2 11.7 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 12 33.3 8.3 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 8 22.2 5.5 Qena Using modern irrigation methods. 5 35.7 18.6 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 8 57.1 5.5 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 10 71.4 6.9 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 9 64.3 6.2 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 11 78.6 7.6 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 9 64.3 6.2 75 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 8 57.1 5.5 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 7 50.0 4.8 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 3 21.4 2.1 Total Modern irrigation methods 52 35.9 35.9 Mechanization & Modern Ag. Engineering 93 64.1 64.1 Improved Fertilization 117 80.7 80.7 Seeds Variety & Improved Seedlings 112 77.2 77.2 Safe & Effective Pesticides Use 118 81.4 81.4 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 110 75.9 75.9 Applying Post-harvest activities 85 58.6 58.6 Shifting to Modern Farming Management 53 36.6 36.6 Using Computers in Management & Info 20 13.8 13.8 Table A-27. New Farming Technologies and/or Modern Practices that Presented Obstacles for Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Obstacle # Respondents % from Gov. (S-N=95 L-N=36 Q-N=14) % from Total Sample (N=145) Sohag Using modern irrigation methods 62 65.3 42.8 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engine 24 25.3 16.6 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 15 15.8 10.3 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 19 20.0 13.1 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 19 20.0 13.1 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 19 20.0 13.1 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 26 27.4 17.9 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 50 52.6 34.5 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 76 80.0 52.4 Luxor Using modern irrigation methods. 30 83.3 20.7 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 21 58.3 14.5 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 10 27.8 6.9 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 8 22.2 5.5 76 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 8 22.2 5.5 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 12 33.3 8.3 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing 19 52.8 13.1 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 24 66.7 16.6 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 28 58.3 14.5 Qena Using modern irrigation methods 9 64.3 6.2 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 7 50.0 4.8 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 5 35.7 3.4 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 5 35.7 3.4 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 4 28.6 2.8 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 7 50.0 4.8 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 6 42.9 4.1 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 5 35.7 3.4 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 8 57.1 5.5 Total Modern irrigation methods 101 69.7 69.7 Mechanization & Modern Ag. Engineering 52 35.9 35.9 Improved Fertilization 30 20.7 20.7 Seeds Variety & Improved Seedlings 32 22.1 22.1 Safe & Effective Pesticides Use 31 21.4 21.4 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 38 26.2 26.2 Applying Post-harvest activities 51 35.2 35.2 Shifting to Modern Farming Management 79 54.5 54.5 Using Computers in Management & Info 112 77.2 77.2 Table A-28. Number and Percentage of AMAL Small Holder Farmers Satisfied with Management, Services, Performance, and Communications of Project Implementation Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Satisfaction Factor # Respondents % from Gov. (S-N=95 L-N=36 Q-N=14) % from Total Sample (N=145) 77 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Sohag The closeness of the project management to the farmers 93 97.9 64.1 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 82 86.3 56.6 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 90 94.7 62.1 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 77 81.1 53.1 Improvements in productivity and production 56 58.9 38.6 Improvement in available and used technology 31 32.6 21.4 Improvement in administrative activities 22 23.2 15.2 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 24 25.3 16.6 Centre of Excellence services 14 14.7 9.7 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 18 18.9 12.4 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 18 18.9 12.4 Improvement in access to markets related information 12 12.6 8.3 Luxor The closeness of the project management to the farmers 36 42.4 24.8 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 34 40.0 23.4 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 32 37.6 22.1 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 35 41.2 24.1 Improvements in productivity and production 29 34.1 20.0 Improvement in available and used technology 25 29.4 17.2 Improvement in administrative activities 24 14.1 8.3 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 21 24.7 14.5 Centre of Excellence services 21 24.7 14.5 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 23 27.1 15.9 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 13 15.3 9.0 Improvement in access to markets related information 21 24.7 14.5 Qena The closeness of the project management to the farmers 13 92.9 9.0 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 13 92.9 9.0 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 13 92.9 9.0 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 14 100.0 9.7 Improvements in productivity and production 14 100.0 9.7 Improvement in available and used technology 13 92.9 9.0 Improvement in administrative activities 10 71.4 6.9 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 9 64.3 6.2 Centre of Excellence services 8 57.1 5.5 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 5 35.7 3.4 78 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 5 35.7 3.4 Improvement in access to markets related information 6 42.9 4.1 Total Closeness of Project Management to Farmers 142 97.9 97.9 Performance of Co-op/CDA 129 89.0 89.0 CDA/Co-ops Services to farmers 135 93.1 93.1 Project Services in General 126 86.9 86.9 Improvement in Production and Productivity 99 68.3 68.3 Improvement in Technology 69 47.6 47.6 Improvement in Administrative Activities 56 38.6 38.6 Pack house Services & Post-harvest Processes 54 37.2 37.2 Centre of Excellence Services 43 29.7 29.7 Improvement in Communication Buyers 46 31.7 31.7 Improvement in Advance Sales Systems 36 24.8 24.8 Improvement in Market Access Info 39 26.9 26.9 Table A-29. Number and Percentage of AMAL Farmers that Expressed Interest and/or Willingness to Participate in a Newly Designed Project Disaggregated by Type of Project and Governorate Gov. Projects # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=95 L-N=36 A-N=14 ) % from Total Sample (N=145) Sohag Sorting and grading unit 27 8.4 18.6 Packaging unit 36 37.9 24.8 Drying unit 17 17.9 11.7 Squeezing and packaging unit 23 24.2 15.9 Fridges for cooling 24 25.3 16.6 Fridges for freezing 21 22.1 14.5 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 18 18.9 12.4 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 27 28.4 18.6 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 22 23.2 15.2 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 15 15.8 10.3 Outlet for selling production needs 17 17.9 11.7 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 16 16.8 11.0 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 17 17.9 11.7 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 24 66.7 16.6 Packaging unit 22 61.1 15.2 Drying unit 21 58.3 14.5 Squeezing and packaging unit 19 52.8 13.1 Fridges for cooling 18 47.2 11.7 79 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Fridges for freezing 17 47.2 11.7 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 22 61.1 15.2 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 22 61.1 15.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 20 55.6 13.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 22 61.1 15.2 Outlet for selling production needs 23 63.9 15.9 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 24 66.7 16.6 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 24 66.7 16.6 Qena Sorting and grading unit 11 78.6 7.6 Packaging unit 10 71.4 6.9 Drying unit 9 64.3 6.2 Squeezing and packaging unit 10 71.4 6.9 Fridges for cooling 9 64.3 6.2 Fridges for freezing 9 64.3 6.2 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 8 57.1 5.5 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 8 57.1 5.5 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 7 50.0 4.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 6 42.9 4.1 Outlet for selling production needs 7 50.0 4.8 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 6 42.9 4.1 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 6 42.9 4.1 Total Sorting and grading unit 62 42.8 42.8 Packaging unit 68 46.9 46.9 Drying unit 47 32.4 32.4 Squeezing and packaging unit 52 35.9 35.9 Fridges for cooling 51 35.2 35.2 Fridges for freezing 47 32.4 32.4 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 48 33.1 33.1 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 57 39.3 39.3 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 49 33.8 33.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 43 29.7 29.7 Outlet for selling production needs 47 32.4 32.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 46 31.7 31.7 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 47 32.4 32.4 Table A-30. Preferred Priorities for Financial Investment by Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate 80 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Gov. Projects Form of participation: Monetary Contribution # % from Respons es % from Gov. % from Total Sample Sohag Sorting and grading unit 5 18.5 5.3 3.4 Packaging unit 5 13.9 5.3 3.4 Drying unit 2 11.8 2.1 1.4 Squeezing and packaging unit 3 13.0 3.2 2.1 Fridges for cooling 4 16.7 4.2 2.8 Fridges for freezing 4 19.0 4.2 2.8 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 2 11.1 2.1 1.4 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 5 18.5 5.3 3.4 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 4 18.2 4.2 2.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 2 13.3 2.1 1.4 Outlet for selling production needs 2 11.8 2.1 1.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 2 12.5 2.1 1.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 3 17.6 3.2 2.1 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 2 8.3 5.6 1.4 Packaging unit 3 13.6 8.3 2.1 Drying unit 0 - - - Squeezing and packaging unit 0 - - - Fridges for cooling 0 11.8 5.6 1.4 Fridges for freezing 0 - - - A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 0 - - - Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 0 - - - Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 0 - - - Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 0 - - - Outlet for selling production needs 0 - - - Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 0 - - - Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 0 - - - Qena Sorting and grading unit 1 9.1 7.1 0.7 Packaging unit 2 20.0 14.3 1.4 Drying unit 2 22.2 14.3 1.4 Squeezing and packaging unit 2 20.0 14.3 1.4 Fridges for cooling 2 22.2 14.3 1.4 Fridges for freezing 1 11.1 7.1 0.7 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 1 12.5 7.1 0.7 81 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 2 25.0 14.3 1.4 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 1 14.3 7.1 0.7 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 2 33.3 14.3 1.4 Outlet for selling production needs 1 14.3 7.1 0.7 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 1 16.7 7.1 0.7 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 1 16.7 7.1 0.7 Total Sorting and grading unit 8 12.9 5.5 5.5 Packaging unit 10 14.7 6.9 6.9 Drying unit 4 8.5 2.8 2.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 5 9.6 3.4 3.4 Fridges for cooling 6 11.8 4.1 4.1 Fridges for freezing 5 10.6 3.4 3.4 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 3 6.3 2.1 2.1 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 7 12.3 4.8 4.8 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 5 10.2 3.4 3.4 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 4 9.3 2.8 2.8 Outlet for selling production needs 3 6.4 2.1 2.1 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 3 6.5 2.1 2.1 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 4 8.5 2.8 2.8 Table A-31. Preferred Priorities for Volunteer Time Investment by Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Volunteering # % from Responses % from Gov. # Sohag Sorting and grading unit 16 59.3 16.8 11.0 Packaging unit 16 44.4 16.8 11.0 Drying unit 10 58.8 10.5 6.9 Squeezing and packaging unit 10 43.5 10.5 6.9 Fridges for cooling 11 45.8 11.6 7.6 Fridges for freezing 9 42.9 9.5 6.2 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 9 50.0 9.5 6.2 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 12 44.4 12.6 8.3 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 10 45.5 10.5 6.9 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 8 53.3 8.4 5.5 Outlet for selling production needs 8 47.1 8.4 5.5 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 10 62.5 10.5 6.9 82 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 11 64.7 11.6 7.6 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 8 33.3 22.2 5.5 Packaging unit 7 31.8 19.4 4.8 Drying unit 7 33.3 19.4 4.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 6 31.6 16.7 4.1 Fridges for cooling 5 47.1 22.2 5.5 Fridges for freezing 5 29.4 13.9 3.4 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 9 40.9 25.0 6.2 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 9 40.9 25.0 6.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 9 45.0 25.0 6.2 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 11 50.0 30.6 7.6 Outlet for selling production needs 10 43.5 27.8 6.9 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 10 41.7 27.8 6.9 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 12 50.0 33.3 8.3 Qena Sorting and grading unit 8 72.7 57.1 5.5 Packaging unit 6 60.0 42.9 4.1 Drying unit 5 55.6 35.7 3.4 Squeezing and packaging unit 7 70.0 50.0 4.8 Fridges for cooling 3 33.3 21.4 2.1 Fridges for freezing 5 55.6 35.7 3.4 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 5 62.5 35.7 3.4 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 4 50.0 28.6 2.8 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 3 42.9 21.4 2.1 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 3 50.0 21.4 2.1 Outlet for selling production needs 3 42.9 21.4 2.1 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 3 50.0 21.4 2.1 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 3 50.0 21.4 2.1 Total Sorting and grading unit 32 51.6 22.1 22.1 Packaging unit 29 42.6 20.0 20.0 Drying unit 22 46.8 15.2 15.2 Squeezing and packaging unit 23 44.2 15.9 15.9 Fridges for cooling 19 37.3 13.1 13.1 Fridges for freezing 19 40.4 13.1 13.1 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 23 47.9 15.9 15.9 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 25 43.9 17.2 17.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 22 44.9 15.2 15.2 83 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 22 51.2 15.2 15.2 Outlet for selling production needs 21 44.7 14.5 14.5 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 23 50.0 15.9 15.9 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 26 55.3 17.9 17.9 84 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-32. Preferred Priorities for Investing Paid Work by Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Paid Work # % from Responses % from Gov. # Sohag Sorting and grading unit 4 14.8 4.2 2.8 Packaging unit 7 19.4 7.4 4.8 Drying unit 4 23.5 4.2 2.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 5 21.7 5.3 3.4 Fridges for cooling 6 25.0 6.3 4.1 Fridges for freezing 4 19.0 4.2 2.8 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 4 22.2 4.2 2.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 9 33.3 9.5 6.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 7 31.8 7.4 4.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 4 26.7 4.2 2.8 Outlet for selling production needs 6 35.3 6.3 4.1 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 3 18.8 3.2 2.1 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 3 17.6 3.2 2.1 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 9 37.5 25.0 6.2 Packaging unit 8 36.4 22.2 5.5 Drying unit 11 52.4 30.6 7.6 Squeezing and packaging unit 10 52.6 27.8 6.9 Fridges for cooling 10 35.3 16.7 4.1 Fridges for freezing 9 52.9 25.0 6.2 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 10 45.5 27.8 6.9 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 11 50.0 30.6 7.6 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 10 50.0 27.8 6.9 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 10 45.5 27.8 6.9 Outlet for selling production needs 11 47.8 30.6 7.6 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 11 45.8 30.6 7.6 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 10 41.7 27.8 6.9 Qena Sorting and grading unit 2 18.2 14.3 1.4 Packaging unit 3 30.0 21.4 2.1 Drying unit 4 44.4 28.6 2.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 2 20.0 14.3 1.4 Fridges for cooling 3 33.3 21.4 2.1 Fridges for freezing 3 33.3 21.4 2.1 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 2 25.0 14.3 1.4 85 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 2 25.0 14.3 1.4 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 2 28.6 14.3 1.4 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 1 16.7 7.1 0.7 Outlet for selling production needs 2 28.6 14.3 1.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 2 33.3 14.3 1.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 2 33.3 14.3 1.4 Total Sorting and grading unit 15 24.2 10.3 10.3 Packaging unit 18 26.5 12.4 12.4 Drying unit 19 40.4 13.1 13.1 Squeezing and packaging unit 17 32.7 11.7 11.7 Fridges for cooling 19 37.3 13.1 13.1 Fridges for freezing 16 34.0 11.0 11.0 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 16 33.3 11.0 11.0 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 22 38.6 15.2 15.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 19 38.8 13.1 13.1 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 15 34.9 10.3 10.3 Outlet for selling production needs 19 40.4 13.1 13.1 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 16 34.8 11.0 11.0 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 15 31.9 10.3 10.3 Table A-33. Preferred Priorities for Farmers to Employ Family Members Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Employing one or more family members # % from Responses % from Gov. # Sohag Sorting and grading unit 10 37.0 10.5 6.9 Packaging unit 11 30.6 11.6 7.6 Drying unit 7 41.2 7.4 4.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 9 39.1 9.5 6.2 Fridges for cooling 9 37.5 9.5 6.2 Fridges for freezing 7 33.3 7.4 4.8 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 4 22.2 4.2 2.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 6 22.2 6.3 4.1 86 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 7 31.8 7.4 4.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 4 26.7 4.2 2.8 Outlet for selling production needs 5 29.4 5.3 3.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 5 31.3 5.3 3.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 5 29.4 5.3 3.4 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 6 25.0 16.7 4.1 Packaging unit 5 22.7 13.9 3.4 Drying unit 4 19.0 11.1 2.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 4 21.1 11.1 2.8 Fridges for cooling 4 29.4 13.9 3.4 Fridges for freezing 4 23.5 11.1 2.8 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 6 27.3 16.7 4.1 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 5 22.7 13.9 3.4 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 4 20.0 11.1 2.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 4 18.2 11.1 2.8 Outlet for selling production needs 5 21.7 13.9 3.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 6 25.0 16.7 4.1 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 5 20.8 13.9 3.4 Qena Sorting and grading unit 0 - - - Packaging unit 2 20.0 14.3 1.4 Drying unit 1 11.1 7.1 0.7 Squeezing and packaging unit 0 - - - Fridges for cooling 0 - - - Fridges for freezing 0 - - - A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 0 - - - Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 0 - - - 87 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 1 14.3 7.1 0.7 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 0 - - - Outlet for selling production needs 1 14.3 7.1 0.7 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 0 - - - Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 0 - - - Total Sorting and grading unit 16 25.8 11.0 11.0 Packaging unit 18 26.5 12.4 12.4 Drying unit 12 25.5 8.3 8.3 Squeezing and packaging unit 13 25.0 9.0 9.0 Fridges for cooling 13 25.5 9.0 9.0 Fridges for freezing 11 23.4 7.6 7.6 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 10 20.8 6.9 6.9 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 11 19.3 7.6 7.6 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 12 24.5 8.3 8.3 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 8 18.6 5.5 5.5 Outlet for selling production needs 11 23.4 7.6 7.6 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 11 23.9 7.6 7.6 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 10 21.3 6.9 6.9 88 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table A-34. Farmers’ Participation in Public Training Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Training Topics Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=95 L-N=36 A-N=14 ) Yes % from Total Sample (N=145) Ranking Weighted Average per Training (1 is lowest and 5 is highest) Sohag Safe and responsible use of pesticides 3 3.2 2.1 4.33 Planning, marketing, and budgets 1 1.1 0.7 4.00 Farm management 2 2.1 1.4 5.00 Financial analysis of projects 2 2.1 1.4 4.50 How to access funds for projects 1 1.1 0.7 5.00 Computer skills 0 - - - Luxor Safe and responsible use of pesticides - - - Planning, marketing, and budgets - - - Farm management - - - Financial analysis of projects - - - How to access funds for projects - - - Computer skills - - - Qena Safe and responsible use of pesticides 5 35.7 3.4 4.00 Planning, marketing, and budgets 5 35.7 3.4 4.20 Farm management 3 21.4 2.1 3.33 Financial analysis of projects 2 14.3 1.4 4.00 How to access funds for projects 2 14.3 1.4 3.50 Computer skills 0 - - - Total Safe and responsible use of pesticides 8 - - 4.13 Planning, marketing, and budgets 6 4.1 4.1 4.17 Farm management 5 3.4 3.4 4.00 Financial analysis of projects 4 2.8 2.8 4.25 How to access funds for projects 3 2.1 2.1 4.00 Computer skills 0 - - - Table A-35. Farmers’ Participation in Specialized Training Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Training Topics Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=95, L-N=36 A-N=14 ) Yes % from Total Sample (N=145) Ranking Weighted Average per Training (1 is lowest 89 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV and 5 is highest) Sohag Project Planning 2 2.1 1.4 4.00 Marketing skills 2 2.1 1.4 4.50 Product presentation skills 2 2.1 1.4 4.50 First aid 2 2.1 1.4 5.00 Hygiene and safety considerations 2 2.1 1.4 4.50 Vocational and handicrafts (fe.g. glass painting) 1 1.1 0.7 5.00 Sewing and embroidery 1 1.1 0.7 5.00 Luxor Project Planning - - - Marketing skills - - - Product presentation skills - - - First aid - - - Hygiene and safety considerations - - - Vocational and handicrafts (fe.g. glass painting) - - - Sewing and embroidery - - - Qena Project Planning 4 28.6 2.8 3.75 Marketing skills 4 28.6 2.8 3.75 Product presentation skills 4 28.6 2.8 3.75 First aid 4 28.6 2.8 4.25 Hygiene and safety considerations 4 - - 3.25 Vocational and handicrafts (fe.g. glass painting) 1 7.1 0.7 5.00 Sewing and embroidery 2 14.3 1.4 4.00 Total Project Planning 6 4.1 4.1 3.83 Marketing skills 6 4.1 4.1 4.00 Product presentation skills 6 4.1 4.1 4.00 First aid 6 4.1 4.1 4.50 Hygiene and safety considerations 6 4.1 4.1 3.67 Vocational and handicrafts (fe.g. glass painting) 2 1.4 1.4 5.00 Sewing and embroidery 3 2.1 2.1 4.33 Table A-36. Factors that Encouraged Farmers’ Participation in Training Activities Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Encouraging Factors # % from Gov. (B-N=95 L-N=36 A-N=14 ) % from Total Sample (N=145) Weighted Average on Reasons for Continued Participati 90 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV on (1 is lowest - 5 is highest) Sohag The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of 1 1.1 0.7 5.00 The location of the training is near your residence. 2 2.1 1.4 4.00 Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions 0 - - - Availability of female trainers 0 - - - Participation of family members or acquaintances in training 0 - - - Encouraging information from previous participants in the training 0 - - - The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so 2 2.1 1.4 3.50 The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. 1 1.1 0.7 0.00 The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. 0 - - - The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities 2 2.1 1.4 2.00 The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) 0 - - - The lack of discrimination against you as a woman 0 - - - The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. 0 - - - Luxor The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of - - - The location of the training is near your residence. - - - Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions - - - Availability of female trainers - - - Participation of family members or acquaintances in training - - - Encouraging information from previous participants in the training - - - The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so - - - The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. - - - The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. - - - 91 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities - - - The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) - - - The lack of discrimination against you as a woman - - - The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. - - - Qena The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of 4 28.6 2.8 3.75 The location of the training is near your residence. 4 28.6 2.8 3.75 Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions 3 21.4 2.1 4.33 Availability of female trainers 4 28.6 2.8 4.00 Participation of family members or acquaintances in training 3 21.4 2.1 4.00 Encouraging information from previous participants in the training 3 21.4 2.1 4.00 The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so 3 21.4 2.1 4.67 The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. 3 21.4 2.1 4.67 The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. 4 28.6 2.8 4.50 The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities 4 28.6 2.8 4.50 The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) 3 21.4 2.1 4.00 The lack of discrimination against you as a woman 3 21.4 2.1 4.00 The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. 2 14.3 1.4 4.00 Total The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of 5 3.4 3.4 4.00 The location of the training is near your residence. 6 4.1 4.1 3.83 Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions 3 2.1 2.1 4.33 Availability of female trainers 4 2.8 2.8 4.00 Participation of family members or acquaintances in training 3 2.1 2.1 4.00 Encouraging information from previous participants in the training 3 2.1 2.1 4.00 The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so 5 3.4 3.4 4.20 92 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. 4 2.8 2.8 3.50 The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. 4 2.8 2.8 4.50 The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities 6 4.1 4.1 3.67 The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) 3 2.1 2.1 4.00 The lack of discrimination against you as a woman 3 2.1 2.1 4.00 The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. 2 1.4 1.4 4.00 93 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Part B: Premium Smallholder Farmer Household Survey . Table B-1. Distribution of Active Premium Smallholder Farmers in FY2015 by Gender, Governorate, Age and Education Level Governorate Male Female Total N % N % N % Beheira 113 90.4 3 100.0 116 90.6 Luxor 0.0 2 66.7 Aswan 12 9.6 0 0.0 12 9.4 Age <20 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 20 - 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 - 29 1 0.8 1 33.3 2 1.6 30 - 34 2 1.6 1 33.3 3 2.3 35 - 39 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 40 - 44 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.1 45 - 49 10 8.0 0 0.0 10 7.8 50 - 54 78 62.4 0 0.0 78 60.9 55 - 59 22 17.6 1 33.3 23 18.0 60+ 6 4.8 0 0.0 6 4.7 System Missing 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Education Illiterate 10 8.0 0 0.0 10 7.8 Incomplete School Education 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 Informal Education 0.0 0 0.0 Literacy Programs 2 1.6 1 33.3 3 2.3 Post graduate degree 1 0.8 1 33.3 2 1.6 Preparatory Education 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.1 Primary school 2 1.6 0 0.0 2 1.6 Secondary School 7 5.6 0 0.0 7 5.5 Technical School 82 65.6 1 33.3 83 64.8 University degree 16 12.8 0 0.0 16 12.5 System Missing 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 125 3 128 94 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-2. Distribution of Active Premium Smallholder Farmers in FY2017 by Gender, Governorate, Age and Education Level Governorates Male Female Total N % N % N % Beheira 122 58.4 3 100.0 125 59.0 Luxor 71 34.0 0 0.0 71 33.5 Aswan 16 7.7 0 0.0 16 7.5 Age <20 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.5 20 - 24 2 1.0 0 0.0 2 0.9 25 - 29 7 3.3 1 33.3 8 3.8 30 - 34 11 5.3 1 33.3 12 5.7 35 - 39 6 2.9 0 0.0 6 2.8 40 - 44 9 4.3 0 0.0 9 4.2 45 - 49 17 8.1 0 0.0 17 8.0 50 - 54 103 49.3 0 0.0 103 48.6 55 - 59 28 13.4 1 33.3 29 13.7 60+ 24 11.5 0 0.0 24 11.3 System Missing 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.5 Education Illiterate 34 16.3 0 0.0 34 16.0 Incomplete School Education 5 2.4 0 0.0 5 2.4 Informal Education 0.0 0 0.0 Literacy Programs 2 1.0 1 33.3 3 1.4 Post graduate degree 1 0.5 1 33.3 2 0.9 Preparatory Education 5 2.4 0 0.0 5 2.4 Primary school 4 1.9 0 0.0 4 1.9 Secondary School 11 5.3 0 0.0 11 5.2 Technical School 117 56.0 1 33.3 118 55.7 University degree 30 14.4 0 0.0 30 14.2 System Missing 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 209 3 212 95 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-3. Distribution of Premium Smallholder Farmers by Landholding in FY2015 Disaggregated by Governorate 2015 Total Land in Feddans Beheira Luxor Aswan Total # % # % # % # % No Land 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 3 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 3 - 5 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 5 - 10 113 97.4 0 - 12 100.0 125 97.7 10+ 3 2.6 0 - 0 - 3 2.3 Total 116 100.0 0 - 12 100.0 128 100.0 Table B-4. Distribution of Premium Smallholder Farmers by Landholding in FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate 2017 Total Land in Feddans Beheira Luxor Aswan Total # % # % # % # % 0 - 1 0 - 1 1.4 0 - 1 0.5 1 - 3 0 - 24 33.8 0 - 24 11.3 3 - 5 0 - 13 18.3 0 - 13 6.1 5 - 10 118 94.4 22 31.0 16 100.0 156 73.6 10+ 7 5.6 11 15.5 0 - 18 8.5 Subtotal 125 100.0 71 100.0 16 100.0 212 100.0 96 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-5. Distribution of High-Value and Traditional Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Crops 2015 2017 Percentage of Change Beheira Aswan Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Total Total w/o Luxor Behe ira Aswa n Total w/o Luxor Cou nt % C ou nt % Cou nt % Cou nt % C o un t % C o un t % Cou nt % Cou nt % "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Apricots 10 3.6% 0 0.0% 10 3.1% 10 3.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 1.9% 10 2.9% 0% 0% Artichokes 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 6.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 3.4% 18 5.2% Capsicum 10 3.6% 7 16.3% 17 5.3% 13 4.3% 6 12.8% 4 2.2% 23 4.3% 19 5.5% 30% -14% 12% Mandarin 52 18.6% 0 0.0% 52 16.1% 53 17.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 53 10.0% 53 15.3% 2% 2% Lemon 11 3.9% 13 30.2% 24 7.5% 12 4.0% 14 29.8% 1 0.5% 27 5.1% 26 7.5% 9% 8% 8% Melons 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 1.6% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% Onion 0 0.0% 6 14.0% 6 1.9% 1 0.3% 7 14.9% 18 9.7% 26 4.9% 8 2.3% 17% 33% Oranges 66 23.7% 0 0.0% 66 20.5% 56 18.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 56 10.5% 56 16.1% -15% -15% Peaches 8 2.9% 0 0.0% 8 2.5% 8 2.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 1.5% 8 2.3% 0% 0% Peas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 2 0.6% Potatoes 5 1.8% 0 0.0% 5 1.6% 5 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 0.9% 5 1.4% 0% 0% Sweet potatoes 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.5% 2 0.4% 1 0.3% 0% 0% Green Beans 7 2.5% 1 2.3% 8 2.5% 8 2.7% 2 4.3% 0 0.0% 10 1.9% 10 2.9% 14% 100% 25% Grapes 16 5.7% 0 0.0% 16 5.0% 16 5.3% 0 0.0% 6 3.2% 22 4.1% 16 4.6% 0% 0% Strawberry 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0.3% Tomato 12 4.3% 1 2.3% 13 4.0% 9 3.0% 1 2.1% 35 18.9% 45 8.5% 10 2.9% -25% 0% -23% Total 198 28 226 213 30 68 311 243 8% 7% 8% Other High Value Crops Beans 9 3.2% 1 2.3% 10 3.1% 12 4.0% 0 0.0% 4 2.2% 16 3.0% 12 3.5% 33% -100% 20% Eggplant 0 0.0% 1 2.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 2.1% 2 1.1% 3 0.6% 1 0.3% 0% 0% Mango 2 0.7% 3 7.0% 5 1.6% 2 0.7% 3 6.4% 1 0.5% 6 1.1% 5 1.4% 0% 0% 0% Okra 0 0.0% 5 11.6% 5 1.6% 0 0.0% 8 17.0% 2 1.1% 10 1.9% 8 2.3% 60% 60% 97 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Cucumber 0 0.0% 2 4.7% 2 0.6% 0 0.0% 2 4.3% 2 1.1% 4 0.8% 2 0.6% 0% 0% Peanuts 0 0.0% 2 4.7% 2 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100% -100% Roselle 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 1.1% 2 0.4% 0 0.0% Cabbage 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.8% 4 1.2% Banana 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 1.6% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% Total 11 14 25 18 14 16 48 32 64% 0% 28% Traditional Crops: Wheat 25 9.0% 0 0.0% 25 7.8% 23 7.7% 0 0.0% 24 13.0% 47 8.8% 23 6.6% -8% -8% Berseem 21 7.5% 3 7.0% 24 7.5% 25 8.3% 3 6.4% 15 8.1% 43 8.1% 28 8.1% 19% 0% 17% Sugar Cane 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 42 22.7% 42 7.9% 0 0.0% Maize 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 3.2% 6 1.1% 0 0.0% Corn 22 7.9% 0 0.0% 22 6.8% 21 7.0% 0 0.0% 9 4.9% 30 5.6% 21 6.1% -5% -5% Berseem Hegazi 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 2.7% 5 0.9% 0 0.0% Total 68 3 71 69 3 96 168 72 1% 0% 1% Grand Total 277 45 322 300 47 18 0 527 347 8% 4% 8% Table B-6. Distribution of High-Value and Traditional Crop Cultivation by Area Planted in Feddans from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate Crops Areas Planted in Feddans 2015 2017 Change Percentage Beheira Aswan Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Total Total w/o Luxor Beheira Aswan Total w/o Luxor "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Apricots 22.75 22.75 24 24 24.00 5% 5% Artichokes 62.5 62.5 62.50 Capsicum 14 10.5 24.5 21.25 9 8.083 38.333 30.25 52% -14% 23% Mandarin 163.125 163.1 208.23 208.23 208.23 28% 28% Lemon 40 42.13 82.13 45 30 0.5 75.5 75.00 13% -29% -9% Melons 10 10 0.00 Onion 8.50 8.50 1.25 10.5 16.83 28.583 11.75 24% 38% 98 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Oranges 231.394 231.4 174.5 174.5 174.50 -25% -25% Peaches 20 20 20 20 20.00 0% 0% Peas 3.5 3.5 3.50 Potatoes 12.25 12.25 13.5 13.5 13.50 10% 10% Sweet potatoes 4.5 4.5 1.25 1 2.25 1.25 -72% -72% Green Beans 18.75 1 19.75 17.286 1.5 18.786 18.79 -8% 50% -5% Grapes 56.25 56.25 74 25 99 74.00 32% 32% Strawberry 2.5 2.5 2.50 Tomato 89.17 1.00 90.17 72.354 1 115.3 188.69 73.35 -19% 0% -19% Total 672.19 63.13 735.31 741.12 52.00 176.75 969.87 793.12 10% -18% 8% Other High Value Crops: Beans 23.50 0.5 24.00 24 6.75 30.75 24.00 2% -100% 0% Eggplant 2.00 2.00 2 1.75 3.75 2.00 0% 0% Mango 5.00 2.5 7.50 5 3.5 1 9.5 8.50 0% 40% 13% Okra 5 5.00 9 0.375 9.375 9.00 80% 80% Cucumber 3.5 3.50 3.5 1.625 5.125 3.50 0% 0% Peanuts 5 5 0.00 -100% -100% Roselle 2 2 0.00 Cabbage 6.25 6.25 6.25 Banana 7 7 0.00 Total 33.50 13.50 47.00 35.25 18.00 20.50 73.75 53.25 5% 33% 13% Traditional Crops Wheat 91.75 91.75 95 47.33 142.33 142.33 4% 55% Berseem 43.8333 5 48.83 54.333 27.58 5 86.917 81.92 24% 452% 68% Sugar Cane 133.5 133.5 133.50 Maize 11.17 11.167 11.17 Corn 55.17 55.17 51.25 30.58 81.833 81.83 -7% 48% Berseem Hegazi 12.5 12.5 12.50 Total 190.75 5.00 195.75 200.58 262.67 5.00 468.25 463.25 5% 5153% 137% Total Crops 896.44 81.63 978.06 976.95 332.67 202.25 1511.87 1309.62 9% 308% 34% 99 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-7. Per-Feddan Production Costs in Beheira Governorate from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Crop (Egyptian Pounds) Crop 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) % Change Apricots 9455.0 6966.6 -26% Capsicum 4747.5 4197.3 -12% Mandarin 7397.9 4273.9 -42% Lemon 5181.8 4198.1 -19% Onion 0.0 3350.5 Oranges 5479.7 7137.2 30% Peaches 6850.0 9273.7 35% Potatoes 10900.0 5166.9 -53% Sweet potatoes 888.9 3589.8 304% Green Beans 4948.6 4289.1 -13% Grapes 11812.5 9412.6 -20% Tomato 5545.0 4484.6 -19% Total 6790.6 4252.7 -37% Beans 2000.0 2170.6 9% Eggplant 0.0 0.0 Mango 23200.0 6940.3 -70% Okra 0.0 0.0 Cucumber 0.0 0.0 Total 5854.5 2055.3 -65% Wheat 2995.8 1797.2 -40% Berseem 3241.9 3202.2 -1% Corn 4736.6 2805.5 -41% Total 3635.0 2613.1 -28% Total Cost all Crops 5972.8 4921.0 -18% 100 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-8. Per-Feddan Production Costs, Beheira Governorate from FY2015-17 Disaggregated by Crop (US Dollars) Crop 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) % Change Apricots 1242.4 659.7 -47% Capsicum 623.9 397.5 -36% Mandarin 972.1 404.7 -58% Lemon 680.9 397.5 -42% Onion 317.3 Oranges 720.1 675.9 -6% Peaches 900.1 878.2 -2% Potatoes 1432.3 489.3 -66% Sweet potatoes 116.8 339.9 191% Green Beans 650.3 406.2 -38% Grapes 1552.2 891.3 -43% Tomato 728.7 424.7 -42% Total 892.3 558.8 -37% Beans 262.8 205.6 -22% Eggplant Mango 3048.6 657.2 -78% Okra Cucumber Total 769.3 270.1 -65% Wheat 393.7 170.2 -57% Berseem 426.0 303.2 -29% Corn 622.4 265.7 -57% Total 477.7 247.5 -48% Total Cost All Crops 784.9 466.0 -41% Table B-9. Per-Feddan Production Costs in Aswan Governorate from FY2015-017 Disaggregated by Crop (Egyptian Pounds) Crop 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) % Change Apricots 0.0 0.0 Capsicum 3561.9 4033.5 13% Mandarin 0.0 0.0 Lemons 5186.1 3585.5 -31% Onions 2766.7 3412.4 23% Oranges 0.0 0.0 Peaches 0.0 0.0 Potatoes 0.0 0.0 Sweet potatoes 0.0 0.0 Green Beans 4000.0 4906.1 23% 101 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Grapes 0.0 0.0 Tomatoes 5500.0 4188.1 -24% Total 4230.5 2697.3 -36% Beans 2500.0 0.0 -100% Eggplants 6000.0 2393.2 -60% Mangoes 4350.0 7212.8 66% Okra 4160.0 2004.3 -52% Cucumbers 3583.3 2143.9 -40% Total 4106.1 2283.1 -44% Wheat 0.0 0.0 Berseem 3283.3 2622.5 -20% Corn 0.0 0.0 Total 3283.3 2622.5 -20% Total Cost all Crops 4130.2 3500.2 -15% Table B-10. Per-Feddan Production Costs in Aswan Governorate from FY2015-17 Disaggregated by Crop (U.S. Dollars) Crop 2015 (LE) 2017 (LE) % Change Apricots Capsicum 468.1 382.0 -18% Mandarin Lemon 681.5 339.5 -50% Onion 363.6 323.1 -11% Oranges Peaches Potatoes Sweet potatoes Green Beans 525.6 464.6 -12% Grapes Tomato 722.7 396.6 -45% Total 555.9 354.4 -36% Beans 328.5 -100% Eggplant 788.4 226.6 -71% Mango 571.6 683.0 19% Okra 546.6 189.8 -65% Cucumber 470.9 203.0 -57% Total 539.6 300.0 -44% Wheat Berseem 431.4 248.3 -42% Corn Total 431.4 248.3 -42% 102 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Total Cost All Crops 542.7 331.5 -39% 103 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-11. Per-Feddan Crop Production Costs from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (Egyptian Pounds) Crops Production Costs Per Feddan - 2015 in EGP Production Costs Per Feddan - 2017 in EGP (Fixed Price - 1US$=17.6 EGP *0.6 inflation) Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan between 2015 and 2017 - EGP Beheira Aswan Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Total Beheira Aswan Total “USAID Approved” High Value Crops Apricots 9455.0 0.0 9455.0 6966.6 0.0 0.0 6966.6 -26% -26% Capsicum 4747.5 3561.9 4259.3 4197.3 4033.5 4277.8 4168.6 -12% 13% -2% Mandarin 7397.9 0.0 7397.9 4273.9 0.0 0.0 4273.9 -42% -42% Lemon 5181.8 5186.1 5184.2 4198.1 3585.5 22735.4 4567.0 -19% -31% -12% Onion 0.0 2766.7 2766.7 3350.5 3412.4 3629.4 3560.3 23% 29% Oranges 5479.7 0.0 5479.7 7137.2 0.0 0.0 7137.2 30% 30% Peaches 6850.0 0.0 6850.0 9273.7 0.0 0.0 9273.7 35% 35% Potatoes 10900.0 0.0 10900.0 5166.9 0.0 0.0 5166.9 -53% -53% Sweet potatoes 888.9 0.0 888.9 3589.8 0.0 3589.8 3589.8 304% 304% Green Beans 4948.6 4000.0 4830.0 4289.1 4906.1 0.0 4412.5 -13% 23% -9% Grapes 11812.5 0.0 11812.5 9412.6 0.0 13789.4 10606.3 -20% -10% Tomato 5545.0 5500.0 5541.6 4484.6 4188.1 5178.7 5017.9 -19% -24% -9% Total 6790.6 4230.5 6470.6 4252.7 2697.3 4132.7 4063.0 -37% -36% -37% Other High Value Crops Beans 2000.0 2500.0 2050.0 2170.6 0.0 2355.8 2216.9 9% -100% 8% Eggplant 0.0 6000.0 6000.0 0.0 2393.2 2792.1 2659.1 -60% -56% Mango 23200.0 4350.0 13775.0 6940.3 7212.8 7777.9 7216.2 -70% 66% -48% Okra 0.0 4160.0 4160.0 0.0 2004.3 2205.2 2044.5 -52% -51% Cucumber 0.0 3583.3 3583.3 0.0 2143.9 3410.3 2777.1 -40% -22% Total 5854.5 4106.1 4980.3 2055.3 2283.1 2228.5 2185.9 -65% -44% -56% Traditional Crops Wheat 2995.8 0.0 2995.8 1797.2 0.0 2828.0 2323.6 -40% -22% Berseem 3241.9 3283.3 3247.1 3202.2 2622.5 2482.9 2910.9 -1% -20% -10% Corn 4736.6 0.0 4736.6 2805.5 0.0 2321.7 2660.3 -41% -44% Total 3635.0 3283.3 3620.2 2613.1 2622.5 2625.3 2618.2 -28% -20% -28% Total Cost all Crops 5972.8 4130.2 5728.7 4921.0 3500.2 4296.7 4597.7 -18% -15% -20% 104 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-12. Per-Feddan Production Costs of High-Value and Traditional Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (U.S. Dollars) Crops Production Costs Per Feddan - 2015 (US$) Production Costs Per Feddan - 2017 (US$) Percentage Change (US$) Beheira Aswan Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Total Beheira Aswan Total "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Apricots 1242.4 1242.4 659.7 659.7 -47% -47% Capsicum 623.9 468.1 559.7 397.5 382.0 405.1 394.8 -36% -18% -29% Mandarin 972.1 972.1 404.7 404.7 -58% -58% Lemon 680.9 681.5 681.2 397.5 339.5 2153.0 432.5 -42% -50% -37% Onion 363.6 363.6 317.3 323.1 343.7 337.1 -11% -7% Oranges 720.1 720.1 675.9 675.9 -6% -6% Peaches 900.1 900.1 878.2 878.2 -2% -2% Potatoes 1432.3 1432.3 489.3 489.3 -66% -66% Sweet potatoes 116.8 116.8 339.9 339.9 339.9 191% 191% Green Beans 650.3 525.6 634.7 406.2 464.6 417.9 -38% -12% -34% Grapes 1552.2 1552.2 891.3 1305.8 1004.4 -43% -35% Tomato 728.7 722.7 728.2 424.7 396.6 490.4 475.2 -42% -45% -35% Total 892.3 555.9 850.3 558.8 354.4 543.1 533.9 -37% -36% -37% Other High Value Crops Beans 262.8 328.5 269.4 205.6 223.1 209.9 -22% -100% -22% Eggplant 788.4 788.4 226.6 264.4 251.8 -71% -68% Mango 3048.6 571.6 1810.1 657.2 683.0 736.5 683.3 -78% 19% -62% Okra 546.6 546.6 189.8 208.8 193.6 -65% -65% Cucumber 470.9 470.9 203.0 322.9 263.0 -57% -44% Total 769.3 539.6 654.4 270.1 300.0 292.8 287.2 -65% -44% -56% Traditional Crops Wheat 393.7 393.7 170.2 267.8 220.0 -57% -44% Berseem 426.0 431.4 426.7 303.2 248.3 235.1 275.6 -29% -42% -35% Corn 622.4 622.4 265.7 219.9 251.9 -57% -60% Total 477.7 431.4 475.7 247.5 248.3 248.6 247.9 -48% -42% -48% Total Cost All Crops 784.9 542.7 752.8 466.0 331.5 406.9 435.4 -41% -39% -42% 105 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-13. Per-Feddan Mean Income from Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (Egyptian Pounds) Crops Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2015 in EGP Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2017 in EGP (Current Exchange Rate 17.6 EGP) Percentage Change in Average Income Per Feddan - EGP Fixed Price Beheira Aswan Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Total Beheira Aswan Total w/o Luxor "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Apricots 4665.0 0.0 4665.0 17486.3 0.0 0.0 17486.3 275% 275% Capsicum 990.8 5905.0 3014.3 13914.3 14434.2 21870.8 15433.7 1304% 144% 412% Mandarin 4245.1 0.0 4245.1 31177.3 0.0 0.0 31177.3 634% 634% Lemon 9818.2 7027.0 8306.3 29258.5 29518.5 9971.7 28679.0 198% 320% 245% Onion 0.0 19295.8 19295.8 26325.2 13389.1 149031.9 107793.2 -31% 459% Oranges 9045.0 0.0 9045.0 17529.1 0.0 0.0 17529.1 94% 94% Peaches 7066.3 0.0 7066.3 17949.0 0.0 0.0 17949.0 154% 154% Potatoes 6192.0 0.0 6192.0 2500.9 0.0 0.0 2500.9 -60% -60% Sweet potatoes 4888.9 0.0 4888.9 7179.6 0.0 5983.0 6581.3 47% 35% Green Beans 11881.7 41000.0 15521.5 3578.0 -7618.4 0.0 1338.8 -70% -119% -91% Grapes 11595.3 0.0 11595.3 11272.5 0.0 34519.1 16807.4 -3% 45% Tomato 34921.4 69500.0 37581.3 66130.5 -3490.1 37252.7 42122.9 89% -105% 12% Mean Total 8947.6 12820.0 9436.0 22576.2 19162.0 66600.8 32069.8 152% 49% 240% Other High Value Crops Beans 2464.4 2400.0 2458.0 3348.9 0.0 1209.8 2814.1 36% -100% 14% Eggplant 0.0 1500.0 1500.0 0.0 14857.8 23067.8 20331.1 891% 1255% Mango 12800.0 29650.0 21225.0 15954.7 9849.8 16951.8 13068.4 25% -67% -38% Okra 0.0 8634.0 8634.0 0.0 31248.7 44200.7 33839.1 262% 292% Cucumber 0.0 1916.7 1916.7 0.0 9390.0 19893.5 14641.7 390% 664% Mean Total 4343.6 10018.5 7181.1 5149.7 22369.8 17828.6 14907.4 123% 108% Traditional Crops Wheat 8413.4 0.0 8413.4 4427.4 0.0 2432.8 3408.9 -47% -59% Berseem 13258.1 13216.7 13252.9 10430.7 11396.8 11629.5 10916.3 -21% -14% -18% Corn 1958.6 0.0 1958.6 1254.1 0.0 1814.4 1422.2 -36% -27% Mean Total 7821.2 13216.7 8049.2 5636.7 11396.8 5190.8 5602.3 -28% -30% Total 8481.5 12114.6 8965.9 17438.8 19621.9 38274.2 23428.4 106% 62% 161% Table B-14. Per-Feddan Mean Income from Crops from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Governorate (U.S. Dollars) 106 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Crops Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2015 ($) Net Mean Income Per Feddan - 2017 in US$ Percentage Change Per Feddan - US$ Beheira Aswan Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Total Beheira Aswan Total "USAID Approved" High Value Crops Apricots 613.0 613.0 993.5 993.5 62% Capsicum 130.2 776.0 396.1 790.6 820.1 1242.7 876.9 121% Mandarin 557.8 557.8 1771.4 1771.4 218% 218% Lemon 1290.2 923.4 1091.5 1662.4 1677.2 566.6 1629.5 29% 49% Onion 2535.6 2535.6 1495.8 760.7 8467.7 6124.6 -70% 142% Oranges 1188.6 1188.6 996.0 996.0 -16% -16% Peaches 928.5 928.5 1019.8 1019.8 10% 10% Potatoes 813.7 813.7 142.1 142.1 -83% -83% Sweet potatoes 642.4 642.4 407.9 339.9 373.9 -37% -42% Green Beans 1561.3 5387.6 2039.6 203.3 -432.9 76.1 -87% -108% -96% Grapes 1523.7 1523.7 640.5 1961.3 955.0 -37% Tomato 4588.9 9132.7 4938.4 3757.4 -198.3 2116.6 2393.3 -52% Total 1175.8 1684.6 1239.9 1282.7 1088.8 3784.1 1822.1 9% -35% 47% Other High Value Crops Beans 323.8 315.4 323.0 190.3 68.7 159.9 -41% -100% -50% Eggplant 197.1 197.1 844.2 1310.7 1155.2 486% Mango 1682.0 3896.2 2789.1 906.5 559.6 963.2 742.5 -73% Okra 1134.6 1134.6 1775.5 2511.4 1922.7 69% Cucumber 251.9 251.9 533.5 1130.3 831.9 230% Total 570.8 1316.5 943.6 292.6 1271.0 1013.0 847.0 -49% -3% -10% Traditional Crops Wheat 1105.6 1105.6 251.6 138.2 193.7 -77% -82% Berseem 1742.2 1736.7 1741.5 592.7 647.5 660.8 620.2 -64% Corn 257.4 257.4 71.3 103.1 80.8 -69% Total 1027.8 1736.7 1057.7 320.3 647.5 294.9 318.3 -69% -63% -70% Total All Crops 1114.5 1591.9 1178.2 990.8 1114.9 2174.7 1331.2 -11% -30% 13% 107 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table/Figure B-15. Change in Premium Smallholder Farmers’ per-Feddan Income and Production Costs from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Crop Crops Percentage Change in Income Per Feddan Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan Capsicum 121% -29% Mandarin 218% -58% Lemon 49% -37% Onion 142% -7% Green Beans -96% -34% Tomato -52% -35% Beans -50% -22% Berseem -64% -35% Mango -73% -62% Cucumber 230% -44% 121% 218% 49% 142% -96% -52% -50% -64% -73% 230% -29% -58% -37% -7% -34% -35% -22% -35% -62% -44% --200% --100% -0% -100% -200% -300% Capsicum Mandarin Lemon Onion Green Beans Tomato Beans Bressem Mango Cucumber Premium - Percentage Change in Average Income and Average Production Per Feddan in EGP between 2015 and 2017 Percentage Change in Income Per Feddan Percentage Change in Production Costs Per Feddan 108 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-16. Change in Premium Smallholder Farmers’ Average Net Incomes from FY2015 to FY2017 Disaggregated by Landholding and Governorate (U.S. Dollars) Total Land in Feddans Average Net Income (US$) 2015 2017 Change Percentage for complete data Beheira Aswan Mean Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Mean Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Mean Total 0 - 1 187.2 187.2 1 - 3 2881.3 2881.3 3 - 5 5399.3 5399.3 5 - 10 5231.3 5781.2 5284.1 5443.6 4534.8 7480.7 5637.7 4% -22% 7% 10+ 9207.2 9207.2 23924.8 12071.2 16680.9 160% 81% Total 5334.1 5781.2 5376.0 6478.6 4534.8 6153.4 6223.0 21% -22% 16% Table B-17. Change in Premium Smallholder Farmers’ Average Net Incomes from FY2015 to FY2017 by Landholding and Governorate in Egyptian Pounds Total Land in Feddans Average net Income (EGP) - Fixed Exchange Rate (1$=17.6EGP*0.6) 2015 2017 Change Percentage for complete data Beheira Aswan Mean Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Mean Total Beheira Aswan Luxor Mean Total 0 - 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1977.1 1977.1 1 - 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30426.6 30426.6 3 - 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57016.3 57016.3 5 - 10 40281.1 44515.3 40687.6 57484.8 47887.2 78996.5 59534.2 43% 8% 46% 10+ 70895.3 0.0 70895.3 252645.5 0.0 127471. 9 176150.5 256% 148% Total 41072.9 44515.3 41395.6 68413.8 47887.2 64979.4 65714.5 67% 8% 59% 109 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-18. Premium Smallholder Farmers’ Export Crops Disaggregated by Governorate Crops Governorate Beheira Luxor Aswan Total Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Qty Export Sales (Tons) Value of Sales (VS) (EGP) - Exports Mandarin 50.500 191900.000 50.500 191900.000 Lemon 9.750 48750.000 9.750 48750.000 Oranges 760.500 2446375.000 760.500 2446375.000 Tomato 24.000 24000.000 38.000 64600.000 62.000 88600.000 Beans 4.000 4.000 Wheat 4010.000 4000.000 2.000 4012.000 4000.000 Corn 15540.000 15540.000 Total 4854.75 2730565 44 64600 0 0 4898.75 2795165 Table B-19. Crops Cultivated Based on Forward Contracts Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Answer Codes Choices # % per choice % from governorate (B - N=300, L-N=185 A-N=47) % from total sample N= 532 Beheira Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 3 1.0% 1.0 0.6 No 293 99.0% 97.7 55.1 Luxor Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 3 2.6% 1.6 0.6 No 112 97.4% 60.5 21.1 Aswan Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 47 100.0% 100.0 8.8 Total Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 6 1.3% 1.1 1.1 No 452 98.7% 85.0 85.0 Table B-20. Details of Premium Smallholder Farmers’ Forward Contracts Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Answer Codes Choices # % per choice % from governorate (B - N=300, L-N=185 A-N=47) % from total sample N= 532 Beheira Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 3 1.0% 1.0 0.6 No 293 99.0% 97.7 55.1 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 2 66.7% 0.7 0.4 No 1 33.3% 0.3 0.2 Cash Advance Yes 1 100.0% 0.3 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Inputs Yes 1 50.0% 0.3 0.2 110 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV No 1 50.0% 0.3 0.2 Infrastructure Development Yes 1 100.0% 0.3 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 3 100.0% 1.0 0.6 No 0 0.0% - - If the answer is no please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 0 0.0% - - decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 3 100.0% 1.0 0.6 No 0 0.0% - - If the Answer is no Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 0 0.0% - - low quality 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 1 50.0% 0.3 0.2 No 1 50.0% 0.3 0.2 If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 1 100.0% 0.3 0.2 FAIRTRADE 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Luxor Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 3 2.6% 1.6 0.6 No 112 97.4% 60.5 21.1 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 2 66.7% 1.1 0.4 No 1 33.3% 0.5 0.2 Cash Advance Yes 2 100.0% 1.1 0.4 No 0 0.0% - - Inputs Yes 2 100.0% 1.1 0.4 No 0 0.0% - - Infrastructure Development Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 3 100.0% 1.6 0.6 No 0 0.0% - - If the answer is no please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 0 0.0% - - decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 3 75.0% 1.6 0.6 No 1 25.0% 0.5 0.2 If the Answer is no Please Clarify the Reason decrease in Market prices 0 0.0% - - 111 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV low quality 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 3 100.0% 1.6 0.6 No 0 0.0% - - If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 0 0.0% - - FAIRTRADE 2 100.0% 1.1 0.4 Other 0 0.0% - - Aswan Did you grow last year forward contracts? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 47 100.0% 100.0 8.8 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - Cash Advance Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - Inputs Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - Infrastructure Development Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - If the answer is no please clarify the reason increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 0 0.0% - - decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 0 0.0% - - low quality 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 0 0.0% - - No 0 0.0% - - If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 0 0.0% - - FAIRTRADE 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Total Did you grew last year forward contracts? Yes 6 1.3% 1.1 1.1 No 452 98.7% 85.0 85.0 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance Yes 4 66.7% 0.8 0.8 No 2 33.3% 0.4 0.4 Cash Advance Yes 3 100.0% 0.6 0.6 No 0 0.0% - - 112 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Inputs Yes 3 75.0% 0.6 0.6 No 1 25.0% 0.2 0.2 Infrastructure Development Yes 1 100.0% 0.2 0.2 No 0 0.0% - - Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Yes 6 100.0% 1.1 1.1 No 0 0.0% - - If the answer is No please clarify the reason. increase in Market prices 0 0.0% - - crop damage 0 0.0% - - decreased yield 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? Yes 6 85.7% 1.1 1.1 No 1 14.3% 0.2 0.2 If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. decrease in Market prices 0 0.0% - - low quality 0 0.0% - - Other 0 0.0% - - Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? Yes 4 80.0% 0.8 0.8 No 1 20.0% 0.2 0.2 If yes name it GlobalG.A.P 1 33.3% 0.2 0.2 FAIRTRADE 2 66.7% 0.4 0.4 Other 0 0.0% - - Table B-21. Problems Reported by Farmers When Transporting Crops for Export Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Problems Faced # % from governorate (B - N=300, L￾N=185, A-N=47) % from total sample N= 532 Beheira Dealing with Exporters and Traders 118 39.3 22.2 Lack of Technical Experience 33 11.0 6.2 Difficulty in Getting Funds 34 11.3 6.4 Lack of Financial Resources 25 8.3 4.7 The Inability to Bear the Risks 35 11.7 6.6 Lack of Training Opportunities 29 9.7 5.5 Lack of Good Input Supplies 38 12.7 7.1 Lack of Export Information 43 14.3 8.1 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies 35 11.7 6.6 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 43 14.3 8.1 Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc. 24 8.0 4.5 Others 26 8.7 4.9 Luxor Dealing with Exporters and Traders 41 22.2 7.7 113 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Lack of Technical Experience 30 16.2 5.6 Difficulty in Getting Funds 18 9.7 3.4 Lack of Financial Resources 12 6.5 2.3 The Inability to Bear the Risks 21 11.4 3.9 Lack of Training Opportunities 6 3.2 1.1 Lack of Good Input Supplies 13 7.0 2.4 Lack of Export Information 19 10.3 3.6 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies 15 8.1 2.8 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 6 3.2 1.1 Lack of Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc.) 9 4.9 1.7 Others 9 4.9 1.7 Aswan Dealing with Exporters and Traders 15 31.9 2.8 Lack of Technical Experience 2 4.3 0.4 Difficulty in Getting Funds 3 6.4 0.6 Lack of Financial Resources 4 8.5 0.8 The Inability to Bear the Risks 0 - - Lack of Training Opportunities 5 10.6 0.9 Lack of Good Input Supplies 1 2.1 0.2 Lack of Export Information 1 2.1 0.2 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies. 0 - - The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 1 2.1 0.2 Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc. 1 2.1 0.2 Others. 1 2.1 0.2 Total Dealing with Exporters and Traders 174 32.7 32.7 Lack of Technical Experience 65 12.2 12.2 Difficulty in Getting Funds 55 10.3 10.3 Lack of Financial Resources 41 7.7 7.7 The Inability to Bear the Risks 56 10.5 10.5 Lack of Training Opportunities 40 7.5 7.5 Lack of Good Input Supplies 52 9.8 9.8 Lack of Export Information 63 11.8 11.8 The High Prices of Good Input Supplies 50 9.4 9.4 The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards 50 9.4 9.4 Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks, etc. 34 6.4 6.4 Other 36 6.8 6.8 Table B-22. Problems Reported by Premium Smallholder Farmers When Selling Products in Local Markets Disaggregated by Governorate 114 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Gov. Problems Faced # % from total responses per Gov (B-N=300, L-N=185, A-N=47) % from total Crops N=532 Beheira Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 94 31.3 17.7 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash. 62 20.7 11.7 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 54 18.0 10.2 Lack of Storage Facilities. 46 15.3 8.6 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 71 23.7 13.3 Prices are below the Expectations 78 26.0 14.7 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 38 12.7 7.1 Others. 37 12.3 7.0 Luxor Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 12 6.5 2.3 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash. 12 6.5 2.3 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 31 16.8 5.8 Lack of Storage Facilities. 21 11.4 3.9 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 12 6.5 2.3 Prices are below the Expectations 32 17.3 6.0 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 19 10.3 3.6 Others. 8 4.3 1.5 Aswan Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 5 10.6 0.9 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash. 11 23.4 2.1 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 21 44.7 3.9 Lack of Storage Facilities. 15 31.9 2.8 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 11 23.4 2.1 Prices are below the Expectations 19 40.4 3.6 Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 9 19.1 1.7 Others. 6 12.8 1.1 Total Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products 111 20.9 20.9 Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash. 85 16.0 16.0 Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets 106 19.9 19.9 Lack of Storage Facilities. 82 15.4 15.4 The high Profit Margin of Middlemen 94 17.7 17.7 Prices are below the Expectations 129 24.2 24.2 115 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality 66 12.4 12.4 Others. 51 9.6 9.6 Table B-23. Activities that Helped Transition from Traditional to Non-Traditional Cultivation Practices Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Activities Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125, L￾N=71, A-N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Ranking Weighted Average Beheira Farm and agricultural training 106 84.8 50.0 3.87 Marketing training 93 74.4 43.9 3.62 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 98 78.4 46.2 3.79 Market Intelligence activities 82 65.6 38.7 3.56 Establish linkages with high value markets 78 62.4 36.8 3.65 Facilitate forward contracting 75 60.0 35.4 3.61 Post-harvest operations 77 61.6 36.3 3.77 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 89 71.2 42.0 3.85 Luxor Farm and agricultural training 42 59.2 19.8 3.81 Marketing training 29 40.8 13.7 4.10 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 40 56.3 18.9 3.73 Market Intelligence activities 24 33.8 11.3 3.79 Establish linkages with high value markets 18 25.4 8.5 4.00 Facilitate forward contracting 21 29.6 9.9 3.71 Post-harvest operations 29 40.8 13.7 4.03 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 21 29.6 9.9 4.48 Aswan Farm and agricultural training 15 93.8 7.1 4.33 Marketing training 13 81.3 6.1 4.31 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 12 131.3 9.9 4.33 Market Intelligence activities 12 75.0 5.7 4.25 Establish linkages with high value markets 10 62.5 4.7 4.90 Facilitate forward contracting 9 56.3 4.2 4.67 Post-harvest operations 10 62.5 4.7 4.00 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 12 75.0 5.7 4.58 Total Farm and agricultural training 163 76.9 76.9 3.90 Marketing training 135 63.7 63.7 3.79 Improving water-saving and harvesting techniques 150 70.8 70.8 3.81 Market Intelligence activities 118 55.7 55.7 3.68 Establish linkages with high value markets 106 50.0 50.0 3.83 116 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Facilitate forward contracting 105 49.5 49.5 3.72 Post-harvest operations 116 54.7 54.7 3.85 Use safe and locally applied sustainable production systems 122 57.5 57.5 4.03 Other1: 2 0.9 0.9 4.00 Table B-24. Modern Farming Technologies and Practices that Spurred Increased Productivity and/or Decreased Production Costs Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Technology/Practice Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125, L￾N=71, A￾N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Beheira Using modern irrigation methods. 95 76.0 44.8 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 75 60.0 35.4 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 78 62.4 36.8 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 71 56.8 33.5 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 71 56.8 33.5 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 54 43.2 25.5 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 40 32.0 18.9 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 39 31.2 18.4 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 24 19.2 11.3 Luxor Using modern irrigation methods. 10 14.1 4.7 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 8 11.3 3.8 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 35 49.3 16.5 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 28 39.4 13.2 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 36 50.7 17.0 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 30 42.3 14.2 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 15 21.1 7.1 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 21 29.6 9.9 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 5 7.0 2.4 Aswan Using modern irrigation methods. 12 225.0 17.0 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 10 62.5 4.7 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 14 87.5 6.6 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 12 75.0 5.7 117 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 13 81.3 6.1 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 12 75.0 5.7 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 7 43.8 3.3 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 6 37.5 2.8 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 2 12.5 0.9 Total Using modern irrigation methods. 117 55.2 55.2 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 93 43.9 43.9 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 127 59.9 59.9 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 111 52.4 52.4 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 120 56.6 56.6 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 96 45.3 45.3 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 62 29.2 29.2 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 66 31.1 31.1 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 31 14.6 14.6 118 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-25. Modern Farming Technologies and Practices that Posed Obstacles for Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Practice/Technology Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125, L-N=71, A-N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Beheira Using modern irrigation methods. 27 21.6 12.7 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 39 31.2 18.4 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 35 28.0 16.5 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 37 29.6 17.5 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 45 36.0 21.2 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 52 41.6 24.5 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 71 56.8 33.5 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 68 54.4 32.1 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 85 68.0 40.1 Luxor Using modern irrigation methods. 40 56.3 18.9 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 42 59.2 19.8 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 24 33.8 11.3 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 25 35.2 11.8 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 19 26.8 9.0 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 26 36.6 12.3 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 31 43.7 14.6 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 25 35.2 11.8 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 39 35.2 11.8 Aswan Using modern irrigation methods. 5 31.3 2.4 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 6 37.5 2.8 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 3 18.8 1.4 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 5 31.3 2.4 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 3 18.8 1.4 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 4 25.0 1.9 119 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 9 56.3 4.2 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 10 62.5 4.7 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 15 93.8 7.1 Total Using modern irrigation methods. 72 34.0 34.0 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering 87 41.0 41.0 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner 62 29.2 29.2 Using new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings 67 31.6 31.6 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards 67 31.6 31.6 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses 82 38.7 38.7 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. 111 52.4 52.4 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 103 48.6 48.6 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites 139 65.6 65.6 Table B-26. Number and Percentage of Premium Small Holder Farmers Satisfied with Management, Services, Performance, and Communications of Project Implementation Disaggregated by Governorate Gov. Satisfaction Factor Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125 L-N=71 A-N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Weighted Average Beheira The closeness of the project management to the farmers 101 80.8 47.6 3.66 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 100 80.0 47.2 3.67 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 92 73.6 43.4 3.70 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 93 74.4 43.9 3.68 Improvements in productivity and production 88 70.4 41.5 3.69 Improvement in available and used technology 77 61.6 36.3 3.58 Improvement in administrative activities 68 54.4 32.1 3.72 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 64 51.2 30.2 3.67 Centre of Excellence services 60 48.0 28.3 3.65 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 53 42.4 25.0 3.62 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 52 41.6 24.5 3.79 Improvement in access to markets related information 50 40.0 23.6 3.74 120 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Luxor The closeness of the project management to the farmers 41 57.7 19.3 4.05 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 45 63.4 21.2 3.80 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 37 52.1 17.5 4.24 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 36 50.7 17.0 4.39 Improvements in productivity and production 24 33.8 11.3 4.54 Improvement in available and used technology 12 16.9 5.7 5.00 Improvement in administrative activities 14 63.4 21.2 4.64 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 9 12.7 4.2 6.33 Centre of Excellence services 5 7.0 2.4 8.40 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 15 21.1 7.1 5.20 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 5 7.0 2.4 8.20 Improvement in access to markets related information 16 22.5 7.5 4.63 Aswan The closeness of the project management to the farmers 12 75.0 5.7 4.75 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 12 75.0 5.7 4.50 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 12 75.0 5.7 4.42 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 13 81.3 6.1 4.08 Improvements in productivity and production 12 75.0 5.7 4.17 Improvement in available and used technology 12 75.0 5.7 4.00 Improvement in administrative activities 10 62.5 4.7 4.60 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 10 62.5 4.7 4.50 Centre of Excellence services 10 62.5 4.7 4.50 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 10 62.5 4.7 4.80 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 10 62.5 4.7 4.40 Improvement in access to markets related information 10 62.5 4.7 3.90 Total The closeness of the project management to the farmers 154 72.6 72.6 3.85 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management 157 74.1 74.1 3.77 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) 141 66.5 66.5 3.90 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) 142 67.0 67.0 3.89 Improvements in productivity and production 124 58.5 58.5 3.90 Improvement in available and used technology 101 47.6 47.6 3.80 Improvement in administrative activities 92 43.4 43.4 3.96 Pack house services and post-harvest processes 83 39.2 39.2 4.06 121 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Centre of Excellence services 75 35.4 35.4 4.08 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters 78 36.8 36.8 4.08 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems 67 31.6 31.6 4.21 Improvement in access to markets related information 76 35.8 35.8 3.95 Table B-27. Number and Percentage of Premium Farmers that Expressed Interest and/or Willingness to Participate in a Newly Designed Project Disaggregated by Type of Project and Governorate Governorate Projects Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125, L￾N=71, A￾N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Beheira Sorting and grading unit 75 60.0 35.4 Packaging unit 66 52.8 31.1 Drying unit 66 52.8 31.1 Squeezing and packaging unit 60 48.0 28.3 Fridges for cooling 59 47.2 27.8 Fridges for freezing 58 46.4 27.4 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 50 40.0 23.6 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 49 39.2 23.1 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 49 39.2 23.1 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 39 31.2 18.4 Outlet for selling production needs 31 24.8 14.6 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 27 21.6 12.7 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 31 24.8 14.6 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 23 32.4 10.8 Packaging unit 16 22.5 7.5 Drying unit 19 26.8 9.0 Squeezing and packaging unit 10 14.1 4.7 Fridges for cooling 11 43.7 14.6 Fridges for freezing 11 15.5 5.2 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 15 21.1 7.1 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 19 26.8 9.0 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 13 18.3 6.1 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 9 12.7 4.2 Outlet for selling production needs 11 15.5 5.2 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 9 12.7 4.2 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 8 11.3 3.8 122 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Aswan Sorting and grading unit 11 68.8 5.2 Packaging unit 11 68.8 5.2 Drying unit 10 62.5 4.7 Squeezing and packaging unit 10 62.5 4.7 Fridges for cooling 11 68.8 5.2 Fridges for freezing 10 62.5 4.7 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 11 68.8 5.2 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 11 68.8 5.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 11 68.8 5.2 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 11 68.8 5.2 Outlet for selling production needs 10 62.5 4.7 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 11 68.8 5.2 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 11 68.8 5.2 Total Sorting and grading unit 109 51.4 51.4 Packaging unit 93 43.9 43.9 Drying unit 95 44.8 44.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 80 37.7 37.7 Fridges for cooling 81 38.2 38.2 Fridges for freezing 79 37.3 37.3 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 76 35.8 35.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 79 37.3 37.3 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 73 34.4 34.4 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 59 27.8 27.8 Outlet for selling production needs 52 24.5 24.5 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 47 22.2 22.2 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 50 23.6 23.6 Table B-28. Projects Preferred for Monetary Contribution by Premium Smallholder Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Monetary Contribution # % from Yes Responses % from Gov. % from Total Sample Beheira Sorting and grading unit 10 13.3 8.0 4.7 Packaging unit 7 10.6 5.6 3.3 Drying unit 8 12.1 6.4 3.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 6 10.0 4.8 2.8 Fridges for cooling 6 10.2 4.8 2.8 Fridges for freezing 8 13.8 6.4 3.8 123 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 6 12.0 4.8 2.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 10 20.4 8.0 4.7 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 6 12.2 4.8 2.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 4 10.3 3.2 1.9 Outlet for selling production needs 4 12.9 3.2 1.9 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 4 14.8 3.2 1.9 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 7 22.6 5.6 3.3 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 4 17.4 5.6 1.9 Packaging unit 1 6.3 1.4 0.5 Drying unit 3 15.8 4.2 1.4 Squeezing and packaging unit 1 10.0 1.4 0.5 Fridges for cooling 1 22.6 9.9 3.3 Fridges for freezing 0 - - - A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 1 6.7 1.4 0.5 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 2 10.5 2.8 0.9 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 2 15.4 2.8 0.9 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 2 22.2 2.8 0.9 Outlet for selling production needs 1 9.1 1.4 0.5 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 2 22.2 2.8 0.9 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 0 - - - Aswan Sorting and grading unit 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Packaging unit 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Drying unit 0 - - - Squeezing and packaging unit 1 10.0 6.3 0.5 Fridges for cooling 0 - - - Fridges for freezing 1 10.0 6.3 0.5 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 124 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 2 18.2 12.5 0.9 Outlet for selling production needs 0 - - - Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Total Sorting and grading unit 15 13.8 7.1 7.1 Packaging unit 9 9.7 4.2 4.2 Drying unit 11 11.6 5.2 5.2 Squeezing and packaging unit 8 10.0 3.8 3.8 Fridges for cooling 7 8.6 3.3 3.3 Fridges for freezing 9 11.4 4.2 4.2 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 8 10.5 3.8 3.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 13 16.5 6.1 6.1 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 9 12.3 4.2 4.2 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 8 13.6 3.8 3.8 Outlet for selling production needs 5 9.6 2.4 2.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 7 14.9 3.3 3.3 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 8 16.0 3.8 3.8 Table B-29. Projects Preferred for Premium Smallholder Farmers to Volunteer their Time Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Volunteering # % from Yes Responses % from Gov. % from Total Sample Beheira Sorting and grading unit 47 62.7 37.6 22.2 Packaging unit 39 59.1 31.2 18.4 Drying unit 37 56.1 29.6 17.5 Squeezing and packaging unit 33 55.0 26.4 15.6 Fridges for cooling 32 54.2 25.6 15.1 Fridges for freezing 30 51.7 24.0 14.2 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 26 52.0 20.8 12.3 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 23 46.9 18.4 10.8 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 27 55.1 21.6 12.7 125 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 17 43.6 13.6 8.0 Outlet for selling production needs 16 51.6 12.8 7.5 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 14 51.9 11.2 6.6 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 18 58.1 14.4 8.5 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 13 56.5 18.3 6.1 Packaging unit 10 62.5 14.1 4.7 Drying unit 9 47.4 12.7 4.2 Squeezing and packaging unit 4 40.0 5.6 1.9 Fridges for cooling 5 58.1 25.4 8.5 Fridges for freezing 5 45.5 7.0 2.4 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 6 40.0 8.5 2.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 9 47.4 12.7 4.2 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 7 53.8 9.9 3.3 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 6 66.7 8.5 2.8 Outlet for selling production needs 10 90.9 14.1 4.7 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 7 77.8 9.9 3.3 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 6 75.0 8.5 2.8 Aswan Sorting and grading unit 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Packaging unit 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Drying unit 2 20.0 12.5 0.9 Squeezing and packaging unit 1 10.0 6.3 0.5 Fridges for cooling 2 18.2 12.5 0.9 Fridges for freezing 0 - - - A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 2 18.2 12.5 0.9 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 2 18.2 12.5 0.9 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Outlet for selling production needs 1 10.0 6.3 0.5 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Total Sorting and grading unit 61 56.0 28.8 28.8 126 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Packaging unit 50 53.8 23.6 23.6 Drying unit 48 50.5 22.6 22.6 Squeezing and packaging unit 38 47.5 17.9 17.9 Fridges for cooling 39 48.1 18.4 18.4 Fridges for freezing 35 44.3 16.5 16.5 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 34 44.7 16.0 16.0 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 33 41.8 15.6 15.6 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 36 49.3 17.0 17.0 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 24 40.7 11.3 11.3 Outlet for selling production needs 27 51.9 12.7 12.7 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 22 46.8 10.4 10.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 25 50.0 11.8 11.8 Table B-30. Projects Preferred for Providing Paid Work by Premium Smallholder Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Paid Work # % from Yes Responses % from Gov. % from Total Sample Beheira Sorting and grading unit 19 25.3 15.2 9.0 Packaging unit 15 22.7 12.0 7.1 Drying unit 18 27.3 14.4 8.5 Squeezing and packaging unit 16 26.7 12.8 7.5 Fridges for cooling 14 23.7 11.2 6.6 Fridges for freezing 15 25.9 12.0 7.1 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 14 28.0 11.2 6.6 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 14 28.6 11.2 6.6 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 13 26.5 10.4 6.1 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 12 30.8 9.6 5.7 Outlet for selling production needs 8 25.8 6.4 3.8 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 7 25.9 5.6 3.3 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 6 19.4 4.8 2.8 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 19 82.6 26.8 9.0 Packaging unit 15 93.8 21.1 7.1 127 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Drying unit 12 63.2 16.9 5.7 Squeezing and packaging unit 10 100.0 14.1 4.7 Fridges for cooling 9 19.4 8.5 2.8 Fridges for freezing 8 72.7 11.3 3.8 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 11 73.3 15.5 5.2 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 13 68.4 18.3 6.1 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 10 76.9 14.1 4.7 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 7 77.8 9.9 3.3 Outlet for selling production needs 8 72.7 11.3 3.8 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 6 66.7 8.5 2.8 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 7 87.5 9.9 3.3 Aswan Sorting and grading unit 9 81.8 56.3 4.2 Packaging unit 8 72.7 50.0 3.8 Drying unit 8 80.0 50.0 3.8 Squeezing and packaging unit 8 80.0 50.0 3.8 Fridges for cooling 9 81.8 56.3 4.2 Fridges for freezing 8 80.0 50.0 3.8 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 8 72.7 50.0 3.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 8 72.7 50.0 3.8 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 8 72.7 50.0 3.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 9 81.8 56.3 4.2 Outlet for selling production needs 9 90.0 56.3 4.2 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 9 81.8 56.3 4.2 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 9 81.8 56.3 4.2 Total Sorting and grading unit 47 43.1 22.2 22.2 Packaging unit 38 40.9 17.9 17.9 Drying unit 38 40.0 17.9 17.9 Squeezing and packaging unit 34 42.5 16.0 16.0 Fridges for cooling 32 39.5 15.1 15.1 Fridges for freezing 31 39.2 14.6 14.6 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 33 43.4 15.6 15.6 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 35 44.3 16.5 16.5 128 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 31 42.5 14.6 14.6 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 28 47.5 13.2 13.2 Outlet for selling production needs 25 48.1 11.8 11.8 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 22 46.8 10.4 10.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 22 44.0 10.4 10.4 Table B-31. Projects Preferred for Employing Family Members by Farmers Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Projects FORM OF PARTICIPATION: Employing one or more family member # % from Yes Responses % from Gov. # Beheira Sorting and grading unit 7 9.3 5.6 3.3 Packaging unit 7 10.6 5.6 3.3 Drying unit 7 10.6 5.6 3.3 Squeezing and packaging unit 7 11.7 5.6 3.3 Fridges for cooling 8 13.6 6.4 3.8 Fridges for freezing 7 12.1 5.6 3.3 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 7 14.0 5.6 3.3 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 7 14.3 5.6 3.3 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 6 12.2 4.8 2.8 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 8 20.5 6.4 3.8 Outlet for selling production needs 6 19.4 4.8 2.8 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 2 7.4 1.6 0.9 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 4 12.9 3.2 1.9 Luxor Sorting and grading unit 10 43.5 14.1 4.7 Packaging unit 11 68.8 15.5 5.2 Drying unit 7 36.8 9.9 3.3 Squeezing and packaging unit 7 70.0 9.9 3.3 Fridges for cooling 7 12.9 5.6 1.9 Fridges for freezing 9 81.8 12.7 4.2 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 12 80.0 16.9 5.7 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 12 63.2 16.9 5.7 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 9 69.2 12.7 4.2 129 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 5 55.6 7.0 2.4 Outlet for selling production needs 3 27.3 4.2 1.4 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 3 33.3 4.2 1.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 3 37.5 4.2 1.4 Aswan Sorting and grading unit 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Packaging unit 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Drying unit 3 30.0 18.8 1.4 Squeezing and packaging unit 1 10.0 6.3 0.5 Fridges for cooling 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Fridges for freezing 1 10.0 6.3 0.5 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 2 18.2 12.5 0.9 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 2 18.2 12.5 0.9 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 3 27.3 18.8 1.4 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Outlet for selling production needs 2 20.0 12.5 0.9 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 3 27.3 18.8 1.4 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 1 9.1 6.3 0.5 Total Sorting and grading unit 18 16.5 8.5 8.5 Packaging unit 19 20.4 9.0 9.0 Drying unit 17 17.9 8.0 8.0 Squeezing and packaging unit 15 18.8 7.1 7.1 Fridges for cooling 16 19.8 7.5 7.5 Fridges for freezing 17 21.5 8.0 8.0 A comprehensive project for all post￾harvest activities 21 27.6 9.9 9.9 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets 21 26.6 9.9 9.9 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products 18 24.7 8.5 8.5 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment 14 23.7 6.6 6.6 Outlet for selling production needs 11 21.2 5.2 5.2 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets 8 17.0 3.8 3.8 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company 8 16.0 3.8 3.8 130 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 131 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-32. Premium Smallholder Farmers’ Participation in Public Training Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Training Topics Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125 L-N=71 A-N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Weighted Average Beheira Safe and responsible use of pesticides 2 1.6 0.9 4.00 Planning, marketing, and budgets 2 1.6 0.9 4.00 Farm management 2 1.6 0.9 3.50 Financial analysis of projects 2 1.6 0.9 3.50 How to access funds for projects 2 1.6 0.9 4.00 Computer skills 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 Luxor Safe and responsible use of pesticides - - - Planning, marketing, and budgets - - - Farm management - - - Financial analysis of projects - - - How to access funds for projects - - - Computer skills - - - Aswan Safe and responsible use of pesticides - - - Planning, marketing, and budgets - - - Farm management - - - Financial analysis of projects - - - How to access funds for projects - - - Computer skills - - - Total Safe and responsible use of pesticides 2 - - 4.00 Planning, marketing, and budgets 2 0.9 0.9 4.00 Farm management 2 0.9 0.9 3.50 Financial analysis of projects 2 0.9 0.9 3.50 How to access funds for projects 2 0.9 0.9 4.00 Computer skills 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 Table B-33. Premium Smallholder Farmers’ Participation in Specialized Training 132 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Training Topics Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125 L-N=71 A-N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Weighted Average Beheira Project Planning 1 0.8 0.5 5.00 Marketing skills 2 1.6 0.9 4.00 Product presentation skills 2 1.6 0.9 4.00 First aid 1 0.8 0.5 5.00 Hygiene and safety considerations 2 1.6 0.9 4.00 Vocational and handicrafts (e.g. glass painting) 1 0.8 0.5 5.00 Sewing and embroidery 1 0.8 0.5 5.00 Luxor Project Planning 0 - - - Marketing skills 0 - - - Product presentation skills 0 - - - First aid 0 - - - Hygiene and safety considerations 0 - - - Vocational and handicrafts (e.g. glass painting) 0 - - - Sewing and embroidery 0 - - - Aswan Project Planning 0 - - - Marketing skills 0 - - - Product presentation skills 0 - - - First aid 0 - - - Hygiene and safety considerations 0 - - - Vocational and handicrafts (e.g. glass painting) 0 - - - Sewing and embroidery 0 - - - Total Project Planning 1 0.5 0.5 5.00 Marketing skills 2 0.9 0.9 4.00 Product presentation skills 2 0.9 0.9 4.00 First aid 1 0.5 0.5 5.00 Hygiene and safety considerations 2 0.9 0.9 4.00 Vocational and handicrafts (e.g. glass painting) 1 0.5 0.5 5.00 Sewing and embroidery 1 0.5 0.5 5.00 133 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table B-34. Factors That Encouraged Farmers’ Participation in Training Activities Disaggregated by Governorate Governorate Encouraging Factors Yes # Yes % from Gov. (B-N=125, L-N=71, A￾N=16) Yes % from Total Sample (N=212) Weighted Average Beheira The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of 2 1.6 0.9 2.50 The location of the training is near your residence. 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 Availability of female trainers 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 Participation of family members or acquaintances in training 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 Encouraging information from previous participants in the training 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so 1 0.8 0.5 4.00 The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. 0 - - - The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. 0 - - - The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities 0 - - - The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) 0 - - - The lack of discrimination against you as a woman 0 - - - The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. 0 - - - Luxor The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of - - - The location of the training is near your residence. - - - Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions - - - Availability of female trainers - - - 134 | END -OF -TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Participation of family members or acquaintances in training - - - Encouraging information from previous participants in the training - - - The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so - - - The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. - - - The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. - - - The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities - - - The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) - - - The lack of discrimination against you as a woman - - - The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. - - - Aswan The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of - - - The location of the training is near your residence. - - - Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions - - - Availability of female trainers - - - Participation of family members or acquaintances in training - - - Encouraging information from previous participants in the training - - - The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so - - - The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. - - - The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. - - - The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities - - - The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) - - - 135 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV The lack of discrimination against you as a woman - - - The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. - - - Total The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of 2 0.9 0.9 2.50 The location of the training is near your residence. 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 Availability of female trainers 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 Participation of family members or acquaintances in training 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 Encouraging information from previous participants in the training 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so 1 0.5 0.5 4.00 The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. 0 - - - The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. 0 - - - The desire to expand an existing small project to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities 0 - - - The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) 0 - - - The lack of discrimination against you as a woman 0 - - - The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. 0 - - - Part C: Sample Smallholder Farmer Populations Participating in the Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project Table C-1. AMAL Smallholder Farmer Households Disaggregated by Governorate and Gender 136 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Notes: 10% oversampling to adjust for farmer absence from farm plot, refusals, incomplete data or other data challenges to ensure achievement of minimal sample sizes is not included in calculations. Sample sizes are determined based on a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error. Table C-2. Population of Premium Growers by Governorate, Growers within the Small Producer Organization, Growers within the Small Producer Organization Registered with Global G.A.P and Gender Governorate COOPERATIVE GROWERS IN THE COOPERATIVE GROWERS REGISTERED WITH GLOBALG.A.P. Total Male Female Total Male Female LUXOR Al Adayma Agricultural Association 132 131 1 59 59 0 Asfoun Agricultural Association 75 74 1 48 47 1 Al Ghareira Agricultural Cooperative 577 485 92 40 34 6 Al Mataana Agricultural Cooperative 88 88 0 55 50 5 El Namasa Agricultural Association 103 98 5 56 56 0 137 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Al Negou Agricultural Cooperative 79 79 0 56 56 0 ASWAN Kalabsha Agricultural Cooperative 149 126 23 6 6 0 Bashayer El Kheir Agricultural Cooperative 100 95 5 27 24 3 BEHEIRA Israa Agricultural Cooperative 582 545 37 232 214 18 Mostafa Ismael Agricultural Cooperative 836 730 106 244 209 35 Shohada Agricultural Cooperative 592 348 244 394 246 148 Soliman Agricultural Cooperative 718 649 69 257 243 14 Yasha Agricultural Cooperative 1155 1047 108 349 316 33 TOTALS 5,186 4,495 691 1,823 1,560 263 Note: 10% oversampling to adjust for farmer absence from farm plot, refusals, incomplete data or other data challenges to ensure achievement of minimal sample sizes is not included in calculations. Sample sizes are determined based on a 95% confidence interval with 5% margin of error. 138 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table C-3. Sample Sizes of Smallholder Farmer Beneficiary Households Disaggregated by Project and Gender Project Sample Size Disaggregated by Project and Gender Total Sample Male Female Premium Project for Small Growers 1,047 217 1,264 Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) 982 781 1,763 Total 2,029 998 3,027 139 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Table C-4. Population and Sample Size of Premium Project Farmer Households Registered with GLOBALG.A.P. Disaggregated by Governorate, Small Producer Organization and Gender Governorate Small Producer Organization Population of Growers Registered with GLOBALG.A.P. Disaggregated by Gender Sample Size of GLOBALG.A.P. Growers to be Surveyed Disaggregated by Gender Males Females Total Males Females Total Luxor 1. Al Adayma Agricultural Association 59 0 59 52 0 52 2. Asfoun Agricultural Association 47 1 48 42 1 43 3. Al Ghareiea Agricultural Cooperative 34 6 40 32 6 38 4. Al Mataana Agricultural Cooperative 50 5 55 45 5 50 5. El Namasa Agricultural Association 56 0 56 49 0 49 6. Al Negou Agricultural Cooperative 56 0 56 49 0 49 Subtotal 302 12 314 269 12 281 Aswan 7. Kalabsha Agricultural Cooperative 6 0 6 6 0 6 8. Bashayer El Kheir Agricultural Cooperative 24 3 27 23 3 26 Subtotal 30 3 33 29 3 32 Beheira 9. Israa Agricultural Cooperative 214 18 232 138 16 154 10. Mostafa Ismael Agricultural Cooperative 209 35 244 136 33 169 11. Shohada Agricultural Cooperative 246 148 394 151 108 259 12. Sollman Agricultural Cooperative 243 14 257 150 14 164 13. Yasha Agricultural Cooperative 316 33 349 174 31 205 Subtotal 1,228 248 1,476 749 202 951 Total 1,561 263 1,823 1,047 217 1,264 140 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Note: 10% oversampling to adjust for farmer absence from farm plot, refusals, incomplete data or other data challenges to ensure achievement of minimal sample sizes is not included in calculations. Sample sizes determined by a 95% confidence interval with 5% margin of error. Table C-5: Premium Global G.A.P Registered Growers and Non-Registered Global G.A.P. Growers Disaggregated by Governorate and Gender Governorate Male Female Grand Total Registered as GlobalG.A.P. Grower Not Registered as GlobalG.A.P. Grower Subtotal Registered as GlobalG.A.P. Grower Not Registered as GlobalG.A.P. Grower Subtotal Aswan 73 99 172 5 22 27 199 Luxor 209 237 446 9 61 70 516 Beheira 313 317 630 159 154 313 943 Total 595 653 1248 173 237 410 1658 141 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX III: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Overview The SIMPLE evaluation team was tasked with evaluating two USAID-funded agricultural projects under one task order:1) the US$ 5.5-million Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project, implemented in the Luxor, Sohag, Qena and Aswan intervention governorates as of February 4, 2015 and scheduled to end September 30, 2018 and 2) the US $7.3-million Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers (Premium), implemented in the Beheira, Luxor, Qena, Aswan and Matrouh intervention governorates from August 3, 2011 to February 28, 2018. The end-of-term evaluation utilized a mixed-methods methodology that relied on a combination of key informant interviews (KIIs), group discussions (GDs) and survey of a randomly selected representative sample of smallholder farmer beneficiary households. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data/information enabled the evaluation team to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, thereby strengthening the validity, reliability and integrity of observed findings. Timeframe Key informant interviews and group discussions with AMAL and Premium stakeholders were originally scheduled for February 15-26, 2018. However, a 75-day stop order (February 7 to April 22, 2018) was issued to the evaluation team to suspend fieldwork due to a) a lack of security clearances and b) national elections (March 26-28, 2018), which resulted in fieldwork being extended to May 14, 2018. Notwithstanding, upon receipt of appropriate security clearances from the Ministry of Education and Technical Education, select members of the evaluation team proceeded to conduct key informant interviews and group discussions with four randomly selected schools from a pool of 10 participating Agricultural Technical Schools (ATS) from March 25 through March 29 and April 18, 2018. Refer to Annex V for a detailed account of the evaluation team’s site visit schedule. Project Debriefing Materials The USAID requesting technical office (Office of Economic Growth) and the implementing partners ACDI/VOCA (Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics Project) and Blue Moon, Ltd. (Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers) provided electronic copies of their respective cooperative agreements, annual reports, quarterly reports, monitoring and evaluation plans, indicator tracking tables, training reports, gender assessments and strategies, cost benefit analyses, baseline data (as available) and small producer organization farmer registries. These documents were reviewed by the SIMPLE evaluation team to construct an overview of the projects’ respective implementation designs, performances over time and targeted stakeholders to assist in the design of evaluation tools in response to the evaluation questions stated in the USAID scope of work. Refer to Annex I for a statement of work and Annex VI for a list of bibliography consulted. Qualitative Data Sources and Content Analysis A total of 272 individuals were consulted by two two-person SIMPLE evaluation field teams through the use of 17 English and Arabic key informant interview (KII) and group discussion (GD) protocols involving a) 12 KIIs with USAID, ACDI/VOCA, Blue Moon, and HEIA project management personnel, b) seven KIIs with exporters, c) one KII and one GD with HEIA staff, d) nine GDs with AMAL farmers, e) three GDs with AMAL smallholder farmer producer organization personnel, f) three GDs with AMAL farmer trainers, g) six GDs with Premium farmers, h) three GDs with Premium smallholder farmer producer organization personnel, i) one KII with Premium pack house management, j) two GDs with Premium pack house staff, k) four GDs with ATS students, l) two GDs with ATS graduates, m) six GDs with ATS teachers, n) two GDs with ATS Career Development Center staff, o) four KIIs with ATS Career Development Center managers and p) four KIIs with ATS school principals. The evaluation filed teams systematically met after site visits to digitize hand-written meeting notes gathered from the 272 individuals consulted, consolidate findings and confer on lessons learned while ensuring that the quality of the qualitative data met USAID standards. Following the completion of fieldwork, the evaluation team conducted a data analysis workshop during which qualitative data was analyzed and coded according to recurrent themes; an exercise referred to as content analysis. Recurring themes are organized and tabulated using Microsoft Excel to quantify the number and percentages of instances respondents answered in a similar manner in what is referred to as a “tally sheet.” Content analysis of 142 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV key-stakeholder individual interviews and group discussions provides insight into the interpretation of quantitative data by contextualizing reported survey findings. Quantitative Data Sources A total of 45 enumerators, seven field supervisors, one survey controller and one survey team leader were recruited and trained to conduct the Smallholder Farmer Household Agricultural Income Survey. Enumerators were recruited from the intervention governorates in order to contain costs and increase the probability of collecting higher quality data given that the enumerators would be regarded as members of the local community. A total of 417 AMAL farmers and 480 Premium farmers were targeted for the survey. From them, the project surveyed a total of 484 farmers using the application of the Smallholder Farmer Household Survey of the 2015 and 2017 agricultural production cycles. However, due to missing values or unreliable reported data, 127 survey respondents were removed from the analysis. Refer to the tables listed below for a breakdown of reported active growers/producers, targeted sample sizes, actual completed surveys and margins of error disaggregated by project and governorate. It is important to note that the targeted sample sizes are determined by calculations based on a 95% confidence interval with a 5 % margin of error. Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics Project Date Governorate IP Reported Growers Targeted Sample* Actual* Margin of Error 9-May 2018 Qena 104 83 14 24.48% 9-10 May 2018 Luxor 199 132 36 14.82% 12-May 2018 Sohag 421 202 95 15.64% Total 724 417 145 7.28% Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers Date Governorate IP Reported Growers Targeted Sample* Actual* Margin of Error 5-13 March 2018 Luxor 1105 286 71 11.26% 6-May 2018 Beheira 259 155 125 6.32% 10-May 2018 Aswan 43 39 16 19.64% Total 1407 480 212 6.20% Notes: The margin of error is the amount of error that a researcher is willing to tolerate. The margin of error refers to the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, in the case of the AMAL smallholder farmer, the 7.28% “actual” margin of error at the project level (as opposed to governorate level), indicates that if 81.7% of AMAL’s randomly selected/surveyed farmers (n=145) that reported “using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards” as one of three principle causes for an increase in farm productivity and/or decreased production costs, the researcher can be “reasonably certain” that if he or she were to have asked the question of the entire population, between 74.42% (81.7-7.28) and 88.98% (81.7+7.28) would respond in the same manner. The confidence level is the amount of uncertainty the researcher is willing to tolerate; it tells the researcher how “sure” he or she can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population would select an answer within the confidence interval. A 95% confidence level means that the researcher can be 95% certain. Confidence interval calculations necessarily assume that the researcher has selected a genuine random sample of the relevant population. If the sample is not truly random, the researcher cannot rely 143 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV on the intervals. Non-random samples usually result from some flaw or limitation in the sampling procedure. An example of such a flaw is to only conduct a household telephone survey during the day and not encounter working household members at home. For most purposes, a non-working population cannot be assumed to accurately represent an entire working and non-working population. The wider the confidence interval the researcher is willing to accept, the more certain he or she can be that the entire population’s response would be within that range. Smallholder Farmer Household Survey The Smallholder Farmer Household Survey was one of two principal sources of quantitative data for estimating annual smallholder farmer household income for AMAL and Premium beneficiary growers in response to evaluation question 1; i.e., “In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers?”. The second source of data was the AMAL baseline survey data conducted in 2015 by ACDI/VOCA. The SIMPLE evaluation survey team collected the 2017 end line date for AMAL beneficiary farmers and the 2015 baseline (based on beneficiary farmer recall) and 2017 end line data for Premium beneficiary farmers. The survey instrument, developed by the evaluation team, was based on the 2015 AMAL baseline survey instrument in order to ensure comparability between the baseline and end line datasets. It was divided into eight basic subject areas including: 1) enumerator basic information, 2) farmer basic information, 3) landholding size data (expressed in feddans), 4) crop production and cost of production related data for the 2015 and 2017 agricultural cycles, 5) local and/or international market related information and relevant farmer perceptions 6) effectiveness of project activities, 7) adoption of modern technologies and practices and 8) training/technical assistance. The survey instrument was reviewed and approved by the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) for data collection. Refer to Annex IV for a copy of the questionnaire (English and Arabic). Given the lack of security clearances from the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (agricultural cooperatives) and the Ministry of Social Solidarity (farmer-based community development associations) and the desire to accelerate the data collection process, the evaluation survey team elected to meet farmers at the cooperatives and/or community development associations with which they were affiliated. Notwithstanding, some farmers were interviewed at pre-announced alternative central meeting locations so as to facilitate farmer response rates in order to achieve targeted sample sizes. Possible selection bias was attenuated as the randomized selection of farmers was preserved by requiring farmers to present their national identification to confirm their identity prior to being interviewed/surveyed. Nevertheless, although not necessarily subject to selection bias, survey results are subject to possible recall bias, as reported findings are dependent on individual farmer’s recollection of 2015 and 2017 production costs and sales data and the farmer’s willingness to truthfully inform the enumerator. The extent to which results might be overstated or understated is impossible to know without verifying the date against farmer and/or small producer association paper-based records. It is important to note that when calculating agricultural household incomes from the 2015 and 2017 datasets, EGP and USD values are expressed as devaluation and inflation-adjusted measures. Smallholder farmer agricultural household income is adjusted for a) a 55.7% devaluation of the Egyptian pound on November 3, 2016, and b) a 39.8% 2017 inflation rate given that these financial pressures are reflected in 2017 agricultural production costs and crop prices. Accordingly, in order to compare the results of the 2015 baseline data (AMAL’s “actual” baseline and Premium’s “recall” baseline) with results of the 2017 end line smallholder famer household survey for both the AMAL and Premium Projects, 2017 reported production costs and sales data were converted into fixed prices by multiplying said sales and cost data by 0.6; equivalent to the average 2017 inflation rate. Furthermore, in order to convert 2015 reported production cost and sales data from EGP to USD, production costs and sales data were divided by the average 2015 exchange rate of 7.8 EGP to 1 USD. In order to convert 2017 reported production cost and sales data from EGP to USD, production costs and sales data were divided by the average 2017 exchange rate of 17.6 EGP to 1 USD. The resulting value was thereafter multiplied by 0.6; the equivalent of the average 2017 inflation rate. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for generating frequency distributions, cross￾tabulations and descriptive analyses of primary smallholder farmer household survey data. 144 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Data Analysis Methods This use of mixed methods enables triangulation using several means (methods, data sources, and evaluators) to examine the same subject under study from different vantage points, thus strengthening the validity, reliability, and integrity of the observed findings. Primary and secondary quantitative data and qualitative findings were integrated to cross-validate results, draw conclusions and develop short-term and longer-term recommendations for future project design and implementation that are actionable, practical, specific and with a defined responsible party. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative results, the evaluation team gained a deeper understanding and corroboration of the subjects under study, offsetting weaknesses inherent in using either approach alone. SAMPLING In response to SIMPLE’s original request for the number of project-affiliated beneficiary farmers, a) AMAL reported 5,199 “producers” as beneficiaries; equivalent to 3,153 males and 2,046 females and b) Premium reported 5,186 “growers” within its beneficiary small producer organizations, of which 1,823 were reported as GLOBALG.A.P. certified; equivalent to 1,561 males and 263 females. Refer to Tables C-1 and C-2 in Annex II, respectively. Accordingly, in the first round of sampling, a statistically representative stratified sample applying a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error was drawn from AMAL’s 5,199 reported producers and Premium’s 1,823 reported GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers. For AMAL, samples were stratified by governorate and gender only as gender disaggregation by community development association was not provided, whereas, Premium samples were stratified by governorate, by cooperative within a given governorate and by gender within a given cooperative. The first round of sampling resulted in a statistically representative sample of 3,027 observations, 1,763 for AMAL (982 males and 781 females) and 1,264 for Premium (1,047 males and 217 females). Refer to Tables C-3 and C-4 in Annex II, respectively. However, following further consideration, the evaluation team decided to compare household incomes between Premium GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers and Premium non-GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers. Consequently, Premium provided the number of GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers and non-GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers disaggregated by intervention governorate and gender. Accordingly, the evaluation team revised its statistically representative sample estimates, again applying a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error, to the revised beneficiary population numbers resulting in a representative sample of 768 GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers (595 males and 173 females) and 890 non-GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers (653 males and 237 females). Refer to Table C-5 in Annex II. Following successive rounds of requests from AMAL and Premium to direct beneficiary growers, final numbers were ultimately reduced to 724 for AMAL and 1,449 for Premium. Resulting sample sizes for targeted smallholder farmer households, continuing to apply the 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error selection criteria, were established at 417 for AMAL and 480 for Premium. As per the statement of work, the minimum sample size for AMAL should not be less than 10% of beneficiaries, and the minimum sample size for Premium GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers should not be less than 7% of beneficiaries. AMAL growers were reported by ACDI/VOCA as 724. Premium GLOBALG.A.P. certified growers were reported by Blue Moon, Ltd. as 1,449. The team surveyed a total of 228 AMAL growers of a reported population of 724 growers; or 31.5%. The team surveyed a total of 256 Premium growers of a reported population of 1,407, or 17.7%. However, survey respondents with missing values or unreliable reported data were removed from the analysis, reducing the samples to 145 beneficiary farmers for AMAL and 212 beneficiary farmers for Premium. It is important to highlight that given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, results can only be generalized at the project level as opposed to the cooperative, gender and/or GAP versus non-GAP certified growers’ levels of analysis. The scope of work minimum sample size requirements have been exceeded for both AMAL (20.0% as opposed to the minimum requirement of 10%) and Premium (15.1% as opposed to the minimum requirement of 7%). 145 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV As survey results are the product of a randomized purposive sample, evaluators are able to use statistical inferential analyses for generalizing findings across the overall population given representative sample sizes. Limitations The Premium Project did not conduct a baseline study prior to its 2011 intervention. Given the absence of Premium baseline data, the evaluation team constructed a survey instrument that sought to capture pre-intervention data through the farmers’ recollection of 2015 production costs, crop yields and sale prices. Accordingly, survey results are subject to possible recall bias as reported findings are dependent on individual farmer’s recollection of 2015 and 2017 production costs and sales data and the farmer’s willingness to truthfully inform the enumerator. It’s impossible to know the extent to which the data are overstated or understated as a result without verifying it against farmer and/or small producer association paper-based records. Had the sampling methodology been implemented as proposed, survey results would have permitted a detailed analysis at the a) governorate, b) small producer organization, c) gender and for the two projects and at the d) GAP certified versus non￾GAP certified levels for the Premium project. However, the implementing partners reduced the number of active growers over three successive rounds of data requests due to an overstatement of active beneficiary farmers. Consequently, despite the random selection of qualified farmer households, reduced sample size constraints limit the statistical significance and associated generalization of findings to the project level. For the three AMAL intervention governorates, only Luxor has complete survey data across all five feddan landholding sizes (less than 1 feddan, 1-3 feddans, 3-5 feddans, 5-10 feddans and 10+ feddans) for the 2015 baseline and 2017 end line agricultural cycles. Note: A feddan is an Egyptian unit of land area equal to 4200 square meters (equivalent to 1.038 acres and/or 0.42 hectares). For the three Premium intervention governorates, only Beheira has complete data across the 5-10 feddan and 10+ feddan land holdings for the 2015/2017 agricultural cycles. Site visits to the randomly selected Premium Project agricultural technical schools (four of 10) were conducted 20 months after the intervention end date (September 2016), resulting in a significantly reduced number of available direct beneficiary students and graduates for evaluating improved employment outcomes. Recommendations for Alternative Evaluation Designs Utilizing Representative Sampling for Conducting a Rigorous End-of-Term Evaluation of Future Agricultural Projects For employing statistical techniques for an end-of-term evaluation for future agricultural projects using rigorous statistical analyses, it is recommended that a sampling strategy based on a representative sample of project-related stakeholders/beneficiaries be designed, using either a stratified sampling or cluster sampling technique. Stratified sampling distributes the sample among the population’s characteristics of interest. It implies that the portion of each characteristic from the overall sample (n) is determined by its weight in the population. Cluster sampling implies dividing the targeted population, to the extent possible, into clusters across homogenous elements within that population. A sample would be determined by selecting elements from each and every cluster. In general, the cluster sampling technique is recommended, as it is likely be more convenient, economical, and practical when targeting geographically dispersed intervention areas. In order to employ statistical techniques, it will be necessary for the project’s collaborating partners to identify and maintain updated records of the known universe of targeted individuals/groups to support a randomized representative sample selection of beneficiary groups to be studied. By utilizing a randomized representative sample, evaluators can generalize findings about the overall population and depend less on non-probabilistic purposive sampling techniques, with their limitations on generalizability. Rigorous statistical analyses can be performed when available data constitute a representative sample of the entire population. Depending on the evaluation question, examples of possible statistical techniques include regression analysis, association 146 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV measuring, discriminant analysis, pre- and post-comparisons, difference in differences, propensity score-matching, and/or inferential statistics. 147 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX IV: EVALUATION COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Evaluation for AMAL and PREMIUM Activities Under ARDII FINAL CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION TOOLS 24FEB18 Note to moderator: - The generic introduction below is to be provided at the beginning of every KII/GD. - It is mandatory to fill in the section below the introduction for each KII/GD. Introduction: Good morning, my name is __________________. I am a member of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of 1) the Premium Project and 2) the AMAL Project. The evaluation will serve a dual purpose: 1) to learn to what extent the targeted results have been achieved and 2) to inform the design of future agricultural projects. Your participation is entirely voluntary but your participation is important to the results of this study. Results will be anonymized and shared with project stakeholders. Project Name: AMAL ( ) Premium ( ) Interviewer Name: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Tool #: Type of Tool: KII ( ) GD ( ) # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Governorate: Name of Person Interviewed: Position: Organization Name: Type of Organization: Organization Address: Instruction Notes: • Text in italics is either an instruction note for the moderator or an analysis note. • Text (between parentheses) is probing points for the moderator. Please gather success stories from all stakeholders (max 3- 5 project specific – male/female / associations, etc.) TOOL # 1: Data Source (Target Group) High Level Program Management Specific Target Group USAID Type of Tool Key Informant Interview (KII) 148 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Number of Tools to be implemented: 3 USAID (n=3) Location(s): Central – Cairo Time per tool: 60 - 90 Minutes Logistical Needs: Appointment and notification of stakeholder Two / three KIIs per day to allow time for review and data categorization if the database entry is done on the same day Allowing for at least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before KII to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the KII for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - What were the project approaches for increasing smallholder farmers’ income? (project components) o Why were those approaches selected? o How did the approaches (by approach/component) help reach the result (i.e. increasing smallholder farmers’ income)? o In case of project replication, what do you plan to change (in approach/component), and what needs to be sustained? Why? (in terms of contributing to increasing smallholder famers’ income) EQ1-C. In what ways was AMAL’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-D. In what ways was Blue Moon’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - What were the factors of success in the project? - What were the overall challenges in the projects performance (per project)? How did you address those challenges/ - How has USAID ensured women’s participation in the projects? What transformative measures have you recommended the IPs to take to ensure women’s increased participation in the project’s activities? - How were those measures (if at all) successful in ensuring the level and effectiveness of female participation? If no, why? What were the obstacles that prevented increased women’s participation? How did the IPs address those obstacles? - EQ2. In what ways were the relationship between USAID, HEIA and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? Tool Questions: 149 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV - What was the role of each partner in the project – USAID, HEIA, ACDI/VOCA? How can you describe the synergy between the three organizations? - What is the value added of HEIA and ACDI/VOCA in the project? How did each partner contribute to the project’s results? - How has the partnership between the three organizations have an impact on the project’s results? How different would the project be without this partnership? How do you envision the future of this partnership after the end of the project? Suggestions. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under Blue Moon? (effectiveness) EQ3.A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions (only for Blue Moon): - How was the ATS component integrated into the project? What is the value added of this component to the overall project result? - What was the overall result of the ATS component? How did it affect the agricultural students/graduates in terms of skills and competencies, and in terms of employability? - How did the USAID ensure that ATS is taking effective measures for equal access and participation of female students? - What is the estimated rate of employment for ATS component graduates? in which sectors? - Has the IP conducted a gap analysis to ensure meeting the market needs? - How do you recommend the IP uses of the database as a resource for increasing employability chances? - How will the ATS component (CDC) continue to operate in the schools after the USAID support stops? Is there a sustainability plan? - What changes will you make in the component in case of project replication? EQ4 To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-B To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon? EQ4-C To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: - How were the capacity building strategies for farmers developed? (Needs Assessment?) - How does the project ensure that the capacity building activities are achieving the intended results (probes: change practices, improve performance, leading to increased farmers’ income? - What were the directions provided by USAID to ensure the female farmers participation in the capacity building activities? - How effective was the capacity building activities on farmers’ performance, and subsequently their income? Were there variations in the results according to gender? - How have the IPs planned for the sustainability of the capacity building component operationally (probes: TOT, Master Trainers, Manual, Curriculum, Refreshers, etc.) and financially? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained, and what needs to be changed under this component? EQ5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the activities’ Pack Houses and Center of Excellence? EQ5-A. To what extent were systems for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by Pack Houses? EQ5-B. To what extent were processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by Pack Houses? 150 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ5-C. To what extent were systems for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the Center of Excellence? EQ5-D. To what extent were processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the Center of Excellence? Tool Questions: - How will the COE and the Pack houses continue operations after the project’s end? - What are the COE’s and the Pack House Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats? - What measure were taken to ensure their operational and financial sustainability? Were those measures institutionalized? How? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed in the project design and by the IPs to ensure increased women’s participation in both sectors (agriculture and education)? - How did USAID ensure that those measures were applied and follow up on the results of gender access and participation? - What were the results of these measures? How different would women’s participation be without these measures in place? 151 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV TOOL # 2: Data Source (Target Group) Senior Management Specific Target Group Project Management Level (ACDI/VOCA, Blue Moon, HEIA) Type of Tool Key Informant Interview (KII) Number of Tools to be implemented: 4 ACDI/VOCA (CP, DCP, branch manager, key personnel: operations, M&E, project managers, etc.) 4 Blue Moon (CP, DCP, key personnel: branch manager, operations, M&E, project managers, etc.) 1 HEIA (Director) (n= 9) Location(s): Central – Cairo Governorates, in case of branch managers Time per tool: 60 – 90 minutes Logistical Needs: Appointment and notification of stakeholder Only two / three KIIs per day to allow time for review and data categorization if the database entry is done on the same day At least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before KII to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the KII for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. Branch managers will be done on the governorate level. Number of tools (KIIs) in Cairo 3 Number of tools (KIIs) in governorates 6 (1 per project per governorate) EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - What were the project approaches for increasing smallholder farmers’ income? (project components) o Why were those approaches selected? o How did the approaches (by approach/component) help reach the result (i.e. increasing smallholder farmers’ income)? o In case of project replication, what needs to be changed (in approach/component), and what needs to be sustained? Why? (Note: In terms of contributing to increasing smallholder famers’ income). o Who manages the percentages received from Fairtrade? How are they managed? EQ1-C. 152 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV In what ways was AMAL’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-D. In what ways was Blue Moon’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - Which component performed better than the others and which performed the least? Why? What were the factors of success for this/those components? - What were the challenges that you faced in implementation (by component)? How were those challenges dealt with? - What is the difference in dealing with associations vs. cooperatives? - What are the challenges in dealing with both? - What gender transformative measures did the project take? How were those measures (if at all) successful in ensuring the level and effectiveness of female participation? If no, how did/would the project rectify that? EQ2. In what ways were the relationship between USAID, HEIA and ACDI VOCA effective in impacting AMAL project activity performance and results? Tool Questions: - What was the role of each partner in the project – USAID, HEIA, ACDI/VOCA? How can you describe the synergy between the three organizations? - What is the value added of each partner (U/H/AV) in the project? How did each partner contribute to the project’s results? - Did the partnership between the three organizations have an impact on the project’s performance? How different would the project performance be without it? - How do you envision the future of this partnership after the end of the project? Suggestions. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under blue moon? (effectiveness) EQ3-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions (only for Blue Moon): - How was the ATS component integrated into the project? What is the value added of this component to the overall project result? - How did the ATS training affect the agricultural students/graduates in terms of skills and competencies, and in terms of employability? - What is the estimated rate of employment for ATS component graduates? Where did graduates obtain jobs? - Was a gap analysis conducted to ensure meeting the market needs? What gaps have been identified in this regard? - What is the current use of the database? How can you improve it to meet the project’s objectives? - How would the ATS component (CDC) continue to operate after the USAID support stops? EQ4 To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-B To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon? EQ4-C 153 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: - How were the capacity building activities for farmers selected (e.g. was there a needs assessment)? How were the capacity building strategies developed)? - How does the project ensure that the capacity building activities are achieving the intended results? - How did project monitor the quality of the trainings and their impact on the farmers (satisfaction of participants, measuring learning, implementation in real life, long term impact)? - What measures were taken to encourage female farmers’ participation in capacity building activities? - What is the effect of the capacity building activities on farmers’ performance, and subsequently their income? - How were the results different (if at all) between male and female participants? In your opinion, what is the reason for this difference (if any)? - What measures have been taken to sustain the capacity building component operationally (TOT, Master Trainers, Manual, Curriculum, Refreshers, etc.) and financially? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained, and what needs to be changed under this component? EQ5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the activities’ Pack Houses and Center of Excellence? EQ5-A. To what extent were systems for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by Pack Houses? EQ5-B. To what extent were processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by Pack Houses? EQ5-C. To what extent were systems for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the Center of Excellence? EQ5-D. To what extent were processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the Center of Excellence? Tool Questions: - What measure were taken to ensure their operational and financial sustainability? Were those measures institutionalized? If yes, how? If no, why? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 3: Data Source (Target Group) Management and Staff (of Service Providers) Specific Target Group Pack House Manager, Pack House Staff Type of Tool Key Informant Interview (KII): Pack house Manager, GDs: Pack House Staff, Number of Tools to be implemented: Pack House:1 KII + 1 GD Time per tool 60 – 75 minutes KII 60 – 75 minutes GD 154 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Logistical Needs: Appointment and notification of stakeholder Both KII and FGD to be done in the same day. At least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before KII/GD to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the KII and GD for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. Preparation for appointments, preparation of space for the GD and the KII. EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Pack Houses Tool Questions: - What services does your Pack House provide? Who are the beneficiaries of the Pack House? - How many days does the Pack House operate? - Did your area have a pack house before (or an alternative)? If yes, what is the value added of this pack house? How is it different from others? - What were the factors of success of the Pack House operations? - What challenges has the pack house faced in providing services as planned? - Does the Pack House have a business plan? - In what way does has the role of pack house contributed to increased farmers income? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained or changed in the Pack House approach or performance? Why? - What need to be sustained or changed in the project in general? Why? EQ4 To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-B To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon? EQ4-C To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: (instructions: Note: ask and try to get data reports or internal assessments if they have it during field implementation) - Did the Pack House provide farmers with training? - What training did the farmers receive? (probes: details on the training topics) - What training was the most effective? Why? What were the results/changes brought as a result of the training? (Probes: production, performance in pack house) EQ5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the activities’ Pack Houses and Center of Excellence? EQ5-A. To what extent were systems for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by Pack Houses? 155 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ5-B. To what extent were processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by Pack Houses? - How will the pack house operate now that the project has ended? What systems and processes are in place to guarantee smooth continuation after the project’s end? (Probes: exit strategy, handover of responsibilities, legal status/ownership, continued operation and maintenance of assets, process of renewal of fair trade and GAP certification, retention of staff and management, etc.). Use as probes as necessary. - Is the PH currently financially self-sufficient? If not, what plans are in place to achieve financial self-sufficiency? What is the timeline for that plan? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Instruction Note: Get data on employment and female participation as workers in the pack house. They may be reflected in their annual reports. A comparison between 2014 report, which is prior to the project, and 2017 would be useful in this regard. EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 4 Data Source (Target Group) Management and Staff (of Service Providers) Specific Target Group CoE Manager, and CoE Staff Type of Tool Key Informant Interview (KII): CoE Manager Number of Tools to be implemented: CoE:1 KII + 1 GD Time per tool 60 - 75 minutes Logistical Needs: Appointment and notification of stakeholder Both KII and FGD to be done in the same day. At least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before KII/GD to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the KII and GD for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. Preparation for appointments, preparation of space for the GD and the KII. EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? 156 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: (instruction note: ask and try to get data reports or internal assessments if they have it during field implementation) - How does the CoE operate? Who are the beneficiaries of the CoE? - How many days does the CoE operate? - What factors contributed to the success of the CoE? - What challenges has the center faced in providing services as planned? - Does the CoE have a business plan? - In what way does the role of CoE contribute to increased farmers income? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained or changed in the CoE approach or performance? Or the project in general? Why? EQ4 To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-C To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: - Did the CoE provide farmers with training? How was the CoE involved in training for farmers? - How were the training activities for farmers selected (e.g. was there a needs assessment? - What are the training topics offered by the CoE? - How does (the entity) ensure that the capacity building activities are achieving the intended results? - How did (the entity) monitor the quality of the trainings and their impact on the farmers (satisfaction of participants, measuring learning, implementation in real life, long term impact)? o How the capacity building activities affected the farmers' performance (by type, i.e. planting, production, high value crops, harvest, post-harvest, sales, marketing) - What measures were taken to encourage female farmers’ participation in capacity building activities? - Were there any women specific activities implemented? If yes, what were those activities, and why were they chosen and women specific? - What is the effect of the capacity building activities on farmers’ performance, and subsequently their income? How can you attribute these changes to the project’s capacity building component? - How were the results different between male and female participants? - How will the capacity building component continue to operate after the project’s end? What measures have been taken to sustain the capacity building component operationally (TOT, Master Trainers, Manual, Curriculum, Refreshers, etc.) and financially? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained, and what needs to be changed under this component? Q5. To what extent were systems and processes for sustainability, institutionalized, or adopted, by the activities’ Pack Houses and Center of Excellence? EQ5-C. To what extent were systems for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the Center of Excellence? EQ5-D. To what extent were processes for sustainability institutionalized, or adopted, by the Center of Excellence? - How will the CoE operate now that the project has ended? What systems and processes are in place to guarantee smooth continuation after the project’s end? (Probes: exit strategy, handover of responsibilities, legal status/ownership, continued operation and maintenance of assets, process of renewal of fair trade and GAP certification, retention of staff and management, etc.). Use as probes as necessary. - Is the CoE currently financially self-sufficient? If not, what plans are in place to achieve financial self￾sufficiency? What is the timeline for that plan? 157 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Instruction Note: Get data on employment and female participation as workers in the pack house. They may be reflected in their annual reports. A comparison between 2014 report, which is prior to the project, and 2017 would be useful in this regard. EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 5 Data Source (Target Group) Management and Staff (of Service Providers) Specific Target Group Farmers Cooperatives and Community Association Management Note: These are the farm organization leaders (co-ops). Type of Tool GDs: Farmer Cooperatives and Community Management Number of Tools to be implemented: FCs/CAs GDs: 1 per governorate/project (n=1*6=6) Time per tool 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: Appointment and notification of stakeholders At least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before KII/GD to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the KII and GD for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. Preparation for appointments, preparation of space for the GD. EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: 158 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV - What services does the Association/Cooperative provide for farmers? - Which factors have contributed to the success of the Association/Cooperative? - What challenges has the association/cooperative faced in providing services as planned? - In what way does the role of association/cooperative contribute to increased farmers income? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained or changed in the association/cooperative’s approach or performance? Or the project in general? Why? EQ4 To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-B To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon? EQ4-C To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: - Did the association/cooperative provide farmers with training? Was it involved in improving their skills? - What were the training topics offered by the association/cooperative? - How were the training activities for farmers selected (e.g. was there a needs assessment? - How does the association/cooperative ensure that training achieves the intended results? - How did the association/cooperative monitor the quality of the trainings and their impact on the farmers (probes: satisfaction of participants, measuring learning, implementation in real life, long term impact)? o How the training affected the farmers' performance (probes: by type, i.e. planting, production, high value crops, harvest, post-harvest, sales, marketing) - How were female farmers’ participation in training encouraged? - Were there any women specific activities implemented? If yes, what were those activities, and why were they chosen and women specific? - What is the effect of training activities on farmers’ performance, and subsequently their income? How can you attribute these changes to the project’s capacity building component? - How were the results different between male and female participants? - How will training continue to be provided after the project’s end, operationally (probes: TOT, Master Trainers, Manual, Curriculum, Refreshers, etc.) and financially? - In case of project replication, what needs to be sustained, and what needs to be changed under this component? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 6: Data Source (Target Group) Management and Staff (of Service Providers) Specific Target Group ATS (ATS Senior Administrators and Career Development Centers CDC Director) Type of Tool Key Informant Interview (KII): ATS Senior Administrator, CDC Director Number of Tools to be implemented: ATS: 2 KII per governorate (n=2*3=6) 159 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Time per tool 60 – 75 minutes per tool Logistical Needs: Appointment and notification of stakeholder Both KII and FGD to be done in the same day. At least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before KII/GD to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the KII and GD for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. Preparation for appointments, preparation of space for the GD and the KII. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under blue moon? (effectiveness)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates ATS and CDC Tool Questions: - What is the role of the CDC? What activities does it carry out? - What skills did the students gain from those activities? How effective were those skills and their impact on the students’ day to day work? Is there a difference between male and female students in that regard? - In your opinion, were those activities sufficient to improve the students’ skills and competencies? If no, why not? What other activities, skills, or competencies need to be incorporated in the program? - How many teachers are there in the agricultural sector? How many of them are females? - How many teachers were trained (male & female)? What were the training topics offered to them? - How effective was the training? How did they benefit from it? - How many are the CDC staff? How many are female? - What measures did you take for encouraging female participation? Were those measures successful in ensuring the level and effectiveness of female participation? If no, how did the project rectify that? EQ3.B To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: EQ 3.B.1 Students employability - What is the difference between the three approaches (internships, entrepreneurships, and employment)? How different were they? - What was the most effective transition for students/graduates into employment (probes: internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? Question CDC: #of students who are employed (sector, formal/informal, type of employment) (survey or secondary data) - Do you track student employability rates? If yes, is there an increase or no? and why? - Is this employment attributed to the training? Or due to other factors? Are the results different between males and females? How? - How are the recent graduates different from the previous ones? - Which skills need to be addressed to increase students’ employability? Are they the same for both males and females? - What obstacles do students face in getting employment? Were there any efforts made to overcome these obstacles? 160 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ 3.B.1 Relevance of the activities to market needs - What was your input in the design of the intervention? - Did the graduates’ skills meet the market needs? If not, why not? - What can be added to the program to improve graduates’ employability? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? 161 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV TOOL # 7: Data Source (Target Group) Beneficiaries Specific Target Group Small holder Farmers (AMAL – Premium), Males and Females Type of Tool Group Discussions Number of Tools to be implemented: 3 GD per governorate/project (2 male, 1 female) (n=3*6=18) 8 – 10 farmers per GD. N=180 Location(s): At governorate Time per tool: 90 minutes Logistical Needs: IPs support in gathering the groups of farmers for the GDs and in choice and preparation of location (including transportation of farmers to location, arranging space for GD, determining and implementing participation incentives (if any), and hospitality (if any) Ensuring that the space available and that the discussion is away from management and other observers. Only two/three groups per day to allow time for review and data categorization if the database entry is done on the same day At least 30 minutes preparation time for the team together before GD to review and prepare notes. At least 30 minutes review time after the GD for the team together to review, verify, and share notes. EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - Did the project help in increasing your income? - If yes, how has the project helped you increase your income? What are the reasons behind this increase? Please elaborate and give examples. (forward contracts, certification, capacity building/training, direct technical assistance, services provided by pack houses, changing performance related to planting, harvesting, and post harvesting, assistance and access to marketing and export, etc.) Analysis Note – Use as probe if necessary: 162 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV How different are the findings under this questions between male and female farmers? - If no, why hasn’t the project helped in this regard? - After participating in the project’s activities, what challenges do you still encounter as a farmer in running your agribusiness? How are you addressing those challenges? Which organizations could help you solve these issues? (probes: applying training, changing performance in planting and growing, financial resources, adjusting to international certification, availability of market information, marketing, sales, access to export and local markets, financial resources, post-harvest activities, issues in inputs access, accessing services, etc.) - Have you been cooperating with associations or cooperatives? What is the difference in dealing with associations versus cooperatives? - What are the challenges in dealing with both? - In case of project replication, what needs to be changed (in approach/component), and what needs to be sustained? Why? Analysis Note – Use as probe if necessary: How different are the findings under this questions between male and female farmers? EQ4. To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-B To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon? EQ4-C To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: - What training activities did you participate in (training/ technical assistance/ direct assistance / communication facilitation / procedural assistance) - Are you satisfied with the training provided by the project? Why or why not? (Reasons for satisfaction / dissatisfaction should be asked in general and by activity). Instruction note: Try to get the ranking on most useful to least useful, and reasons for the ranking. For example, which training was the most useful (what was the second and third best) and which was the least useful? And reasons. - Do you believe that the training courses received were sufficient for you? - How useful was the training activities you participated in? How did the training/technical assistance change your practices? Details on practices and behavioral changes regarding planting (probes: technologies, inputs, pesticides, etc.), harvesting, post-harvest practices (including packaging and transport), marketing and access to markets, export practices and sales). - Did this affect your income? How? Elaborate and explain with examples. - Did you find any challenges in applying the training or the recommendations you received? What were those challenges? How did you overcome them? - Will you continue to apply the same practices after the project ends? If no, why not? What difficulties do you expect to face? - Were there any women specific activities implemented? If yes, what were those activities, and why were they chosen and women specific? (Probes: Were there any female trainers?, if no, would the presence of female trainers have helped increase participation, suggestion for increasing female participation). - For female farmers: What measures were taken to encourage your participation in training activities? - Were there any barriers/challenges that prevented some women from participation? How did the project address those barriers? Analysis Note – Use as probe if necessary: How different are the findings under this questions between male and female farmers? - Given lessons learned, what are some key recommendations that you would offer to improve future training programs? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? 163 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 8: Data Source (Target Group) Implementers Specific Target Group ATS Teachers Type of Tool Group Discussions Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD teachers per school (n=3) 8- 10 participants per GD Location(s)/ # of Tools per Location: Time per tool: 60-75 minutes Logistical Needs: The IPs to arrange appointments with the ATS teachers ensuring that only teachers participating in the program take part in the GDs. Implementation with teachers inside schools if possible. If not, then groups of teachers need to be invited to the chosen location (suggestion: Blue Moon branch office location?) IP to help choose a location (if it is not possible for the ATS to host the GDs) and arrange the space for the GDs. Both this GD and that of the CDC per School/governorate can be done successively in the same day, with at least one-hour interval to allow for review time after the first GD and preparation time before the following GD. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under blue moon? (effectiveness)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates 164 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Tool Questions: - What trainings have you received? - Which training did you find the most useful? Why, and in what way was it useful? - Which training did you find the least useful? Why? - How did you apply the trainings that you received through the project in your day to day operations with the students? What challenges have you faced? How did you mitigate the challenges? - Can you give us examples of change perceived in the students due to the project activities? Did the results differ between males and females? - Was the training sufficient for you? - What gaps do you find in the training you received? - What skills did the students gain from the ATS programs (internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? How effective were those skills and their impact on the students’ day to day work? Is there a difference between male and female students in that regard? - What other skills and competencies should be incorporated into the program to improve students’ capacities and employability potentials? - Do you have any suggestions to improve this component? EQ3.B To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: EQ 3.B.1 Students employability - What is the difference between the three approaches (internships, entrepreneurships, and employment)? - What was the most effective transition for students/graduates into employment (probes: internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? Question CDC: #of students who are employed (sector, formal/informal, type of employment) (survey or secondary data) - Can this employment be attributed to the training? Or due to other factors? Are the results different between males and females? - Which skills need to be addressed to increase students’ employability? Are they the same for both males and females? - What are the biggest three obstacles that students face in getting employment? - In your experience, to what extent was the students’ database useful in linking students to employment opportunities? EQ 3.B.1 Relevance of the activities to market needs - What was your input in the design of the intervention? - Did the graduates’ skills meet the market needs? If not, why not? What can be added to the program to improve graduates’ employability? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? 165 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 9: Data Source (Target Group) Implementers Specific Target Group CDC staff Type of Tool Group Discussions Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD CDC staff (n=3) 8- 10 participants per GD Location(s)/ # of Tools per Location: Time per tool: 60-75 minutes Logistical Needs: The IPs to arrange appointments with the CDC staff Implementation with CDC inside schools if possible. If not, then groups of teachers and CDC staff need to be invited to the chosen location (suggestion: Blue Moon branch office location?) IP to help choose a location (if the ATS in not possible to host the GDs) and arrange the space for the GDs. The two GDs per School/governorate can be done successively in the same day, with at least one hour interval to allow for review time after the first GD and preparation time before the following GD. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under blue moon? (effectiveness)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: - What is the role of the CDC? What activities does it carry out? - How many are the CDC staff? How many are female? - Of the training you received, what was the most effective in building the students’ capabilities? - Were there any gaps in the training you received? - What skills did the students gain from the ATS programs (internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? How effective were those skills and their impact on the students’ day to day work? Is there a difference between male and female students in that regard? - What other skills and competencies should be incorporated into the program to improve students’ capacities and employability potentials? 166 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV - What measures did you take for encouraging female participation? Were those measures successful in ensuring the level and effectiveness of female participation? If no, how did the project rectify that? - Do you have any suggestion to improve this component (ATS component)? - What plans are in place for the CDC to continue to operate after the USAID support ends? EQ3.B To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: EQ 3.B.1 Students employability - What is the difference between the three approaches (internships, entrepreneurships, and employment)? - What was the most effective transition for students/graduates into employment (probes: internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? # of employed students (sector, formal/informal, type of employment) (survey or secondary data) - Do you track student employability rates? If yes, is there an increase or no? Why? Is this employment attributed to the training? Or due to other factors? Were the results different between males and females? - How are the recent graduates different from the previous ones? - Which skills need to be addressed to increase students’ employability? Are they the same for both males and females? - What are the biggest three obstacles do students face in getting employment? Were there any efforts made to overcome these obstacles? In your experience, to what extent was the students’ database useful in linking students to employment opportunities? EQ 3.B.1 Relevance of the activities to market needs - What was your input in the design of the intervention? - Did the graduates’ skills meet the market needs? If no, why not? - What should be added to the program to improve graduates’ employability? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 10: 167 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Data Source (Target Group) Other Stakeholders (Beneficiaries - ATS Premium) Specific Target Group Students Enrolled/Graduates Type of Tool Group Discussion Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 school per governorate (3 governorates) 1 Graduates GD per governorate (n=3) 2 Students GD per governorate (1 males, 1 females). (n=2*3=6) Only senior students to participate for maximum benefit Location(s)/ #of Tools per Location: 1 school per governorate (3 governorates) Estimated time per tool: 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: The IPs to arrange for the group discussions, preferably inside the schools. If not, then at a different location (suggestion: Blue Moon branch office location?) The three GDs per School/governorate can be done successively in the same day, with at least one-hour interval to allow for review time after the first GD and preparation time before the following GD. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under blue moon? (effectiveness) Tool Questions: - What training topics were your offered? What training did you receive? - Which of trainings you attended that were the most useful for you? Why? - Which trainings were the least beneficial for you? Why? - Are you practicing what you learned in the training? In no, why not? What challenges did you face in applying the trainings? Analysis Note: Difference in challenges between males and females - In your opinion, what other training could have been added to the program? EQ3.B To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: EQ 3.B.1 Students employability - How many of you (the GD participants) are employed in the agricultural sector? Where are you employed? Under which program (internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? - Which program do you think is more useful (internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? Why? - How has the program helped you find your jobs? - Which acquired skills from the training have helped you in job interviews? Which of your skills were the subject of the employers’ interest? (probes: skills gained from other sources, difference between males and females) - Are there other skills you need to develop to improve your employability? What are they? Analysis note: difference between males and females. 168 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV - What obstacles do you face in finding jobs? Suggestions to overcome those obstacles. - What else could decrease your employability? - For females: Which sub sectors do you prefer working in? Why? Can you find a job easily in your preferred sectors? Analysis Note: Difference in challenges between males and females EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 11: Data Source (Target Group) Other Stakeholders (Beneficiaries) Specific Target Group Employers Type of Tool Group Discussions Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per governorate (n=3) The employers need to be as representative as possible Location(s)/# per location: 1 school per governorate (3 governorates) Estimated time per tool: 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: The IPs to arrange for the group discussions and appointments with the employers. EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ3.B To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: EQ 3.B.1 Students employability - What are the current employment market needs in this sector (academic and practical skills)? - What type of employment did you provide for the ATS students? (internship or employment) - Are you familiar with the training and capacity building component provided in the ATSs? In your opinion, is it sufficient to improve students’ capacities and their employability? 169 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV - How many ATS graduates/students are you currently employing? (male and female) - Have you engaged with ATS graduates for a long time, or have you only started recently (after the project intervention)? If before the project, with whom did you engage in the ATS? (administrators, teachers, students) - Is the students’ training provided in ATSs one of the factors that you consider when hiring workers? - Is there any difference in employment potentiality between male and female ATS graduates? - Do male and female ATS graduates have access to employment opportunities in the sector? If no, why not? What chances are available for female graduates? - What strengths and weaknesses have you observed among the ATS graduates/students in your employment? - What other training do you suggest for ATSs to provide students to improve their skills and meet the market needs? - Do you have any recommendations to improve the internship program? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 12 Data Source (Target Group) Other Stakeholders (Government Representatives) Specific Target Group Ministry of Education Representatives (Directorate or Department) Ministry of Agriculture (Directorate or Department) Trained ATS Education Supervisors – under the ATS component Type of Tool Group Discussions with ATS Supervisors KIIs with the MoE and MoA Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per governorate (n=3) with ATS supervisors 1 KII MoA per governorate (n=3) 1 KII MoE per governorate (n=3) Time per tool: 30 Minutes Logistical Needs: The IPs to set appointments with the target groups to arrange for the KIIs. IP to make arrangements for the group discussions including location (MoE or schools?) and space needed. 170 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-C. In what ways was AMAL’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-D. In what ways was Blue Moon’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? MoA Tool Questions: - How was the project successful in achieving its goal? (i.e. increasing smallholder farmers’ income? Probes: through improving productivity, better agricultural practices, value chain, meeting international standards, increasing exports, etc.) - In case of project replication, which of the projects approaches and components should continue, and which need to be changed (in terms of contributing to increasing smallholder farmers’ income) - Do you have any other recommendations for future design? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 13 Data Source (Target Group) Other Stakeholders (Government Representatives) Specific Target Group Ministry of Education Representatives (Directorate or Department) Trained ATS Education Supervisors – under the ATS component Type of Tool Group Discussions with ATS Supervisors KIIs with the MoE and MoA Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per governorate (n=3) with ATS supervisors 1 KII MoA per governorate (n=3) 1 KII MoE per governorate (n=3) Time per tool: 30 Minutes Logistical Needs: The IPs to set appointments with the target groups to arrange for the KIIs. 171 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV IP to make arrangements for the group discussions including location (MoE or schools?) and space needed. EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-D. In what ways was Blue Moon’s performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - How was the project successful in achieving its goal under this component? (i.e. improving ATS graduates’ income)? (Probes: improving skills, training provision, improving employability, supporting entrepreneurship, Career centers, etc.) - Are there any plans in place for the CDC to continue providing students and graduates with employability services after the USAID support ends? - In case of project replication, how similar or different should the future design of the program be? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under blue moon? (effectiveness)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates EQ3.B To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates ATS supervisors Tool Questions: - How was the project successful in achieving its goal under this component? (i.e. improving ATS graduates’ income)? (Probes: improving skills, training provision, improving employability, supporting entrepreneurship, Career centers, etc.) - Which program do you think is more useful for improving students’ employability (internship, entrepreneurship, employment)? Why? - Has the training you received been effective in helping you supervise the ATS operations, specifically the CDC and teachers? What challenges have you faced in applying the training? - What are the obstacles that the students face in finding employment in the agricultural sector? - Are there any plans in place for the CDC to continue providing students and graduates with employability services after the USAID support ends? - In case of project replication, how similar or different should the future design of the program be? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? 172 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV TOOL # 14: Data Source (Target Group) Implementers Specific Target Group Farmer Trainers Under AMAL and under PREMIUM Type of Tool Group Discussions Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per project per governorate (n=6) Location(s) / # of Tools per Location: 1 GD per project per governorate (n=6) Time per tool: 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: IP to support location EQ4 To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon and under AMAL? EQ4-B To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under Blue Moon? EQ4-C To what extent were the activities able to build capacity of farmers under AMAL? Tool Questions: - Capacity building activities implemented (probes: training/ technical assistance/ direct assistance / communication facilitation / procedural assistance). - How were the capacity building activities for farmers selected (e.g. was there a needs assessment? How were the capacity building strategies developed)? - Opinion on the capacity building component of the project (sufficiency, formula) - How do you monitor the quality of the trainings and their impact on the farmers (satisfaction of participants, measuring learning, implementation in real life, long term impact)? - In case of technical assistance provision, responsiveness of farmers to training and recommendations, and reasons - how the training/capacity building activity affected the farmers' performance, change of practice (if any) observed, results (by type, i.e. planting, production, high value crops, harvest, post-harvest, sales, marketing). Difference between male and female trainees in that regard. - In case of farmers' inability to improve performance, reasons, and suggestions - Were there any women specific activities implemented? If yes, what were those activities, and why were they chosen and women specific? - Challenges to capacity building component and how they were dealt with - Who will provide the capacity building activities in the future? In what form will it be provided? How will it be sustainable? - If the project is replicated, what needs changing in capacity building - EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? 173 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 15: Data Source (Target Group) Other Stakeholders (Private Sector) Specific Target Group Agribusiness Clients (Exporters) Type of Tool Group Discussion/KII This group doesn’t differentiate between the projects. Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per governorate (5 governorates) (n=5) Location(s)/# of Tools per Location: 1 GD per governorate (5 governorates) (n=5) Estimated time per tool 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: IP to support location (meeting room). EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? Tool Questions: - How do you select the products to purchase for sale within the local market or for exporting? Do you have certain criteria to follow? - How do you locate and identify the sources for purchasing your products (whether the farmers directly, or the associations/cooperatives)? - Did you observe a change in the quality of the products you receive from the small holders because of their participation in the project? (probe on the product global certifications) - Has the project been able to improve visibility and opportunities for small holder farmers”, for example in introducing GPS technology, etc.? - What challenges did you face in locating, selecting, and purchasing products before the project? - Did the project help you address those challenges? Has the project made it easier for you to purchase products for local market and export? How? 174 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV - What other challenges do you still face in purchasing products from smallholder farmers? (probe: in terms of quantity, quality, timeliness, preservation, packaging, visibility, etc.) - In your opinion, what challenges do the smallholders face? (lack of information on marketing windows, exports seasons). How can those challenges be addressed? - What are your recommendations for the project to improve the farmers’ products/performance? What would help increase farmers’ opportunities for the sale and export of their products? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 16: Data Source (Target Group) Other Stakeholders (Private Sector) Specific Target Group Agribusiness Clients (Processors) Type of Tool GD (KII??) This group doesn’t differentiate between the projects. Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per governorate (5 governorates) (n=5) Location(s)/# of Tools per Location: 1 GD per governorate (5 governorates) (n=5) Estimated time per tool 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: IP to support location (meeting room). EQI In what ways were AMAL and Blue Moon’s implementation approach and performance effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related incomes of smallholder farmers”? EQ1-A. In what ways was AMAL’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? EQ1-B. In what ways was Blue Moon’s implementation approach effective in contributing to ARDII’s highest level results of “increased agriculture related income of smallholder farmers? 175 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Tool Questions: - - How do you select the products to purchase for use in processing and preparing your company’s products for sale? What criteria do you follow? - How do you locate and identify the sources for purchasing your products (whether the farmers directly, or the associations/cooperatives)? - Did you observe a change in the quality of the products you receive from the small holders after of their participation in the project? - Has the project been able to improve visibility and opportunities for small holder farmers”, for example in introducing GPS technology, etc.? - What challenges did you face in locating, selecting, and purchasing products for processing before the project? - Did the project help you address those challenges? Has the project made it easier for you to purchase products for processing? - What other challenges do you still face in purchasing products from smallholder farmers? (Probe: in terms of quantity, quality, timeliness, preservation, packaging, visibility, etc.) - In your opinion, what challenges do the smallholders face? How can those challenges be addressed? - What are your recommendations for the project to improve the farmers’ products/performance? What would help increase farmers’ opportunities for providing processors with their products? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-A How were the AMAL project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? TOOL # 17: Data Source (Target Group) Implementers Specific Target Group ATS Trainers Type of Tool Group Discussions Number of Tools to be implemented: 1 GD per governorate (n=3) Location(s) / # of Tools per Location: 176 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Time per tool: 60 – 75 minutes Logistical Needs: Need to know location and if they’re centrally located in Cairo. IP to support appointments and location EQ3. To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities and improving their employability under Blue Moon? EQ4-A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in building students’ capacities under Blue Moon? (effectiveness) EQ3.A To what extent were the ATS activities successful in improving students' employability under Blue Moon? (Outcome)- Component 2: Improve the income of ATS graduates Tool Questions: - Which group(s) have you trained under the program (students, teachers/CDC staff, and government supervisors)? - What training topics did you provide each group you trained? - How were the training topics and methods selected (for each target group)? - In your opinion, were those training sufficient? If no, what other training topics or activities need to be incorporated in the program (for each group trained)? - How do you monitor the quality of the trainings and their impact on the different groups you trained? - How did the trainings affect the trainees’ performance in their day to day work (for each group)? Is there a difference between male and female trainees in that regard? - Were there any women specific (including female students) trainings implemented? If yes, what trainings were they, why were they chosen and women specific? - What challenges have you faced in implementing the trainings? How did you deal with those challenges? (Probes: training sufficiency, type, formula, time, etc.) - Who will provide these trainings in the future? How will it be sustainable? - If the project is replicated, what needs changing in this component? EQ6. How were the projects’ developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? EQ6-B How were the Premium project developed measures effective in enhancing women’s participation in their respective sectors? Tool Questions: - What measures were developed to enhance women’s participation in specific sectors? - How were these measures implemented? - What were the results of these measures? - What would have been participation of women without these measures? 2018 AMAL and Premium Farmer Household Survey: A. Interview Information 177 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV A.0 Project Name:________________________________________ Code (___) A.1 Location of Interview Assocation Far m Farmer's House No. Village:________ __ Markaz:__________ _ Code: (____) Governorate:_________ __ Code(___) A.2 Affiliated Farmer Association _____________________________________________________________ Code: (________) A.3 Date of Interview: (dd/mm/2018) ________/________/20 18 A.4 Interviewer data: A.4. 1 Name: A.4. 2 Phone: A.4. 3 ID No.: B. Farmer Basic Data B.1 Farmer Name: ___________________________________________________ B.2 Responder's Relationship to Farmer: Self Son Other HH Member Neighbor / Friend Assocation Representativ e Other: ___________ _ B.3 Age: B.4 Gender: Male Femal e B.5 ID No.: B.6 Mobile No.: B.7 Household Head: Yes No B.8 Eductional Level:______________________________________Code(________) B.9 Number of Household Members __Mal e __Femal e __Total 178 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV C. Landholding Data C.1 Landholding in Base Year (_____________) Feddan Kerat Saham C.1.1 Land Owned C.1.2 Land Rented C.1.3 Partnership (indicate the percentage of land under your posseeion C.1.4 Leased Land (Land to be owned after completing certain condations) C.1.5 Total Land Holding C.2 Landholding in Current Year (2018) Feddan Kerat Saham C.2.1 Land Owned C.2.2 Land Rented C.2.3 Partnership (indicate the percentage of land under your possession C.2.4 Leased Land (Land to be owned after completing certain conditions) C.2.5 Total Land Holding 179 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Year(________) D. Production' Information Crop (1) Crop (2) Crop (3) Crop (4) Crop (5) Crop (6) D.0 Crop Name (see codes) D.1 Area D.1.1 Harvested Area F K S F K S F K S F K S F K S F K S D.2 Season (see codes) D.3 New Vs. Old Land (see codes) D.4 Cultivation Method (see codes) D.5 Type of Produce (see codes) D.6 Irrigation Type (see codes) D.7 Unit Code (main product) (see codes) D.8 Total Yield in Unit (main product) D.10 Unit Code (by product) (see codes) D.11 Total Yield in Unit (by product) D.14 Quantity Consumed (Tonnes) D.15.1 Qty Local Mkts (Tonnes) (main product) D.15.2 Qty Local Mkts (Tonnes) (by product) D.15.3 Qty Export Sales (Tonnes) D.15.4 Per Ton Sales Price (EGP) - Local Mkts (main product) D.15.5 Per Ton Sales Price (EGP) - Local Mkts (by product) D1.15. 6 Per Ton Sales Price (EGP) - Export 180 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Year(________) D. Production' Information Crop (1) Crop (2) Crop (3) Crop (4) Crop (5) Crop (6) D.16 Costs D.16.1 Production Costs per Harvested Area (EGP) D.16.2 +Rent if not included D.16.3 +Unpaid Wages (family labor) if not Included E. Marketing' Information Year (__________) crop (1) crop (2) crop (3) crop (4) crop (5) crop (6) Crop' Name (see codes) E.1 Did you grew last year forward contracts? (Yes or No) (If No go to E.2) E.1.1 Trader, Exporter or Processor. E.1.1.1 Name of Trader or Exporter (see codes) E.1.1.2 Percentage Contracted. E.1.1.3 Quantity Contracted. E.1.2 Did You Receive any Kind of Advance (Yes or No) E.1.2.1 Cash Advance E.1.2.2 Inputs E.1.2.3 Infrastructure Development E.1.3 Did you fulfill your side of the contract? (Yes or No) E.1.3.1 If the answer is No please clarify the reason. (see codes) E.1.4 Did the Buyer Fulfill his Side of the Contract? (Yes or No) E.1.4.1 If the Answer is No Please Clarify the Reason. (see codes) 181 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV E. Marketing' Information Year (__________) crop (1) crop (2) crop (3) crop (4) crop (5) crop (6) Crop' Name (see codes) E.1.5 Quality and Certificates. Did you Acquire a Certification for any of your Crops? (If yes name it, see codes) E.2 Which Problems are Still Facing you by Moving to Grow for Exports? (Interviewer must not read the options, several option are acceptable) * Dealing with Exporters and Traders. * Lack of Technical Experience. * Difficulty in Getting Funds. * Lack of Financial Resources. * The Inability to Bear the Risks. * Lack of Training Opportunities * Lack of Good Input Supplies. * Lack of Export Information. * The High Prices of Good Input Supplies. * The Inability to Adjust to the International Standards * Lack of Enough Post Harvest Activities (cooling, cold storage, refrigerated trucks.. Etc. * Others. E.3 Which Problems Have You Encountered When Selling Your Products in the Last Year? (Interviewer must not read the options, several option are acceptable) * Lack of Information Regarding Prevailing Prices of Products * Buyer is Short in Cash or not Willing to Pay in Immediate Cash. 182 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV E. Marketing' Information Year (__________) crop (1) crop (2) crop (3) crop (4) crop (5) crop (6) Crop' Name (see codes) * Difficulties with Transportation of Crops to Markets * Lack of Storage Facilities. * The high Profit Margin of Middlemen * Prices are below the Expectations * Processors do not Pay enough for Higher Quality * Others. F. Evaluation' Information F.1 Which Activities of the Project did help to Transform from the "Traditional Cultivation Patterns into "Non Traditional Agriculture"? (If yes, several option are acceptable) If yes, rank each activity from 1 (poor) to 5 (very good) 1 2 3 4 5 F.1.1 Training F.1.1.1 Farm and Agricultural Training F.1.1.2 Marketing Training F.1.1.3 Improving Water-Saving and Harvesting Techniques F.1.2 Market Intelligence Activities F.1.3 Establish Linkages with High Value Markets F.1.4 Facilitate Forward Contracting F.1.5 Post Harvest Operations F.1.6 Use Safe and Localy Applied Sustainable Production Systems F.1.6 Other1: F.1.7 Other2: F.2 In Your Opinion, What Could Help You to Make this Transformation Better? a. b. 183 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV F. Evaluation' Information c. G.1 As a result of your participation in the project, has your use of modern farming technology and practices caused an increase in your productivity and/or decreased your production costs, subsequently increasing the returns from your farming activity? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes / No If the response is yes, please evaluate the activities, giving 1 grade for the weakest activity up to 5 grades for the strongest activity. 1 2 3 4 5 G.1.1 Using modern irrigation methods. G.1.2 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering G.1.3 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner G.1.4 Useing new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings G.1.5 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards G.1.6 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses G.1.7 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. G.1.8 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) G.1.9 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites G.1.10 (1) Other: G.1.11 (2) Other: 184 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV G.2 What obstacles prevented you from using technology and modern practices for increasing your productivity, decreasing production costs, and increasing the returns from your farm activity? (If yes, multiple options are allowed at the same time) Yes / No If the response is yes, please identify reason(s) Increas ed Cost Insuffici ency of Training Insufficiency of technical assistance on the job follow-up Unsuitability of returns relative to paid costs Other G.2.1 Using modern irrigation methods. G.2.2 Using mechanization methods and modern agricultural engineering G.2.3 Using fertilization in a scientific, effective and efficient manner G.2.4 Useing new varieties of seeds and improved seedlings G.2.5 Using pesticides safely, effectively and in compliance with international standards G.2.6 Using appropriate methods that avoid harvest losses G.2.7 Applying post-harvest activities (sorting, grading, packaging, etc.) to increase product value and to market products in appropriate timing. G.2.8 Shifting to modern farming management methods (planning, book keeping, accounting, project financial analysis, etc.) 185 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV G.2 What obstacles prevented you from using technology and modern practices for increasing your productivity, decreasing production costs, and increasing the returns from your farm activity? (If yes, multiple options are allowed at the same time) Yes / No If the response is yes, please identify reason(s) Increas ed Cost Insuffici ency of Training Insufficiency of technical assistance on the job follow-up Unsuitability of returns relative to paid costs Other G.2.9 Using computers in management and in obtaining information from different sites G.2.1 0 (1) Other: G.2.1 1 (2) Other: G.3 Are you satisfied with the following aspects? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes/ No If the response is yes, please evaluate your level of satisfaction, where 1 reflects weak satisfaction and 5 reflects strong satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 G.3.1 The closeness of the project management to the farmers G.3.2 The performance of the cooperative/CDA management G.3.3 Services provided by the cooperative/CDA to the farmers (training, etc.) G.3.4 The services provided by the project in general (training, etc.) G.3.5 Improvements in productivity and production G.3.6 Improvement in available and used technology 186 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV G.3 Are you satisfied with the following aspects? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes/ No If the response is yes, please evaluate your level of satisfaction, where 1 reflects weak satisfaction and 5 reflects strong satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 G.3.7 Improvement in administrative activities G.3.8 Pack house services and post-harvest processes G.3.9 Centre of Excellence services G.3.10 Improvement in communication with traders, processing plants, and exporters G.3.11 Improvement in the forward contracts or advance sales systems G.3.12 Improvement in access to markets related information G.3.13 (1) Other: G.3.14 (2) Other: G.4 If the cooperative/CDA that you are a members of has established and manged any of the following projects, do you wish to participate in those projects? How, what form of participation? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes / No If the response is yes, please choose the form/s of participation. Monetary Contribut -ion Volunt eering Paid Work Employin g one or more family members Other G.4.1 Sorting and grading unit G.4.2 Packaging unit G.4.3 Drying unit G.4.4 Squeezing and packaging unit G.4.5 Fridges for cooling G.4.6 Fridges for freezing G.4.7 A comprehensive project for all post-harvest activities 187 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV G.4 If the cooperative/CDA that you are a members of has established and manged any of the following projects, do you wish to participate in those projects? How, what form of participation? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes / No If the response is yes, please choose the form/s of participation. Monetary Contribut -ion Volunt eering Paid Work Employin g one or more family members Other G.4.8 Trucks for transporting to wholesale markets G.4.9 Trucks for transporting cool and frozen products G.4.10 Maintenance unit for agricultural and technical equipment G.4.11 Outlet for selling production needs G.4.12 Sales outlet in one of the wholesale markets G.4.13 Partnering with adjacent CDAs for establishing export and marketing company G.4.14 (1) Other: G.4.15 (2) Other: H.1 Have you participated in any of the following public trainings? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes / No If the response is yes, please evaluate trainings, 1 grade reflects the lowest evaluation and 5 reflects highest evaluation. 1 2 3 4 5 H.1.1 Safe and responsible use of pesticides H.1.2 Planning, marketing, and budgets H.1.3 Farm management H.1.4 Financial analysis of projects H.1.5 How to access funds for projects H.1.6 Computer skills H.1.7 (1) Other: 188 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV H.1 Have you participated in any of the following public trainings? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes / No If the response is yes, please evaluate trainings, 1 grade reflects the lowest evaluation and 5 reflects highest evaluation. 1 2 3 4 5 H.1.8 (2) Other: H.2 Have you participated in any of the following specialized trainings? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes / No If the response is yes, please evaluate trainings, 1 grade reflects the lowest evaluation and 5 reflects highest evaluation. 1 2 3 4 5 H.2.1 Project Planning H.2.2 Marketing skills H.2.3 Product presentation skills H.2.4 First aid H.2.5 Hygiene and safety considerations H.2.6 Vocational and handicrafts (fe.g. glass painting) H.2.7 Sewing and embroidery H.2.8 (1) Other: H.2.9 (2) Other: H.3 What encouraged your participation and continued participation in the project activities in general and the training activities in particular? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes/ No If the response is yes, please choose the form/s of participation. 1 2 3 4 5 H.3.1 The announcements made by project management, as well as the management of the cooperative or association that you are a member of H.3.2 The location of the training is near your residence. 189 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV H.3 What encouraged your participation and continued participation in the project activities in general and the training activities in particular? (If the response is yes, more than one choice is accepted in this question) Yes/ No If the response is yes, please choose the form/s of participation. 1 2 3 4 5 H.3.3 Availability of means of transportation to the training location and the presence of good accommodation conditions H.3.4 Availability of female trainers H.3.5 Participation of family members or acquaintances in training H.3.6 Encouraging information from previous participants in the training H.3.7 The desire to increase income, and recognizing the training as a successful means for doing so H.3.8 The desire to participate with the husband or a family member in managing their business and increasing income to be able to deal with life burdens. H.3.9 The desire to improve the lives of your children as the only head of the household. H.3.10 The desire to expand an existing small poject to larger production volume, and to look for export opportunities H.3.11 The existence of a fixed income source (salary) from one of the activities of the project (e.g. the pack house) H.3.12 The lack of discrimination against you as a woman H.3.13 The desire for a sense of self-esteem and appreciation of others. H.3.14 (1) Other: H.3.15 (2) Other: 190 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV أ. معلومات المقابلة ش اسم الم� .0A وع: ________________________________________ الرمز (___) .1A مكان المقابلة م� ن ن الجمع�ة المزرعة ل المزارع ق��ة:________ __ المركز: ___________________ المحافظة: ___________ ال�ود (___) الجمع�ة التابع لها المز ارع .2A _____________________________________________________________ كود: (________) A.3 :تار�ــخ المقابلة (يوم / شهر / (2018 2018/_____/____ .4A ب�انات الباحث: A.4. 1 الاسم: A.4. 2 رقم المحمول: A.4. 3 ي الرقم القو�: ب - الب�انات الأساس�ة للمزارع B. 1 اسم المزارع: ___________________________________________________ B. 2 علاقة المستج�ب بالمزارع: المزار ع بنفسه أحد أفراد ابن المزارع العائلة جار أو صديق ممثل الجمع�ة الزراع�ة يغ�ە (اذكر) ___________ _ B. 3 السن: B. � أنى 4 الن�ع: ذكر B. 5 ي الرقم القو�: B. 6 رقم المحمول: B. 7 عائل الإ�ة: نعم لا B. 8 ي المستوى التعل��: ______________________________________ كود (________) B. 9 عدد أفراد الأ�ة: الذكور ____ الإناث _____ ي الإجما� ____ 191 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ج - بیانات حیازة الأرض .1C الحیازة في سنة الأساس (_____________) فدان قیراط سھم .1.1C الأرض المملوكة .1.2C الأرض المستأجرة C.1.3 شراكة (اذكر النسبة المئویة للأرض التي في حوزتك) النسبة المئویة للمشاركة: C.1.4 إیجار تمویلي (تتم ملكیة الأرض بعد استكمال شروط معینة) .1.5C إجمالي حیازة الأرض 0 .2C حیازة الأرض في العام الحالي (2018) فدان قیراط سھم .2.1C الأرض المملوكة .2.2C الأرض المستأجرة C.2.3 شراكة (اذكر النسبة المئویة للأرض التي في حوزتك) النسبة المئویة للمشاركة: C.2.4 إیجار تمویلي (تتم ملكیة الأرض بعد استكمال شروط معینة) .2.5C إجمالي حیازة الأرض العام (_____) د - معلومات الإنتاج المحص ول (1 ) المحصول ( 2) المحصول ( 3) المحصول ( 4) المحصول ( 5) المحصول ( 6) المحصول (6) 192 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV D. 0 اسم المحصول (انظر الأكواد) D. 1 المساحة D. 1.1 المساحة المحصولیة ف ق س ف ق س ف ق س ف ق س ف ق س ف ق س ف ق س D. 2 الموسم (انظر الأكواد) D. 3 أرض قدیمة أو أرض جدیدة (انظر الأكواد) D. 4 طریقة الزراعة (انظر الأكواد) D. 5 نوع المحصول (انظر الأكواد) D. 6 نوع الري (انظر الأكواد) D. 7 كود الوحدة (المنتج الرئیسي) (انظر الأكواد) D. 8 إجمالي المحصول بالوحدة (المنتج الرئیسي) D. 10 كود الوحدة (بالمنتج) (انظر الأكواد) D. 11 إجمالي الإنتاج بالوحدة (المنتج الثانوي) D. 14 الكمیة المستھلكة (بالطن) D. 15. 1 الكمیة المخصصة للسوق المحلي (بالطن) (المنتج الرئیسي) D. 15. 2 الكمیة المخصصة للسوق المحلي (بالطن) (المنتج الثانوي) 193 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV D. 15. 3 الكمیة المخصصة للتصدیر (بالطن) D. 15. 4 سعر الطن بالجنیھ المصري في السوق المحلي (المنتج الرئیسي) D. 15. 5 سعر الطن في السوق المحلي (المنتج الثانوي) D1 .15 .6 سعر الطن المصدر للخارج بالجنیھ المصري D. 16. 1 تكالیف الإنتاج بالمنطقة المحصولیة D. 16. 2 + الإیجار (إذا لم یكن مشمولا ) D. 16. 3 + الأجور غیر المدفوعة (عمالة العائلة إذا لم تكن مشمولة) ھـ - معلومات خاصة بالتسویق العام (_________) المحصو ل (1 ) المحصو ل (2 ) المحصو ل (3 ) المحصو ل (4 ) المحصو ل (5 ) المحصو ل (6 ) اسمم المحصول (انظر الأكواد) .1E ھل زرعت العام الماضي وقبضت ثمن المحصول ً مقدما (نظام العقود الأجلة)؟ (نعم أو لا) (إذا )2 - Eكانت الإجابة لا اذھب إلى .1.1E تاجر أو مصدر أو مصنع E.1.1 .1 اسم التاجر أو المصدر أو المصنع (انظر الأكواد) E.1.1 .2 نسبة المحصول التي تم التعاقد علیھا من الإجمالي 194 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV E.1.1 .3 الكمیة المتعاقد علیھا .1.2E ھل حصلت على أي مبلغ مقدم للتعاقد؟ (نعم أو لا) إذا كانت الإجابة بـ"نعم" ففي أي شكل كان المقدم؟ E.1.2 .1 مقدم نقدي E.1.2 .2 مدخلات إنتاج E.1.2 .3 تطویر البنیة التحتیة .1.3E ھل أدیت التزاماتك الواردة في التعاقد؟ (نعم أو لا) E.1.3 .1 إذا كانت الإجابة "لا" أوضح السبب (انظر الأكواد) .1.4E ھل أدى المشتري التزاماتھ في التعاقد؟ (نعم أم لا) E.1.4 .1 إذا كانت الإجابة "لا" أوضح السبب (انظر الأكواد) .1.5E الجودة والشھادات. ھل حصلت على شھادة لأي محصول من محاصیلك؟ (إذا كانت الإجابة "نعم"، ما ھي؟ (أنظر الأكواد) .2E ما المشكلات التي مازالت تواجھك في التحول للزراعات التصدیریة؟ (یجب ألا یطلع المبحوث على الخیارات) – مسموح بقبول عدة خیارات) التعامل مع المصدرین والتجار عدم الخبرة الفنیة صعوبة الحصول على تمویل نقص الموارد المالیة عدم القدرة على تحمل المخاطر نقص فرص التدریب نقص مستلزمات الإنتاج الجیدة نقص المعلومات عن التصدیر ارتفاع أسعار مستلزمات الإنتاج الجیدة 195 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV عدم القدرة على التوافق مع متطلبات المعاییر الدولیة عدم وجود أنشطة بعد الحصاد مثل (التبرید والتخزین في ثلاجات والشحنات المبردة .. إلخ) بشكل كافي غیرھا .3E ما المشاكل التي واجھتك عند بیع منتجاتك العام الماضي في السوق المحلي؟ (یجب ألا یطلع المبحوث على الخیارات – مسموح بقبول عدة خیارات) نقص المعلومات الخاصة بالأسعار السائدة للمنتجات عدم وجود سیولة نقدیة كافیة لدى المشتري أو أنھ لا یرغب في الدفع النقدي الفوري وجود صعوبات في نقل المحاصیل إلى الأسواق عدم وجود مخازن ومعدات تخزین ارتفاع ھامش ربح الوسطاء الأسعار دون التوقعات المصانع التي تقوم بشراء المحاصیل لا تعطي میزة نقدیة للإنتاج الأعلى جودة غیرھا و – معلومات التقییم .1F ما ھي أنشطة المشروع التي ساعدت على التحول من نمط الزراعة التقلیدیة إلى الزراعة غیر التقلیدیة؟ (إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم فمسموح بقبول عدة خیارات في آن واحد) إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم قم بتقییم كل نشاط من الأنشطة بحیث تعطي رقم (1) لأضعف نشاط و(5) لأقوى نشاط 5 4 3 2 1 .1.1F التدریب .1.1.1F التدریب على الزراعة وعلى إدارة المزارع. .1.1.2F التدریب على التسویق. .1.1.3F التدریب على تحسین وسائل ترشید میاه الري وأسالیب الحصاد. 196 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV .1.2F التدریب على التعامل مع المعلومات التسویقیة. .1.3F التدریب على عمل علاقات مع أسواق عالیة القیمة. .1.4F التدریب على إجراءات التعاقد الآجل. .1.5F التدریب على أنشطة ما بعد الحصاد. .1.6F التدریب على استخدام أنظمة إنتاج أمنة ومستدامة متناسبة مع الظروف المحلیة. .1.6F غیره (1) .1.7F غیره (2) .2F في رأیك ما ھي أفضل طریقة ممكن أن تساعدك على إجراء التحول من الزراعة التقلیدیة إلى الزراعة الحدیثة بشكل أفضل؟ a. b. c. d. e. f. 197 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ز – معلومات تقي�م إضاف�ة هل أدى استخدامك التكنولوج�ا والممارسات .1G الإدار�ة الحديثة ل��ادة إنتاجك و/أو انخفاض ي آن ي المزر� ش ، كنت�جة لعلاقتك بالم�وع؟ (إذا كانت ي� تكال�ف الإنتاج، و�التا ارتفاع العائد من �شاطك ف الإجابة بنعم فمسم�ح بقبول عدة خ�ارات � واحد) نع م أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم قم بتقي�م كل �شاط من 1) لأضعف أهم�ة و(5) ي الأ�شطة بح�ث تع� رقم ( لأقوى �شاط 5 4 3 2 1 .1.1G استخدام اسال�ب الري الحديثة G.1.2 استخدام أسال�ب الم�كنة والهندسة الزراع�ة الحديثة .1.4G استخدام أنواع جد�دة من التقاوي والشتلات ي استخدام التسم�د �شكل عل� .1.3G وفعال وموفر المحسنة .1.5G استخدام المب�دات �شكل آمن وفعال ومتناسب مع المواصفات الدول�ة تيي .1.6G توفر الفاقد استخدام أسال�ب الحصاد المناسبة ال �شكل واضح .1.7G استخدام أ�شطة ما بعد الحصاد (الفرز، التدر�ــج، ي التوق�ت ف التعبئة..،)، ل��ادة ق�مة المنتج و�س��قه � الصحيح .1.8G التحول نحو أسال�ب الإدارة المزرع�ة الحديثة (التخط�ط، وامساك الدفاتر المحاسب�ة،و والتحل�ل ي الما� ش للم�وعات...،) ي .1.9G الحصول ع� ف ي الإدارة و� ف المعلومات من المواقع المختلفة ي استخدام الحاسب الآ� � G.1.1 0 أخرى (1): G.1.1 1 أخرى (2): 198 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV لاستخدام التكنولوج�ا والممارسات الإدار�ة ي ما � ت أهم المعوقات اليي .2G لم تجعلك تلجأ الحديثة ل��ادة إنتاجك وانخفاض تكال�ف الإنتاج ي آن ي وارتفاع العائد من �شاطك المزر�؟ (إذا كانت ف الإجابة بنعم فمسم�ح بقبول عدة خ�ارات � واحد) نع م أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم قم بتحد�د السبب (أو الأسباب) ارتفاع التكلفة عدم كفا�ة التدري ب عدم كفا�ة الإرشاد والمتاب عة أثناء العمل عدم تناسب العائد مع التكلفة المدف�ع ة أخر ى .2.1G استخدام اسال�ب الري الحديثة G.2.2 استخدام أسال�ب الم�كنة والهندسة الزراع�ة الحديثة .2.4G استخدام أنواع جد�دة من التقاوي والشتلات ي استخدام التسم�د �شكل عل� .2.3G وفعال وموفر المحسنة .2.5G استخدام المب�دات �شكل آمن وفعال ومتناسب مع المواصفات الدول�ة تيي .2.6G توفر الفاقد استخدام أسال�ب الحصاد المناسبة ال �شكل واضح استخدام أ�شطة ما بعد الحصاد (الفرز، التدر�ــج، .2.7G ي التوق�ت ف التعبئة..،)، ل��ادة ق�مة المنتج و�س��قه � الصحيح .2.8G التحول نحو أسال�ب الإدارة المزرع�ة الحديثة (التخط�ط، وامساك الدفاتر المحاسب�ة،و والتحل�ل ي الما� ش للم�وعات...،) ي .2.9G الحصول ع� ف ي الإدارة و� ف المعلومات من المواقع المختلفة ي استخدام الحاسب الآ� � G.2.1 0 أخرى (1): G.2.1 1 أخرى (2): 199 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV عن العوامل أو الجوانب التال�ة؟ (إذا ض هل أنت را� .3G ي ف كانت الإجابة بنعم فمسم�ح بقبول عدة خ�ارات � آن واحد) نع م أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم قم بتقي�م درجة الرضا من 1) لأضعف درجة رضا ي الأ�شطة بح�ث تع� رقم ( و(5) لأع� درجة رضا 5 4 3 2 1 .3.1G ش مدى قرب إدارة الم�وع من ي ن المزارعن .3.2G ي ن إداء إدارة الجمع�ة ااتعاون�ة أو جمع�ة المزارعن .3.3G الخدمات المقدمة من الجمع�ة التعاون�ة أو جمع�ة ن (التدر�ب...،) ي المزارعن G.3.4 ش الخدمات المقدمة من الم�وع إجمال (التدر�ب...،) ي .3.5G التح الإنتاج�ة والإنتاج. ف سن � ي .3.6G التكنواوج�ا المتاحة والمستخدمة ف التحسن � ي .3.7G الأ�شطة الإدار�ة ف التحسن � .3.8G خدمات مركز التعبئة ومعاملات ما بعد الحصاد .3.9G ي خدمات مركز التم� G.3.1 0 ي ش التواصل مع التجار و� التحسن كات التصنيع ف � والمصدر�ن G.3.1 ف 1 ي نظام العقود الأجلة أو البيع مقدما التحسن � G.3.1 2 ي إمكان�ات الوصول ل�افة أنواع المعلومات ف التحسن � المتعلقة بالأسواق G.3.1 3 أخرى (1): G.3.1 4 أخرى (2): ي ت حال ق�ام التعاون�ة أو الجمع�ة اليي ي تنت� .4G إليها ف � ش بتأس�س و�دارة أ�ا من الم�وعات التال�ة لخدمة أعضائها، هل ترغب بالمساهمة فيها؟ و�أي شكل؟ (إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم فمسم�ح بقبول عدة ي آن واحد) ف خ�ارات � نع م أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم قم باخت�ار شكل (أو أشكال المساهمة) المساهمة النقد�ة العمل التط�ع ي العمل بأجر �شغ�ل أحد أفراد أ�� � الأ�ة أو أخر ى .4.1G وحدة للفرز والتدر�ــج .4.2G وحدة للتعبئة والتغل�ف .4.3G وحدة للتجف�ف .4.4G وحدة للع� والتعبئة 200 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV .4.5G ب ثلاجات للت��د .4.6G ثلاجات للتجم�د G.4.7 شم�وع متكامل ل�ل أ�شطة ما بعد الحصاد السابقة .4.8G س�ارات نقل لأسواق الجملة .4.9G س�ارات نقل للإنتاج البارد والمجمد G.4.1 0 وحدة لص�انة المعدات الهندس�ة الزراع�ة G.4.1 1 منفذ لبيع مستلزمات الإنتاج G.4.1 ف 2 ي أحد أسواق الجملة منفذ للبع � G.4.1 3 ش المشاركة مع جمع�ات مجاورة لتأس�س �كة للتصدير والتس��ق G.4.1 4 أخرى (1): G.4.1 5 أخرى (2): ح – معلومات خاصة بمشاركة المرأة فقط ي .1H حال ف ي أ�ا من الدورات العامة التال�ة؟ (� ف ت هل شاركيي � الإجابة بنعم �مكن الإجابة بأ�� � من اخت�ار) نعم أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم تقي�مك الدورة التدر�ب�ة 1) لأضعف تقي�م و(5) ي بح�ث تع� رقم ( لأقوى تقي�م 5 4 3 2 1 .1.1H الاستخدام الأمن والمسئول للمب�دات ن التخط�ط والتس��ق والم�ان�ات .1.2H ي .1.3H الإدارة المزرع�ة ي التحل�ل الما� .1.4H ش للم�وعات .1.5H ش ك�ف�ة الحصول ع� التم��ل للم�وعات .1.7H أخرى (1): ي مهارات الحاسب الآ� .1.6H .1.8H أخرى (2): ي حال .2H ف ي أ�ا من الدورات الخاصة التال�ة؟ (� ف ت هل شاركيي � الإجابة بنعم �مكن الإجابة بأ�� � من اخت�ار) نعم أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم ما هو تقي�مك الدورة 1) لأضعف تقي�م ي التدر�ب�ة بح�ث تع� رقم ( و(5) لأقوى تقي�م 5 4 3 2 1 .2.1H ش تخط�ط الم�وعات .2.2H مهارات التس��ق للمنتجات .2.3H مهارات العرض للمنتجات 201 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV .2.4H الاسعافات الأول�ة .2.5H اعتبارات النظافة والسلامة .2.6H الأعمال الحرف�ة والأشغال ال�دو�ة (مثلا: الرسم ع� الزجاج...،) .2.7H الخ�اطة والتط��ز .2.8H أخرى (1): .2.9H أخرى (2): ي .3H ما الذي شجعك ع� المشاركة والاستم أ�شطة ف رار � ي ف ي الدورات التدر�ب�ة خصوصا؟ (� ف ش الم�وع عموما، و� حال الإجابة بنعم �مكن الإجابة بأ�� � من اخت�ار) نعم أو لا إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم قم باخت�ار شكل (أو أشكال المساهمة) 5 4 3 2 1 تي ي .3.1H ش قامت بها إدارة الم�وع، بالإضافة لإدارة الدعا�ة ال تي ي ي تنت� التع إليها اون�ة أو الجمع�ة ال .3.2H قرب مكان التدر�ب من سكنك .3.3H وجود وس�لة انتقال لمكان التدر�ب بالإض ي افة لتوف� ظروف ج�دة للأقامة .3.4H وجود مدر�ات س�دات ي .3.5H مشاركة أفراد من العائلة أو المعارف � التدر�ب ف ي .3.6H الدورة التدر�ب�ة ف المعلومات المشجعة ممن شاركن قبلك � ي .3.7H ز�ادة الدخل، والتقدير بأن التدر�ب س�كون ف الرغبة � وس�لة ناجحة لذلك H.3.8 ي إدارة ف ي المشاركة مع الزوج أو أحد أفراد الأ�ة � ف الرغبة � أعماله وز�ادة الدخل لمواجهة أعباء المع�شة. ي .3.9H ي ف تحسن مع�شة أولادك باعتبارك مع�لة (مسئولة) ف الرغبة � وح�دة لهم H.3.10 ي ش م� ي وع صغ� موجود فعلا، والتحول ف ي التوسع � ف الرغبة � ب لحجم إنتاج أ�� والبحث عن فرص للتصدير .3.11H وجود مصدر دخل ثابت (مرتب) من أحد الأ�شطة التابعة ث للم�وع مثل مركز التعبئة H.3.12 ي الاحساس بعدم وجود أي تمي� تجاهك باعتبارك امرأة H.3.13 .3.14H أخرى (1): ي الرغبة بالأحساس بالتقدير للذات، وتقدير الأخ��ن ل�. .3.15H أخرى (2): 202 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX V: DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE AMAL and PREMIUM End-of-Term Evaluation Data Collection Schedule Dates Team A AMAL (KIIs/GDs) Team B PREMIUM (KIIs/GDs) Team C Cairo (KIIs/GDs) Team D Smallholder Farmer Household Survey Day 1 Tuesday, March 6, 2018 Teams A, B and C on Stop Work Order (7February - 27March, and 30March – 17April 2018) Data collection: Qena, Sohag and Luxor governorates Day 2 Wednesday, March 7, 2018 Data collection: Qena, Sohag and Luxor governorates Day 3 Thursday, March 8, 2018 Data collection: Qena, Sohag and Luxor governorates Day 4 Saturday, March 10, 2018 Data collection: Qena, Sohag and Luxor governorates Day 5 Sunday, March 11, 2018 Data collection: Qena, Sohag and Luxor governorates Day 6 Monday, March 12, 2018 Data collection: Qena, Sohag and Luxor governorates Day 7 Monday, March 13, 2018 Data collection: Sohag governorate Day 8 Wednesday, March 28, 2018 Team A on Stop Work Order (28 March – April 22) Esna Agricultural Technical School in Luxor School Principal Career Development Center (CDC) Manager Team C on Stop Work Order (7February – 22Apri 2018) 203 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Teachers/CDC Staff Students Graduates Day 9 Thursday, March 29, 2018 Agricultural Technical School in Qena School Principal School Administrators Career Development Center (CDC) Coordinator Teachers Students Day 9 Thursday, March 29, 2018 Kom Ombo Agricultural Technical School in Aswan School Principal Career Development Center (CDC) General Director CDC Staff Teachers Day 10 Wednesday, April 18, 2018 Agricultural Technical School in Beheira School Principal Career Development Center (CDC) Coordinator Teachers Students Graduated Entrepreneur Day 11 Monday, April 23, 2018 Luxor Governorate 204 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV HEIA Pack house/ Center of Excellence (CoE) Manager HEIA Pack house/ CoE Staff El Farsia Community Development Association (CDA) Managers El Nesa’eia For Future and Development Managers El Tood Association for Agricultural Development Rowad El Mostaqbal CDA ACDI/VOCA Farmer Trainers HEIA Farmer Trainers Day 12 Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Luxor Governorate: Teams A & B Deputy Chief of Party of ACDI/VOCA El Nesa’eia For Future and Development Smallholder Farmer Male Group 1 El Tood Association for Agricultural Development Smallholder Farmers Male Group 2 Rowad El Mostaqbal CDA Smallholder Farmer Female Group 1 HEIA Farmer Trainers Qena Governorate: Teams A & B Ahl Balady CDA Smallholder Farmer Female Group 1 EL Ghad Moshrek CDA Smallholder Farmer Male Group 1 EL AMAL CDA Smallholder Farmer Male Group 2 205 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Ahl Bala CDA Managers EL Ghad Moshrek CDA Managers EL AMAL CDA Managers ACDI/VOCA Farmer Trainers Day 13 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Sohag Governorate: Teams A & B Shorraneya Rural Women CDA Smallholder Farmer Female Group 1 Beit Khallaf CDA Smallholder Farmer Male Group 1 Awlad Yehia CDA Smallholder Farmer Male Group 2 Shorraneya Rural Women CDA Managers Beit Khallaf CDA Managers Awlad Yehia CDA Mangers Day 14 Thursday, April 26, 2018 Luxor Governorate: Teams A & B Esna Pack house Manager Esna Pack house Staff Asfoun CDA Managers Mataama CDA Mangers Asfoun CDA Smallholder Farmer Male Group 1 Mataama Smallholder Farmer Male Group 2 Cairo Governorate ACDI/VOCA Chief of Party ACDI/VOCA Capacity Building Specialist ACDI/VOCA Farmers’ Master Trainers ACDI/VOCA Gender Specialist Day 15 Monday, April 30, 2018 Aswan Governorate Bashayer El Kheir Cooperative Management Bashayer El Kheir Cooperative Smallholder Farmer Male Group 1 New Kalabsha Cooperative Smallholder Farmer Male Group 2 Cairo Governorate USAID Deputy Director of the Office of Economic Growth USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative for ARDII Day 16 Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Beheira Governorate: Teams A & B Nobareya Pack house Manager and Staff El Shohada Cooperative Management Cairo Governorate Blue Moon Chief of Party Blue Moon General manager 206 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV El Esraa Cooperative Management Mostafa Ismail Cooperative Management El Shohada Cooperative Smallholder Farmer Male Group 1 El Esraa Cooperative Smallholder Farmer Male Group 2 HEIA Executive Director Blue Nile Exporter (Premium) Day 17 Thursday , May 3, 2018 Cairo Governorate Hawarry Export Company (AMAL and Premium) Day 18 Sunday, May 6, 2018 Cairo Governorate: National Research Institute of Agriculture (AMAL) Global GAP Consultant and Pesticides Audit (AMAL) Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University Data collection: Beheira governorate Day 19 Monday, May 7, 2018 Data collection: Beheira governorate Day 20 Wednesday, May 9, 2019 Cairo Governorate: Green Egypt Exports Co. (Premium) NIVEX Exports Co. (AMAL) Data collection: Qena and Luxor governorates Day 21 Thursday, May 10, 2018 Data collection: Qena, and Luxor governorates Day 22 Saturday, May 12, 2018 Cairo Governorate: Al Ahmadia Export (Premium) Data collection: Sohag governorate Day 23 Sunday, May 13, 2018 Cairo Governorate: Green Berry Export (AMAL) Data collection: Sohag governorate Day 24 Monday, May 14, 2018 Cairo Governorate: Blue Moon Gender Specialist 207 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Blue M&E Specialist 208 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY AMAL Sources Project Reports: Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL). Annual Report FY16, October 2015- September 2016. USAID, October 30, 2016. AMAL. Combined Fourth Quarter and First Year Annual FY 2015 Progress Report, February 4, 2015- September 30, 2015, USAID Egypt. Combined Fourth Quarter and Annual FY 2017 Progress Report, October 30, 2017. USAID Egypt. Baseline Report. November 12, 2015. Cost Benefit Analysis for Selected Value Chains, Final Report. Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, First Submission, May 14, 2015. Quarterly Report Q2FY15, February 4- March 31, 2015. Quarterly Report Q3FY15, April 1-June 30, 2015. Training Report: Access to Egypt’s Labor Market. December, 2017. AMAL Supplemental Materials: AMAL, ACDI-VOCA. Gender Action Plan, 2017-2018. Egypt AMAL Gender Strategy. Business and Operational Plan for the HEIA Luxor Pack house, 2016-2017. Capacity Utilization and Operation for the Cooling and Packing Station Affiliated with the Horticultural Export Improvement Association (HEIA) at Luxor Governorate. Premium Sources: Project Reports: Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers. Annual Report, Year 1, August 2011- September 2012. November 4, 2012. 209 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Quarterly Reports 2011-2016. Crop Analysis Reports: Sallam, Walid. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Apricots. Cairo University, July, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Artichokes. Cairo University, November, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Capsicum. Cairo University, August, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Lemons. Cairo University, September, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Mandarins and Clementines. Cairo University, September, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Melons. Cairo University, August, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Oranges. Cairo University, September, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Peaches Including Nectarines. Cairo University, November, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Green Peas. Cairo University, August 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Potatoes. Cairo University, September, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Strawberries. Cairo University, September, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Sweet Potatoes. Cairo University, August, 2011. Report on Bumpers and Import Sensitivity Analysis for Egyptian Watermelons. Cairo University, September, 2011. 210 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX VII: WORK PLAN AND TIMELINE AMAL and PREMIUM End-of-Term Performance Evaluation Work Plan and Timeline Task Number Tasks / Deliverables Actual and Estimated Due Dates 1 RFTOP Issued to QED 5-Nov-17 2 QED Submits Technical and Financial Proposals to USAID for Review and Comment 30-Nov-17 3 USAID Submits Request for Revisions to Technical and Financial Proposals to QED/SIMPLE 14-Dec-17 4 QED Submits Revised Technical/Financial Proposals to USAID 19-Dec-17 5 USAID Issues Task Order Award to QED 28-Dec-18 6 QED Contracts International Consultant/Team Leader 10-Jan-18 7 SIMPLE Contracts Local Consultants 8-Jan-18 8 Evaluation Team Conducts Desk Review (Day 5 of 5) 18-Jan-18 9 Team Leader Arrives in Egypt 20-Jan-18 10 SIMPLE Evaluation Team Conducts Team Planning Workshop to Develop Data Collection Tools, Coordinate Field Visits, Finalize Proposed Work Plan for Presentation at the USAID Team Planning Meeting (21 - 29 Jan 18) (Day 9 of 9) 29-Jan-18 11 Evaluation Team Conducts Team Planning Meeting with USAID 5-Feb-18 12 SIMPLE COP Issues Stop Order Due to Delays in Obtaining Security Clearances from Appropriate GOE Authorities 7-Feb-18 13 Team Leader Departs from Egypt 9-Feb-18 211 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 14 USAID Provides Formal Written Approval of Data Collection Tools 28-Feb-18 15 Team Leader Returns to Egypt Following COP Ending Stop Order 23-Apr-18 16 SIMPLE Initiates Farmer Household Survey in Luxor, Qena, and Sohag (5-13 March, 6-12 May) 12-May-18 17 Evaluation Team Conducts Stakeholder KIIs and GDs in Interventions Governorates (23 April-2 May) 2-May-18 18 Evaluation Team Conducts 11 Day Data Analysis Workshop (14-26 May) 26-May-18 19 SIMPLE Forwards 35-40 Slide Presentation of Oral Debrief Findings, Conclusions and Preliminary Recommendations to USAID and Implementing Partners 27-May-18 20 Evaluation Team Conducts Oral Debrief to Office of Economic Growth and Program Office 29-May-18 21 International Consultant/Team Leader Departs from Egypt 31-May-18 22 Evaluation Team Conducts USAID Mission-Wide Oral Debrief 3-Jul-18 23 QED Submits Draft Version of the Evaluation Results Report to USAID 1-Jul-18 24 USAID Submits Consolidated Comments on Draft Evaluation Report to QED/SIMPLE for Revision (Day 10 of 10) 16-Jul-18 25 QED Submits Final Version of Evaluation Results Report to USAID for Approval 30-Jul-18 26 USAID Approves Final Version of the Evaluation Report (Day 10 of 10) 13-Aug-18 27 QED Submits Arabic Translation of Executive Summary to USAID for Approval 27-Aug-18 28 USAID Approves Arabic Translation of Executive Summary (Day 10 of 10) 10-Sep-18 212 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 29 QED Submits Infographic (English Version) to USAID for Written Approval (Day 30 of 30) 6-Sep-18 30 USAID Approves Infographic (English Version) (Day 10 of 10) 20-Sep-18 31 SIMPLE Submits "Public Release" Anonymized Datasets, Meeting Notes and Supporting Technical Documentation to USAID for Approval 21-Sep-18 32 QED Submits Arabic Translation of Infographics to USAID for Approval 4-Oct-18 33 USAID Provides Wrttient Approval of Arabic Translation of Infographics (Day 10 of 10) 18-Oct-18 34 QED Posts Evaluation Results Report (English), 6-8 Page Executive Summary (English and Arabic) and Infographics (English and Arabic) to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and forwards Hyperlink to USAID 23-Oct-18 35 Evaluation Team Conducts Oral Debriefing of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations to Stakeholders as per USAID Dissemination Plan 28-Oct-18 SIMPLE Submits Hard Copy and Soft Copy versions of Executive Summary (English and Arabic), Final Report and Infographics (English and Arabic) to the USAID Program Office 9-Nov-18 41 Task Order End Date 31-Dec-18 213 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX VIII: LIST OF PROJECT-RELATED PERSONNEL (FOR PUBLIC RELEASE) Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) End-of-Term Performance Evaluation Project-Related Personnel Consulted Public Use Version Governorate Organization Position Luxor 1 Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA); Luxor Pack House and Center of Excellence (COE) HEIA Luxor Pack house and COE Administrative and Financial Manager HEIA Luxor Pack House and CoE Staff (4 staff members) HEIA Pack house and COE Trainers (4 trainers) 2 ACDI/VOCA ACDI/VOCA Farmer Trainers (9 trainers) 3-5 El Tood Association for Agricultural Development Association Board Members (2 members) Group Discussion with 5 Female Farmers Group Discussion with 5 Male Farmers El Farsia Association for Community Development Association Board Member (2 members) El Nesa'eia Association for Future and Development (Armant) Association Board Member (3 members) Group Discussion with 2 Male Farmers Qena 6 ACDI/VOCA ACDI/VOCA Farmer Trainers/ Graduates of the Faculty of Agriculture (7 trainers) 7-9 Ahl Balady Charity Association (Qus) Group Discussion with One Board Member from Each Association El Ghad El Moshrek for Community Development in Garagos (Qus) Al Amal Community Development Association in Gamaleya (Qus) Ahl Balady Charity Association (Qus) Group Discussion with 8 Female Farmers El Ghad El Moshrek for Community Development in Garagos (Qus) Group Discussion with 8 Male Farmers Al Amal Community Development Association in Gamaleya (Qus) Group Discussion with 4 Male Farmers Sohag 10-12 Rural Woman Community Development Association in Shoraneya (El Maragha) Manager Administrative Staff Bait Khallaf Association for Agricultural Development (Dar El Salam) Manager Agricultural Community Development Association in Awlad Yehia South (Dar El Salam) Manager Administrative Staff Rural Woman Community Development Association in Shoraneya (El Maragha) Group Discussion with 3 Female Farmers Bait Khallaf Association for Agricultural Development (Dar El Salam) Group Discussion with 5 Male Farmers Agricultural Community Development Association in Awlad Yehia South (Dar El Salam) Group Discussion with 6 Male Farmers PROJECT LEVEL Cairo Organization Position 214 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Exporters 13 Hawarry Export Company/Italian Partner Kafr Dawwar (AMAL and Premium) Manager 14 NIVEX Exports Company (AMAL) Manager 15 Green Berry Exports (AMAL) Manager HEIA 16 Horticulture Export Improvement Association (HEIA) Executive Director ACDI/VOCA 17 ACDI/VOCA Chief of Party Deputy Chief of Party M&E Manager Administration Manager Training Manager Independent Consultants 18 National Research Institute of Agriculture AMAL Consultant 19 Global GAP Consultant and Pesticides Audit AMAL Consultant 215 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Premium Project for Egyptian Small Growers End-of-Term Performance Evaluation Project-Related Personnel Consulted Public Use Version Governorate Organization Position Aswan 1 Kom Ombo Agricultural Technical School School Principal Career Development Center (CDC) General Director CDC Staff Group Discussion with 15 male and 1 female teacher 2-3 Bashayer El Kheir Cooperative Board of Directors (3 Board members) Group Discussion with 8 male and 2 female farmers New Kalabsha Cooperative Group Discussion with 4 male farmers Luxor 4 Esna Agricultural Technical School School Principal Career Development Center (CDC) Manager Teachers/CDC Staff 5 Esna Pack House Pack House Manager Pack House Staff 6-7 Mataana Association for Agricultural Development Association Board Members Group Discussion with 8 Male Farmers Asfoun Association for Community Development Association Board Members Group Discussion with 4 Male Farmers Qena 8 Qena Agricultural Technical School School Principal School Administrator Career Development Center (CDC) Coordinator Group Discussion with 12 teachers (5 female and 7 male teachers) Interview with 1 male student Sohag 9 Nobareya Pack House Pack House Manager and Staff 10-12 El Shohada Cooperative Group Discussion with 9 Staff and Management of the three associations. El Esraa Cooperative Mostapha Ismail Cooperative El Shohada Cooperative Group Discussion with 7 Female Farmers El Esraa Cooperative and Mostapha Ismail Cooperative Group Discussion with 10 Male Farmers Mostapha Ismail Cooperative Group Discussion with 6 Male Farmers PROJECT LEVEL Cairo Organization Position Exporters/Suppliers 13 Blue Nile Export Co. Manager 14 Hawarry Export Co. (Kafr Dawwar) Manager Hawarry Export Co. Partner Italian Partner 15 Green Egypt Exports Co. Representative 16 Al Ahmadia Company (Supplier) Owner ACDI/VOCA 17 Blue Moon Deputy Chief of Party General Manager 216 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Branch Manager Gender Specialist M&E Specialist 217 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV ANNEX VIIII: LIST OF MAIN ACTIVITIES, OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS OF AMAL AND PREMIUM PROJECTS Summary of Main Activities, Objectives, and Results to Date of the Premium Project and the AMAL Project Under the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) Premium Project for Small Growers Main Activities 4) Establish a robust traceability system for small producer organizations and small growers; i.e., identifying geographical coordinates for each small grower’s field with GPS technology, and enabling traceability of products within 15 minutes. Based on confirmed traceability information, an identification card is placed in each registered field for transparency and traceability at the plot level. Small producer organizations and its growers are registered with GLOBAL G.A.P and Fairtrade based on the USAID-approved products. 5) Develop a Food Safety and Quality Management System that meets of GLOBAL G.A.P. and Fairtrade standards. System drives convergence and enables transparency and traceability of activities and products. 6) Train small producers to comply with GLOBAL G.A.P. and Fairtrade standards, covering food safety, hygiene, governance, strategic planning and marketing. Also, trained agronomists and village extension officers with the aim of establishing “Export Oriented Extension Officers.” 7) Independently monitor products, including sampling and testing of food contaminants (pesticide residues, chemical or microbiological contaminants) to ensure that products comply with legal residue levels in the countries of destination. 8) Developed www.smallgrowers-eg.com and a newsletter to raise awareness of the project activities. 9) Develop 10 agricultural technical schools in Beheira, Qena, Luxor and Aswan where students are prepared for opportunities and challenges they will face as graduates in this industry. 10) Create capacity building program for teachers and students covering lesson plans, work ethics, responsible use of pesticides and providing spray services. 11) Establish links between the 10 agricultural technical schools and business organizations in the agriculture sector to offer students first-hand experience. 12) Offer agricultural technical schools students opportunities to design and implement small projects that can provide them with a sustainable income. 13) Develop Career Development Centers to act as hubs where students can learn, prepare, grow and connect to the agricultural job market. Primary Objectives 1) Provide technical assistance to smallholder farmer associations (“FAs”) at the “Center of Excellence” providing leadership, best practices, research and training. 2) Production planning using timely market and logistical information 3) Utilization and maintenance of a state-of-the-art post-harvest collection center 4) Facilitate forward contracts between FAs and the domestic and export markets through a competitive marketing system. 218 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV Results to Date (as of June 2017) 1) A total value of approximately $8,726,000 income on sales contracts to the Egyptian fruit and vegetable supply chain through targeted export sales. 2) Farmers within the scope of the project have received approximately $3,169 increase in their gross margins per hectare of land. 3) The number of households benefiting directly from USAID assistance under the Feed the Future program within the scope of the Premium Project is 3,690 beneficiaries, 20% of which are women headed households. 4) Established 45 supply contracts with numerous market channels to sell products from Egyptian small grower products, both locally and internationally 5) Implemented and received certification for both GLOBALG.A.P and Fairtrade’s internationally recognized standards for 11 small producer organizations, enabling them to sell product on the export market. 6) 2,060 beneficiaries under the project have implemented improved technologies with USAID assistance to improve current practices and comply with international standards in traceability, record keeping, product safety and packaging specifications. 7) Small growers participating in the activities of the project have generated $392,605 more, through export sales contracts, then they would have by selling products on the local market. 8) Implemented and received British Retailers’ Consortium certificate for two produce handling units, enabling farmers to sell product on the export market. Advanced Marketing and Agribusiness Logistics (AMAL) Project Main Activities Project activities are divided into four components implemented in close coordination with HEIA to ensure sustainability of project interventions 1) Improve access to use of market intelligence; including a) market data capture and analysis, b) development of marketing agents, c) farmer capacity to integrate market data to production decisions, and d) developing ICT tools to disseminate market data, 2) Facilitate value chain linkages; including a) facilitating forward contracting, b) domestic linkages, and c) linkages to service providers, 3) Catalyze market-oriented production practices; including a) food quality and safety, b) perishable terminal/pack-house management, c) integrated crop management, improved production techniques and technologies, 4) Organize and strengthening producer organizations. Primary Objectives 1) Provide technical assistance to smallholder farmer associations (“FAs”) at the “Center of Excellence” providing leadership, best practices, research and training. 2) Production planning using timely market and logistical information 3) Utilization and maintenance of a state-of-the-art post-harvest collection center 4) Facilitate forward contracts between FAs and the domestic and export markets through a competitive marketing system. Results to Date (as of March 2017) 219 | END-OF-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UNDER ARDII USAID.GOV 1) As per of improved technology to 100% of the land cultivated. 2) Eight associations developed their initial marketing plans to supply the export market with high quality produce. 3) Twelve associations engaged with AMAL to date. 4) Through the successful contractual agreements between AMAL beneficiary associations and the exporters, small growers received $ 43,300 of advance from the buyers in different forms - cash advances and in-kind inputs. 5) 68% of AMAL farmers' produce of green beans were sold through export channels. Green beans exports amounted to $ 217,000 worth of supply.