MALI CEREALS VALUE CHAIN MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 10, 2017 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Team Leader David Benafel and Evaluation Specialist Serge Eric Yakeu Djiam on behalf of Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech Company. MALI CEREALS VALUE CHAIN MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 10, 2017 Contracted Under Task Order AID-688-TO-16-00006 Under Contract Number AID-688-C-13-00002 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the Feed the Future Cereals Value Chain DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report iii EVALUATION ABSTRACT The Cereals Value Chain project is USAID/Mali’s flagship Feed the Future project in support of essential staple crops in the rice, millet and sorghum value chains. USAID/Mali’s primary focus on cereals and livestock value chains, and on improving the enabling environments in which these value chains operate, has contributed to Feed the Future’s goal of sustainably reducing global poverty and hunger. The mid-term performance evaluation of the Cereals Value Chain project took place after three years of field implementation that began on October 17, 2013. The five-year award will end on October 16, 2018. The objective of the evaluation is to show what has been working well and the challenges that lie ahead in the second half of project implementation. The evaluation team’s major findings are as follows: • Sustainable local market linkages and buyer-producer relationships exist. • The quality of millet has improved compared to previous years. • The locally processed grain products market is saturated and there is a lack of demand for processed products. • Women processors find national and regional market contacts and knowledge at agricultural fairs and fora. • Some producer organizations are defaulting on sales contracts with buyers. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report iv CONTENTS Evaluation Abstract ............................................................................................ iii Acronyms.............................................................................................................. v Executive Summary.............................................................................................1 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions........................................................... 1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 3 Design, Methods and Limitations.................................................................................. 4 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions .................................................7 Evaluation Purpose ........................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation Questions........................................................................................................ 7 Project Background .............................................................................................7 CVC Partnerships............................................................................................................. 8 Production, Trade and Resilience ................................................................................. 9 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ...............................................................10 Sampling Design............................................................................................................... 10 Data Collection Methods and Sources...................................................................... 10 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 12 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations................................................12 Discussion of Major Points........................................................................................... 12 Analysis of Performance Indicators .................................................................21 Annex I Evaluation Statement of Work..........................................................23 Annex II Evaluation Methods and Limitations................................................28 Annex II.1 Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................................ 28 Annex II.2 Description of the Selection Process of Beneficiaries........................ 31 Annex II.3 Simplified Data Collection Methods and Sources............................... 33 Annex II.4 Field Work Strategy ................................................................................... 34 Annex II.5 Evaluation Timeline..................................................................................... 36 Annex II.6 Roles and Responsibilities of Evaluation Team Members.................. 37 Annex III Data Collection Instruments ...........................................................39 Annex III.1 Interview questionnaires.......................................................................... 39 Annex III.2 Focus Group Guide................................................................................... 41 Annex III.3 Direct Observation Checklist for Fieldwork ...................................... 43 Annex IV Source of Information ......................................................................44 Annex IV.1 List of Persons Interviewed .................................................................... 44 Annex IV.2 Biography of Documents Reviewed...................................................... 49 Annex V Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest ....................................................51 Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report v ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AMASSA Malian Association for Food Security and Sovereignty BMS Malian Bank for Solidarity BNDA National Agriculture Development Bank BOA Bank of Africa CEDEAO Economic Community of West African States CMDT Cotton and Textile Development Company COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CVC Cereals Value Chain DQA Data Quality Assessment DRA Regional Agriculture Office ECA Community Agribusiness Agent FGD Focus Group Discussion FtF Feed the Future FY Fiscal Year IAGRI International Agriculture Fair IER Rural Economy Institute IICEM Integrated Initiatives for Economic Growth in Mali IOS International Management Support Group IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interview M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MPE Mid-Term Performance Evaluation MSI Management Systems International OHADA Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report vi OMA Agricultural Market Observatory OPAM Office of Malian Agricultural Products ORM Rice Development Office in Mopti PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PO Producer Organization SMFM Sell More for More Training Manual SOROYIWASO Micro-Finance Institution in Mali SOW Statement of Work SRI Intensive Rice System USAID United States Agency for International Development WFP World Food Program Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cereals Value Chain (CVC) project1 is USAID/Mali’s flagship Feed the Future (FtF) project. CVC supports essential staple crops in the rice, millet and sorghum value chains. USAID/Mali’s primary focus on cereals and livestock value chains and on improving the enabling environments in which these value chains operate has contributed to the FtF’s goal of sustainably reducing global poverty and hunger. This mid-term performance evaluation of CVC takes place after three years of field implementation led by ACDI/VOCA and its team of dedicated subcontractors2 and specialists. The CVC evaluation team, managed by Management Systems International (MSI), a Tetra Tech company, carried out 50 key informant and 41 focus group interviews in 18 communes in the Sikasso and Mopti regions during November 2016. The major findings show steady progress in: • Household food security, grain yield and productivity; • Adoption of new technologies like inorganic fertilizers for millet and sorghum production; and • Sustainable business relationships between major grain traders and organized farmer groups. Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is threefold. First, it assesses the results of the first half of the CVC project. Second, it shares findings based on key informant interviews (KII), focus groups and quantitative data analysis. Lastly, the mid-term performance evaluation provides recommendations for future, similar interventions. The CVC evaluation team members had access to previous CVC reports. In this document, they offer findings, conclusions and recommendations to confirm previous reports and to add new, complimentary information to help guide project planners in future, similar engagements. The objective of the evaluation is to show what has been working well and the challenges that lie ahead in the second half of CVC implementation. USAID/Mali, particularly the Accelerated Economic Growth office, ACDI/VOCA and its main partners, will use the information in this evaluation to improve project performance. A short list of questions presented below has guided the evaluation team: 1. What are the positive and negative factors contributing to the results achieved, or not achieved? 2. How effective has the process of value chain development been in relation to the targeted agricultural value chains in rice, millet and sorghum? 3. To which extent are CVC-achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? 4. How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? 5. How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities and results? 6. How well has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? Table 1 on the following page provides summary answers to the evaluation questions. 1 CVC began on October 17, 2013 and will end on October 16, 2018. It is a five-year project. 2 Subcontractors are Nyeta Conseils, G-Force and D-Intel. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 2 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question Findings Conclusions 1. What are the positive and negative factors contributing to the results achieved, or not achieved? Agricultural best practices have been adopted, such as in-line planting, micro￾dose fertilizing, plant spacing, timely weeding, composting, land leveling, anti￾erosion, crop rotation and improved seed. Improved productivity for millet, sorghum and rice Beneficiaries still need laborsaving thresher/mills for millet, sorghum and rice. There is an unmet need for laborsaving thresher/mill, which would likely result in time savings from reduced labor and new investment opportunities, for millet, sorghum and rice. Some producer organizations (PO) are defaulting on contract sale price with buyers. Contract responsibilities are not being communicated or enforced. Farmers are engaged in collective sales/storage. They are managing revolving funds/stocks and are active in warrantage marketing There is an increase in collective sales among POs. Farmers are adopting skills learned from post-harvest training. 2. How effective has the process of value chain development been in relation to the targeted agricultural value chains in rice, millet and sorghum? There are now sustainable local market linkages and buyer-producer relationships. Major buyer-producer relationships are becoming stronger, providing production incentives and new household income. There is now improved grain quality (millet) compared to previous years POs and buyers are receiving increased revenues for clean millet. The Economic Community of West African States (CEDEAO) is establishing new grain warehouses in the Sikasso region. CEDEAO is beginning a new purchase program, potentially opening new grain markets. End markets for value-added grain products are saturated. There is a need for secondary product exports (processing) to satisfy regional markets, to support surplus staple crop production and to provide new industry opportunities for women. 3. To which extent are CVC-achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? Farmers and buyers have concerns over long-term marketing. There is a need for a sustainable marketing strategy for whole grains. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 3 Evaluation Question Findings Conclusions 4. How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? POs have largely adopted environmental mitigation strategies. Target populations have demonstrated good adoption of environmental mitigation strategies by POs. This means proper use of plant protection products and higher productivity in rice, millet and sorghum. 5. How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities and results? Women processors are included as participants in agricultural fairs and exhibitions. Agricultural fairs are helpful in promoting marketing networks (processors). Women processors lack access to capital for equipment or raw materials (processing) and small producers/processors have only weak access to credit. The sector needs a private￾sector leader to share market opportunities for those products in demand, to train women cooperatives to pass Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law (OHADA) standards, and to offer financial credit for purchasing raw materials and capital for equipment. Some women participate in training sessions and are involved in most CVC activities. There is a weak presence of women in of CVC activities; however, the CVC gender policy is sensitive to community practices. 6. How well has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? Community agribusiness agents (ECA) work on a voluntary basis with the CVC project and have provided a valuable training role, but may not have a sustainable presence after the project’s end. The ECA model is not sustainable since there are no concrete incentives for ECAs to remain as community trainers. During training periods, distances and time constraints pose challenges to coaches when visiting all groups. Coaches may not be reaching all producer groups located in distant villages. Observation Checklist Communities have diversified food security and income strategies in agriculture, livestock, fishing and trade Communities are prepared to survive low rainfall periods with diverse food sources and income streams. Project Background In 2013, USAID awarded a $21 million contract3 to ACDI/VOCA to implement CVC. The project targets smallholder farmers in the rice, sorghum and millet value chains and aims to increase sales 3 The CVC contract number is AID-688-C-13-00002. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 4 through better access to markets, credit and inputs. It will improve agricultural productivity and expand markets and trade by strengthening local capacity and increasing productive efficiency. CVC’s goal is inclusive and equitable agricultural sector growth through increased value chain integration and competitiveness leading to broad-based economic growth. The project’s purpose is to increase agriculture production, productivity and incomes by increasing direct income to men and women farmers through: • Various value-added income generating activities carried out by value chain actors, including input suppliers, farmers, traders, processors, wholesalers, buyers and exporters; and • Support services that strengthen the value chain, including agricultural technology providers and financial service providers. The Mission modified the contract in 2016, adding additional resources to expand CVC into new areas and include additional support of PO-training and marketing activities. Since project inception, ACDI/VOCA has overseen all activities while ensuring regional integration by supervising subcontractors. CVC also works in collaboration with other USAID projects in Mali. Design, Methods and Limitations Sampling Design The mid-term performance evaluation mostly focused on a qualitative performance assessment. It aimed to identify and analyze evidence that supports strengths or best practices and weaknesses or less￾improved practices. The mid-term performance evaluation also generated practical guidance for improving project weaknesses during its second stage from 2017 to 2018. The evaluation team used five criteria for selecting community focus groups: 1. Predominant value chain activities 2. Security considerations 3. Distance constraints (not more than 50 km from commune capital) 4. Road conditions to targeted villages 5. Gender mix among farmer groups The evaluation team applied a purposive sampling method to consider which POs to visit and to select actors along value chains and sites. They selected 18 POs — nine in Mopti and nine in Sikasso — from rice, millet and sorghum value chains. Thirty percent were rice producers in both Sikasso and Mopti, whereas 70 percent were millet producers in Mopti and 70 percent were producers of mixed millet and sorghum producers in Sikasso. Data Collection Methods The evaluation team developed a variety of qualitative methods for this mid-term performance evaluation, including: • KIIs using semi-structured questionnaires with a valid range of stakeholders; • Focus group discussions (FGD) with gender-sensitive, semi-structured discussion guides; and • Structured observation. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 5 In addition to qualitative data, the team also collected quantitative data from secondary sources, such as CVC’s narrative reports, performance monitoring plan (PMP) indicator reports and data quality assessments (DQA). Other secondary sources included the International Management Support Group’s (IOS) impact survey and outcome harvesting reports, subcontractor audit reports, USAID’s CVC request for proposals and sections of the ACDI/VOCA CVC proposal. Major Recommendations The following are the top 10 recommendations stemming from the mid-term performance evaluation: Finding 1: Sustainable local market linkages and buyer-producer relationships exist. Conclusions. Because of the activity, major buyer-producer relationships have been strengthened. Recommendations. CVC staff and D-Intl, a subcontractor on the project, should monitor buyer-bank relationships to assure annual loan renewal. Finding 2: The quality of millet has improved compared to previous years. Conclusions. POs and buyers are receiving increased revenues for clean millet. Recommendations. CVC should promote grading among producers, buyers and end markets in anticipation of a reduced demand by the World Food Program (WFP) in future years (i.e., a more competitive market environment). Finding 3: The locally processed grain products market is saturated and there is a lack of demand for processed products. Conclusions. Certification of local products may create options for increased retail space in country because end markets for processed grains are limited and most consumers process at the household level. Recommendations. USAID and CVC staff should explore regional, informal markets with the West Africa Trade Hub project. Finding 4: Women processors find national and regional market contacts and knowledge at agricultural fairs and fora. Conclusions. Agricultural fairs such as the International Agriculture Fair (IAGRA) are helpful in promoting marketing networks (processors). Recommendations. CVC should continue to collaborate with AMASSA/Afrique Verte in support of local and regional marketing fairs and exhibitions. Finding 5: Some producer organizations are defaulting on sales contracts with buyers. Conclusions. Contract responsibilities are not being communicated or enforced. Recommendations. CVC should consider reinforcing marketing training among producer groups and review options for market information systems already established through radio or mobile phone SMS products. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 6 Finding 6: Community agribusiness agents work on a voluntary basis with CVC. Conclusions. The ECA model is not sustainable since there are no concrete incentives for ECAs to remain as community trainers. Recommendations. CVC staff should approach input suppliers or buyers to adopt ECAs with incentive packages. Finding 7: Communities have diversified food security and income strategies. Conclusions. Communities have adopted resilience strategies. Recommendations. CVC should facilitate integration of other reforestation, livestock, sanitation and nutrition projects activities in communities. Finding 8: The Economic Community of West African States is establishing new grain warehouses in Sikasso Region. Conclusions. The CEDEAO purchase program may provide CVC farmers with marketing options and a reliable market for surplus millet and sorghum, resulting in increased production and improved household income. Recommendations. CVC should follow up and facilitate partnerships with the CEDEAO purchase program to provide farmers with regional marketing and grain storage options. Finding 9: Producer organizations are aware of environmental strategies. Conclusions. POs can recite the environmental mitigation strategies from their training course: body protection, product dosage, container disposal, etc. Sogea input supply has set up a new shop six months ago in Sevare, Mopti for safe-use training, sales of fungicides, herbicides and pesticides for all staple crops. Recommendations. CVC should continue to facilitate environmental education and explore potential investment through other regional development projects and private input suppliers. Finding 10: There is a lack of capital for equipment or raw materials (processing) and weak access to credit for small producers/processors. Conclusions. Because there is weak access to credit for POs and processors, the sector needs a private-sector leader to share market opportunities for those products in demand; train women cooperatives to pass OHADA standards; and offer financial credit for purchase of raw materials and capital for equipment. Recommendations. It would be ideal if some of the smaller women’s processing cooperatives could merge with larger, successful processing factories such as Danaya Cereals or Dado Production. Together, they can market selected products such as crunch and couscous, which according to Nyeta Conseils have an unmet demand. The CVC business development specialist could follow up with processing factories such as Danaya Cereals to explore this kind of practical collaboration. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 7 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the CVC mid-term performance evaluation is to assess the results of the first half of the CVC award, to share findings based on KIIs, focus groups and quantitative data analysis and to provide recommendations for future, similar interventions. Since project inception, there have been numerous reports detailing the progress of CVC activities. These reports include quarterly and annual reports measuring intermediate results (IR) and performance monitoring reports showing quantitative progress towards the achievement of 20 indicators. DQA reports supplemented this information. In particular, IOS carried out a comprehensive CVC impact evaluation report in 2016. The report sought to inform project planners on changes taking place among actors participating in the millet, sorghum and rice value chains; describe the emerging outcomes as influenced by the CVC interventions; and learnings from the outcomes and contributions from the CVC project so far. A short list of evaluation questions presented below guided the evaluation team. Participants in formal KIIs and FGDs responded to these broad questions, which sought to measure and understand how women have become more integrated in staple crop production and marketing. The questions also assessed the quality of CVC project management by ACDI/VOCA and subcontractors Nyeta Conseils, G-Force and D-Intel. Further, they measured the areas of the value chains for millet, sorghum and rice that showed new strengths and linkages for sustained economic growth. Evaluation Questions The team used a list of questions below, provided by USAID/Mali, to guide the CVC mid-term performance evaluation (see the evaluation matrix in Annex II). 1. What are the positive and negative factors contributing to the results achieved, or not achieved? 2. How effective has the process of value chain development been in relation to the targeted agricultural value chains in rice, millet and sorghum? 3. To which extent are CVC-achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? 4. How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? 5. How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities and results? 6. How well has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? PROJECT BACKGROUND CVC will reach its goal of inclusive and equitable agricultural sector growth through increased value chain integration and competitiveness through the achievement of five IRs: 1. Increased agricultural production and productivity in the cereals value chain. 2. Expanded markets and trade of core value chain products. 3. Increased resiliency of vulnerable communities and households. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 8 4. Strengthened local capacities and systems. 5. Policy and enabling environment improved. CVC has taken a facilitative approach to value chain development to ensure that project efforts lead to sustainable partnerships and increased benefits for all actors operating within the value chains. Key activities necessary for value chain integration and competitiveness include production, research and technology dissemination, marketing, processing, trade, finance, capacity building and policy reform. CVC capacity building efforts involve an array of business development services and agricultural production skills. The project also works to strengthen relationships among value chain actors and support services while promoting an enabling environment necessary for long-term competitiveness. In line with FtF guidance on gender integration and USAID’s new policy on gender equality and women’s empowerment, CVC aims to assure women agricultural producers have equal access to assets, inputs and technologies. Included in this list are land and other productive natural assets, extension services, financial services and agricultural inputs. Women also require the knowledge to enable them to participate in and obtain appropriate returns from the agricultural system. The CVC intervention zone includes 117 communes within Sikasso, Mopti and Koulikoro, plus two communes in Ségou that encompassed the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s Alatona Irrigation Project sites. USAID/Mali plans to reinstate CVC programming in Timbuktu and northern Mopti as the security situation permits. The Mission selected these FtF communes based on agricultural potential and the population’s poverty and nutritional status as indicated by stunting and wasting indices. Due to both agricultural potential and tremendous need, USAID expects that FtF interventions will have the greatest impact within these regions. Mali’s main rice cropping zones are in the southern regions of Sikasso and Ségou and the Niger and Bani river valleys in the Mopti region. The main sorghum and millet areas are primarily in Mali’s central and southern regions. Sorghum is concentrated in the south. In designing CVC, USAID assumed that humanitarian aid would continue to sustain the critical assistance needs of the country, allowing FtF interventions to focus on long-term development. CVC Partnerships Since project inception, ACDI/VOCA has overseen all activities while ensuring regional integration by supervising subcontractors Nyeta Conseils, G-Force and D-Intel. ACDI/VOCA instituted partnership agreements with the Regional Agricultural Authority (DRA), Cotton and Textile Development Company (CMDT), Rice Development Office in Mopti (ORM), National Bank of Agricultural Development (BNDA) and Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER). CVC also works in collaboration with other USAID projects in Mali. Previous investments by USAID and other donors, including work done by ACDI/VOCA, 4 have helped disseminate improved technologies and raise productivity. ACDI/VOCA has been a pioneer in the facilitative approach to market-led value chain development; it worked closely with USAID to codify good practice in this field. The move from direct implementation and support to a lighter, more facilitative, market-led touch represented a tremendous shift in mindset at a moment of increased risk and vulnerability, when much of Mali would be seeking direct handouts. 4 These projects include Integrated Initiatives for Economic Growth in Mali (IICEM), Mali Agricultural Value Enhancement Network, Agriculture Development Systems Activity and Response, Recovery and Resiliency in Mali. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 9 The CVC project is directly in line with USAID/Mali’s current operating plans and priorities for agricultural investments in support of the National Plan of Poverty Investment in the Sector of Agriculture. The plan and CVC prioritize investments in sorghum, millet and rice. They also share intentions of increasing production and incomes, promoting a favorable business environment and improving nutritional status. Both emphasize gender and climate change as integrated issues. CVC reflects the desire to align donor programming with priorities outlined in the both the national and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program. They are informed by the underlying principles of aid effectiveness outlined in the Paris Declaration. Production, Trade and Resilience The CVC results framework in Figure 1 demonstrates USAID/Mali’s primary focus on cereals value chains, and on improving the enabling environments within which they operate. FIGURE 1 CVC RESULTS FRAMEWORK Increased productivity and trade in the targeted value chains has the potential to strengthen household food security. Thereby, the CVC project aims to increase the availability of these important staple crops and access to these foods through positive impact on the incomes of actors along the chains. The targeted value chains may contribute to improvements in nutritional status by stabilizing food supplies. Cropping of vegetables and legumes within these production systems (further enabled by sustainable soil and water management practices) can increase the availability of diverse and nutritious foods. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 10 CVC has put into action the Mission's resilience strategy by ensuring that its activities are inclusive of the most vulnerable populations while building their resilience to crises. The strategy’s purpose has been to help chronically vulnerable populations better withstand shocks and stresses — and better and more rapidly recover from them — while becoming active participants in an inclusive economic growth. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation design and methods are directly linked to the key evaluation questions. Credible and quality evidence have been generated under field considerations such as adopted value chains, time, distance between villages and communes, security issues, accessibility of focus CVC villages and gender distribution. The evaluation matrix (Annex II.1) shows the relationship between each evaluation question and the methods used to gather evidence to answer the questions. It also highlights the corresponding data collection method and analysis, as well as the data sources. Sampling Design The mid-term performance evaluation has mostly focused on a qualitative performance assessment with the aim of identifying and analyzing evidence to support strengths or best practices and weaknesses or less-improved practices. It also generated practical guidance for improving weaknesses during CVC’s second half. Under the five main criteria (listed on Page 4), the evaluation team used a purposive sampling method proposed by De Vaus (2001)5 to choose the POs they would visit and to select key actors along value chains and sites. The team purposively selected communes and villages with enough duplication to allow for substitutions if needed. They selected villages from an exhaustive list of each region (Mopti and Sikasso) provided by Nyeta Conseil and G-Force. This sampling approach helped determine a feasible sample to cover for field data collection. Annex II.I provides details of the selection process adopted for this sampling technique for POs. The evaluation team chose 18 POs — nine each in Mopti and Sikasso —from the target value chains. Thirty percent were rice producers in both Sikasso and Mopti, whereas 70 percent were millet producers in Mopti. Seventy percent were producers of mixed millet and sorghum producers in Sikasso. Respondents included men and women farm leaders and key private sector partners working in agricultural input supply, post-harvest storage, transportation, local and regional trade, grain transformation, formal and informal financial service providers, and end market actors associated with each of the three value chains. The team also organized men and women focus groups. The team selected other value chain actors such as CVC partners based on their level of participation and efforts towards the implementation of CVC activities. These included representatives of the Government of Mali at regional and commune levels and technical partners at different points in the target value chains across in both regions. The full list of interviewees and participants is available in Annex III. Data Collection Methods and Sources The team used a mixed-methods approach, including a desk review, and qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods often played important 5 De Vaus D. 2001. Research Design in Social Research. Sage Publication, London (Ltd). 148p. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 11 roles in this evaluation, either simultaneously or sequentially, for the purpose of answering the same question through a convergence of results from different sources, and answering related questions in a complementary fashion (De Vaus, 2001). For the most part, qualitative methods are intended to achieve a depth of understanding with emphasis on saturation (i.e., obtaining a comprehensive understanding by continuing to sample until no new substantive information is acquired). The fieldwork plan for data collection is available in Annex II. 4. First, the team conducted a desk review to identify and review relevant technical reports and background documents such as project design and implementation reports received from the project units. The team collected and reviewed additional reports during fieldwork in both Mopti and Sikasso. These reports shed light on the project’s theory of change and implementation features and its operational context and challenges. Second, the team used a suite of qualitative methods for this evaluation. The suite included KIIs using semi-structured questionnaires with a valid range of stakeholders, FGDs with semi-structured discussion guides with gender considerations and structured observation using a standard checklist. For each site visit, the team conducted and recorded at least one structured observation exercise. CVC staff provided a list of key informants located in Bamako, Sikasso and Mopti. Using a combination of qualitative methods allowed the team to consider multiple types of evidence to support each evaluation question. They focused the greatest attention on collecting qualitative primary data from value chain actors, including farmer producers, input suppliers, financial institutions, traders and partner organizations. The team paid special attention to men and women farm producer groups and conducted KIIs for farmer leaders. Finally, the team gathered quantitative data mostly from secondary sources, such as CVC’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system and the IOS baseline survey report. This data examined the activity’s performance against its objectives by measuring performance data, which focused on CVC’s influence on POs’ attitudes with a view toward the next phase of the project’s activities. Annex III details the data collection methods and sources for each evaluation question. A complete evaluation matrix is included in Annex II. The team produced an audio recording6 for each individual or group interview. They used the recordings selectively to clarify written notes when entering digital data. In addition, they completed a standardized data collection form with classification codes related to the type of actors in the value chain (including producer groups, private and public-sector representatives), geographic area (both Mopti and Sikasso), crop type and gender. After a pilot phase done in Bamako with two key informants (input provider and grain buyer), the team edited the questionnaire to ensure accuracy and relevance. Nyeta Conseil and G-Force facilitated the data collection process in country by introducing the evaluation team members in each village. To ensure objectivity in the data collection, they did not participate in the discussions with stakeholders. Each KII lasted 45-60 minutes and FGDs lasted from 60- 120 minutes. The team conducted a maximum of one interview and three FGDs daily in each village with POs. They also held about four to five interviews with other key actors in each of the commune capitals. At the end of each day, team members reviewed hard copy survey notes for accuracy and made any edits necessary; then they entered the data into the Excel master file. At the end of the field exercise, they aggregated the survey sheets in Excel per established codes and noted patterns and developed themes from the interviews. Some limitations in the overall strategy included time constraints related to travel to selected villages in all regions. Although they completed all planned focus group interviews, there was not always enough 6 The audio recordings were used to cross-check missing information for better understanding (extra detail or translations). Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 12 time to carry out observation checklists in each community. The observations were useful in confirming interview responses in agricultural best practices and discovering additional facts such as secondary income sources, existence of warehouses and the existence of farming or food processing equipment. Data Analysis During the initial team planning session on October 31, evaluation team members became familiar with the agreed-upon interview protocols for the data collection and the standardized method of recording all data into separate Excel files for Mopti and Sikasso. The team analyzed the qualitative data collected via the semi-structured individual and group interviews using thematic and content analysis, triangulation and retroaction based on each evaluation question. The team used the evaluation questions provided by USAID/Mali as an analysis framework to capture emerging themes based on pattern analysis (convergent/divergent), value chain integration and regional distribution. They tailored the questions to different stakeholders by using sub-questions and by selecting questions for some stakeholders. The team carried content analysis beyond descriptions of changes in practices and attitudes to identify the most salient characteristics of these changes along the value chains. This process allowed the team to map the main strengths and weaknesses of decision￾making processes with a view toward improving the next steps in the project activities. The team analyzed quantitative data and statistics collected from activity documents (e.g., indicator performance reports, report data sets or government sources) using simple descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution. They used Excel for this analysis. The IOS baseline impact evaluation data and its parallel qualitative data collection efforts may have informed the evaluation findings and provided an additional frame of reference for triangulation and comparative analysis. For accuracy, the team validated qualitative responses with quantitative information already available in CVC project reports, performance monitoring indicators, DQAs, market databases and community site visits. They also relied on findings already shared by the ongoing IOS partners baseline report to complete validation. The team triangulated data points (between sources, methods and field information) and retroaction (reversing data from secondary and primary data) to confirm or disconfirm findings from primary and secondary data sources highlighted in Annex I1. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following section summarizes the findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the MPE survey responses by all actors in the targeted value chains during the evaluation period. The findings are responses based on the six-question survey found in Annex II.1. The findings represent the most common responses by all value chain actors, but do not include outlying responses not shared by similar categories of groups. The findings are linked to the five IRs, which are provided in Figure 1 on Page 9. The organization of evaluation findings according to IRs provides a performance tool that displays findings, conclusions and recommendations within the project’s results framework. Discussion of Major Points The findings are prioritized by number. The explanations of each finding listed provide some depth, clarity and context based on responses provided by all participating actors in the target value chains. Finding 1: Sustainable local market linkages and buyer-producer relationships exist. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 13 The POs and major buyers were very satisfied with the collective sales strategy evolving among farmer groups. The buyers appreciated the CVC efforts for the preparation of stocks management, registers and warehouse organization. Farmers appreciated direct payment of surplus grains without having to deal with a bank intermediary. The D-Intl consultants played a key role in assisting major buyers in business planning and bank loan applications. Since these services will no longer be supported by the project after 2018, it is important that the major buyers adhere to loan reimbursement protocols and gain the confidence of bank lenders. Conclusions. The project strengthened major buyer-producer relationships, which is a good example of how CVC has facilitated the investment of banks, the experience of major buyers, and the collective marketing strategy put into action by participating POs. WFP also played a role by encouraging similar relationships outside of the CVC project and insisting on improved quality (millet). These marketing linkages support IRs 2.2 (sustainable farm to market linkages access strengthened) and 2.4 (effective aggregation of production established). Recommendations. CVC staff and D-Intl should monitor buyer-bank relationships with the National Agriculture Development Bank (BNDA) and the Malian Bank for Solidarity (BMS) to assure annual loan renewal. Finding 2: The quality of millet has improved compared to previous years. The major millet traders in Mopti commented on the improved quality of grain processed by POs. They attributed this change to WFP, which provided a 10 CFA/kg incentive to producers and buyers who delivered clean grains without organic materials such as rocks, dirt and chaff. Promotion of high quality millet supports IR 2.1 (market driven, value-added products introduced). Conclusions. POs and buyers received increased revenues for clean millet. Clean millet provides a convenient, time saving option for those households willing to pay a premium price, while some consumers prefer a less refined quality in exchange for cost savings. Recommendations. CVC staff should promote grading among producers, buyers and selected end markets in anticipation of a reduced demand by WFP in future years. Finding 3: The locally processed grain products market is saturated and there is a lack of demand for processed products. Value-added products derived from rice, millet or sorghum grains find a market among upper-class consumers seeking convenience items such as parboiled rice that saves cooking time and offers a high fiber content. Other products include de-hulled and ground millet, sorghum and rice, millet couscous, millet flour, and rice and millet crunch fortified with peanut butter, coconut and dates. These markets are stable. But growth is held in check because of slow, upper-class mobility and a preference by the largest consumer groups (lower class), which self-process and eat whole grains at home daily. The availability of labor for home meal preparation further enhances home processing. The major millet and rice processing companies Danaya Cereals and Dado Production attest to the limited demand for local, value-added products. Nyeta Conseils recognizes the unique role of women as associated leaders in millet and rice processing in Mopti. It reported deficiencies in financial capital and organizational capacity as barriers to growth among the women processing groups in that area. There are 19 processing groups working directly with the AMASSA/Afrique Verte in Mopti, which assists groups in accessing primary food materials, transportation and storage. In Sikasso, women have Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 14 direct access to lowland areas for rice production and sorghum markets. Food processing of millet, sorghum and rice products supports IR 2.1 market driven, value added products introduced. Conclusions. Because end markets for processed grains are limited and most consumers process them at the household level, certification of local products may create options for increased retail space in country. However, the added costs related to infrastructure, operations and management capacity are prohibitive to small and mid-level factories working at the informal level. The promotion of value-added products supports IR 2.1. Market Driven Value Added Products Introduced Recommendations. USAID and CVC staff should explore regional, informal markets7 with USAID’s West Africa Trade Hub project. Finding 4: Women processors find national and regional market contacts and knowledge at agricultural fairs and fora. In Mopti, a group of 30 processing cooperatives, associations and individuals sold 538 MT of millet, sorghum and rice products last year to nine local retail outlets in Mopti’s urban area. The sales of value￾added grain products represent a small fraction of total grain production in the region and underlines the need for new markets. Some women processing groups have been successful in selling quantities in Guinea Conakry, Burkina Faso and Senegal. Marketing initiatives such as the IAGRI have been successful in attracting locally made grain products in a cosmopolitan setting, placing consumers and producers together and establishing durable working relationships. Agricultural Fairs and Exhibitions support IR2.6 access to market information expanded. Conclusions. Agricultural fairs such as the IAGRA are helpful in promoting marketing networks (processors). Such exhibitions support IR 2.6 (access to market information expanded). Recommendations. CVC should continue to collaborate with Mopti-based AMASSA/Afrique Verte to support local and regional marketing fairs and exhibitions. Finding 5: Some producer organizations are defaulting on sales contracts with buyers. In Sikasso, the evaluation team discovered some cases of POs not supplying contracted amounts of millet or sorghum. The issue was one of price: There is a cultural assumption that the price is not perennial but rather, one that is negotiated on an annual basis. Farmers could benefit from additional training related to buyer-producer contract responsibilities. Conclusions. Contract responsibilities are not being communicated or enforced. Recommendations. CVC should consider reinforcing marketing training among producer groups and review options for market information systems already established through radio or mobile phone SMS products. Finding 6: Community agribusiness agents work on a voluntary basis with CVC. The ECA model has succeeded in using local community members as teachers to provide the “Sell More for More Training Manual” (SMFM) cascade training to PO-members. This strategy has provided farmers 7 Informal markets as opposed to formal supermarkets who trade with “certified” grain products such as packaged cereal products imported from large firms based in Europe or the USA. The certification process is too expensive and requires a production scale beyond the capacity of most artisanal grain processing companies or associations. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 15 with new options in millet, sorghum and rice farming, collective decision-making, marketing and environmental awareness. Conclusions. The ECA model is not sustainable since there are no concrete incentives for ECAs to remain as community trainers. Recommendations. CVC staff should approach input suppliers or buyers to adopt ECAs with incentive packages. To extend the function of ECAs after the CVC project, it may be useful to approach private-sector input suppliers and grain traders to use ECAs in support of their respective marketing objectives. For example, Planete Distribution is supporting field agents to monitor irrigated rice areas. These agents also assist farmers during critical periods of field preparation, harvest and transportation of rice to end markets and help them access seed and fertilizer. Input suppliers could use ECAs to manage their demonstration plots with incentives to keep the plot’s harvest, and the opportunity to sell key inputs such as fertilizer, seed and fungicide to PO-members on a commission basis. The promotion of ECA trainers supports IR 1.1s (technology development and dissemination) and 4.4 (capacity of extension and advisor service providers strengthened). Finding 7: Communities have diversified food security and income strategies. In Mopti, the visited rice production plots presented relatively small growing areas relative to the populations residing there. In Sikasso, farmers grew sorghum and millet as complimentary crops to cotton and maize in the CMDT zones. Many grain farming systems were integrated with livestock systems and fishing industries in those rice production areas near the Niger River. The opportunity for horticulture production responds to resilience strategies outlined in the CVC results framework. Conclusions. Communities have adopted resilience strategies. These activities support IRs 3.1 (income streams diversified and asset building strategies employed) and 3.2 (drought resistant cropping systems adopted at scale). Recommendations. CVC staff should facilitate the integration of other reforestation, livestock, horticulture, sanitation and nutrition projects activities in communities. Finding 8: The Economic Community of West African States is establishing new grain warehouses in the Sikasso Region. Conclusions. The CEDEAO purchase program may provide CVC farmers with marketing options. CEDEAO has established warehouses in Koutiala, Ségou and Kouri for a storage capacity of 15,000 MT for millet and 7,500 MT for sorghum. It could also offer them a reliable market for surplus millet and sorghum, resulting in increased production and improved household incomes. Recommendations. CVC should follow-up and facilitate partnerships with the CEDEAO purchase program in Sikasso to provide farmers with marketing and grain storage options. This storage activity supports IR 2.3 (post-harvest handling and processing improved). Finding 9: Producer organizations are aware of environmental strategies. POs can recite the environmental mitigation strategies (body protection, product dosage, container disposal, etc.) from their training course. Sogea input supply has set up a new shop six months ago in Sevare, Mopti for safe-use training, sales of fungicides, herbicides and pesticides for all staple crops. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 16 Conclusions. The anti-erosion strategies using organic materials or stones are valid for those areas abundant in these building materials. However, many CVC participating communities lack these useful natural resources. Reforestation strategies include the planting of live fences using local species of plants such as Euphorbia and Jatropha or multi-purpose trees such as Neem, Eucalyptus and Baobab. The World Agro-Forestry Center ( ICRAF )project has made some gains in reforestation in the Mopti region and its staff may have knowledge of those species eligible for use in anti-erosion strategies in the Bankass and Koro cercles. CARE International/Mali has also implemented reforestation activities in the Koro cercle in collaboration with the Malian Water and Forest Service from 1984 to 1994 and may have lessons learned to share with CVC. The rice producers interviewed in Mopti (Komio, Sense) confirmed the use of simple, manual leveling tools for rice parcels, but cited large areas around their main perimeters in need of extensive leveling due to natural contours of the land. These environmental education and soil conservation activities support IRs 1.4 (soil and water management techniques improved) and 1.5 (seed and fertilizer policies and procedures improved). Recommendations. CVC should continue to facilitate environmental education and explore potential investment through other regional (Mopti and Sikasso) development projects and private-input suppliers. Finding 10. There is a lack of capital for equipment or raw materials (processing) and weak access to credit for small producers/processors. Despite significant profit margins, women still have difficulty growing their business due to their relative low processing volumes. For example, millet flour (Mugu Fara) costs 426 CFA/kg for raw materials and production costs; and it sells for 1,000 CFA/kg in Mopti, leaving a profit margin of 574 CFA/kg. Among surveyed processing associations in Mopti, annual sales by volume varies with the lowest at 10 kg and the highest at 480 kg.8 Developing the agro-food sector in Mali faces several obstacles, according to one analysis. There is a small domestic market compared to the population. Households have low purchasing power and the market is fragmented because of the excessively scattered population and inadequate roads. 9 Initiatives that promote regional, cross-border trade for value-added grain products support IRs 2.1, 2.7 (regional trade constraints removed) and 5.2 (agricultural policy environment improved). Conclusions. Because of weak access to credit for POs and processors, the sector needs a private-sector leader to share market opportunities to those products in demand, such as crunch and couscous, which according to Nyeta Conseils have an unmet demand. Women’s processing associations do not possess adequate collateral to qualify for small business loans. Recommendations. It would be ideal if some of the smaller women’s processing cooperatives could merge with successful factories such as Danaya Cereals to market selected products. CVC business specialists should follow-up with selected processing groups and AMASSA/Afrique Vert to explore this potential collaboration in Mopti. CVC should train women cooperatives to pass OHADA standards and offer financial credit for purchasing raw materials and for capital to buy equipment. This recommendation supports IR 2.1. 8 Rapport d’Analyse du Diagnostic des Unites de Transformation a Mopti, CVC, June 2016. 9 Economic Mission, Embassy of France (2001). Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 17 Finding 11: Agricultural best practices are being adopted through SMFM training related to in-line planting, micro-dose fertilizing, plant spacing, timely weeding, composting, land leveling, anti-erosion, crop rotation and improved seed use. CVC offers SMFM training modules that include the following topics: Agricultural best practices, cooperative organization, post-harvest and marketing and environmental mitigation. All groups encountered by the team were able to show at least one copy of each of these four SMFM modules. A majority of farmer groups, major buyers and input suppliers commented that the SMFM module covering agricultural best practices was useful. Many farmers adopted some of the strategies from the module, including planting in-line, plant spacing, micro-dose fertilizer application and weeding. This has led to new employment opportunities for youth, increased yields for rice and millet and improved household food security in the Mopti region. There remain issues related to field leveling and water management in rice areas. Conclusions. Improved productivity in millet, sorghum and rice has strengthened household food security. Farmers are selling surplus production to major buyers, which may provide additional household income to support children’s education, health activities and small business investments. In particular, farmers responded positively to training subjects about plant spacing, planting in-line and the application of micro-dose fertilizers. CVC farmers are learning about plant herbicides and fungicides from CVC staff. Local input suppliers attest to increased sales of these products in the Mopti region. These agricultural activities support IRs 1.1 and 1.4. Recommendation. CVC staff should continue with SMFM education strategies to include refresher courses for new members. The project could modify the curriculum in response to farmer needs such as mechanical maintenance for irrigation motor pumps or for rice threshers, and women’s needs related to health, family nutrition and small-business development into non￾value chain areas like soap-making or poultry production. Finding 12: There is a lack of access to laborsaving threshers and mills for millet, sorghum and rice. There was ample discussion in most focus groups among POs related to their perceived need for rice irrigation equipment, rice threshers, rice mills, millet threshers, etc. For decades, some CVC farmers have been recipients of capital equipment through either loan programs or grants. They often mentioned the IICEM project in this context. These investments have shown strong short-term gains, but users cannot always manage repairs or replacement costs in the long run. Other factors such as small land parcels in rice contribute to non-renewal of such farm equipment. Currently, Planete Distribution in Mopti has purchased rice irrigation pumps (Chinese manufactured) for selected producers. There is a need for affordable and renewable mid-level technologies for CVC farmer groups. Animal traction devices may hold a solution for grain threshing and milling and wind and solar energy sources may provide additional topics for research. Initiatives in this technology development area support IR 1.1 (technology development, dissemination, management and innovation enhanced); IR 2.3 (post harvest handling and processing improved); and IR 4.2 (capacity of producer groups and water user associations improved). In discussions with farmers concerning the system of intensive rice (SRI) production, all respondents agreed that they offer higher yields, but the physical effort required is strenuous for those women and men who cannot devote their full time in the fields, even smaller parcels of 0.15 hectares. Women with considerable household responsibilities and men occupied with secondary jobs asked about an easier way to prepare fields, transplant seedlings, apply urea deep placement pellets, weed, harvest and thresh rice plants. Farmers faced with time constraints in the application of labor-intensive technologies may Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 18 substitute some traditional methods. For example, broadcast seeding may substitute seedling transplantation. The promotion of intensive rice systems supports IR 1.1. Conclusion. There is an unmet need for labor saving threshers and mills for the targeted value chains that would likely result in time savings from reduced labor and new investment opportunities. Recommendations. CVC staff and development partners should explore mid-level technologies for less expensive models using animal power for threshing and milling. Using oxen for field preparation and urea deep placement pellet applicators, available from Bangladesh, could ease SRI labor needs. Finding 13: Farmers are participating in collective sales/storage and managing revolving funds/stocks warrantage marketing. Collective storage and marketing has been a strategy promoted by the former IICEM project, but one that CVC farmers have successfully continued despite a lack of modern, collective warehouse structures. The revolving funds allow producer groups to purchase essential farm inputs early in the season, while reimbursing the funds after harvest. Conclusions. The fact that these funds are still maintained and managed by farmer groups is a strong management asset that demonstrates good leadership, vision and disciplined cooperative organization. The existence of collective warehouse structures strengthens this marketing strategy. These post-harvest activities support IRs 2.3 and IR 2.4. Recommendations. CVC should continue with SMFM marketing training and consider placement of new warehouses in selected communes with other project partnerships. Finding 14: Buyers are constrained by Government of Mali export policies. The major millet buyers in Mopti expressed some concern related to the existing export policies that place restrictions on the free trade of grains in the region outside of Mali’s borders. Traders must inform authorities before any shipments take place and establish bank accounts for all revenues produced from cross-border shipments. Buyers find the process cumbersome. Lawmakers established the present legislation as a measure to maintain national food security, especially in drought years. In a region where the population is nearly doubling every 20 years, grain crops account for one-fifth of total cultivated land area and provide part-time work for around 80 percent of West Africa’s population. But despite increases in production from 16 million MT in 1980 to 63 million MT in 2015, less than 1.5 million MT of local grain crops are sold in cross-border trade regionally. Figures for the inter-regional grain trade are lower than imports of wheat, wheat flour and especially rice into the region.10 Suppliers from outside the continent are meeting most of Africa’s growing demand for food. The production of food staples for growing urban markets and for mitigating the food deficit in rural areas presents the largest growth opportunity for African farmers. The market value of Africa’s food staple production is at least $50 billion per year, equivalent to three-quarters of all agricultural output (World Bank, 2008). Given the population growth and increased urbanization, Africa’s demand for food staples will grow dramatically in the coming decade. Indeed, demand is expected to double by 2020, primarily in cities. Import bills for food will rise substantially if Africa’s farmers do not contribute more to meeting this 10 “Boosting West Africa’s Regional Grain Trade,” Grain Trade, 24 November, 2016 Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 19 demand. Unfortunately, the experience of the past two decades shows that African farmers have not been able to do this and the enormous potential to produce and trade food staples in Africa remains unexploited. Thus, despite being rich in agricultural potential, the continent increasingly imports from outside of the region to satisfy demand. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that African cereal imports in 2008 were $15.2 billion. However, just five percent of all grain imported by African countries originates from regional sources. The volume of extra-regional food staple imports shows how regional integration in the food staple market can achieve food security.11 Initiatives that support regional, cross border trade support IR2.7 Regional Trade Constraints Removed, and IR5.2 Agricultural Policy Environment Improved. Conclusions. There is a potential need for streamlining of grain export strategies. Regional trade integration can substantially affect food security by linking farmers to consumers across borders, ameliorating the effects of periodic national food shortages and of escalating global food prices. What matters for poor people is local price volatility, and changes in global prices are only one factor behind domestic price changes. Local crop conditions, supply costs and policy measures, including those affecting the food trade, are often more important.12 Development in this area supports IRs 2.7 (regional trade constraints removed) and 5.2 (agriculture policy environment improved) Recommendations. CVC could implement the following steps to facilitate new trade agreements: 1) Research the demand for millet, sorghum and rice products; 2) assure organizational capacity of POs to provide consistent supply; 3) assure warehouse infrastructure at the producer level; and 4) buyers to apply for export licenses. Finding 15: Women are involved in most CVC activities, but show a weak presence in SMFM sessions. FGDs in all regions revealed an integration of both women and men in CVC training activities. In most cases, men would meet separately with male members, and women would meet with female members. Women had equal opportunity to attend SMFM training sessions but their participation rate compared to men for the same subjects was consistently lower. For example, the 2016 PMP showed that 25,704 men received training in agricultural productivity and food security practices compared to 6,061 women. Conclusions. Women provide a focal point for household organization, health, sanitation and youth involvement. They can be used as trainers for new SMFM themes. Although some PMP indicators show less participation from women in training sessions compared to men, women participate fully in community activities, particularly at the household level. Women play a critical role in cutting, threshing, transporting and storing of millet, sorghum and rice harvests, for instance. Such work activities do not appear in the PMP. Recommendations. CVC staff specialists should modify and expand on SMFM themes to attract more women in training sessions. The project should modify the themes to create new activities such as vegetable gardening, nutrition or small income generating initiatives that attract more women and build their capacity in civil society. The promotion of non-staple crop themes supports IRs 3.1, (income streams diversified and asset building strategies employed), IR3.4 (community literacy, numeracy and nutrition practices improved) and 4.5 (local capacity to support continued learning enhanced). 11 “Boosting W. Africa’s Regional Grain Trade,” Grain Trade, Nov. 24, 2016 12 “Africa Can Feed Africa,” World Bank, October 2012 Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 20 Finding 16: Coaches find it challenging to visit all village sites during training periods. CVC coaches provide SMFM training to ECAs who then share training themes with PO-members. In Mopti, the average number of producer groups attributed to a coach is 22. There are periods during the year when a coach may be challenged to provide timely training to all groups. Coaches travel by motorcycle; village distances exceed 50 km from their base location. By comparison, the DRA in Mopti reaches 115 millet POs with a staff of 22 agents or seven POs per agent. The support of extension services supports IR 4.4. Conclusions. CVC have a large area of intervention which may influence the quality or regularity of training subjects being implemented in distant project zones. Recommendations. CVC staff should consider adding to ECA responsibilities or increasing coaching staff in some communes. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 21 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Table 2 below summarizes the 21 CVC results indicators based on the most recent version prepared for the 2016 Annual Report. The comments are based on evaluation findings and previous PMP reports with recommendations and linkages to the prioritized list of findings found in the “Discussion of Major Points” section of this report. TABLE 2 FY2016 CVC KEY RESULTS AND INDICATORS Annual Report Number Number Number % FTF 4.5.2 (13) Number of rural households benefitting directly from USG interventions 82,147 70,211 50,338 72% The shortfall in this indicator is a direct result of the cessation of activities in Northern Segou (Alatona) and the Tomboctou Region. While Nyeta Conseils has had discussions with farmer cooperative leaders in Niafunke for expansion of their model in other locations there has not been progress to date. FTF 4.5.2-2 Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of CVC assistance (FTF 4.5.2-2)* 81,716 62,260 57,310 92% There have been good results in the use of improved seed, pest management, cultural practices, women participation, irrigated rice PIV, lowland rice, and millet. Related to findings 6, 9, 11, 15, and 16. Recommend continued capacity building of coaches and ECA's for producer training in agricultutral best practices and environmental subjects. FTF 4.5.2-5 Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices as a result of CVC assistance (FTF 4.5.2-5) 58,883 50,327 48,092 96% Related to FTF 4.5.2-2 96% of all farmers are using at least one improved technology or management practice. Related to findings 6, 9, 11. Recommend continued training for producer organizations and marketing support. FTF 4.5.2-37 Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving business development services from CVC assisted sources (S) cumulative 22,000 18,000 19,515 108% The number of individuals receiving loans represents large numbers of cotton farmers in Sikasso supported by BNDA. BNDA has withdrawn agricultural loans for small millet and rice farmers in Mopti. The large traders such as Ousman Cisse of Planete Distribution, Moulaye Sankoro, and Kalou Diallo of Koni Jigini have been instrumental in grain purchasing in their respective zones. Related to findings 1 and 10. Recommend follow up with AMASSA/Afrique Vert in Mopti to discuss collateral fund to support small grain processor loans in Mopti. FTF 4.5.2-29 Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans (RiA) (FTF 4.5.2-29) 21,200,000 4,125,000 $ 4,827,316 117% Over achievement in this indicator is due to BMS loans received by Planete Distribution with assistance from CVC/D-Intel. This strategy essentially resolves the problem posed by individual rice farmers for input loans, including motorized irrigation pumps. Related to finding 10. Recommend discussions with input suppliers to consider in-kind credits for fertilizer and phytosanitary products similar to the Planete model. Custom: Value of Agricultural and Rural Loans, Cash and In-Kind, from Financial Institutions or internal Value Chain Actors (Custom) 24,600,000 4,590,000 $ 6,545,727.52 143% No comment. FTF 4.5.2-30 Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving CVC assistance to access loans (S) 20,000 18,000 19,093 106% No comment. FTF 4.5.1-28 Hectares under new or improved/rehabilitated irrigation and drainage services as a result of CVC assistance (RiA) cumulative 45,000 10,000 0% This indicator has not been realized as planned partly due to security issues in the Tomboctou zones and the pending partnership with Pro￾Irrigar project for rice infrastructure development. These gravity fed systems are initially expensive but can be sustainable due to long term cost savings. Examples in Mali are Selingue, Baguineda, Alatona and Dioro. 4.5.2-7 Number of individuals who have received CVC supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (RiA) (WOG) cumulative 71,101 52,843 31,765 60% CVC carried out training in those zones where they have an active presence. Related to findings 6, 9, 11 and 16. 4.5.2-23 Value of incremental sales (collected at farm-level) attributed to FTF implementation (RiA) cumulative 26,450,000 8,000,000 $8,195,229 102% The annual sales reflects good synergy between input suppliers, grain producers, and CVC marketing training. Not clear if individual household sales are included in the numbers. Key Results Area and Indicator Comments FY2015-2016 Targets Length of Project (LOP) Target Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 22 Annual Report Number Number Number % FTF 4.5.2(38) Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation (en dollars) 15,640,000 5,324,000 $ 4,113,640.00 77% Both grain traders Moulaye Sankoro (Millet) and Ousman Cisse (Planete Dist. Rice) were in the process of constructing new warehouse space in Mopti during the evaluation period. 4.5-10 Total increase in installed storage capacity (m3) (S) cumulative 17,639 3,780 0% CVC is not an infrastructure building project although they have been successful in past years in facilitating warehouse construction among private sector partners (Planete Dist.) and locations in Zebala and Pomorododio villages. An IICEM sponsored warehouse in Bargondoga, Mopti showed visible evidence of deterioration due to water damage, and a warehouse constructed by villagers in Koume, Bankass was in disrepair due to wind and water damage. Despite lack of modern warehouses many communities have organized to meet collective sales agreements with buyers by storing in their respective houses or traditional grain storage structures. The European Union has constructed modern warehousing in selected villages in Mopti including the village of Sogara, Bankass (500mt). Recommend to CVC to continue to facilitate warehouse infrastructure in surplus production zones. 4.5-16 Gross margin per hectare of selected product (RiA)* cumulative Gross margins for all crops millet, sorghum and rice have shown incremental gains over planned levels in 2015-16. This is partly due to specific training in agricultural best practices and related to finding 11. In particular, the use of mineral fertilizers has contributed to increased yields although it is estimated that only 1/3 of millet farmers receive allotments of subsidized fertilizer due to limited stocks supplied by the GOM. Recommend continued promotion of available animal manures and plant materials composting to compliment mineral fertilizer stocks. Yield per hectare (subset of gross margin) cumulative Yield averages surpass Mopti region averages due to application of best agricultural practices by participating producer organizations. PIV rice shows 7.5mt/hectare which is superior to Office du Niger averages although Mopti rice farmers work on small plots of 0.15 ha. Related to finding 9, and 11. Recommendations similar to gross margin above. 4.5.2-14 Number of vulnerable households benefiting directly from CVC assistance(S). 10,000 7,000 3,588 51% Not clear why planned numbers were not achieved unless previously planned vulnerable households in Tomboctou and Alatona were not reached due to security reasons. Possibly related to finding 16. Recommend increasing coaches or modifying scope of work for ECA's to cover a greater number of villages in the working zone. Custom: Number of people receiving CVC assistance in diversified economic activities (resilience indicator)/ Cumulative 6,000 5,000 425 9% This indicator measures income generating activities (small trade, soapmaking, selling cakes) among savings groups only. If similar activities were promoted among other, non-vulnerable groups then the numbers would increase. CVC is indirectly supporting women processing groups, but their economic activities are not captured here. Also, if a partner project collaborates with CVC in a given community and produces results, those results cannot be used by CVC since it would be a case of double counting. These activites could include poultry, livestock, and reforestation. Related to finding 7. Recommend CVC partnering with other projects in the same zones to increase adoption of secondary income generation activities. FTF 4.5.2-39 Number of technologies or management practices in one of the following phases of development: Phase I: under research as a result of CVC assistance; Phase II: under field testing as a result of CVC assistance; Phase III: made available for transfer as a result of USG assistance (S) (With the expectation that technologies will be in Phase III)/ Cumulative 15 12 NA CVC is promoting agricultural best practices through SMFM training in formal settings, field training by GOM sub-contractors, and through demo plots managed by selected village producers. The number of demo plots (20) appears disproportional compared to the number of producer organizations in the project zones. Related to finding 6. Recommend increasing the number of demo plots and increasing the participation and contribution of private sector input suppliers to provide easy access to phytosanitary products and fertilizers. FTF 4.5(2) Number of jobs attributed to FTF implementation 3,119 500 204 41% These new jobs are attributed to casual labor used by major grain buyers in the transportation and loading of sacks. One woman in Birga Dogon, Bankass commented that in their village when harvests are good, the young people stay to work with marketing, storage and transformation. Not sure if this type of labor is measured and counted in CVC. Key Results Area and Indicator Length of Project (LOP) Target FY2015-2016 Targets Comments Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 23 ANNEX I EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK SECTION C - STATEMENT OF WORK C.1 PURPOSE The contractor will conduct the Mid-term Performance Evaluation (MPE) of the Feed the Future Cereal Value Chain (CVC) award implemented by ACOIIVOCA, which has a performance period from October 17, 2013 to October 16, 2018. In addition, this MPE is intended to independently address any gaps in the CVC Impact Evaluation award currently implemented by lOS Partners which has both quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria. C.2 BACKGROUND Award Identification Data Project Name Feed the Future Cereal Value Chain (CVC) Award Contract No. AID-688-C-13-00002 Period of Project October 17, 2013- October 16, 2018 Funding $24,971,628 Implementing Organization ACDI/VOCA Contracting Officer Representative Charles Davis (COR), Marika Olson (Alternate COR) CVC Project Description The CVC award is the central component of the USAIO/Mali CVC Project and plays a leading role in coordination and value chain integration, with support from other CVC awards that center on policy reform, research, and finance. The CVC award promotes the integrated, women empowering, and inclusive development of the sorghum/millet and rice value chains and contributes to strengthening resilience of vulnerable communities and populations. This includes key activities necessary for value chain integration and competitiveness such as production, research and technology dissemination, marketing, processing, trade, finance, capacity building and elements of policy reform. Key aspects of the implementation approach include: capacity building across an array of business development services and agricultural production skills; strengthening relationships among value chain actors and support services; and promoting an enabling environment necessary for long-term competitiveness. The goal of the CVC award is inclusive and equitable agricultural sector growth through increased value chain integration and competitiveness leading to broad-based economic growth. The purpose of the project is to increase agriculture production, productivity and incomes, by both increasing direct income to men and women farmers, as well as through various value-added income generating activities carried out by value chain actors (including: input suppliers, farmers, traders, processors, wholesalers, buyers and exporters), as well as support services that strengthen the value chain including agricultural technology providers and financial service providers. In addition, the CVC award seeks to identify and contribute to resolving key constraints with respect to the local and international enabling policy environment, to allow systematic and long￾term transformation of the agricultural sector, led by the cereal value chains. The four key Intermediate Results (IRs) to be achieved during the project include (also see Results Framework, Attachment 3): Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 24 Intermediate Result 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased • Sub IR 1.1: Technology development, dissemination, management and innovation enhanced • Sub IR 1.2: Access to quality inputs increased • Sub IR 1.3: Economically viable irrigation systems expanded • Sub IR 1.4: Soil and water management techniques improved Intermediate Result 2: Markets and Trade Expanded • Sub IR 2.1: Market-driven, value added products introduced • Sub IR 2.2: Sustainable farm to market linkages, access strengthened • Sub IR 2.3: Post-harvest handling and processing improved • Sub IR 2.4: Effective aggregation of production established • Sub IR 2.5: Access to demand-driven support services strengthened • Sub IR 2.6: Access to market information expanded Intermediate Result 3: Increased Resiliency of Vulnerable Communities and Households • Sub IR 3.1: Income streams diversified and asset building strategies employed • Sub IR 3.2: Drought resilient cropping systems adopted at scale • Sub IR 3.3: Appropriate food storage facilities available • Sub IR 3.4: Community literacy, numeracy and nutrition practices improved Intermediate Result 4: Cross-Cutting: Local Capacities and Systems Strengthened • Sub IR 4.1: Local organizations capacity to receive USAID funding developed • Sub IR 4.2: Capacity of producer groups and water-user associations improved • Sub IR 4.3: Capacity of financial service providers strengthened • Sub IR 4.4: Capacity of extension and advisor service providers strengthened The CVC award will contribute to achieving the goals and objectives of the USAID/Mali FtF strategy by contributing primarily to food access in terms of increased incomes and ability to purchase food; secondarily, to increased availability in terms of main season production and off-season or integrated production of more diverse and nutritious foods; and thirdly, to enhanced utilization (especially consumption increased quantities of high quality healthy foods). The CVC award operates under the guidance of the National Investment Plan for Agriculture in Mali and USAID/Mali's FtF strategy. The five-year award is implemented by ACDIVOCA in consortium with Nyeta Conseils and GFORCE, two local Malian organizations that implement field activities in Mopti and Sikasso respectively. Furthermore, a US-based small business, contributes to project results in terms of increased financing and investment in the key value chains. The project is based in the FtF Zone of Influence (ZOI) in the regions of Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 25 Bamako, Mopti, Sikasso, and if possible Tombouctou13. The total number of targeted rural households under the life of the project is 82,147, covering 81,716 hectares. The project also aims to facilitate $21,200,000 in rural loans and $15,640,000 in new investment, as well as increase incremental sales by $26,450,000. CVC builds on the activities of the former USAID-funded Integrated Initiatives for Economic Growth in Mali (IICEM) project (2007-2013) in terms of the database, the number of producers, the area under production, producer organizations (POs), wholesalers, food processors, and storage infrastructure built by IICEM, in order to continue bringing improved incentives at various levels of the value chains. However, the USAID CVC project is different from IICEM as it is a facilitation and capacity building project implemented with a market oriented and private sector-led approach that contributes to improved food security and improved incomes through the better accessibility to agricultural inputs and to markets with a specific focus on smallholder agricultural producers and their organizations. Furthermore, eve should carefully assess the differential impact on men and women to ensure that women represent at least 25% of the beneficiaries of the overall project efforts while training activities target a minimum of 50% female participation C.3 SCOPE C.3.1 Evaluation Rationale The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the results of the first half of the Feed the Future Cereal Value Chain (CVC) Award, which has a performance period from October 17, 2013 to October 16, 2018. This Mid-term Performance Evaluation (MPE) will also address any gaps in the CVC Impact Evaluation award currently being implemented by lOS Partners. The on-going lOS Partners Impact Evaluation for the CVC project has both quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria. The lOS Partners "Outcome Harvesting" qualitative evaluation approach seeks to address the following questions: • What are the changes in practice of the key societal actors (CVC Project boundary partners) influencing the Cereal Value Chain (since the start of the program)? • What are the emerging outcomes telling us about how the eve Activity is progressing towards its program goals? • What is the contribution of the eve Activity on the outcomes achieved? • What can we learn from the outcomes and contributions of the project implementers for future short￾term strategies and activities of the eve Activity? The results of the Impact Evaluation will serve as background documents for the MPE. The MPE should particularly focus on areas not expected to be adequately addressed through the Impact Evaluation and Outcome Harvesting, such as gender integration, project management, and sustainability. These two efforts should be complementary and not duplicative. The MPE should determine what components and project aspects are working well and why, which are not and why not, and suggest modifications and mid-course corrections, if necessary, to help guide management over second half of implementation. The evaluation should take into account relevant changes in the operating environment as well as the project SOW, for which a modification was made in May 2015. This information will be used by USAID/Mali, particularly the Accelerated Economic Growth (AEG) Office, and the project implementer and main partners to improve project performance. C.3.2 Key Questions The contractor's evaluation must respond completely and with evidence to the following questions. The key overarching evaluation questions are: Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Information required 13 The work in Tombouctou is dependent upon the security situation. Currently eve is not working in Tombouctou but is concentrating efforts in Mopti and Sikasso Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 26 What are the (positive and negative) factors contributing to the results achieved (or not achieved)? Causal (or associative) relationships -Qualitative information on process factors affecting implementation How effective has the process of value chain development, been in relation to the target agricultural value chains (rice, millet, and sorghum)? Descriptive - Qualitative information on perceptions of effectiveness and value of eve development To which extent are CVC achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? Comparative, descriptive - Qualitative information on factors affecting continuity of CVC - strengths and challenges How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? Descriptive - Qualitative and quantitative information about participation levels, unintended consequences, and stakeholder perceptions of environmental mainstreaming How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities results? Descriptive - Qualitative and quantitative information about participation levels, unintended consequences, and stakeholder perceptions of gender mainstreaming How has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? Descriptive - Qualitative information based on personnel and stakeholder interviews, review of management structure, analysis of project resource allocation and associated results C.3.3 Evaluation Design and Methodology Key Data Sources and Data Collection Methods The evaluation team should start a document review of all relevant project materials. It should also be prepared to conduct interviews with a representative selection of assisted farmers, producer organizations (POs), enterprises, and lending institutions in activity sites. The evaluation methodology also should provide for an assessment of approximately three business/value channels within the three main value chains (9 channels). To the extent possible, the evaluation should interview a wide range of activity partners at different levels of the targeted value chains in order to provide a comprehensive and coherent perspective. The Mission expects the evaluation team to present strong quantitative analysis based on existing project documentation and data available from the on-going eve impact evaluation, within data limitations, that clearly addresses key issues found in the research questions such as the direct and indirect impact and cost effectiveness of CVC. The evaluation will use a mixed-method approach. These methods include a combination of the following: Method Scope Document review USAID will provide the team with relevant documents related to CVC design, implementing Partner's Quarterly reports, Monitoring Evaluation & Learning (MEL) Plan, monitoring data reports, relevant assessments and evaluation reports from lOS Partners' and others. In addition to reviewing briefing materials provided to the team, the review team will be expected to identify additional documents and materials to fulfill the evaluation objectives. This evaluation team should assess targets, current achievements, and potential for reaching LOP goals as part of the review. Key Informant Interviews Key informants will include the complete range of stakeholders, including, but not limited to, USAID/Mali, GOM officials, other donors, implementing partner staff, other NGO staff operating in the ZOI, and beneficiaries. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 27 Focus Group Discussions Fieldwork to selected communities will include discussions on all three value chains, effects of project activities, in different geographic zones. At least one FGD in each community should be women-only. Site Visits Site visits to representative locations will include sufficient time to conduct both FGDs and physical inspection of any fields, markets, transport, value￾added locations. This inspection should include photographs as additional data validation. Other The contractor should suggest other data collection strategies, as appropriate. Data Analysis Methods Prior to the start of field data collection, the evaluation team will develop and present. for USAID/Mail review and approval; an evaluation design, to include a methodology and data analysis plan that details how focus group interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative 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 indicators and project performing monitoring records to reach conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the economic corridors initiative. The contractor must complete the below matrix based on proposed design and methodology as part of their proposal, indicating for each question the specific method, data sources, sampling, and analysis conducted. This will be refined prior to the start of fieldwork, per the preceding paragraph. C.3.4 Timeline See Section F.1 C.3.5 Deliverables: See Section F. END OF SECTION C Evaluation Question Evaluation sub￾questions Illustrative Indicators Data source/collection method Selection Criteria Data Analysis Method Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 28 ANNEX II EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Annex II.1 Evaluation Matrix Evaluation Questions Evaluation sub-questions Information Source Illustrative Indicators Data collection method Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Method(s) What are the (positive and negative) factors contributing to the results achieved (or not achieved)? What are the results achieved to date? - Project reports - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID - Number of people trained - Value of rural loans - Value of additional sales - Number of organizations assisted - Storage capacity - Incremental sales - Value of loans - Documentation review - KIIs - FGDs - Site visits (photos of infrastructure, fields) Purposive sampling of actors along value chain and sites - Content analysis - Pattern analysis - Triangulation and retroaction - Descriptive statistics Which activities/tasks are stakeholders perceiving as achieving the greatest success? What activities/tasks are stakeholder perceiving as being less successful or negative? - Project reports - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID - POs - Government counterparts - Financial service providers - Private-sector traders, processors and marketing agents What challenges or issues have inhibited the project from achieving results so far? What has the project done to mitigate those challenges? Are there any unintended primary or secondary effects that might affect project implementation moving forward? How effective has the process of value chain development, been in relation to the What components of each of the three value chains have been most successful? - Project reports - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID - Number of organizations assisted - Number of partnerships and/or agreements created - Documentation review - KIIs - FGDs - Site visits (photos of infrastructure, fields) Purposive sampling of actors along value chain and sites - Content analysis - Triangulation and retroaction - Pattern analysis What factors are facilitating or inhibiting value chain development? How are these the same/different within the three value chains? Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 29 Evaluation Questions Evaluation sub-questions Information Source Illustrative Indicators Data collection method Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Method(s) target agricultural value chains (rice, millet, and sorghum)? What has been the historical change in prices of rice, millet, and sorghum (over a year vs. from year one of the project to the next), and how has that affected value of sales and participation in the project? - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID - OMA - OPAM between the actors in the value chain - Storage capacity - Descriptive statistics To which extent are CVC achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? What level of ownership do local stakeholders have over the components of the value chain? - Project reports - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID - Number of organizations assisted - Number of partnerships and/or agreements created between the actors in the value chain - Storage capacity - Documentation review - KIIs - FGDs - Site visits (fields) Purposive sampling of actors along value chain - Content analysis - Pattern analysis - Triangulation and retroaction - Descriptive statistics To what degree have capacities been built in local organizations? How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? Have all the appropriate environmental procedures been incorporated into project implementation? - Project reports - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID environmental policy - Input suppliers - Number of people trained on environmental compliance requirements - Document review - Site visits - KIIs Purposive sampling of actors along value chain - Content analysis - Triangulation To what extent have pesticide issues been addressed (sustainability, effect on people’s health, water table, inter al.)? How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities results? To what extent has gender been considered in the different CVC activities (such as training, access to credit, sale of products, etc.)? - Project reports (Mission gender strategy and CVC gender approach; price tracking) - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID - POs - Number of vulnerable households assisted - Number of individuals benefiting from CVC supported short term agriculture sector productivity or food security training - Document review - KIIs - FGDs - Site visits (photos of infrastructure, fields) Purposive sampling of actors along value chain - Content analysis - Triangulation - Pattern What have been the contributing analysis factors of this integration and/or focus on project results? How well does the CVC gender approach mesh with local needs and norms? Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 30 Evaluation Questions Evaluation sub-questions Information Source Illustrative Indicators Data collection method Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Method(s) How has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? In looking at the goal and the results of the CVC project, is the current structure of the project is the most efficient strategy to achieve the results? - Project management reports (Annual, PMP, M&E, audit) - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G￾Force, D-Intl - USAID N/A - Document review - KIIs Systematic sampling of CVC and partner informants - Content analysis - Pattern analysis - Triangulation and retroaction What management, communication, and coordination processes exist in CVC among the three implementing partners? What challenges has the project management encountered and have they could meet/mitigate those? Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 31 Annex II.2 Description of the Selection Process of Beneficiaries The approach was guided by the five criteria listed on Page 4 of this report. Homogeneity of participants has been considered as strategy to get a particular subgroup with less variation, which simplifies analysis and facilitate group interviewing (individuals and group of farmer organizations). The purpose was to get answers from the selected participants using the same questions to converge results and to complement the gap in data collected. The household was considered as the sample unit for interviews and FGDs in Sikasso and Mopti. Two updated lists of Mali CVC partner organizations and enterprises were received respectively from Nyeta Conseil for Mopti and from G￾Force for Sikasso regions. Each list described stakeholders per communes and villages. The team was constrained by time to complete fieldwork in the two regions (only 15 days with travel days included).. Considering the security constraints as well, the team had to cover villages and communes in an eight-hour day within a maximum distance of 50 km to the regional capitals. The team also cleaned these lists to get the population of communes and villages. In total, nine communes and 37 villages/farmer organization cooperatives were selected within three cercles in Mopti, namely the capital, Bankass and Koro. In Sikasso, the team reached nine communes and 36 villages or farmer organization cooperatives within three cercles: Sikasso, Koutiala and Bougouni. Finally, villages were numbered on folded slips of paper and put into 9 separate boxes, each box representing a commune for both Mopti and Sikasso. An external person was called to pick only one paper slip representing one village in each box and a team member was recording the name of the selected village. This exercise was completed until the team received the list of 18 villages, nine each for Mopti and Sikasso (see Tables 3 and 4 below). TABLE 3. LISTE DES BENEFICIAIRES COUVERT A SIKASSO (ORGANISATIONS DE PRODUCTEURS) Cercles Communes Villages Type d’OP Chaines de valeurs Remarques Bougouni Bougouni Kobougou OP Féminine Riz 4-8 km Bougouni Koumantou Chobougou OP Masculine Mil/Sorgho 10 km de Koumantou Zantiébougou Sola OP mixte Sorgho 30 km Sikasso Nièna Banzana OP Féminine Riz 25 km de Niéna Klela Loutana OP Féminine Riz 40 km de Sikasso Fama Fama OP Masculine Mil/Sorgho 29 km de Sikasso Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 32 Cercles Communes Villages Type d’OP Chaines de valeurs Remarques Koutiala Zangasso Sangaba OP Masculine Mil/Sorgho 34 km Koutiala Koloningué Soussoula OP Masculine Mil/Sorgho 40 km de Koutiala Koutiala Signe OP mixte Mil/Sorgho 25 km de Koutiala TABLE 4. LISTE DES BENEFICIAIRES COUVERT A MOPTI (ORGANISATIONS DE PRODUCTEURS) Cercles Communes Villages (OP) Remarques Distance Chaines de valeurs Mopti Borondougou Komio 45 km de Mopti 40 km Riz Konna Sense 50 km de Mopti 50 km Riz Mopti commune Bargondaga +/- 5 km de Mopti 40 km Riz Bankass Bankass Central Sogara, MEREBARA 10 km de Bankass 25 km Mil Dimbal Habbe Kana, KANTIEMOU 20 km de Bankass 31 km Mil Segue Koume, Societe Cooperative Agro Sylvo Pastorale 45 km de Bankass 35 km Mil Koro Barapireli Barapireli, Monobeme 30 km de Koro 32 km Mil Pel Maoude Birga Dogon, Moni Biman 30 km de Koro 20 km Mil Youdiou Tourou, Cooperative Kamonon 25 km de Koro 18 km Mil Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 33 Annex II.3 Simplified Data Collection Methods and Sources Evaluation Question Data Collection Method Data Sources What are the (positive and negative) factors contributing to the results achieved (or not achieved)? - Documentation review - Project reports (activity documentation and AMEP reports) - KIIs - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G-Force, D-Intl - Microfinance institutions (MFI): BNDA, BOA, BMS and SOROYIWASO - Input providers: Tougouna, Dado production, Danaya cereals, Camara semences - DRA, ORM and CMDT; PAM, OPAM; USAID - Planete Distribution, Moulaye Sounkaro, Sidike Doumbia - Representatives of POs - FGDs - POs - Site visits - Photos of infrastructure and fields How effective has the process of value chain development, been in relation to the target agricultural value chains (rice, millet and sorghum)? - Documentation review - Project reports (activity documentation and M&E reports) - KIIs - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G-Force, D-Intl - MFIs: BNDA, BOA, BMS and SOROYIWASO - Input providers: Tougouna, Dado production, Danaya Cereals, Camara semences) - DRA, ORM and CMDT; PAM, OPAM; USAID - Representatives of POs To which extent are CVC achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? - Document review - Project reports (training reports and AMEP) - KIIs - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, GForce, D-Intl. - MFIs: BNDA, BOA, BMS and SOROYIWASO - DRA, ORM and CMDT; PAM, OPAM; USAID - Representatives of producer organizations - FGDs - POs How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? - Document review - Project documents (environmental assessment reports) - KIIs - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G-Force, D-Intl - USAID environmental officers - DRA, ORM and CMDT - Site visits - Photos of infrastructure and fields How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities results? - Document review - Project reports (activity documentation, Mission gender strategy, gender approach and AMEP) - KIIs - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G-Force, D-Intl - Representatives of POs - FGDs - POs - Site visits - Field observations How has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? - Document review - Project management reports (annual, M&E, audit, baseline reports) - KIIs - CVC, Nyeta Conseil, G-Force, D-Intl - USAID Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 34 Annex II.4 Field Work Strategy The evaluation team was composed of two international consultants (one team leader and one senior evaluation specialist) who completed the data collection in Bamako, Mopti and Sikasso. Two local experts and two researchers — the roles and responsibilities of each member of the evaluation team is highlighted below — to assist them and to balance the knowledge of cereal value chains and evaluation methodology. As depicted in Figure 2, two teams were created for data collection separately for each region: 1) the team leader, one local evaluation expert and one researcher covered Mopti; and 2) the senior evaluation specialist, one local value chain expert and one researcher covered Sikasso. FIGURE 2 DATA COLLECTION TEAMS AND FIELDWORK PLAN The fieldwork activities spanned four weeks, including KIIs in Bamako in Week 1. The team had the flexibility to have a few days upon return from Mopti and Sikasso for further interviews to gather any missing information (via phone and face-to-face interviews) in Week 4. Work activities in the field were carried out in Weeks 2 and 3 on a six-day work week while working around prayer times, and other community ceremonies and obligations. Since the farm producer focus meetings took place during the agricultural harvest, efforts were taken to inform groups at least two days beforehand to avoid work delays in their respective fields and to schedule those group interviews at the end of the farm day. Three key phases were considered for data collection. The first phase initially ran from October 31 to November 2 and continued from November 8 to 9 for face-to-face interviews (semi-structured) in Bamako. Participants represented input suppliers, agriculture financiers, USAID and other partners. The second phase was done from November 10 to 26. The two sub-teams described above collectively moved to Ségou on November 10 to interview two CVC partners, such as Nyeita Conseil and G-Force They simultaneously moved to Mopti and Sikasso for KIIs with regional-based value chain actors, including important traders, microfinance institutions, government agricultural offices and CVC subcontractors. They also purposively selected farmer focus groups to include women’s cooperatives and associations. Bamako Briefings & interviews Data collection tools developed Key informant interviews Team meeting & recap Mopti (Team 2) Key informant interviews Focus group discussions Field observations Team meeting & recap Sikasso (Team 1) Key informant interviews Focus group discussions Field observations Team meeting & recap Bamako (Teams 1 & 2) Final key informant interviews Reconciliation of field data Data analysis and reporting Debriefings Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 35 The third phase was done upon return from the fieldwork in country for completion of any missing information. The evaluation team then moved to data analysis and preparing of findings, conclusions and recommendations. Two briefing presentations provided initial results and trends for USAID (in English) on December 5, and upon approval by USAID, one to the CVC project (in French) on December 6. The evaluation timeline is below in Annex II.5. Figure 2 shows the fieldwork plan for this mission. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 36 Annex II.5 Evaluation Timeline TABLE 5. EVALUATION TIMELINE Dates Activities 24 – 27 October 2016 Signed contract and engagement of evaluation team members; Initial document review 28 October 2016 Travel of team leader & senior evaluation specialist to Bamako 29 October 2016 Team leader & senior evaluation specialist arrived in Bamako 31 October 2016 Team planning meeting with MSI; Initial meeting with USAID 1 – 4 November 2016 Team planning meeting; Initial interviews with CVC and USAID 5 – 6 November 2016 Evaluation Work Plan submitted to MSI for comments; Evaluation Work Plan submitted to USAID for comments 7 November 2016 Final review and printing of evaluation instruments; Comments received on work plan and evaluation design 8 – 9 November 2016 Bamako interviews; Preparation for travel in Ségou and later to Sikasso and Mopti simultaneously 10 November 2016 Travel to Ségou for interview with Nyeita Conseil and G-Force 11 November 2016 Interviews in commune capital simultaneously in Mopti and Sikasso 12 November 2016 Travel simultaneously to communes and villages in Mopti and Sikasso 13 - 23 November 2016 Data collection in communes and villages simultaneously in Sikasso and Mopti 24 – 25 November 2016 Interviews in commune capital 26 November 2016 Teams travel back to Bamako 28 November – 3 December 2016 Analysis and initial reporting (draft findings, conclusions and recommendations) 05 December 2016 Prepare for debrief 06 December 2016 Debriefings USAID and CVC; Team leader and senior evaluation specialist departs from Bamako 7 – 20 December 2016 Report writing 21 December 2016 Draft report to platform 6 January 2017 Draft report to USAID/Mali 20 January 2017 Comments received USAID/Mali 10 February 2017 Final report submitted USAID/Mali Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 37 Annex II.6 Roles and Responsibilities of Evaluation Team Members Team Leader - David Benafel • Organize and manage key informant and group interviews at the communal and village levels • Ensure data quality • Coordinate the field schedule in Mopti • Provide updates as necessary to the Platform senior team • Maintain contact with the Sikasso field team to ensure uniformity • Manage field finances for the Mopti team and ensure financial compliance for all teams • Conduct data analysis for both qualitative and quantitative sources • Analyze findings conclusions and recommendations to respond fully to evaluation questions • Integrate findings, conclusions and recommendations by region and across the two regions • Serve as lead writer and as a technical reviewer of deliverables • Provide agriculture sector expertise, throughout the evaluation to embed conclusions and recommendations in the literature and according to accepted practices Senior Evaluation Specialist - Serge Eric Yakeu Djiam • Assist the team leader in the development of workplan, team planning meeting, data analysis • Document review • Conduct with TL the Bamako-based interviews • Lead filed data collection in Sikasso • Supervise key informant interviews and focus group discussions • Supervise field visits with photographs as additional data validation • Lead the data analysis • Draft and refine briefings • Participate in the design and writing of evaluation report • Participate in briefings for USAID, CVC and MSI • Review presentation of preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations M&E Specialist and Team Assistant - Hamadoum Bocoum • Facilitate communication in Bamako prior to team arrival • Participate in team planning workshop and finalizing data collection instruments • Conduct FGD • Facilitate KII • Participate in preliminary analysis phase • Review draft report and provide inputs Agricultural Economist and Team Assistant - Aly Diallo • Participate in team planning workshop and finalizing data collection instruments Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 38 • Conduct FGD • Facilitate KII • Participate in preliminary analysis phase • Review draft report and provide inputs Field Assistants - Aminata Ouane and Agnes Karakodjo • Notetaking • Translations • Data entry Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 39 ANNEX III DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Annex III.1 Interview questionnaires Notes: 1) Interview guides were adapted per the role and responsibilities of each key informant involved into the three value chains. 2) Input suppliers, processors and financial institutions were not considered by EQ5 and 6; Grain buyers (grain collectors and exporters) were not considered for EQ4, 5 and 6; and CVC partners such as DRA, ORM, IER and CMDT were not considered for EQ6. Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews This questionnaire has been developed to gather your consent for the mid-term performance evaluation. Your answers will remain confidential and will be used only for learning to improve the implementation steps of the Cereal Value Chain in Mali Name of key informant: __________________________________ KII Code: ____________ Organisation: _________________________________ Position: __________________ Date: _______________________________ Place: _____________________ EQ1. What are the (positive and negative) factors contributing to the results achieved (or not achieved)? EQ1.1. What has the project done to date with regards to your expectations? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ1.2. What challenges or issues have inhibited the project from achieving results so far? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ1.3. What has the project done to mitigate those challenges? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ1.4. What are unintended effects that might affect project implementation moving forward? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ2. How effective has the process of value chain development, been in relation to the target agricultural value chains (rice, millet, and sorghum)? EQ2.1. What components of each of the three value chains have been most successful? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ2.2. What factors are facilitating or inhibiting value chain development? How are these the same/different within the three value chains? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ2.3 What has been the historical change in prices of rice, millet, and sorghum (over a year vs. from year one of the project to the next), and how has that affected value of sales or participation in the project? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ3. To which extent are CVC achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 40 EQ3.1. What level of ownership do local stakeholders have over the components of the value chain? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ3.2. To what degree have capacities been built in local organizations? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ4. How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? EQ4.1. Have all the appropriate environmental procedures been incorporated into project implementation? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ4.2. To what extent have pesticide issues been addressed (effect on people’s health, water table)? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ5. How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities results? EQ5.1. To what extent has gender been considered in the different CVC activities (such as training, access to credit, sale of products, etc.)? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ5.2. What have been the contributing factors of this integration and/or focus on project results? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ5.3. How well does the CVC gender approach mesh with local needs and norms? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ6. How has project management contributed to or inhibited project results? EQ6.1. In looking at the goal and the results of the CVC project, is the current structure of the project is the most efficient strategy to achieve the expected results? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ6.2. What management, communication, and coordination processes exist in CVC among the three implementing partners? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ6.3. What challenges has the project management encountered and have they could meet/mitigate those (Eg. Frequency of field visits, Delay in reporting, delay of feedbacks, security, implementation of recommendations, etc)? Thanks for your availability! Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 41 Annex III.2 Focus Group Guide Notes: The same interview guide has been considered for lead farm producer (male or female), and for both men and women focus group discussions. The objective was to cross-check and complement answers from these categories given the low level of literacy of the beneficiaries (producer organizations). Questionnaire for Focus Group Discussions (List of participants to be added separately with age) This questionnaire has been developed to gather your consent for the mid-term performance evaluation. Your answers will remain confidential and will be used only for learning to improve the implementation steps of the Cereal Value Chain in Mali. FGs Code: _____________ FG category (Male/Female/ECA): __________________ Name of the group: ________________________________________________________ Date: ________________ Commune: _________________ Village: __________________ EQ1. What are the (positive and negative) factors contributing to the results achieved (or not achieved)? EQ1.1. What has the project done to date with regards to your expectations? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ1.2. What challenges or issues have inhibited the project from achieving results so far? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ1.3. What has the project done to mitigate those challenges? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ1.4. What are unintended effects that might affect project implementation moving forward? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ2. How effective has the process of value chain development, been in relation to the target agricultural value chains (rice, millet, and sorghum)? EQ2.1. What components of each of the three value chains have been most successful? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ2.2. What factors are facilitating or inhibiting value chain development? How are these the same/different within the three value chains? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ2.3 What has been the historical change in prices of rice, millet, and sorghum (over a year vs. from year one of the project to the next), and how has that affected value of sales and participation in the project? Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 42 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ3. To which extent are CVC achieved results likely to continue after the end of the activity? EQ3.1. What level of ownership do local stakeholders have over the components of the value chain? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ3.2. To what degree have capacities been built in local organizations? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ4. How well have environmental compliance requirements been incorporated into project activities and adhered to? EQ4.1. Have all the appropriate environmental procedures been incorporated into project implementation? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ4.2. To what extent have pesticide issues been addressed (effect on people’s health, water table)? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ5. How well has gender been mainstreamed into project activities results? EQ5.1. To what extent has gender been considered in the different CVC activities (such as training, access to credit, sale of products, etc.)? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ5.2. What have been the contributing factors of this integration and/or focus on project results? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EQ5.3. How well does the CVC gender approach mesh with local needs and norms? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your availability! Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 43 Annex III.3 Direct Observation Checklist for Fieldwork Structure observation checklist Date: ________________ Commune: _________________ Place: __________________ Ob1. Value chain production unit: 1) Sorghum 2) Millet, 3) Riz Irrigated Dryland other: Ob2. Seeds, pesticides (Fungicide, Insecticide, Herbicide) and types of fertilizers Ob3. Note books for Producer organizations (meeting events, frequency of field visits, etc.) Ob4. Note books and offices of CVC partners: 1) Nyeta Conseil 2) GForce, 3) D-Intl Ob5. Note books and offices of technical partners (DRA, ORM, CMDT) Ob6. Processor units and storage facilities Ob7. List of trainings and tools (themes, numbers of trainees) Ob8. Any other specific observation (To be completed in-country) - Contracts (Traders & FO, Input suppliers & FO, etc.) - Other relevant observations - Comments on observations Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 44 ANNEX IV SOURCE OF INFORMATION Annex IV.1 List of Persons Interviewed Bamako, Mali Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 31/10/16 MSI. Imm. SONIT Hamdallaye ACI 2000 Phone: +223 20 22 43 81 / 20 22 43 84. Mr. Ciro Franco Mrs. Alice Williard, Senior M&E Specialist Mr. Hamadoum Bocoum, M&E Specialist Mr. Salifou Bamako USAID, US Embassy in Bamako. ACI 2000, Rue 243 Porte 297. P.O. Box 34 Bamako. +223 2070-2691. Mr. Charles Davis, Agricultural Development Officer Mr. Amadou Diane, Project Management Specialist 01/11/16 Feed the future Mali Project (CVC) Niamakoro, Cité Unicef/Rue 79 B.P E666 Bamako, Malo. +223 20201067 / 724343 44. Mr. Richard Dick Cook (PhD), Chief of Party Mr. Zoumana Doumbia, Deputy Project Manager Mr. Daniel Coulibaly, Mr. Oumar Saounera, M&E Officer, Mr. Diallo Yacouba Mme. Nana Rosalie Sidibé, Bamako 02/11/16 Feed the future Mali Project (CVC) Niamakoro, Cité Unicef/Rue 79 B.P E666 Bamako, Malo. +223 20201067 / 72434344. Mr. Zoumana Doumbia Mr. Mr. Oumar Saounera, M&E Officer Mr. Daniel Coulibaly Bamako 04/11/16 USAID, US Embassy in Bamako Mr. David Yanggen Bamako 08/11/16 USAID, US Embassy in Bamako Mrs. Marika Olson Bamako Camara semences, Mr. Camara 09/11/16 Compagnie Malienne Pour le Développement des Textiles (CMDT). PO.Box 487 Bamako, Mali. +223 66 76 28 14. ont@cmdt.ml / traoreousmane@yahoo.fr Mr. Ousmane N. Traore, Agricultural Technical Adviser Mr. Seydou Keita, CTAS Mr. Coulibaly Idrissa, Chef Cellule S&E et Statistiques Mr. Nono Diakité, Responsible Statistiques Bamako Danaya Cereales (Grain Processor) Mrs. DEM, Director. 30/11/16 Dado Production, Processor Mr. Nantène Coulibaly, 76476173/63493132 Bamako D-Intl / ACREEFINE. +223 66758075/76356743 Mr. Djibril Boubakar Ba, Manager, djibouba@yahoo.fr 01/12/16 World Food Programme, Mali Country Office Mr. Ali Abdoul Salami, Programme Officer (P4P), 75814528, ali.abdoulsalami@wfp.org Mr. Nouhou Cisse, M&E officer, 76203916/69874606 Bamako Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 45 Ségou Region Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 10/11/16 G-Force, +223 21320975 / 74024898/66717950 Mr. Nouhoun Diarra, President Mr. Diakite Cheick Fanta mady, Principal Adviser, Mrs. Kadidja Diakite, Communication Officer Ségou Nyeta Conseil Mr. Yacouba Coulibaly, Mission Officer, 76428449 Sikasso Region Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 11/11/16 Doumbia & Fils (Grain Buyer, Wholesaler and Exporter) Mr. Sidiki Badian Doumbia, Director, 66 52 37 09 Mr. Moussa, Office Assistant Koutiala Farmer Cooperative of Signe (Millet & Sorghum) KII of the President, Mr. Moumouni Traoré, 73444862 ECA focus group (4/4 participants) Men Focus group (20/94 participants) Women focus group (4/4 participants) Signe 12/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Sangaba (Millet & Sorghum) KII of the President, Mr. Bouackar Kone, 66 34 47 36/79 05 52 68 ECA focus group (2/4 participants) Men Focus group (10/45 participants) Sangaba 13/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Soussoula (Millet & Sorghum) KII of the President, Mr. Gaoussou Sangaré, 60 51 55 43 ECA focus group (3/4 participants) Men Focus group (4/8 participants) Soussoula 14/11/16 Compagnie Malienne Pour le Développement des Textiles (CMDT). Koutiala Mr. Youssouf Tangara, Statistic Officer, 76 17 19 47 Mr. Zana Diarra, Production Division officer, 76 01 63 53 Mr. Bréhima Diarra, Production Division Officer, 79 49 74 54 Mr. Lassana Sangaré, Capacity Building Officer, 76 21 55 82 Koutiala Bank of Africa (BOA). Mamadou Fofana, Customer Service Officer, 7649 89 57 National Bank for Agricultural Development (BNDA), Koutiala. Tel: +223 21640066. Mr. Badara Aliou Dembele, Branch Manager. bdembele@bndamali.com Mr. Malick Kabirou Sarr, Customer Service Adviser. Msarr2@bndamali.com Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 46 Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 15/11/16 GForce office in Sikasso. Mr. Mamadou Touré, Sorghum & Millet Specialist, 76 33 39 99 Mr. Abdoulaye Togola, Program Coordinator, 78 69 63 68 Mr. Boureïma Komnotougo, Training Officer, 76 45 78 56 Mrs. Goundo Sogoba, Office Attendant, 75 2 54 64 Mr. Allasane Togo, Irrigation specialist, 76 67 36 26 Mr. Oumar Dembelé, BDS Marketing, 79 07 03 84 Mrs. Kadidiatou Mariko, Gender Specialist, 66 85 57 37 Mr. Adama B Sanogo, M&E Assistant, 76 20 74 79 Mr. Mahamadou Djiré, Accountant, 76 49 10 99 Mr. Alou Konaté, M&E Intern, 63 79 00 03 Mr. Youba Sangaré, Accountant Intern, 67 71 71 14 Mrs. Bintou Camara, Administrative Assistant, 79 12 62 56 Sikasso 16/11/16 Regional Delegation for Agriculture (DRA), Sikasso. Mr. Yaya Diallo, Adviser and Extension Service Officer, 76015162 Mr. Issa Bah, Focal Point CVC, 76 34 86 29 Compagnie Malienne Pour le Développement des Textiles (CMDT). Sikasso Mr. Abdoulaye Cisse, HR Manager Mr. Hamady Traore, Adviser & Production Division officer, 76065296 Mr. Ibrahima Diarra, Trainer and Adviser, 79 37 73 74 IER/CCRA. Sikasso Mr. Baba Sidibe, Agronomist, 66816201 Mr. Moro Traore, Phytopathologist for Rice, 79069641 Mr. Cisse, Irrigated Rice Breeding Specialist, 76377169 Soro yiriwaso, Sikasso Mr. Ouattara Oumar, Branch Manager, 76376187 17/11/16 SUPROSA, Sikasso Dr. Kokozie Traore, General Manager, 76393270/66724979 Mr. Kalilou Traore, Seed Salers, 76273917/63201088 Sikasso Investment and Commercial Bank for Sahel in Mali (BSIC), Sikasso Branch Mr. Sekou Daifourou Ongoiba, Branch Manager, 76426328 /65663131. bsicmali@bsicbank.com KONI JIGINE SARL, Cereal Trader, Sikasso. konijigine@gmail.com Mr. Kalou Diallo, Director, 76 14 07 11/ 66 72 74 59 Mr. Adama Diallo, Accountant 18/11/16 Farmer cooperative of Balaba (Fama) (Millet & Sorghum) KII of the President, Mr. Nsi Dembelé ECA focus group (3/4 participants) Men Focus group (4/9 participants) Fama, Fama 19/11/16 Cooperative Espoir du village Banzana (Rice) KII of the President, Mrs. Rokia Diallo ECA focus group (3/4 participants) Women Focus group (56/120 participants) Banzana, Niéna 21/11/16 Fokan Ben Association of Loutana (Rice) KII of the President, Mrs. Diarra Traore (74209119) ECA focus group (3/4 participants) Women Focus group (6/224 participants) Loutana, Klela Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 47 Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 22/11/16 Cooperative des producteurs de Cotton et Cereals de Chobogou (Millet & Sorghum) KII of the President, Mr. Kassoum Kone ECA focus group (3/4 participants) Men Focus group (5/18 participants) Chobogou, Koumantou Grain buyer (Rice, Millet and Sorghum) Mr. Mamadou Koné, Manager, 66 77 77 89 Koumantou 23/11/16 BNDA, Bougouni. +223 20704345 Mr. Cheickna Camara, Branch Manager, 66793581/76279700 Bougouni Cooperative des Femmes Transformatrices des Produits Agro-alimentaires (COFETRAPAL) Mrs. Sangaré, Deputy Director, 76 25 95 82 KAFO JIGINEW, Microfinance. jaramolo@yahoo.fr Mr. Adama Maley, Chef de Caisse, 76 17 58 32 / 63 76 5993 Mr. Malobélé Diarra, PCA, 66 69 40 68/76 14 37 53 TOGOUNA, Input suppliers (Seed, pesticides and fertilizers) Mr. Boulkassoum Kane, Director, 76 25 96 20. Mr. Alassane Konaté, Warehouse manager, Mr. Daouda Sangare, Office Manager Grain Buyer (collector) Mr. Kalifa Camara, Manager, 76179090 24/11/16 Cooperative Wassa de Kodougou, Bougouni (Rice) KII of the President, Mrs. Bassa Diakité, 67188250 ECA focus group (2/4 participants) Women Focus group (15/25 participants) Kobougou, Woman Grain Buyer Mrs. Mah Samaké, Cereal trader, 75112453/ 66244120 Bougouni 25/11/16 Cooperative Fasso Daben Sene de Sola, (Millet & Sorghum) KII of the President, Mr. Bakary Mariko, 73 26 25 78 ECA focus group (3/4 participants) Men Focus group (11/51 participants) Women Focus group (8/51 participants) Sola, Zantiébougou Mopti region Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 12/11/16 Nyeta Conseils Mopti Elise Bagayoko, Coordinator 76 18 90 93, Allasane Keita, Specialist M+E, Bakara Diallo, Specialist Commercial, Abdoulaye Ouologuem, Assistant M+E, Abdoulaye Kah, Specialist Riz, Oumou Cisse, Specialist Genre, Fatou Sanogo, Coach/Mopti Sevare 12/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Bargondaga Village Sory Ibrahim Samasekou, President, Tel: 70 68 29 16 Focus Group Men: 6/171 Focus Group Women: 2/4 Leader/ECA Focus Group: 4/4 Mopti 13/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Komio Village Ousman Komou, President, Tel: 78 87 12 55 Focus Group Men: 13/171 Focus Group Women: 5/14 Leader/ECA Focus Group: 4/4 Komio/Mopti 14/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Sense Village Kambe Timbo, President 75 47 88 65 Focus Group Men: 6/171 Focus Group Women: 5/15 Leader/ECA Focus Group: 4/4 Sense/Mopti 15/11/16 Planete Distribution Ousman Cisse, PDG Aboubacar Traore, General Manager Mopti 15/11/16 Ets. Moulaye Sankoro Moulaye Sankoro, PDG Baremiya Keita, Advisor Mopti Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 48 Dates Organisations and contacts Stakeholders and positions Places 15/11/16 Ets. Mamadou Guindo Mamadou Guindo, PDG Mopti 16/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Sogara Village Moussa Guindo, President, 79 23 99 61 Focus Group Men 20/70, Focus Group Women 6/36 Focus Group Leaders/ECA 4/4 Bankass 17/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Birga Dogon Ousman Togo , President 74 78 51 28 Focus Group Men 10/145, Focus Group Women 6/6 Focus Group Leaders/ECA 4/4 Koro 18/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Kane Elysee Tessougue 62 81 56 82, President Focus Group Men 10/145, Focus Group Women 6/6 Focus Group Leaders/ECA 4/4 Bankass Office Riz Mopti Mr. Lassine Dembele, Regional Director Ibrahim Malle, Advisor Sevare Farmer Cooperative of Kane Men Focus Group 10/33 participants Women Focus Group 5/9 participants Kana/Bankass 19/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Koume Adama Arama, President 82 08 30 94 Men Focus Group 25/71 Women Focus Group 9/19 Koume/Bankass 21/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Tourou Benjamin Poudoigo, President 64 16 90 37 Men Focus Group 7/82 Women Focus Group 9/42 Tourou/Koro 22/11/16 Farmer Cooperative of Barpirelli Men Focus Group 6/26 Women Focus Group 10/46 Barpirelli/Koro 23/11/16 Nyeta Conseils Staff Elise Bagayoko, Coordinator/Specialists Sevare/Mopti Sogea Fatoumata Guindo, Manager, guindotoumata@gmail.com Direction Regionale d’Agriculture (DRA) Jean Pierre Toto, Interim Director Ousman Camara, Advisor, 62 62 52 50 Togouna Fertilizer Company Sekou Sala Djiguiba, Manager 69 76 23 17 24/11/16 Diama Djigui Food Transformation Cooperative Kadia Traore, President 76 33 22 22 Focus Group 5/17 Sevare Agro-Tropic Fertilizer Co. Aboudou Kentou CFBA Food Transformation Cooperative Mme Diallo Aissatou Traore Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 49 Annex IV.2 Biography of Documents Reviewed 1) Annual Report: October 1, 2015–September 30, 2016. 2) Annex A: Key Indicators Results. 3) Annex B: Gantt chart, Feed the Future Mali Cereal Value Chain Project (CVC). Workplan FY 2016-Q4 : July 1, 2016 - September 30, 2016. 4) Annex C: Training and workshops conducted in FY2015. 5) Annex D: Meetings and field visits conducted in FY2015. 6) Annex E: Fairs & market linkages facilitated by CVC. 7) Annex E: Revised feed the future intervention zones. 8) Annex E - Progress to date of PMP - Quarter III - Year III. 9) Annex H: CVC Indicators per Sub Intermediate Result (Sub IR). 10) Annex 3: Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) plan. 11) Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. 12) COR Memorandum for Data Quality Assessment, January-February 2016. 13) Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 14) CVC Baseline Impact Evaluation Data Collection Report, September 20, 2016. 15) CVC Key results area and indicators FY2016-Q2. 16) CVC Key results area and indicators Quarter one – FY2016. 17) Data Quality Assessment Checklist and Recommended Procedures 18) Draft FY 2016 WORK PLAN, Feed the future Mali Cereal Value chain project. 19) Environmental monitoring and mitigation report Q1 – FY2016. 20) Environmental monitoring and mitigation report FY2016-Q2. 21) Environmental monitoring and mitigation report FY2016-Q3. 22) Fiche technique de formation. Système de riziculture intensive (SRI) irriguée. Pluvial et de bas￾fonds. Juin 2016. 23) Fiche technique de production de mil– à l’intention des Coachs Agribusiness/FTF-Mali/CVC. 24) Fiche technique de production de sorgho– à l’intention des Equipes Coachs/FTF-Mali/CVC. 25) FY2016 Quarter 1 report. October 01, 2015 – December 31, 2015 26) FY2015 Annual Report, USAID Cereal Value Chain Project. October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 50 27) FY 2015, Q2 Quarterly Report, USAID Cereal Value Chain Project. January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015. 28) FY2015, Q1 Quarterly Report, USAID Cereal Value Chain Project. October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. 29) FY2014 Annual Report, USAID Cereal Value Chain project. 30) Gagner Plus en Vendant Plus (GV+). Guide de facilitateur. Version 1 – USAID/ Projet Chaîne de Valeur des Céréales au Mali. Module 1: L’Organisation de la Coopérative. Module 2: La Commercialisation ; Module 3: La Tenue des Registres. Module 4 : La Gestion des Opérations, Décembre, 2014. 31) Impact evaluation and quantitative population-based surveys, baseline data report, February 2016. 32) List of Mali CVC partner organizations and enterprises in Mopti and Sikasso regions (2016). 33) Module de formation des membres des ECA en commercialisation des chaines de valeurs céréales : riz, mil et sorgho. Guide de formation du coach. Novembre 2015 34) MSI Organizational Conflict of Interest. Management and Mitigation Plan (OCI M&MP), USAID/Mali Task Order Number AID-688-TO-15-00001. Under IDIQ Number AID-688-I-15- 00006, Management Systems International, Inc. USAID/Mali Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Platform (Mali PMEP). 35) Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 36) Progress to date of PMP - Quarter III - Year III. 37) Quarterly Report: Q3, USAID Cereal Value Chain project. 38) Quarterly report: Q3 USAID Cereal Value Chain Project, April 1, 2014 – June 30, 2014. 39) Quarterly report: Q1 FY 2014. Mali Cereal Value Chain, Oct 17, 2013 – December 31, 2013. 40) Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 41) Value Chain Analysis (VCA) in Mali: Millet, Sorghum, and Rice. Cereal Value Chain (CVC) project. May 2014 42) Workplan, Quarter Two: January 1, 2016 - March 31, 2016. 43) Workplan FY 2016-Q3: April 1, 2016 - June 30, 2016. 44) YEAR 1 Work plan, USAID Cereal Value Chain Project. 45) YEAR II Work plan, USAID Cereal Value Chain Project. Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 51 ANNEX V DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Mali Cereals Value Chain Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Final Report 52 Name Serge Eric Yakeu Djiam Title Senior Evaluation Specialist, Field Associate Organization International Independent Consultant Evaluation Position? Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 609700.03-500-03-13 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) CVC MID-TERM PERFORM EVAL, I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 12/15/2016