FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT CHANJE LAVI PLANTÈ ACTIVITY March 2020 This publication was produced independently by Social Impact, Inc. at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by the Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services of Social Impact, Inc., the USAID/Haiti Contractor. SOURCE: FY2017 CLP ANNUAL REPORT 2 ABSTRACT Chanje Lavi Plantè (CLP), which was designed to sustainably transform the Haitian agricultural sector by increasing incomes and contributing to improved food security, was operational from 2015 to 2018 with a budget of $25 million and implemented by Chemonics International. The purpose of this evaluation was to inform United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) future agriculture programming. The evaluation addressed three questions: • EQ1 - To what extent has the activity increased household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? • EQ2 - To what extent have the activity’s approaches and strategies increased revenue and food security? • EQ3- To what extent will CLP activities continue, considering the financial, institutional, and technical aspects of the activities? Evaluation methods combined qualitative and quantitative data including document review and secondary data. Respondents strongly agreed that CLP increased production and yields, contributing directly to increasing incomes. CLP’s approach to increasing agricultural productivity was based on providing a “package” of support including: training in improved agricultural techniques, access to inputs and equipment, extension services, and irrigation. According to respondents, training in new agricultural production techniques and maintenance of irrigation canals had the greatest benefit to farmers, followed by access to inputs. Many respondents saw irrigation as the key driver of increased production and, therefore, income. Among the activities that respondents felt would be sustained over time were new agricultural techniques, maintenance of irrigation canals, and strengthened local organizations. These activities were considered the strengths of the CLP approach and were the most requested forms of future support from USAID. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 2 ACRONYMS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Evaluation Purpose and Questions 5 Activity Background 5 Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations 5 Findings and conclusions 6 Recommendations 9 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Country Context 10 Problem Statement 11 Theory of Change 11 Activity Background 14 Evaluation Purpose 16 Evaluation Questions 17 II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 17 Methodological Overview 17 Guiding Principles 17 Phase One: Document Review 18 Phase Two: Data Collection 18 Phase Three: Data Analysis 4 Phase Four: Dissemination and Utilization 5 Data Gaps and Limitations 5 III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 7 EQ1: To what extent has the activity been successful in increasing the household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? 7 EQ2: To what extent and in what ways have the project’s approaches and strategies (Theory of Change) contributed to the achievement of its expected results (to increasing revenue & food security at household level)? 11 EQ3: To what extent will CLP activities continue after the activity, considering the financial, institutional and technical aspects of the activities? 16 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 21 ANNEX A. SCOPE OF WORK 23 ANNEX B. EVALUATION MATRIX 34 ANNEX C. CLP RESULTS FRAMEWORK 36 ANNEX D. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 39 ANNEX E. KII AND FGD INTERVIEWEES 41 ANNEX G. FGD QUESTIONNAIRES 50 ANNEX H. HOUSEHOLD-LEVEL FARMER QUANTITATIVE SURVEY 55 3 ACRONYMS ACGM Agricultural Credit Guarantee Mechanism ADS Automated Directive System AGCRDDM Association de Gestion du Centre Rural de Développement Durable de Montrouis ATIOS Asosyasyon Tetansanm Izaje Odsenmak BAC Bureau Agricole Communal BIA Boutique d’Intrants Agricoles (Agricultural Input Shops) CFM Conseils, Formation, Monitoring en Développement CHASE Collectif Haïtien pour l’Avancement du Suivi et de l’Evaluation CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center CLP Chanje Lavi Plantè COR Contracting Officer's Representative CRDD Centre Rural de Développement Durable DO Development Objective ESS Evaluation and Survey Services EQ Evaluation Question EQUI Evaluation Quality, Use, and Impact ET Evaluation Team FGD Focus Group Discussion FONHDAD Fondation Haïtienne de Développement Agricole Durable FTF Feed the Future FY Fiscal Year GOH Government of Haiti HHS Household-Level Survey HTG Haitian Gourde INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interview LOE Level of Effort M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MARNDR Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural MFI Microfinance Institution NUPAS Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award Survey ODVA Organisme de Développement de la Vallée de l’Artibonite PE Performance Evaluation PPP Public-Private Partnership SI Social Impact, Inc. SOGEMOP Société Anonyme de Gestion et de Mise en œuvre de Programmes et de Projet de Développement SOW Scope of Work SRI Sustainable Rice Intensification SWMB Sub-Watershed Management Bodies 4 TL Team Leader USAID United States Agency for International Development WINNER Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources WOCCU World Council of Credit Unions 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti requested that Social Impact Inc. (SI)’s Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) Project design and implement an independent final performance evaluation (PE) of the Chanje Lavi Plantè (CLP) activity implemented by Chemonics International. The purpose of this final evaluation was to inform USAID’s future agricultural programming in Haiti based on lessons learned from the CLP Activity. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, Chemonics International, local partner institutions, and Government of Haiti (GOH) institutions (Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural [MARNDR], and the Bureaux Agricoles Communales [BACs]). The evaluation was tasked with addressing three questions: • Evaluation Question (EQ) 1 - To what extent has the activity been successful in increasing the household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? • EQ 2 - To what extent and in what ways have the activity’s approaches and strategies contributed to increasing revenue and food security at the household level? • EQ 3- To what extent will CLP activities continue after the activity, considering the financial, institutional, and technical aspects of the activities? ACTIVITY BACKGROUND Since 2011, the United States Government (USG)’s Post-Earthquake Strategy has included food security as one of four crucial pillars for recovery and development. CLP, which ran from May 2015 to May 2018, was a multi-sectoral activity focused on improving livelihoods, reducing the threat of flooding, and investing in sustainable agriculture value chains. CLP’s theory of change was based on the premise that food and economic security will increase by achieving four intermediate results (IRs): • IR1- Agricultural Productivity Increased • IR2 - Watershed Stability above Selected Plains Improved • IR3 - Agricultural Markets Strengthened • IR4 - Capacities of Local Organizations Strengthened CLP, which was tasked with sustainably transforming the agriculture sector by increasing agricultural incomes and contributing to improved food security for 60,000 beneficiary households, was implemented in the Cul-de-Sac plains, Saint-Marc and Matheux watersheds, and mango production areas with a budget of $25,037,603 U.S. dollars. EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation combined a mix of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, including document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and a household level-survey (HHS) of CLP beneficiaries. Fieldwork in Haiti took place between October 8, 2018 and November 16, 2018. Qualitative data included 52 KIIs conducted with informants from six distinct respondent groups and 24 FGDs conducted with four distinct groups. For KIIs and FGDs the evaluation team (ET) used a 6 purposive sampling approach focused on partner organizations who implemented CLP activities, as well as stakeholders who had experience with some aspect of CLP implementation. To ensure that the KII and FGD sample frames fully reflected the activity’s diversity, the ET identified respondents in all three corridors and 11 of the 12 communes1 covered by CLP. The team also specifically sought out farmer associations with women leaders and members. Quantitative research included a household level-survey (HHS) of 1,214 farmers, which provided usable data from 1,120 households. Using a beneficiary list CLP provided, the ET developed a HHS sample frame from farm households who received CLP assistance. The sample was narrowed to focus on farmers planting target crops (i.e. plantain, beans, corn, rice, and mangoes) in the plains agro-ecological zone during the activity implementation period (May 2015 to May 2018). Questions in the HHS focused on changes in income by capturing data on target and non-target crops such as value of sales, volume of sales, total production, and cash input expenses. The ET encountered the common biases of field-based evaluations (recall, response, selection, and gender bias) in addition to dealing with the challenges and uncertainties of implementing fieldwork in Haiti. Secondary data sources available to the ET were limited. The poor quality of the baseline survey data meant that they were unhelpful for comparison purposes. Secondary data on agricultural production from government and international sources were available but limited to national scale information. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question (EQ) 1 - To what extent has the activity been successful in increasing the household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? Based on activity reports, KIIs, FGDs and the HHS, CLP assistance increased production and yields, which contributed directly to increasing incomes among beneficiary households. KII and FGD respondents generally agreed that CLP support helped them to increase production. When asked directly whether CLP support had increased their income, significantly fewer cited change in income than increased production. In fact, about 90% of beneficiary households surveyed had improved agricultural income, averaging 126,178 HTG. The HHS indicated that level of income varied geographically and by crop, with the highest income levels reported in the Matheux corridor among plantain farmers. However, because of lack of reliable secondary data, it is difficult to categorically state the extent to which agricultural income in the selected corridors increased on a general basis after CLP intervention. The key factors respondents cited for increased production were improved access to irrigation and increased area under cultivation due to irrigation. Increased production of specific crops, such as rice, mangos, and plantains was also mentioned. There was no consensus among KII and FGD respondents as to which crop had the greatest impact on increasing income. (However, HHS data indicate that increased plantain production generated significant revenue.) Among the broad and diverse respondent groups, there was consensus that increased production was the driving mechanism behind increased income. In addition to the impact of increased production on improved income, respondents noted that improved post-harvest processing and diversification into higher value-added crops also increased revenues. CLP donated equipment, such as grain and transportation containers. CLP also increased the amount of income that farmers were able to get from their crops by promoting upgrading and strengthening market linkages. However, significantly fewer respondents mentioned value-added processing and high value crops than mentioned increased production. Women’s associations saw 1 Interviews were not conducted in Cité Soleil for security reasons. 7 access to post-harvest processing equipment, such as rice mills, as a major benefit. According to farmers, increased yield and improved post-harvest processing both lagged behind increased production as a contributor to increased income. Access to water was a major component of the assistance package CLP offered to farmers; many KII and FGD respondents saw it as the key driver of increased production. The impact of interventions such as training, inputs and equipment, and market linkages was predicated on access to water. While these interventions can improve production with rain-fed agriculture, interviews with farmers indicated that access to irrigation remained key to increasing income from agriculture. For example, respondents saw cleaning and maintenance of irrigation canals as the driving force behind increased production. EQ 2 - To what extent and in what ways have the activity’s approaches and strategies contributed to increasing revenue and food security at household level? CLP strategies for increasing income and food security were based on increasing agricultural productivity, improving watershed stability, building sustainable markets, and strengthening the capacity of local organizations and businesses. While these strategies were intended to work in synergy, some of them were more closely aligned with promoting increased revenue and food security than others. The strategy of promoting increased agricultural productivity had a very different focus than the strategy of capacity building for local organizations; therefore, each strategy had a different impact on income changes. CLP’s approach to increasing agricultural productivity was based on providing a “package” of support including training in improved agricultural techniques, access to inputs and equipment, extension services, and irrigation. According to respondents, training in new agricultural production techniques and maintenance of irrigation canals had the greatest benefit to farmers, followed by access to inputs. Respondents saw CLP's approach of packaging training, irrigation and access to inputs as a major strength, and a major contributor to increased production. Similar to income, reliable secondary data on agricultural production are lacking. However, results from the household survey showed that yields of CLP promoted crops were significantly higher than regional average published by the Ministry of Agriculture. Findings from the HHS also indicate that increased production leads to improved food security and revenue growth. Using a value chain approach, CLP’s interventions focused on increasing production, providing post￾harvest processing equipment (which increased agriculture income by improving value added) and opening new markets with formal private sector businesses. In addition, CLP promoted post-harvest processing and planting higher value-added crops to help farmers diversify and stabilize their revenue. The impact of improved watershed stability on revenue and food security is indirect, but not insubstantial. At the watershed level, CLP focused on protecting fertile plains from flooding and erosion, while encouraging productive hillside agriculture. To limit erosion and conserve hillside soil, CLP promoted the stabilization of ravines with gabions, dry stone walls, and terracing. Through reforestation CLP reduced soil erosion, and through agroforestry CLP created future revenue streams from the sale of tree fruits (the fruit trees planted under CLP will take three to five years to produce a profitable crop). It is difficult to attribute changes at a watershed level to a single intervention. It is also difficult to estimate the overall impact of CLP interventions to promote watershed stability on revenue and food security. Although some farmers benefited directly from CLP promotion of improved greenhouse and water retention ponds, the larger impact of watershed stability will be to protect agricultural production on the plains and to reduce harm from flooding. Therefore, while the impact of watershed stability on revenue is important, it is also hard to measure and incentivize. 8 The tie between institutional capacity building and increased revenue and food security is only indirect and the main aim of these interventions was not to increase income. EQ 3- To what extent will CLP activities continue after the activity, considering the financial, institutional, and technical aspects of the activities? The long-term sustainability of interventions begun under CLP will depend on the financial, institutional and technical capacity of CLP partners. CLP partners such as Centres Rural de Développement Durable (CRDD), agricultural input shops (BIAs), farmers’ associations, water users’ associations, sub-watershed management bodies, and master farmers have significantly different levels of capacity. Therefore, the ability of these groups to continue CLP interventions will vary. On a more fundamental level, the ability of these partners to sustain their operations over time will be driven by their ability to generate income. The ability to generate sufficient income to cover costs is a useful measure of the financial sustainability of CLP interventions. In these terms, KII indicate that close to half the partner organizations applying CLP techniques were operating at or above cost with the capacity to generate sustainable income over time. Organizations with income generating activities are able to take advantage of ongoing revenue streams. For example, BIAs can rely on profits from the sale of inputs to farmers to ensure they have adequate operating income. However, the ability of BIAs to access inputs and improved seeds at the wholesale level will have a direct effect on their ability to sustain their businesses on a retail level. Another CLP approach to improved financial stability was to promote access to finance. CLP facilitated long-term relationships between farmers’ associations and microfinance institutions (MFIs), specifically to access loans on favorable terms. Savings-guaranteed loans were popular with both farmers’ associations and MFIs, both having expressed interest in renewing the loans after they are paid off. CLP also promoted sustainable business partnerships between different value chain actors, such as farmers, farmers’ associations, and agro-processors through public private partnerships (PPPs) and formal sales agreements. These market linkages increased revenues and were beneficial for both producers and buyers. These new business partnerships were mentioned by respondents as an activity that will extend beyond the end of CLP. The institutional sustainability of CLP interventions can be measured in the corporate capacity of its partners and in the long-term business relationships the activity promoted. Using the Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award Survey (NUPAS) methodology, CLP tested and certified local organizations as eligible for USG funding. In addition, CLP facilitated the creation of PPPs between producers in farmers’ association and buyers among private sector agro-processors. While the kind of institutional sustainability promoted by CLP is not an end itself, it can add value to building sustainable institutional partnerships. The sustainability of technical capacity created under CLP will be a function of whether local partner organizations have the knowledge, training, and experience to continue to implement improved agricultural (and management) techniques the activity promoted. There was significant diversity in the capacity levels of CLP partners; some were sustainable even before CLP support, others will likely not reach sustainability without further support. The ability of CLP partners to continue to provide farmers technical support and training will also be influenced by their ability to access funds in the future. While partners may have the technical capacity to continue interventions, such as cleaning irrigation canals, without some form of outside support this capacity will remain underutilized. Technical capacity can remain sustainable in a latent form, but without internal and external resources, it will have limited impact on development outcomes. Whether CLP partners have the financial, institutional and technical capacity to continue activities started under the project is the acid test of sustainability. To capture lessons learned for future programming, it is also important to consider the partners’ intention to continue activities. Among the 9 interventions that respondents felt would be sustained over time were new agricultural techniques, maintenance of irrigation canals, and strengthened local organizations. Respondents considered these interventions the strengths of the CLP approach and were the most requested forms of future support from USAID. RECOMMENDATIONS USAID should continue to use integrated approaches to increasing agricultural income and food security. Increased production has a clear impact on increased income, but should be approached in the larger context of promoting value chain development and watershed management to ensure broad and sustained impact. USAID should continue to focus on increasing efficiencies of the agricultural sector through improved yields and value-added production. Promoting improved yields, access to inputs, and post-harvest processing, should complement efforts to increase production. Because post￾harvest processing is particularly relevant to women farmers, it should be part of a gender inclusion strategy. USAID should use a value chain approach to increase diversification and promote higher value crops. Improved production technologies, such as greenhouses offer the opportunity for farmers to produce higher value crops on less land. Promoting market linkages between producers and buyers is necessary to ensuring higher incomes over the long term. USAID should engage in a collective effort to sustainably maintain irrigation systems. Periodic canal cleanings are necessary and have a significant impact on production. To ensure regular canal maintenance, USAID will have to work with both local organizations and local government offices. USAID should continue to offer assistance packages to farmers and should ensure that they have a voice in what is included in the package. The assistance package CLP offered (training, inputs, and irrigation) was generally appreciated by farmers, but communication and information-sharing mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that farmers are consulted in the type and timing of the assistance they receive. USAID should continue to support activities that have longer term and indirect impacts on income and food security. The impact of effective watershed management can be measured on a timeline that runs in decades, longer than any single USAID project cycle. Yet protecting watersheds through erosion control and reforestation is vital to the long-term health of Haitian agriculture. Similalry, the return on investment in local organization capacity building cannot be directly measured in terms of food security. Yet, local organizations like water users’ associations should have an important role in maintaining and managing irrigation canals, thereby supporting agricultural production. USAID support is vital to local organizations in the field; financial and technical support for partners should continue. USAID has invested significantly in building the capacity of farmers’ associations, BIA, CRDD and master farmers. Continuing to build strong local organizations will help to ensure that there is a cadre of future USAID partners with the financial, technical and institutional capacity to support USAID programming in the field. To sustain this local capacity, further support is needed. As the capacity of these organizations’ merits, USAID assistance should shift towards working with them as counterparts and service providers. 10 I. INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti requested that Social Impact Inc.’s (SI) Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) project design and conduct an independent final evaluation of the Chanje Lavi Plantè (CLP) activity, implemented by Chemonics International (see Annex A for the evaluation Statement of Work). Prior to conducting the fieldwork for this evaluation, the evaluation team (ET) presented its initial findings based on a document review in an inception report and an evaluation design in a detailed report. USAID/Haiti approved both (see summary of evaluation design in the Evaluation Design Matrix found in Annex B). The purpose of this report is to present the ET’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. COUNTRY CONTEXT Haiti has a strong agricultural tradition and agriculture plays a central role in the Haitian economy, generating nearly 25 percent of gross domestic product and employing more than 60 percent of the population.2 Over the last 50 years however, agricultural production, processing and marketing have declined sharply. Domestic production covers less than half of the population’s nutritional needs, requiring the country to import most of its food3. After the 2010 earthquake, the agriculture sector was a key mechanism for economic recovery and employment creation. In May 2010, the Government of Haiti (GOH) came out with a National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP), organized around 30 watersheds. The NAIP identified three priority sub-sectors and 15 key interventions. Figure 1: Haiti's NAIP Priorities HAITI NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT PLAN PRIORITIES SUBSECTOR INTERVENTIONS Infrastructure  Watershed development  Reforestation  Irrigation Production and value chain development  Livestock  Aquaculture and fishing  Crops  Input provision  Credit  Value chain development  Urban and peri-urban agriculture  Local purchase of food aid Agricultural services and institutions  Extension  Land access and tenure security  Research training, plant health  Institutional support Source: Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développent Rural, 2010. There is substantial convergence between the subsectors and interventions identified by the NAIP and the U.S. Government’s (USG) agricultural strategy in Haiti. The NAIP aligns with the Feed the Future (FTF) multi-year strategy (FTF/Haiti 2011) on several fronts: • Increase local production of staples to ensure food security, 2 CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html. 3 World Food Program, “Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis 2007/2008,” 2008. 11 • Increase farmer’s income and create jobs in rural areas, • Increase foreign exchange earnings and agricultural exports, • Reduce post-harvest losses by 50 percent in priority watersheds, • Improve health and nutrition of the Haitian population, especially the vulnerable, and • Reduce vulnerability to natural disasters. PROBLEM STATEMENT Topography, adverse weather, and natural disasters have historically compounded agriculture challenges in Haiti. Approximately two-thirds of the country is mountainous with slopes greater than 20 degrees (Churchesa, 2014). Demographic pressure has pushed farmers to clear and cultivate steep plots, exacerbating soil erosion. Hillside deforestation has compromised the ability of watersheds to capture rainfall and reduce flooding in the plains. Runoff strips the slopes of soil and deforestation creates increasingly destructive river flows, causing the loss of 10,000 to 15,000 hectares (ha) of fertile land to erosion every year (Churchesa, 2014). Over the past 30 years, weather conditions in Haiti have worsened as a result of increasing ocean temperatures and ongoing global climate change. The El Niño weather pattern has caused drier than usual conditions in Haiti, exacerbating a major drought that took place between 2015 and 2016. In July 2016, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reported that this drought caused losses of up to 70 percent of local production and significantly exacerbated food insecurity for 3.8 million people (UN OCHA 2016). Since 1998, Haiti has been hit by ten hurricanes and other tropical storms causing widespread loss of life and flooding. Other natural disasters, such as the 2010 earthquake, have also resulted in massive loss of life and property, and infrastructure damage. Most recently, Hurricane Matthew struck Haiti in October 2016, causing catastrophic flooding of up to 40 inches and storm surges of up to ten feet. At least 580 people were killed and more than 35,000 left homeless by the storm (Colorado State University 2016). In the context of these multiple and complex problems, USAID endeavored to simultaneously address issues of chronic food insecurity by promoting increased agricultural production and erosion control through improved watershed management and access to irrigation. THEORY OF CHANGE Haiti’s economy is largely dependent on agriculture, and growth of the agricultural sector is key to overall economic growth and poverty alleviation. Despite the importance of agriculture to the Haitian economy, productivity levels are low and the degradation of watersheds is a real threat to agricultural development. Agricultural production is negatively affected by poor access to inputs, equipment and irrigation water, weak extension services and limited knowledge and capacity among farmers. In addition, there is a dearth of private financing in agriculture (Haiti: FTF FY 2011–2015 Multi-Year Strategy). According to CLP’s theory of change, the modernization of agriculture is key to increasing incomes and improving food security. CLP was designed to address multiple constraints to agricultural production and thereby increase agricultural incomes. CLP operationalized its approach to these constraints by enhancing agriculture productivity and production, stabilizing watersheds, improving post-harvest processing and market linkages, as well as supporting agribusiness and strengthening local agricultural organizations. 12 The overall objective of CLP was to increase agricultural incomes and exports in Haiti’s Port-au-Prince and Saint-Marc development corridors, specifically increasing incomes for at least 60,000 rural households. In order to achieve this objective, CLP was structure around four main outcomes: increased productivity of the focus crops, stabilization of watersheds above selected plains, strengthening of agricultural markets and strengthening of capacities of local organization. The causal pathways of CLP’s theory of change are depicted in the chart below. CLP’s theory of change was based on several assumptions that underlie the causal framework of activities, outputs and outcomes. These include the following: 1. Farmers will increase agricultural productivity if they adopt new agricultural technologies which depend on access to improved inputs, irrigation water, training and extension services. 2. Farmers will voluntarily put in place organizational and technical structures necessary to stabilize hillsides, prevent erosion and prevent sedimentation and flooding downstream. 3. Private enterprises will sustainably make investment to import and distribute inputs necessary to modernize the agricultural production. Likewise, farmers’ cooperatives, organizations and associations will become the main providers of training and needed extension services to farmers. 4. Seed and fertilizer markets will function freely without government intervention. 5. Financial institution will provide affordable loans to farmers and agribusinesses to facilitate widespread utilization of modern and high-yielding techniques, leading to increased production and income. According to CLP’s theory of change, the following Intermediate Result (IR)-level outputs will lead to the anticipated result-level outcomes, that will in turn lead to achievement of the activity’s overall objective. 13 Outputs that will increase crop productivity include: • Improved of knowledge and production technologies • Strengthened extension of agricultural technologies, nutrition information • Increased access to inputs • Increased capacity of users to manage irrigation systems. The improvement of watershed stability above selected plains will be achieved through: • Establishment of watershed governance bodies at the sub-watershed level • Execution of public works to stabilize critical slopes • Strengthened crisis management capacity. The outputs that will lead to the strengthening of agricultural markets include: • Improved transportation infrastructure • Improved access to storage and processing • Increased access to financial products • Improved market information systems • Strengthened relations in targeted value chains. Finally, strengthening of capacities of local organization will come from the following outputs: • Certification of local organizations to receive direct USAID funding • Establishment of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) • Strengthened of the capacity of local organizations. To achieve those results, CLP implemented integrated development activities focused on intensifying agricultural production while protecting the upstream of the watersheds to prevent erosion and sedimentation and flooding. (A summary of CLP’s intermediate results, sub results and activities is included in Annex C). At the production level, CLP used a value chain approach as a key strategy to improve productivity and production of four target crops (bean, corn, plantain, and rice) in the Cul-de-Sac and St. Marc corridors. According to CLP’s theory of change, strengthening of these value chains would ultimately lead to increase agricultural incomes for rural households. 14 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND The USAID/Haiti strategy focused on three priority development corridors: Port-au￾Prince/Cul-de- Sac, St. Marc, and Cap Haitien. Recognizing that development efforts must include entire watersheds, the FTF/Haiti strategy integrated interventions to increase productivity of staple and high-value crops in the lower fertile plains with watershed management activities in the upper hills and mountains. Using a value chain approach, the strategy selected four target crops: beans, corn, plantains, and rice. In this context, FTF/Haiti funded the Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources (WINNER) project (2009 – 2014, $125 million budget). WINNER, which was the direct predecessor to CLP, focused on the Cul-de-Sac and St Marc corridors and on the bean, corn, plantain, and rice value chains. As reflected in the text box, with a timeframe of three-years and a budget of just over $25 million, CLP was intended to sustainably transform the agriculture sector by strengthening interventions begun under WINNER. The CLP activity, implemented by Chemonics International, was designed to increase agricultural incomes and contribute to the improved food security of 60,000 beneficiary households in the Cul-de-Sac and Matheux corridors, as well as in mango production areas.4 CLP’s implementation was based on four guiding principles: • Ensure the ongoing transfer of modern technology to farmers and provide technical support and extension services in close collaboration with the GOH • Improve irrigation water availability and management, given the increasing shortage of rainfall and other weather-related shocks • Improve access to affordable credit and good quality inputs • Stimulate private investment in the agriculture sector Increasing Agricultural Productivity CLP promoted increased production and yields during the agricultural campaigns of 2015, 2016 and 2017 by offering a “package” of access to irrigation, quality seeds, training on improved agricultural practices, and technical supervision. The activity focused on specific value chains including the target crops of beans, corn, plantains, and rice, as well as mangos. As part of its strategy to promote improved agricultural practices, CLP offered training to 950 master farmers on subjects including environmental management, family planning and nutrition, small farm management, climate change, fruit and vegetable production, and pest management. Trainees who passed a mandatory exam were certified by the MARNDR as master farmers. 4 While the Request for Proposals for the CLP project called for reaching 60,000 households, Chemonics International proposed 90,000, eventually reaching 87,748 households by the end of project. Program Overview CLP Program Objective: To increase agricultural incomes and contribute to improved food security of 60,000 beneficiary households in the Cul-de-Sac and Matheux corridors, as well as in mango production areas Period of Performance: May 2015 – May 2018 Award Number: AID-OAA-C-15- 00065 Total Funding Amount: $25,037,603 Implementing Partners: Chemonics International Key Partner: Government of Haiti’s Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Rural Development (MARNDR) Geographic Presence: Cul-de-Sac and Matheux corridors and Mirebalais, Haiti 15 To improve practices in fertilizer application, CLP collaborated with the University of Florida to develop a fertilizer handbook and train 546 farmers on fertilizers use and integrated pest management. In addition to training on how to use improved inputs, CLP provided access to inputs through local community-managed Boutique d’Intrants Agricoles (BIAs or agricultural input shops). Inputs included more than 50 tons of Hugo Plus corn seeds developed by International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) that were planted by 1,874 farmers. These inputs were given to the BIA as a grant, with the understanding that they would be sold to farmer members and the profits used to improve the sustainability of the BIA. In addition to distributing inputs, CLP worked with Centre Rural de Développement Durable (CRDD) in Bas-Boen and Montrouis on seed multiplication techniques for Open Pollination Variety (OPV) seeds. Access to irrigation in Haiti is directly impacted by irrigation canal maintenance, or lack thereof. In addition to the challenges of mobilizing the technical and resource requirements to ensure proper canal maintenance, responsibility for canal maintenance is split between the government (primary canals) and water users associations (secondary and tertiary canals). CLP worked with both the government’s Organisme de Développement de la Vallée de l’Artibonite (ODVA) and with water user associations to clean more than 121,000 meters of canal, opening irrigation to more than 24,000 ha of farmland, some of which had not been irrigated for 10 years. To promote sustainable canal maintenance, CLP helped to build water users associations’ capacity to collect and manage irrigation fees and establish a water distribution schedule. While CLP also initially undertook improving the security of access to land for farmers, land tenure issues in Haiti proved too complex to be resolved in the lifetime of the project, and this initiative was subsequently dropped. Improving Water Stability Above Selected Plains To protect watershed agro-ecological zones, CLP worked with Sub-Watershed Management Bodies (SWMB) to stabilize hillsides, protect irrigation systems downstream and promote sustainable agriculture practices. To reduce erosion and runoff, CLP promoted planting of fruit and forest trees on steep hillsides, hillside terracing, and greenhouse agriculture. The project planted more than 2.2 million trees, and terraced 100 ha with gabions, dry stone walls, and vetiver plantations in 13 vulnerable ravines. In addition, CLP rehabilitated 67 greenhouses in Kenscoff and Goyavier and built 25 water retention ponds for irrigation. CLP created eight SWMBs to organize communities around watershed stabilization, through ravine treatment, soil conservation works and agroforestry, and sustainable hillside agricultural practices. CLP worked with the SWMB to draft watershed management plans, to strengthen operations, and governance. Finally, CLP supported increased disaster preparedness by helping seven communes to develop disaster management strategies and by training more than 1,200 individuals in crisis management. Sustainable Market Solutions CLP sought to increase post-harvest value added by improving the storage capacity and processing equipment of local organizations and small businesses. This included providing both equipment and training. To improve post-harvest processing, farmer’s associations, (particularly women’s associations) received silos, motorized grain mills, gas burners, and containers for transport. They also received training in management, planning and accounting. Based on the improved quality of their produce, CLP was able to link farmers associations to new markets and business partners, including large supermarkets in Port-au-Prince and tourist hotels on the coast. To improve access to credit, CLP promoted new partnerships between local microfinance institutions (MFIs) and farmers associations. CLP interventions included drafting business plans for the associations and creating a loan guarantee mechanism with the MFIs. CLP’s approach to improving access to finance 16 through an Agricultural Credit Guarantee Mechanism (ACGM) was innovative and effective and the business plans they funded helped MFIs to make informed lending decisions. The ACGM mechanism used term savings deposits as collateral for agricultural loans to farmers associations. The mechanism essentially converted subsidies into term savings that were then used to leverage access to finance. To fund the mechanism, CLP donated free agricultural inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides to the association’s BIA. These were then sold to the association’s members. Between 20 and 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of these inputs were subsequently used to fund term savings deposits with a minimum of a three-year maturity. These term deposits were used as collateral to access loans from an MFI at a preferential interest rate. (One MFI reduced their interest rate to CLP partner associations by seven points from 28 to 21 percent.) A total of $107,000 in deposits was used to leverage 14 loans worth a total of $75,000. In addition to the ACGM, CLP contracted with the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU), to help14 farmers associations to develop business plans to accompany their loan applications. To improve access to market information, CLP supported a Short Message Service (SMS)-based system to distribute agricultural information to registered beneficiaries. Content was developed in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and messaging fees were paid by the project. SMS messages eventually reached more than 55,000 farmers, but the program ended at the close of CLP as there were no longer funds to pay for the cost of sending the messages. CLP supported development of partnerships among farmers, cooperatives, agribusinesses, hotels, and supermarkets. Nine partnership agreements were signed between farmer associations and private sector buyers for the sale of produce such as vegetables, peanut butter, and jams. Strengthening Critical Capacities of Local Organizations and Businesses CLP’s approach to building farmers’ organizations’ capacity was through offering a combination of equipment (office equipment, back-up energy supplies, software, computers, etc.) and training (project management, accounting, etc.). Organizations targeted capacity building assistance included CRDDs and BIAs, as well as farmers associations and watershed management associations and sub-watershed management bodies. Individuals targeted for capacity building included master farmers and Fanm Pwogrè (referenced in the text box). Indicators of CLP’s capacity building assistance impact included the qualification of ten partners as Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award Survey (NUPAS) certified and the 14 farmers associations who were able to access to agricultural finance. EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID/Haiti requested that SI’s ESS project designs and implements an independent final performance evaluation (PE) of the CLP Activity implemented by Chemonics International. The purpose of this final PE is to inform USAID’s future agriculture programming in Haiti based on lessons learned from CLP’s implementation. The evaluation’s primary stakeholders include: USAID/Haiti, Chemonics International, local partner organizations, and GOH institutions such as MARNDR and the Bureaux Agricoles Communales (BACs). It is anticipated that the lessons learned presented in this evaluation will be useful in the design of follow-on projects in the agricultural sector. Fanm Pwogrè Pilot CLP worked with four partner organizations to implement the Fanm Pwogrè pilot program. The pilot trained a cadre of women entrepreneurs and provided them with access to agricultural extension information, services, and products, including tablets and motorbikes. As independent itinerant saleswomen, the women offered farmers the following services for a fee: transport for agricultural goods, soil sampling, water testing, moisture testing, seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, cook stoves, and solar lights. The pilot was started late, but considered successful and CLP recommended scaling up the model. 17 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation was meant to answer three EQs: 1. To what extent has the activity been successful in increasing the household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? 2. To what extent and in what ways have the activity’s approaches and strategies (Theory of Change) contributed to the achievement of its expected results (to increasing revenue and food security at household level)? 3. To what extent will CLP activities continue after the activity, considering the financial (credit…), institutional (water users associations, other local associations, GOH…) and technical (greenhouses, agricultural practices…) aspects of the activities? II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW The evaluation combined a mix of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, including document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and household level-surveys (HHS) of CLP beneficiaries. Fieldwork in Haiti, comprised of six weeks data collection and analysis, took place between October 8, 2018 and November 16, 2018. Qualitative research included 52 KIIs conducted with informants from six distinct respondent groups5 and 24 FGDs conducted with four distinct respondent groups. For KIIs and FGDs the ET used a purposive sampling approach focused on partner organizations who implemented CLP activities, as well as stakeholders who had experience with some aspect of activity implementation. To ensure that the KII and FGD sample frame fully reflected the activity’s diversity, the ET identified respondents in all three corridors and eleven of the communes covered by CLP. To aid in analysis of CLP’s impact on women, the ET intentionally included three women’s associations and four associations with women leaders among the eight farmers associations interviewed. Quantitative research included a HHS with a planned sample size of 1,154, and an actual sample of 1,214 farmers interviewed. Of these, 1,120 interviews provided usable data. HHS questions focused on addressing changes in income by capturing data on target and non-target crops such as value of sales, volume of sales, total production, and cash input expenses. Using a list of beneficiaries provided by CLP, the ET developed a HHS sample frame from households who received CLP assistance. The sample was narrowed to focus on target crops (i.e. plantains, beans, corn, rice, and mangoes) in the plains agro￾ecological zone during the activity implementation period (May 2015 to May 2018). GUIDING PRINCIPLES The ET conducted fieldwork with three guiding principles in mind: Informed Consent: The ET administered informed consent scripts and asked for respondents’ verbal consent to ensure that they understood the purpose and voluntary nature of the KIIs, FGDs, and HHS. Confidentiality: Respondent confidentiality was a priority for ESS. The ET produced reports that aggregated data and omitted identifiers. Although the ET used quotes, no individual names – only institutional names – are used in the report. 5 For purposes of qualitative analysis, USAID’s responses during KII interviews were tallied with those of international organizations/MFIs. 18 Gender Inclusion: USAID’s Automated Directive System (ADS) 203 requires integration of gender into the evaluation design and implementation. ESS takes this guidance several steps further through SI’s Evaluation Quality, Use, and Impact (EQUI)® framework, which uses gender analysis frameworks to inform sampling strategies, gender-sensitive data collection protocols, sex-disaggregated data collection, and the consideration of gender and other social dimensions in data analysis and reporting. EQUI®’s quality assurance checkpoints ensure that gender relations and other social dimensions are integrated into each stage of the evaluation process, as is appropriate and as they relate to each evaluation topic. Data collection instruments included questions about CLP’s effects on various gender groups, impacts on gender relations and equality, and intended and unintended impacts affecting women and men. PHASE ONE: DOCUMENT REVIEW Beginning in July 2018, the CLP evaluation planning and preparation phase started with a desk review of project and other background documents, drafting of an Inception Report and an Evaluation Design, development of data collection instruments and planning for fieldwork. The ET reviewed CLP produced documents to better understand the activity design and implementation and then summarized findings in an Inception Report. Before starting in-country data collection, the team reviewed additional material, including all other secondary sources available. The ET reviewed additional activity documents during fieldwork as they were made available. Categories of documents reviewed are listed below and fully described in Annex D: • CLP annual reports • CLP quarterly reports • CLP annual work plans • CLP M&E Plan • CLP surveys and data • Journals and other publications • Country reports and sector reports. • FTF Sampling Guide for Beneficiary￾based Surveys PHASE TWO: DATA COLLECTION Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions After receiving USAID approval for the evaluation design and tools, the data collection phase of the evaluation began with six weeks of fieldwork in Haiti. Data collection involved three teams including the ET and two Haitian consulting firms, Conseils, Formation, Monitoring en Développement (CFM), and Collectif Haïtien pour l’Avancement du Suivi et de l’Evaluation (CHASE). CFM implemented the HHS, which included 1,167 individual interviews with farmers (enumerators contacted 1,214 individual farmers, but 47 declined to participate). The KIIs and FGDs were divided between the ET and CHASE. The ET completed 22 KIIs, primarily with CLP staff, USAID, and GOH officials. CHASE implemented 30 KIIs and 24 FGDs. Fieldwork took place from October 8, 2018 to November 16, 2018. After completing the fieldwork, the ET finalized data analysis and wrote and reviewed this evaluation report. The KIIs and FGDs aimed at helping the ET better understand the CLP implementation process, answering questions related to CLP’s contribution to improved revenue, food security, and sustainability. The ET and CHASE conducted 52 KIIs with informants who had unique knowledge of the activity. This included individuals representing six distinct respondent groups: • Agribusinesses and agricultural input shops, • BAC, 19 • CLP activity staff, • CRDD, • GOH employees, and • International Non-Governmental Organization (INGOS) including USAID. (See Table 1 for a summary of interviewees by group and Annex E for a full list of organizations interviewed.) CHASE and the ET conducted the KIIs and FGDs in the respondents’ business language, with most interviews taking place in Creole. For example, interviews with farmers associations at the commune level were conducted in Creole, while those with GOH officials in Port au Prince were carried out in French. All questionnaires were translated into Creole. Interview notes were taken in English and French. KIIs and FGDs were guided by interview protocols included as Annexes F and G. Table 1: Number of Data Collection Events by Stakeholder and Location STAKEHOLDER TARGET CONDUCTED KIIS USAID 3 3 Chemonics/CLP 4 4 BIAs 18 19 BAC 8 8 CRDD 6 6 GOH officials/MARNDR 6 8 International Organizations/Microfinance 4 4 TOTAL KIIS 49 52 FGDS Farmers associations 10 8 Master farmers 5 6 Water users’ associations 6 7 Sub-watershed management bodies 3 3 TOTAL FGDS 24 24 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY Household interviews 1,154 1,214 KII and FGD Sampling The ET interviewed a purposive sample of CLP partners and stakeholders regarding changes in farm household income and food security, as well as the strategic and methodological approaches the activity used. During the sampling process, ET ensured that women beneficiaries were strongly represented in KIIs and FGDs by purposely selecting associations run by women or with significant female membership. KIIs and FGDs purposively focused on individuals who have unique knowledge of the activity. To develop a list of potential KII and FGD respondents, the ET reviewed CLP reporting for the names of groups, individuals, and private businesses who could offer perspective on different aspects of activity implementation. For example, selection of water users’ and farmers associations for FGDs was based on associations described in the CLP final report. Respondents for KIIs included GOH officials, MFIs, and 20 agro-exporters. Contact information for these groups and individuals was collected and used to reach them during the fieldwork. To ensure that the purposive KII and FGD samples reflected the full range of activity participants, the ET identified respondents in all three corridors and twelve communes covered by CLP. Specifically, respondents were selected in the Matheux and Cul-de-Sac corridors as well as the Mirebalais mango zone. Stakeholders were interviewed in each of these corridors. The team interviewed CRDDs, farmers associations, master farmers, and water users’ associations in each corridor. Respondents from USAID, the GOH, INGOs, and CLP were interviewed in Port au Prince (See Annex C for detailed distribution of KIIs and FGDs). Given the small number of representatives of some stakeholder groups, the ET decided to consider all of them as key informants. Among the six CRDDs that implemented CLP activities in different locations all were selected for interviews. All eight BACs in different communes were selected. Among CLP’s agribusiness partners, the ET selected 18 agribusinesses in different locations to represent the diversity of activity interventions (BIAs, PPPs, loan guarantees, food processing, seed production, etc.). Selection of other key informants, such as CLP, GOH, and USAID staff focused on identifying respondents with the most direct knowledge of CLP interventions. FGD respondent selection was based on a purposive sample of farmers’ organizations that were supported by the CLP (water user associations, SWMB, cooperatives, women’s groups, master farmers, etc.). Given the large number of farmer associations involved in CLP activities, the ET selected two groups in each of the 12 Communes where the associations conduct their operations. The ET ensured that FGDs with farmer associations included a diverse group of members, particularly women. The size of FGDs was limited to about 15 individuals to ensure that each respondent could fully participate. KII and FGD Fieldwork Procedures ESS selected a subcontractor to implement KIIs and FGDs. The contracted firm recruited experienced interviewers and supervisors and provided the equipment necessary to conduct the interviews. The ET, ESS and the subcontractor held a training session in Port au Prince for eight interviewers, note-takers, and supervisors. Trainees were briefed on the evaluation objectives and questions. Significant time was spent on explaining interview techniques and practicing interview guide implementation. Upon training completion, interviewers, and supervisors tested the FGD and KII questionnaires with organizations in the Pétionville area. Each trained interviewer/supervisor conducted at least one supervised interview. The ET revised the questionnaires to address issues identified during this pilot. Interviewers also implemented FGDs with selected agribusinesses, BAC and ODVA, CRDDs, farmers associations, master farmers, and water users’ associations in each corridor. The ET interviewed respondents from USAID, the GOH, INGOs, and CLP in Port au Prince. The ET supervised the data collection process and provided full technical assistance to facilitators throughout. Household-Level Survey The ET designed a quantitative HHS questionnaire (Annex H) for CLP-assisted farmers to capture data related to household level agricultural income, such as the value of crop production as well as the cost of inputs. Farmers were asked to recall data for each crop on the value and quantity of sales, their total production, and input costs during the reporting period and the number of hectares planted. The HHS used face-to-face interactions with a sample of 1,214 beneficiary households selected within CLP intervention zones. The HHS used Creole and responses were captured on a tablet computer using an electronic version of the questionnaire. All HHS interviews were implemented by the local consulting firm CFM. 21 A representative random sample of beneficiary households was interviewed to collect data related to changes in farm household income due to CLP interventions. For the interviews, the team’s sample frame included households who received CLP assistance during agricultural campaigns to grow target crops (plantains, beans, corn, rice, and vegetables) in the plains area during the activity implementation period from 2015 to 2018. To select a sample of farmers to interview, the ET used an Excel database of beneficiary households provided by CLP. The beneficiary database was disaggregated as follows: • Identification code of the household • Identification code of the beneficiary farmer within the household • Complete name of the beneficiary • Sex of the farmer • Age of the farmer • Identification number • Telephone number • Intervention region or corridor • Section communal • Commune • Local association name • Type of crop which support was provided for • Type of activity • Quarter of activity. CLP provided the ET with a dataset that included a target population for each commune in the three implementation corridors. The ET first checked the database for inconsistencies, missing information and duplicates to obtain the exact number of beneficiary households, using unique codes assigned to each one. From this preliminary work, the ET determined a population of 91,171 households. From this population, the ET identified 40,712 households who directly received assistance to grow the targeted crops (plantains, beans, maize, rice). The remaining households received indirect assistance, primarily in the form of SMS. Of the 40,712 households who received direct assistance, 31,857 were located in the plains area and 8,855 in uplands. This group of 31,857 households located in the plains was then used to determine the sample size. HHS Sampling Frame The HHS captured a representative random sample of CLP intervention sites and targeted crops. Based on the preliminary work on the database, the ET defined the sampling frame as the 31,857 households in plains agro-ecological zones (CLP activities in the mountains were intended to stabilize watersheds and protect farmlands in the plains.) Table 2 presents the beneficiary household distribution in the plains in selected communes by target crops. It is important to note that a household could have been assisted for more than one crop. Table 2: Total Beneficiary Households by Location and Target Crops CORRIDOR COMMUNE TARGET CROPS PLANTAINS BEANS CORN RICE Matheux (Plain) Arcahaie 7,880 2,515 2,349 5 Cabaret 3,482 1,035 775 135 Montrouis 55 7 10 19 Saint-Marc 1,380 704 956 6,755 Cul-de-Sac (Plain) Croix-des-Bouquets 210 1,555 1,805 0 Ganthier 11 1,372 1217 0 Thomazeau 3 958 542 638 2 CORRIDOR COMMUNE TARGET CROPS PLANTAINS BEANS CORN RICE Total 13,021 8,146 7,654 7,552 Sample Size Determination The corridors were sub-divided into three zones. The first zone in Matheux plains included Arcahaie, Cabaret and Montrouis; the second was in Saint-Marc; and the third in the Cul-de-Sac plains comprising Croix-des-Bouquets, Ganthier, and Thomazeau. This subdivision also reflects the concentration of specific crops in different agro-ecological zones (i.e. rice in Saint-Marc, beans and plantains in Matheux, and corn and beans in Cul-de-Sac). Table 3: Sample Universe by Location CORRIDORS COMMUNES BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDS PERCENTAGE BY LOCATION Zone 1 (Matheux plain) Arcahaie Cabaret Montrouis Saint-Marc 13,579 43% Zone 2 (Saint-Marc plain) Saint-Marc 9,009 28% Zone 3 (Cul-de-Sac plain) Croix-des-Bouquets Ganthier Thomazeau 9,269 29% Total 31,857 100% Based on a sample universe of 31,857 households, and a desired accuracy of 95 percent confidence level with a confidence interval of five percent, the ET calculated a representative sample using the following formula: n = N/(1+N*e2) Where: n Sample size of households to interview N Number of registered producers in the group e Margin of error of five percent. Using this formula yielded a sample size of 1,154 households in the selected plains.6 HHS Respondent Selection HHS respondents were randomly selected for interviews from the sample population using a systematic sampling process. This process began with organizing the list of households by commune and by agro￾ecological zone, then determining a sampling interval “K” by dividing the zone population size (N) by the zone sample size (n). The value of K obtained for each zone was then rounded up or down to the nearest integer (Table 4). 6 To ensure that data for the full sample of 1,154 interviews were captured, the survey reached out to 1,214 farmers. 3 Table 4: Selected Respondents by Location SITE UNIVERSE SAMPLE OF HH K Zone 1 (Matheux plain) 13,579 388 35 Zone 2 (Saint-Marc plain) 9,009 383 24 Zone 3 (Cul-de-Sac plain) 9,269 383 24 Using the intervals defined above, individual households were selected at random from the list of CLP beneficiaries until the desired number for each zone was obtained. The same selection process was used to establish a backup list to replace selected households who were not be available. As a random sample, male and female beneficiaries were represented in their proportion to the number of total activity beneficiaries. Women represented approximately 27 percent of the sample. Fieldwork Procedures As noted above CFM implemented the HHS. They recruited 20 enumerators and five supervisors experienced in the agricultural sector and provided the equipment necessary to conduct the HHS. They also developed the web-based application needed to conduct the HHS with tablets. The ET, ESS, and the subcontractor held a training session in Port au Prince for 30 enumerators and supervisors. Trainees were briefed on the evaluation objectives and questions and HHS approach. They also received training on techniques for correctly implementing the survey to elicit unbiased information. Significant time was spent on explaining and practicing the HHS instrument implementation. Training included practice using the tablets to capture survey data. At the end of the training, 20 enumerators and five supervisors were selected among the best performers to conduct the survey. Upon completion of the training, enumerators and supervisors tested the HHS questionnaire on 60 farmers in the Léogane plain area. Each trained enumerator/supervisor conducted two interviews. The main purpose of the pilot was to give enumerators practice in administering the questionnaire, as well as to identify potential problem areas with implementing the HHS. The ET worked with a subcontractor to revise the questionnaire to address issues identified during the pilot. Enumerators were organized into four teams comprising four enumerators and one supervisor to implement the HHS in CLP selected intervention zones. Each enumerator received a list of respondents to interview and their locations in advance, as well as a list of back up names. They received the necessary equipment and supervision to undertake the tasks. Because the CLP database did not provide addresses for each beneficiary household, the subcontractor worked with various local resources to locate the respondents. Enumerators were unable to locate about ten percent of survey respondents in the corridors. Some of them no longer lived in the areas where they were registered, and some addresses were incorrectly identified. If a specific farmer was unreachable, enumerators requested approval from their survey supervisors, and were given replacement names from a backup list. Enumerators collected the data through face-to-face interactions with the selected farmers. The HHS covered the last 12 months (July 2017 to August 2018) of agricultural production activities. With the availability of the backup list, the subcontractor managed to interview 60 famers in addition to the 1,154 in the sample. Therefore, CFM submitted a data set of 1,214 household interviews. The ET was in regular communication with CFM during fieldwork, supervising the data collection process and providing additional interview names as needed. 4 PHASE THREE: DATA ANALYSIS The ET used a range of techniques to analyze the qualitative and quantitative data and identify findings based on patterns and trends in primary HHS data, triangulated with data from the KIIs and FGDs as well as secondary sources. Data Processing For the HHS, the survey firm performed initial quality control and data cleaning of the dataset to check for data validity, duplicate entries, inconsistencies, missing information, and outlier values. Then ESS completed a secondary check for inconsistencies and completeness of HHS responses. Among the 1,214 households contacted, 47 did not agree to the survey and 47 were duplicates. Those observations were set aside, and a sample of 1,120 households was cleaned and used to calculate household agricultural income, production, yield, value of sales, volume of sales, and production costs. Using descriptive statistics, the team examined general trends in the data and extrapolated its findings to CLP beneficiary farm households living in the plains. The ET cleaned, summarized, and analyzed KII and FGD notes for trends and patterns daily throughout fieldwork. Team members met regularly to discuss any issues with data collection, adjusting where required. To process data from KII and FGD interviews, the team developed a data coding matrix organized by EQ, interview type, respondent type, location, and sex. The matrix was used to organize data for analysis, as well as identify any data gaps. These findings were triangulated with other sources and became a basis for the evaluation report’s conclusions and recommendations. Data Triangulation The ET triangulated data from KIIs, FGDs, and the HHS to cross-verify and cross-validate the findings that emerged from different data collection methods for different stakeholder groups. To ensure comparability among different data methods, the ET used similar language across all its interview questions and linked these questions as tightly as possible to the EQs and activity IRs. The findings were triangulated with secondary data such as GOH data on agricultural production. See Annex B: Evaluation Matrix, for a summary of the data collection and data analysis methods. Data Analysis Methods The ET used mixed methods analysis to identify key findings, as well as to draw conclusions and make recommendations for follow-up activities. A combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis was used, with an emphasis on qualitative analysis for KII and FGD data and quantitative analysis for the HHS data. Analytical methods included the following: 1. Content Analysis – Content analysis included coding and analyzing KII and FGD data to identify and triangulate respondents’ perceptions about the impact of CLP activities on agricultural production, incomes and food security. 2. Descriptive Statistics – Descriptive statistics (number, mean and median) were used to analyze changes in income among CLP Activity beneficiaries. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Agricultural income was first calculated for each household retained for analysis. To measure agricultural income the ET used the following formula: Y = ∑ ((VSi / QSi*TPi)-ICi) Where: Y = Income VSi = Value of sales for crop i 5 QSi = Volume of sales for crop i TPi = Total production for crop i ICi = Cash input expenses for crop i The ET considered all the crops produced by the households during the period. Average income was calculated by dividing the sum of income by the number of households. Median and quartile were also calculated using SPSS. Yields in metric tons per hectare were also calculated for each target crop by dividing the sum of production of all households by the sum of the area harvested. 3. Comparative Analysis – Comparative analysis was used to assess CLP results across different stakeholder groups to evaluate the Activity’s success in reaching different target groups. Indicators calculated were compared to secondary data when available. Otherwise, quantitative data were linked to KII and FGD in order to meaningfully appreciate stakeholders’ perception of CLP impacts in the intervention corridors. 4. Gender Analysis – Gender analysis was used with the specific goal of assessing the differential impact of CLP on women and men, across all CLP activities. All data were disaggregated by sex and analyzed for effects on both male and female beneficiaries to show any significant differences. PHASE FOUR: DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION ESS submitted a draft report to USAID in December 2018 and presented its key findings, conclusions and recommendations to in an Out-briefing in January 2019. This final report incorporates USAID’s feedback. ESS will work with USAID/Haiti to identify other possible means of disseminating the final report findings, conclusions, and recommendations. It may be valuable to hold a workshop or presentation with GOH representatives. Upon USAID approval, ESS will upload the report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse. DATA GAPS AND LIMITATIONS Data and Information Gaps The ET’s ability to address the evaluation questions was directly impacted by the type, quality, and availability of the data collected by the activity. CLP provided numerous quarterly and annual reports, as well a dataset of activity beneficiaries. However, the ET confronted significant obstacles related to obtaining secondary data. Despite multiple requests to the MARNDR, the ET was not able to obtain reliable information on income and food security from secondary data sources. Data gaps were partially filled through primary data collection and access to additional documents. Mitigation techniques also included comparative use of primary data collected through KIIs, FGDs, and the HHS triangulated with secondary sources. The ET maintained information from CLP reports and used secondary data from GOH entities to compare with survey data. Logistical Challenges Because CLP was implemented over a three-year period and was closed for approximately five months at the time of the evaluation fieldwork, it was challenging to locate and schedule interviews with some key informants. Most significantly, important logistical challenges arose in implementing the HHS, because of difficulties in locating specific respondents. Some of the farmers selected for interviews were impossible to reach because the information in the sample frame (residential addresses and phone numbers) were incomplete. In addition, some farmers selected were no longer living in their respective 6 communities. Another complication arose with locating farmers who maintained plots in the plains, but who lived in hills or in communes different from where they were registered for CLP assistance. Enumerators’ ability to collect data in the zones was also affected by the safety and security situation in several locations throughout the corridor (Arcahaie, Thomazeau). To mitigate difficulty getting in reaching former CLP staff, the ET requested contact information from Chemonics headquarters. The ET was in regular communication with former CLP staff in Port-au-Prince to obtain contact information for key informants. The ET interviewed key informants by telephone, or Skype in several cases where the informant was no longer in Haiti. To mitigate the risk of not being able to locate beneficiary farmers, the ET and CFM worked with representatives of local organizations that were formerly CLP partners (CRDDs, farmers associations, and water users’ associations) to find the farmers to interview. The subcontractor also worked with local authorities and personal field contacts to locate farmers in the sample for each commune. A backup sample selected from the initial population was used to replace the farmers who are unavailable. To mitigate the security issues, enumerators were advised to work in groups very closely and to move around with trusted local guides. They were also advised to leave the survey locations before dark. Bias In addition to these logistical challenges, the team faced the common bias risks and limitations in data collection that are inherent to field-based evaluations. Bias risks included: recall bias, response bias, selection bias, and gender bias. The HHS was based on farmers’ recall of their agricultural activities for the last three crop seasons (July 2017 to August 2018). Since few farmers keep written records, there may have been inaccuracies in the information provided. Frequently small-scale farmers tend to underestimate their production and revenue and overestimate their costs. In addition, agricultural production in Haiti has been affected by drought during the CLP implementation period, particularly from May to July 2018, which may lead farmers to inflate their losses. To overcome the biases, the evaluation discussed these issues at length during the training sessions with enumerators. Enumerators were briefed on ways to limit response bias and instructed, to engage in an open dialogue with respondents, and to make them comfortable to obtain accurate information. Though difficult to mitigate potential selection bias in CLP’s choice of beneficiaries and partners, the ET ensured that they interviewed as broad and diverse a cross section of beneficiaries and partner organizations as possible. Where selected partner organizations could not be contacted, or did not respond to interview requests, other organizations of similar structure were selected to replace them. For KIIs and FGDs this included diverse samples of institution types, genders and geographic locations. For the HHS, the ET used a random sampling interval to select a representative list of farmers by commune and corridor. Although the sample was developed using the beneficiary lists provided by CLP, the ET contacted farmers directly. Because the HHS sample was chosen randomly, the gender balance of the HHS automatically reflected the general beneficiary population. However, to ensure better gender balance and create the opportunity for female beneficiaries to express themselves freely, the ET sought out women farmers to participate in FGDs. 7 III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ1: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE ACTIVITY BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN INCREASING THE HOUSEHOLD BENEFICIARIES’ AGRICULTURAL INCOME? Findings The HHS conducted in the intervention corridors shows that CLP beneficiary households’ annual agricultural income averaged 126,167 HTG in 2018 (Table 5). Agricultural income comes mainly from seasonal and semi-perennials such as pulses, cereals, vegetables and plantains. Approximately ten percent of all respondents have negative agricultural income because the level of production they obtained was insufficient to cover production costs. Fifty-three percent of those who suffered losses are in corridor Cul-de-Sac, 34 percent in Saint-Marc and 14 percent in Matheux. Table 5: CLP Beneficiary Household Agricultural Income (HTG*) N MEAN VALUE QUARTILE 1 MEDIAN QUARTILE 3 Value of production 1,120 159,324 33,075 92,900 191,353 Production cash expenses 1,120 33,156 12,062 24,695 44,900 Agricultural income 1,120 126,167 14,462 60,000 156,437 * Average exchange rate in November 2018 $1 = 70 HTG. The highest level of income was obtained in the Matheux corridor where plantains are the main crop. In areas where pulses, cereals and vegetables are dominant (Saint-Marc, Cul-de-Sac), income levels were noticeably lower (Table 6). Table 6: Beneficiary Household Income by Corridor (HTG*) CORRIDOR N MEAN INCOME MEDIAN Matheux 366 244,409 166,850 Saint-Marc 394 89,342 49,759 Cul-de-Sac 360 46,258 21,225 All 1,120 126,167 60,000 * Average exchange rate in November 2018 $1 = 70 HTG. Analysis of the gross margin for the target crops show that plantain growers had higher incomes than cereal and leguminous growers (Table 7). Gross margin per hectare was 344,918 HTG for plantain followed by 59,063 HTG for rice, 24,782 HTG for beans and 6,209 HTG for corn. Table 7: Gross Margin Of CLP Supported Target Crops (HTG*) CROP N PRODUCTION (MT) VOLUME SALES (MT) VALUE SALES CASH EXPENDITURES AREA (HA) GROSS MARGIN/HA Plantain 378 4,354 3,900 90,564,598 9,934,466 264.36 344,918 Beans 291 111,253 98,633 7,823,537 3,990,156 195.08 24,782 Corn 146 73 65 1,317,203 1.016,376 76.61 6,209 Rice 362 1,041 649 20,666,164 11,888,629 359.73 59,063 * Average exchange rate in November 2018 $1 = 70 HTG. 8 Those results show that plantain is very important in generating income for farm households. CLP supported plantain production particularly in the Matheux corridor. Based on discussions with key informants, farmers applied the techniques CLP promoted to produce plantain. Those who have access to irrigation water and inputs were able to increase their level of production. HHS data show that farmers who reported receiving support to grow plantains had significantly higher income than those who received support for other crops. Average agricultural income for those who declared receiving support to grow plantain was 249,092 HTG and 118,701 HTG for others (Sig. = 0.000). Although survey results showed that average agricultural income was important and that revenue above variable costs was positive for most farmers in the intervention corridors, there were no reliable baseline data to appreciate the effects of CLP. Therefore, it is difficult to conclusively state that agricultural income of CLP beneficiaries has increased. Nevertheless, data from the HHS on income were triangulated with data from qualitative interviews to form a more comprehensive picture of changes in income. To address EQI, the ET asked direct interview questions related to increased income as well as increased production and improved yield. When asked directly about whether CLP increased household income from agriculture, KII and FGD respondents exhibited a mixed opinion. While several respondents agreed that agricultural income has increased, three times more respondents cited increased production than increased revenue. Respondents also cited increases in yield and diversification, as well as decreased costs to suggest the likelihood that income has increased. Many respondents offered “if/then” statements about income, such as “if production increased and if yield increased, then income must increase.” Production Drives Increased Income While more KII et FGD respondents were reluctant to categorically indicate that CLP activities increased agricultural income, most of them saw increased production and yields as leading to increased income. In addition, respondents were more than twice as likely to cite increased production as leading to increased income than increased yield. In terms of specific CLP approaches that had a positive impact on income, the most frequently mentioned was diversification in production. Other influences mentioned as impacting income included decreased costs, longer growing seasons, income from milling, reduction in post-harvest losses, and access to inputs. KII and FGD respondents cited increases in agricultural production as a major outcome of CLP interventions. While opinion was mixed on whether the project increased income, there was significantly more agreement that Figure 2: Changes in HH Income from Agriculture 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Changes in HH Income from Agriculture (number or responses) 9 the project impacted production. Farmers across the four crops supported by CLP (beans, corn, plantains, and rice) all mentioned increased production when asked about the benefits of the activity. Although there was a strong consensus that CLP increased production or had some impact on increased production, responses varied widely on the specific strategies and activities that were responsible for increased production. The most frequently mentioned responses were improved access to irrigation and increased area under cultivation because of access to irrigation. Another CLP intervention that respondents cited as having a positive impact, specifically on rice production, was SRI. Farmers described applying this technique during agricultural campaigns when they received support from CLP. However, without CLP support most farmers returned to the traditional system which less labor consuming. Other CLP interventions mentioned in response to questions on increased production included specific crops, such as plantains, and approaches such as access to inputs, irrigation, and training on new production techniques. Table 8: Beneficiary Household Income by Corridor (In Gourdes*) CORRIDOR N MEAN INCOME MEDIAN INCOME Matheux 366 244,409 166,850 Saint-Marc 394 89,342 49,759 Cul-de-Sac 360 46,258 21,225 All 1,120 126,167 60,000 * Average exchange rate in November 2018 $1 = 70 HTG. Improved Yields Contribute to Increased Income KII and FGD also mentioned improved crop yields as driver to increased income. A number of respondents attributed improved crop yields to CLP intervention. Results of the HHS survey show that the average yields of the main target crops are 0.57 ton/ha for beans, 0.96 ton/ha for corn, 2.89 tons/ha for rice and 16.47 tons/ha for plantain (Table 9). These results show that yields have increased for all the target crops compared to secondary sources. Yields for all crops were higher in the HHS than in government data. Data from the secondary sources are averages in the west department for beans, corn and plantain and in the Artibonite department for rice. They describe the initial conditions of crop yields in CLP intervention corridors. The most significant increase was obtained for plantains. Table 9: Evolution of Target Crop Yield (tons/ha) CROP MARNDR/CNSA ESS HHS SURVEY COMPARISON MARNDR Beans 0.45 0.57 + Corn 0.70 0.96 + Rice 2.08 2.89 + Plantain 10 16.47 + Sources: MARNDR, 2016; CNSA, 2015, ESS 2018. Increased crop yields may be an indication that agricultural income has increased since available data do not indicate any drop in the prices of agricultural commodities in Haiti. In fact, price data collected by the Ministry of Agriculture Statistic Services show that agricultural commodity prices have increased since 2015 (CNSA, 2015). The levels of agricultural production obtained during the last three to four years were not sufficient to cause price decline over the years, specifically for the crops supported by CLP. CLP data from the final Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) indicates that from 2016 to 2018 gross margins per hectare for beans increased from $563 to $656, for plantains from $4,255 to $6,597, 10 for corn from $252 to $537 and for rice from $1,147 to $1,648. These increases in gross margin reflect an improvement of between 20 and 54 percent over the first year of activity implementation. In addition, yields per hectare increased to 0.5 tons for beans, 19.4 tons for plantains, 0.8 for corn and 2.6 for rice. These yields represented increases of between 17 and 37 percent over year one of the activity. It is important to point out that yields vary from year to year due in particular to irregular access to water and inputs. For instance, late access to seeds meant planting was late, resulting in a negative effect on crop yields. CLP also tracked data on the value of exports of targeted agricultural commodities, which increased from $1.5 million in 2016 to $1.9 million at the end of project (IPTT May 2018). In addition, the activity measured the value of incremental sales (collected at farm-level) attributed to FTF, which increased from $1.1 million in 2016 to $1.6 million in 2018. Finally, CLP reported reaching 34,452 farmers who applied improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance (IPTT May 2018). Diversification and Improved Post-Harvest Processing Increase Income Based on stakeholder interviews it appears that improvements in post-harvest processing had a significant impact on a small number of respondents. CLP’s provision of training and equipment for post￾harvest processing was mentioned particularly by women’s associations and associations with women leaders. The most frequently mentioned types of equipment respondents described were processing facilities, motorized mills, storage facilities, and transportation containers. Rice mills were singled out as helping farmers add value and increase income from their crop. Training in techniques such as drying and improved product presentation were also mentioned. In addition, respondents viewed CLP support for diversification into high value crops such as vegetables and even coffee as contributing to increased income. Higher value crops are particularly suited to greenhouse agriculture, which increases the number and types of crops that can be grown as well as lengthens the growing season. According to CLP reporting, 67 greenhouses were rehabilitated, and 25 water retention ponds were built, each holding up to 14,000 gallons of water. Greenhouses also enabled farmers to diversify their production into high value-added crops such as tomatoes, sweet peppers, cucumbers, lettuce, leeks, and cut flowers. While increased production and productivity was only one of CLP’s intervention strategies, a large number and broad range of respondents saw it as the major driver of increased income. Increased diversification received secondary mention, but other CLP activities such as improved post-harvest processing were only seen as impacting income by a small number of FGD respondents. The Primacy of Access to Water Respondents saw the impact of improved access to irrigation in increasing production and increasing areas under cultivation as a key driver to increased production, as reflected in the text box. Several respondents asserted that the potential long-term impact of CLP’s activities such as training, extension services, inputs and equipment, market linkages, and agroforestry was predicated on access to water. While non-irrigation activities can improve production with rain-fed agriculture, access to irrigation remains a key to increasing income from agriculture. “Irrigation is the key to turning peasants into farmers. With irrigation, farmers feel greater security in the returns. With this security, they will invest in agriculture as a business.” GOH official 11 CONCLUSIONS Increased production was seen as the driving mechanism for increasing income With lack of income data from secondary sources, it was difficult to estimate the extent of the increase in farmers’ agricultural income. However, KII and FGD respondents clearly tied increased production to increased income. While some offered “if/then” statements when asked about increases in income, production was most frequently cited as an “if” factor leading to the “then” of improved income. Increased yield lagged behind increased production as a contributor to increasing income Besides production, KII and FGD respondents mentioned increased yield as likely driver of income, though they were significantly less likely to mention increased yield than increased production. HHS data showed that increases in yield were significant compared to available secondary data. In the context of CLP’s significant achievement in reintroducing irrigation to more than 24,000 ha of farmland, it is likely that farmers focused more on whether a field was irrigated and producing than how much it was producing. Improved reliability of access to irrigation may lead to increased awareness of the benefits of improved yields. Adding value increases income Increased income can come not only from selling more, but also from selling at a better price. Post￾harvest transformation through techniques like milling, drying, and improved presentation are ways of increasing the return on production. Given the traditional role of women in marketing agricultural produce, improved post-harvest processing can have a potentially significant impact on women farmers. Women’s associations who received motorized cereal mills from CLP were particularly positive about the impact of this form of support. Another technique for adding value to production is through diversification into higher value crops like vegetables that are suited to intense cultivation in greenhouses. Cleaning and maintenance of irrigation canals were seen as the driving force behind increased production Other approaches, such as training and access to inputs, had a major impact on increased production. However, it is uncertain that these interventions would see the same level of adoption without regular access to water. EQ2: TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS HAVE THE PROJECT’S APPROACHES AND STRATEGIES (THEORY OF CHANGE) CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS EXPECTED RESULTS (TO INCREASING REVENUE & FOOD SECURITY AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL)? FINDINGS CLP used four principal strategies to increase revenue and food security: expanding agricultural productivity and production, improving post-harvest operations, stabilizing watersheds, and supporting the development of farmer organizations and agribusinesses. Among these strategies, the most frequently cited in general in KIIs and FGDs were expanding agricultural productivity and production through new agricultural techniques. Water users’ associations and sub-watershed management bodies also cited stabilizing watersheds and improved access to irrigation as key benefits of CLP (although access to irrigation has a direct impact on food production and revenue, it is easier to measure the impact of stabilized watersheds in their absence, such as 12 flooding of agricultural plains, than in their presence). Support for the development of farmer organizations and agribusinesses through provision of management training and office equipment were also mentioned as a benefit of the project, with only indirect connection to income or food security. Package of Assistance Drove Increased Production CLP’s approach to increasing agricultural production and productivity was based on providing a “package” of support including: training in improved agricultural techniques, access to inputs and equipment, extension services, irrigation. When asked which of the approaches were most helpful to farmers, most KII and FGD respondents mentioned that training in new agricultural production techniques had the biggest impact. In addition, close to fifty respondents cited irrigation canals as a benefit to farmers, followed by access to inputs. These three approaches (training, irrigation, and inputs) represent the key elements of the assistance package that CLP offered farmers. BIA received specific mention as a benefit to farmers, as well as post-harvest processing facilities, and office equipment donated to farmers associations (specifically generators). Changes in Practices Impact Agricultural Production Respondents saw a clear link between changes in agricultural practices and increased production. Most respondents mentioned increased production as the main benefit of changes in agricultural practices. Increased yield was also mentioned as a benefit of changed practices. Specific techniques mentioned include double-row planting, fertilizers and SRI. Distinguishing between seeds (for planting) and grains (for eating) was also mentioned as a specific change in farming practices in KIIs with farmers, government officials and CLP staff members. Figure 3: Most Helpful CLP Activities 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 New ag production techniques Maintenance of irrigation canals Inputs BIA Post-harvest processing Generators Most Helpful CLP Activities 13 Access to Inputs Focuses on Seeds and Fertilizers When asked about changes in access to inputs as a result of CLP, the most common response was fertilizer7, with one quarter fewer respondents mentioning access to improved seeds. Master farmers were particularly appreciative of fertilizers, while water users’ associations more frequently mentioned access to seeds. Communal Agricultural Offices referred to BIA as a valued source of inputs at the local level. Increased Food Security Driven by Increased Production Most KII and FGD respondents felt that there had been no change to food security due to CLP interventions. However, to the extent it was mentioned, the primary reasons cited for improved food security was increased production, while increased income, availability, and yield were also mentioned. 7 In addition to commercial fertilizers sold through BIA, CLP promoted the use of locally available organic fertilizer, such as manure, along with mixing organic and non-organic fertilizer to save money and protect the environment. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 No change Increased production Don't know Slight improvement Increased sales/income Increased food available Increased yield Change in Food Security Figure 6: Change in Food Security Figure 5: Changes in Agricultural Practices 0 5 10 15 20 25 Changes in Agricultural Practices 14 Improved Watershed Stability Has Indirect Impact on Revenue CLP’s approach to improving watershed stability had an indirect, but not insubstantial impact on increased revenue and food security. Focusing at the watershed level, CLP’s integrated approach focused on protecting fertile plains from flooding and erosion, while encouraging productive hillside agriculture, to preserve productive land in both the plains and upstream watersheds. As the results of its efforts to limit erosion and conserve hillside soil, CLP described the stabilization of 13 ravines with gabions, dry stone walls, and vetiver and the terracing of more than 110 ha of vulnerable hillsides. Through the farmers’ associations, CLP financed the planting of tree nurseries by paying farmers to grow trees for agroforestry and soil conservation. Using young trees from these nurseries, CLP paid farmers to plant more than 2.2 million trees. The immediate impact of this intervention was to increase income among farmers, while the expected long-term impact will be reduced erosion. Although CLP made a significant investment in agroforestry in ecologically vulnerable ravines, whether farmers will continue to plant and grow trees on their own is an open question. KII and FGD respondents expressed particular interest in fruit trees (mango, breadfruit, loquat, and peach). However, because the fruit tree production cycles will not begin until three to five years after they were planted, these trees will not immediately contribute to income or food security. Nonetheless, agroforestry systems were seen as having an impact on reducing flooding (and thereby protecting productive fields in the plains), particularly by water users’ associations and sub-watershed management bodies. As most of CLP’s anti-erosion efforts were implemented after Hurricane Matthew in October 2016, it is difficult to measure their direct impact. However, a significant number of project beneficiaries felt they were effective.Sustainable Market Solutions Build Long Term Value Added The link between CLP’s approach to sustainable market solutions and increased revenue and food security is through improved market efficiency. Changes in market efficiency are more difficult to measure than changes in production, but by improving post-harvest processing and helping to build new business partnerships, CLP helped beneficiaries to increase the value added of their produce and to build beneficial relationships with new business partners. CLP sought to increase post-harvest value added by improving the storage capacity and processing equipment of local organizations and small businesses by providing silos, motorized mills, tarps, gas burners, and transportation and storage containers. Many respondents mentioned mills and transportation and storage containers as a positive change implemented by the project. In addition, CLP’s loan guarantee mechanism to facilitate access to finance was noted as a helpful activity by farmers associations. Based on the improved quality of their produce, CLP was able to link farmers to new markets and business partners, including large supermarkets in Port-au-Prince. While some of these new partnerships were informal, CLP also oversaw the creation of six formal PPPs, leveraging nearly $4.3 million in private sector investment. Reflecting both formal PPP arrangements and informal market linkages, more than half the agribusinesses stated that CLP helped them to find new partners or clients. However, only one agribusiness cited an increase in revenue due to new market linkages and none mentioned any impact on food security. Capacity Building of Local Organizations and Businesses The main objective of CLP capacity building interventions was not to increase revenue or food security. However, the ability of local organizations to provide services to their members (such as access to agricultural inputs) does play a supporting role in increased production and strengthened agricultural value chains. By building the capacity of BIA to manage their revenues from the sale of agricultural inputs, CLP helped to promote a stable and sustainable source of improved seeds and other inputs at the local level. 15 Interventions Increased Role of Women in Agriculture As an integral component of its interventions focused on increasing revenue and food production, CLP promoted the participation of women in agricultural production and leadership. Close to eighty respondents mentioned that women’s participation in agriculture increased due to CLP. Informants from all respondent groups mentioned that CLP required that women were selected to attend training programs. In addition, training curriculum on family planning and nutrition were developed by CLP specifically with women farmers in mind. CLP also trained and equipped four women as mobile extension agents as part of the small Fanm Pwogrè pilot. According to CLP data, the activity supported capacity building for three women’s associations and 25 women farmers’ association leaders. (All three women’s associations were interviewed for this evaluation, as well as 4 associations with women leaders.) Again, according to CLP data, the activity reached more than 34,400 women farmers. CONCLUSIONS CLP's approach of packaging training, irrigation, and access to inputs was seen as a major strength and a major contributor to increased production and revenue. Because these activities were implemented simultaneously and were intentionally synergistic, it is difficult to discern which had the greatest impact. Of the various components of CLP’s “package,” farmers particularly appreciated training in new agricultural techniques. Training content was adapted to farmers’ needs and improved techniques were seen as having a direct impact on improved production. Popular improved techniques required little or no outside inputs, such as fertilizers, seed sparing, and double row. “Before there were no women's groups involved in agricultural production. Some women worked on the plots of their spouse, but agricultural work has always been the role of the man. With the arrival of CLP, there are not only groups of women, but also the number of women working in the gardens has increased.” Agribusiness Manager 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Increased participation in agriculture Training participation Required by the project Women's group membership Increased interest in agriculture Participation of Women in Agriculture Figure 7: Participation of Women 16 Agricultural input shops are valued as a local source for improved inputs. Respondents viewed support for BIA as a strength of CLP’s approach. Respondents consider BIA as a valued source of agricultural inputs at the local level, particularly for access to improved seeds. They have the capacity to remain sustainable if they can continue to source inputs to sell to their members. Post-CLP, BIA’s will be faced with the challenge of sourcing the kinds of inputs they received as donations from CLP on the open market at competitive prices. Increased Food Security was Driven by Increased Production Respondents generally agreed that CLP had a positive impact on food security, with increased production cited as the greatest contributing factor. Increased income, and food availability and yield were secondary factors in improving increased food security. The impact of watershed stability on income is important, but hard to measure and incentivize. Flooding, erosion, and environmental degradation take an important toll on Haitian agricultural productivity and income. As a common good, erosion control benefits the whole watershed, which makes its return for any individual difficult to quantify. CLP beneficiaries showed willingness to work on erosion control terracing and other activities when the project was active, but because they see little direct benefit to themselves, may be less open to doing so on their own post-project. Agroforestry is one approach to overcoming the challenge of common goods if farmers are willing to adjust to a three to five-year time frame before seeing the fruit of their work. Post-harvest processing and market linkages add value to agricultural production. Access to basic processing equipment can substantially increase income generation from agriculture by increasing value added and opening up new markets with formal private sector businesses. In addition, women farmers, who are traditionally responsible for marketing agricultural goods, are particularly appreciative of post-harvest processing interventions. Formalized market arrangements such as PPPs and loan guarantee mechanisms offer opportunities for project partners to build profitable and sustainable business relationships in the private sector. Institutional capacity building has only an indirect impact on increasing income. The value of building local capacity is not defined by its impact on agricultural income alone. USAID programming will benefit from having sustainable local organizations to work with as partners in the future. Increasing women’s participation requires specific strategies and interventions. Requiring that women were included in all training programs, developing training curriculum focused on women and promoting women’s leadership through capacity building helped to increase women’s participation in agriculture. EQ3: TO WHAT EXTENT WILL CLP ACTIVITIES CONTINUE AFTER THE ACTIVITY, CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ACTIVITIES? The extent to which any of the activities begun under CLP will continue after the project will be influenced by several factors. To analyze the potential for sustainability of CLP activities, we must first consider whether the required financial, institutional, and technical capacity exists for these activities to be continued over time. We must also consider that the capacity of different groups of CLP partners varies significantly. CRDD, BIA, farmers associations, water users’ associations, sub-watershed management bodies, master farmers, and Fanm Pwogrè all have different levels of financial, institutional, and technical capacity. The continuation of CLP activities with these groups will be a function of their 17 unique capacities. Finally, we must consider CLP beneficiaries’ interests and intentions to continue activities after the end of the project. Findings Financial Sustainability Is Based on Income Generation To assess financial sustainability the capacity to generate sufficient income to cover costs is a particularly robust indicator. CLP data counted 35 of its local partner organizations (BIA and cooperatives) as operating at or above cost with the sustainable capacity to generate revenue. The ET was not able to independently assess if all these organizations were still operating profitably, although interviews with six CRDD and 30 associations indicated that a large number of these partners were at least still operating. Access to finance is another indicator of financial stability; with CLP support, 14 farmers associations built long-term relationships with MFIs and were able to access loans on favorable terms. Other CLP institutional partners, such as CRDDs, offer a mixed picture on financial sustainability. One CRDD mentioned using tractors donated by the WINNER project as a means of generating revenue by plowing farmers’ fields, but complained that they did not have enough money to maintain the tractors and were concerned that this was not a sustainable business. For water users’ associations and sub-watershed management bodies, the issue of financial sustainability is tied directly to their ability to raise money in subscriptions and fees from farmers. Of the seven water users’ associations interviewed, less than half charged fees or dues and none were able to support their operations from member income.8 For individual farmers and master farmers, CLP support helped them to increase production and revenue, while decreasing costs. If they can access improved inputs, and apply improved techniques, and if they are able to maintain the same production levels demonstrated during CLP, then they should have the incentive and ability to continue the activities they started under CLP. In the six-month period since the end of CLP, inputs were still available and improved techniques were still being applied. How long this continues without further outside support is an open question. Institutional Sustainability Is Strengthened by Relationship Building To assess institutional sustainability, the ET evaluated the ability of an organization or group to continue to manage itself over time. CLP verified the institutional capacity of 18 partner organizations through the NUPAS assessment and certified that ten of these partners are qualified to receive direct funding from the USG. While NUPAS eligibility was mentioned positively by some of these beneficiaries, it does not guarantee they will receive funding. Interviews with USAID officials made clear that even NUPAS certified organizations would be required to undergo additional verification before receiving USG funding. As none of the associations interviewed had yet received funding based on their NUPAS certification, it is more useful as a measure of institutional capacity and potential for sustainability than a guarantee of financial support. 8 Water users’ association leaders explained that during the period of Jean Claude Duvalier all farmers paid water use fees, but since the Aristide era farmers are no longer willing to pay fees. “Certification under NUPAS will be useful in responding to calls for proposals. However, it is difficult to work with other donors because they see us as a USAID project.” Farmers’ association official “Support from CLP allowed us to keep our doors open by supporting our operations. The main benefit of CLP is that we are still operating today.” CRDD official 18 CLP supported the institutional sustainability of local partner organizations, including BIA and CRDD and associations, through providing equipment and training. Office equipment, specifically back-up energy sources such as batteries and solar panels, were particularly appreciated and were mentioned as useful by more than half of farmers’ associations. In addition, training in project management, entrepreneurship, and accounting were mentioned as beneficial by both farmers’ associations and water users’ associations. This package of training and equipment was intended to increase the capacity of local organizations, but will also have a positive impact on their sustainability. Multiple recipients of capacity building support mentioned that they continue to use the office equipment CLP provided and that it has strong value added for their association. Leaders from these associations explained that they can maintain the equipment they were provided, but they were not sure that they will be able to replace it in the future. Another CLP approach to building sustainable institutional relationships was promotion of partnerships among different value chain actors, such as farmers, farmer associations and agro-processors. CLP data indicate that six PPPs were signed collectively worth $4.3 million. Additionally, nine agreements were signed between farmers associations and agribusinesses for the sale of agricultural produce. In KIIs, agribusinesses mentioned that the new business partnerships begun under CLP will continue beyond the end of the activity. Technical Sustainability Requires Resources to Maintain To assess technical capacity we considered the knowledge, training, and experience to continue to implement improved agricultural (and management) techniques. KIIs and FGDs indicated that, at least in the short term, farmers will continue to have the capacity to use CLP-promoted techniques. However, their ability to replicate these techniques will likely decline over time. Similarly, the technical capacities of CLP partners such as the CRDD will likely continue in the short term. However, CRDDs’ ability to provide technical support and training to farmers over the long term will be influenced by their ability to access funds in the future. Some CRDDs have been able to generate funds internally post-CLP by charging for services such as land preparation, but this income has been limited. Between the WINNER and CLP projects, CRDD received support in the form of new offices, office equipment, agricultural equipment, storage facilities, and training materials. They also provided services, such as seed multiplication and agricultural extension, as subcontractors to CLP. However, with the closure of CLP this important revenue source disappeared and there is uncertainty among CRDD staff as to the viability of their centers without further support. Similarly, CLP’s efforts to build the technical capacity of master farmers has created a cadre of well￾trained farmers, but does not guarantee that these master farmers offer technical support and advice to their fellow farmers. Several FGDs mentioned master farmers applying improved techniques to their own plots, but criticized them for not sharing their knowledge with other farmers. Finally, while water users’ associations in collaboration with the ODVA, have the technical capacity to maintain irrigation canals, without outside support this capacity will remain underutilized. Continuity of Activities and Demand for Future USAID Support The findings above must be triangulated with other findings to consider not just respondents’ financial, institutional, and technical capacity, but also their intention to continue implementing activities begun under CLP. To do so, the ET asked CLP partners directly about their interest and intention to continue activities after the close of project. Respondents were also asked what they thought the barriers to sustainability of CLP activities would be, and how those barriers could be overcome. Finally, to assess “Farmers will continue use of the easiest of the new agricultural techniques, however, if they are not given refresher training in a few years they will begin to go back to the traditional ways of farming.” CRDD official 19 demand for services, former CLP partners were asked what kinds of activities and support they would like to see in a follow-on activity. When asked which activities started under CLP would continue after the project is over, respondents’ replies reflected the range of different activities undertaken by CLP. Improved agricultural practices were most often cited as continuing, followed by institutional capacity. Training was cited, as well as access to inputs, irrigation, and post￾harvest processing equipment. These activities represent the core of the “package” of production and post-harvest focused activities implemented by CLP. Barriers to Continuity As potential barriers to the continuity of CLP activities, a significant number of respondents cited no barriers, while others mentioned specific constraints such as lack of availability of improved inputs, lack of local capacity, and lack of access to finance. Others mentioned more general obstacles such as insecurity and the weakness of the agricultural sector as a whole. To overcome these barriers, respondents recommended involving the government more closely in project planning and implementation, and strengthening local associations (as well as BIAs). Respondents also suggested training farmers and working closely with agribusinesses to ensure the sustainability of CLP interventions. Figure 9: Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability Figure 8: Continuing Interventions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Improved agricultural practices Institutional capacity Training Access to inputs Access to irrigation Post-harvest processing Continuing Interventions - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Engage GOH Strengthen associations Train farmers Work with private sector Strengthen BIA Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability 20 Strengths and Weaknesses of the CLP Approach There was considerably less unanimity on the strengths and weaknesses of CLP’s approaches and strategies, with more respondents mentioning weaknesses than strengths. As to CLP’s strengths, respondents most frequently cited training in new agricultural techniques, irrigation canal maintenance, and strengthened local organizations. The quality of CLP’s leadership and competence, experience, teamwork, and CLP staff motivation were also mentioned. As to weaknesses, respondents cited issues that were both inside and outside of CLP’s realm of influence. Among the weaknesses within CLP’s control, over one tenth of respondents cited unkept promises. The most significant of those unmet commitments was late provision of agricultural inputs and late repayment of farmers groups. In addition, a broad range of respondents cited lack of coordination with the government as a weakness in CLP’s approach. An interesting example of the breadth of this sentiment among respondents was the fact that agribusinesses cited lack of coordination with the government as frequently as government-run communal agricultural offices. Another broadly shared weakness was what was described as CLP’s non-participatory approach to working with farmers. Respondents felt that strong systems should have been in place for communication and information sharing and that farmers should have been better consulted in the type and timing of the assistance they received. Issues cited that were outside the realm of control of CLP, but nonetheless significant, were that the duration of the activity was too short and the budget too small. Future USAID Support Several of the activities that respondents mentioned they would like to see continued in future USAID￾funded agricultural projects included activities implemented under CLP. Among these, improvement of the irrigation canal system was the most frequently cited, with training on new production techniques and access to improved inputs close behind. In addition, access to extension services, credit, and equipment were mentioned as well as strengthen of local associations. In response to what sort of follow-on support they would like to receive, respondents recommended several important changes in the way that a future project operates. These revolved mainly around increasing involvement of the government in future activities and increased consultation with farmers, associations, and agribusinesses on project activities (including a household level needs assessment). CONCLUSIONS CLP’s support for building the sustainability of local organizations helped improve their organizational capacity. The combination of office equipment, management, and accounting training improved local organizations’ capacity to manage themselves sustainably. There was strong agreement among associations that the “package” of training, office supplies, and equipment was helpful, particularly back￾up energy supplies. The office equipment CLP provided was still in use at the time of this evaluation and will likely be maintained throughout the useful life of the equipment. It is uncertain, however, that the equipment recipients will be able to replace it when it no longer functions. Financial sustainability is an important driver to overall sustainability. Partnering with organizations that are managing income-generating activities, such as BIA, is an effective approach to ensuring sustainability. However, some institutional partners, face major obstacles to charging the kinds of fees that would ensure their revenues exceed their costs. For example, without additional income, water users’ associations will have difficulty in maintaining canals cleaned by CLP. Institutional sustainability is not an end in and of itself, but can add value to building sustainable institutional partnerships. 21 Institutional capacity assessment techniques such as NUPAS provide potential partners an indication of institution capacity, but if they do not lead to a business or funding relationship; their utility is limited. However, PPP agreements are based on mutual business agreements and should remain sustainable as long as they continue to be advantageous for both parties. Technical capacity can remain sustainable in a latent form, but without resources can have limited impact. CLP investments in technical training and support have built a latent technical capacity among partner organizations and master farmers; however, without the resources to promote and implement improve techniques, the full potential of this capacity will not be achieved. Institutional Capacity and Beneficiary Intention are both Required to Continue Activities. Whether CLP partners have the financial, institutional, and technical capacity to continue activities started under the project is the acid test of sustainability. In terms of lessons learned for future programming, it is worth considering the intention of partners to continue activities. Implementing new agricultural techniques, maintenance of irrigation canals, and strengthened local organizations were activities that respondents felt would be sustained over time. Respondents considered these the strengths of the CLP approach and requested them as future support from USAID. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS USAID should continue to use integrated approaches to increasing agricultural income and food security. Increased production has a clear impact on increased income, but should be approached in the larger contexts of value chains and watersheds in order to ensure broad and sustained impact. USAID should focus on increasing efficiencies in the agricultural sector through improved yields and value added production. Promoting higher yield techniques and inputs as well as adding value to production through post-harvest processing should complement increases in production. Because post-harvest processing is particularly relevant to women farmers, it should be part of a gender inclusion strategy. USAID should use a value chain approach to increase diversification and promote higher value crops. Improved production technologies, such as greenhouses, offer the opportunity for farmers to produce higher value crops on less land. Promoting market linkages between producers and buyers is necessary to ensuring higher incomes. USAID should engage in a collective effort to sustainably maintain irrigation systems. Periodic canal cleanings are necessary and have a significant impact on production. USAID should continue to work with local organizations and local government offices to support their maintenance of canals. USAID should continue to package assistance to farmers, but should ensure that beneficiaries have a voice in what is included in the package. The package of assistance offered by CLP (training, inputs, and irrigation) was appropriate and appreciated by farmers, but communication and information sharing mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that farmers are consulted in the type and timing of the assistance they receive. Local BIAs run by farmers’ associations represent a valuable mechanism for challenging assistance and information. USAID should continue to support watershed-level activities that have longer term and indirect impact on income and food security. The impact of effective watershed management can be measured on a timeline that runs in decades, longer than any single USAID activity cycle. Yet protecting watersheds through erosion control and reforestation is vital to the long-term health of the Haitian agriculture. Therefore, USAID should continue to maintain focus on watershed-level solutions 22 that include both increasing agricultural production in the plains and stabilizing mountainside watersheds that feed the plains. USAID support is vital to local organizations in the field and financial and technical support for partners should continue. Similarly, the return on investment in capacity building of local organizations cannot be directly measured in terms of increased household revenues and food security. Pursuing a longer-term investment strategy through building strong local organizations will ensure that USAID has a cadre of future local partners with the financial, technical, and institutional capacity to support USAID programming in the field. USAID has invested significantly in building the capacity of farmers associations, BIA, CRDD and master farmers. In order to sustain this local capacity, further support is needed. USAID has long experience with many of these local organizations and has tools that should be used for selecting the best qualified partners. Some of these organizations will need continued organizational development support in the short to medium term, but as the capacity of these organizations merit, USAID assistance should work with them as counterparts and service providers. USAID should continue to actively support the inclusion of women in agricultural activities. Increased inclusion of women begins at the design stage of an activity and includes development of interventions that promote women’s participation and leadership in farmer’s associations. It also included development of training materials focused on issues of particular concern to women (such as family planning and nutrition) and support for value chain activities that are traditionally women-managed (such as post-harvest transformation and marketing). 23 ANNEX A. SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CHANJE LAVI PLANTÈ ACTIVITY I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of the evaluation is to inform USAID/Haiti’s and the Agency’s possible future similar agriculture programming in Haiti. Lessons learned and recommendations provided through the final report at the end of the evaluation process should guide future programming in the areas of agriculture. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, Chemonics International, local institutions, which participated in the implementation of the activity, and Government of Haiti (GoH) institutions: MARNDR and BACs. II. SUMMARY INFORMATION Strategy/Project/Activity Name FEED THE FUTURE WEST / CHANJE LAVI PLANTE Implementer Chemonics Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-OAA-C-15-00065 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity (TEC) $24,910,214 Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity May 2015–May 2018 Active Geographic Regions Port au Prince and Matheux Corridors Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO2: Increased food and economic security USAID Office Economic Growth and Agricultural Development III. BACKGROUND A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis (es), and Theory of Change The Feed the Future Chanje Lavi Plantè (hereafter CLP), builds on results achieved through Feed-the￾Future/West (CLP) to sustainably transform the agriculture sector; increase agricultural incomes; and contribute to improve the nutritional status of 60,000 beneficiary households in the Cul-de-Sac and Matheux corridors, as well as in mango production areas. This activity was implemented over a three￾year period, partnering with four separate USAID-funded activities that collectively contribute to achieve four Intermediate Results: (1) agricultural productivity increased, (2) watershed stability improved, (3) agricultural markets strengthened, and (4) capacities of local organizations strengthened. Agricultural production is critical to the Haitian economy. The importance of increasing agricultural productivity to address food insecurity, promote economic recovery, and generate opportunities for employment is viewed as essential for long-term sustainability. There is growing attention from the Government of Haiti (GoH), the United States Government (USG), and the international community at￾large regarding the importance of addressing development objectives from an agriculture sector-based approach. The GoH released the Action Plan for National Recovery and Development of Haiti in 2010, which identified agricultural production as one of the bases for economic rebuilding. In 2011, the USG complemented the GoH goals with the release of the USG Post-Earthquake Strategy, which listed Food and Economic Security as one of the four crucial pillars of recovery and development. 24 USAID implements Feed the Future initiatives in Haiti which is the USG’s global initiative to combat hunger and food insecurity. It is designed to help “countries transform their own agriculture sectors to grow enough food sustainably to feed their people” (Feed the Future Overview, 2012). During February 2015, USAID concluded the five-year Feed the Future CLP Activity, and its extension, which worked to improve the livelihoods of people living in the targeted corridors of Cul-de-Sac and Matheux, reduced the threat from flooding, and invested in sustainable agriculture development through a value chain approach. As a follow-up to CLP, CLP was subsequently designed to build on lessons learned and to leverage advances made under CLP. This activity was designed as a unique opportunity to present new approaches, introduce cutting edge techniques, work with a broader scope of stakeholders and directly address important challenges such as good nutrition, land security and agricultural credit. Above all, CLP was intended to strengthen the capacity of key organizations, so that they can directly benefit from USAID grants and become sustainable catalysts of rural world modernization in the future. With the objectives to consolidate USAID accomplishments among 60,000 farmers already assisted by the CLP, CLP claimed to reach out to another group of 30,000 households. CLP has four Intermediate Results: Result 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased Result 2: Watershed Stability above Selected Plains Improved Result 3: Agricultural Markets Strengthened Result 4: Critical Capacities of local organizations Strengthened The following graphic represents the activity’s results framework, showing the link between the planned activities in order to reach the activity overall objective of Increased Agricultural Incomes, and USAID Development Objective of “Food and Economic Security Increased”. 25 B. Summary Strategy/Project/Activity/Intervention to be evaluated The objective of the CLP Activity was to increase farmers’ income and resiliency in the Cul de Sac and Matheux development corridors. Food security of 60,000 households was expected to be increased through collaboration with other USAID activities. To increase agricultural productivity in the activity’s intervention area, CLP implements a series of interventions that provide farmers with a technical package including permanent access to water, high productivity inputs, broad-based extension services, mechanized land preparation services, good post￾harvest equipment, and sound management practices. For maize, beans, plantains, and rice, CLP focus on specific techniques to achieve higher levels of productivity. For example, expand the double row practice on plantain and increase the utilization of fertilizers in rice production (SRI - Sustainable Rice Intensification). Access to improved seeds and poor soil fertility are among primary bottlenecks to agricultural expansion and were addressed by the activity. The activity plans to build a national seed industry, in partnership with farmer associations, INGOs, and private entrepreneurs. It introduces new high yielding seeds, after testing and comparing them to local seed varieties, and will select those that show the best performance in Haiti. Seeds are then locally multiplied and/or sold through sustainable commercial networks to increase productivity of a broad group of farmers working in irrigated or rain￾fed areas. CLP develops a fertilization handbook that will provide exact formulas of fertilizers for each crop and in each zone of intervention. Tailor-made fertilizer formulas will lower the cost of fertilization. CLP also works to stimulate the creation and/or expansion of private companies that will produce, import, and distribute modern inputs. CLP uses a network of master farmers and agronomists to provide extension service to the beneficiaries. Demonstration plots and text messages are among other approaches that the activity uses to extend the promoted technologies to the farmers. With the understanding that access to water is the primary obstacle to increase agricultural productivity, CLP works with water users’ associations to extend the number of hectares of land that are under improved irrigation and drainages services. The activity partners with ODVA to clean irrigation systems in the Artibonite Valley and brings water back to areas that have not been irrigated in the last 10 years. In upper watershed areas, CLP experience has shown that greenhouses and vertical agriculture represent one of the best technologies to increase productivity, improve farmers’ incomes and free up space for reforestation and agro-forestry. Experience has also shown that greenhouse production fails when it is not accompanied by extensive training and adequate access to water. CLP implements activities that include the rehabilitation and upgrading of existing greenhouses and assist farmers to improve water collection and storage through low-cost community ponds and provide training and inputs for more productive greenhouse farming. Upper watershed agriculture is one element of hillside stabilization that focuses on terrace building for modern farming of high value crops and plantations of fruit trees by beneficiaries. CLPs assist the community to develop Sub- watershed Management Plans that identify areas for high-yield farming, agroforestry activities and conservation measures, based on land use mapping and a participatory approach with key stakeholders. As part of the implementation of the Sub-Watershed Management Plans, CLP partners establish community nurseries that produce seedlings for tree planting activities and undertake ravines treatment. While over 60 percent of Haitians work in the agriculture sector, most have limited or no access to financial assistance to expand and modernize their activities. Considered a high-risk sector, financial institutions in Haiti are often hesitant to offer loans to agribusinesses and farmer organizations. When loans are granted, however, proposed interest rates are 3 percent – 5 percent a month, which are extremely high compared to other Caribbean countries. CLP works to develop new and innovate financial products in Haiti that facilitate access to credit at affordable rates and stimulate agricultural 26 production and commercialization. In collaboration with financial institutions, CLP has partnered farmer organizations managing agricultural input supply stores (BIAs) directly with these financial institutions to create an Agricultural Credit Guarantee Mechanism (ACGM), which will allow these organizations to access credit at low interest rates with the ACGM acting as cash collateral. CLP also provides business development services to a network of agribusiness and provide technical assistance to women organization that involve in agricultural processing and commercialization. CLP assists new farmer organizations and those already trained by Feed the Future West-CLP to improve their organizational structure, accounting systems, internal control procedures, and M&E capacity. The goal was to help them acquire sound managerial and financial skills, strengthen their structures and democratize their leadership, so that they can receive grants from the Mission in the future. Furthermore, the activity provides capacity building training to all organizations supported, including private enterprises, government owned institutions and civil society entities. CLP also works with all concerned stakeholders to promote and improve relationships within target value chains. On one hand, the activity helps agribusinesses build up and modernize their post-harvest operations, so that they can buy and store large quantities of agricultural products from growers. On the other hand, it strengthens the cooperatives and union of cooperatives as the main entities that are dealing with agribusinesses on behalf of farmer associations Activity Coverage CLP has been implemented in the Cul-de Sac and Matheux Development corridors and mangoes production areas. Activity Corridors Intervention Communes Matheux Arcahaie Cabaret Saint-Marc Montrouis Cul-de-sac Croix-des-Bouquets Ganthier Thomazeau Kenscoff Pétionville Cite Soleil Mirebalais (Mango area) Mirebalais Saut-d’Eau The Cul-de-Sac corridor encompasses 475 square kilometers (km2) and includes the Port-au- Prince area, the country’s mountainous area to the south of the city, and its foothills and plains. The corridor consists of two major river basins: River Grise and River Blanche, which flow to the Baie de Port au Prince just north of Port au Prince. The Cul-de-Sac corridor is a priority area for watershed management due to its degradation, as well as the consequences of the January 2010 earthquake that further increased people’s poverty and vulnerability to natural disasters. 27 The Matheux corridor is characterized by a vast network of rivers and ravines concentrated in a relatively small area, such as the Courjolle, Bretelle, Torcelle, Manègue, Montrouis, Lanzac, Délugé, Pierre Payen and the Artibonite River that delimits the Saint-Marc commune. These rivers and ravines represent serious threats of flooding for the towns of Cabaret, Arcahaie and the entire Saint-Marc commune. The Matheux corridor includes the littoral zone (Baie de St. Marc, Golfe de Gonave, and the Canal de St. Marc and Baie de Port au Prince, collectively known as Côte des Arcadins) and upstream areas of the Matheux Mountains and the entire watersheds of the rivers located in the Saint-Marc commune. The intervention of CLP has been extended to the 5e Section Communale of Bocozel in Saint Marc Though the large majority of Partnership activities take place in regions defined above, the natural market catchment areas for certain goods and services may extend outside the Port-au- Prince – Saint￾Marc regions. That is to say, beneficiary organizations (producer groups, agribusinesses, etc.) in the targeted geographic area were supported to find buyers and markets for their products, and those buyers/markets do not need to be in the Port au Prince/Saint-Marc Corridors. In fact, it is the hope that products originating in the Port au Prince/Saint-Marc Corridors will find markets throughout the country. The map in section below shows the regions for the CLP Activity. Targets Crops In line with the USG’s post-earthquake strategy and the Feed-the-Future Initiative, the CLP focuses energies on a limited number of value chains to maximize activity impact and number of households reached. These target crops are rice, corn, beans, plantain, vegetables and mango as an export crop. The 28 implementer works to a much lesser extent in support crops that complement work in the focus crops, for example for the purposes of increasing soil fertility, managing pests, making new investments financially viable, etc. through crop rotation, intercropping, and other relevant practices. However, 80 percent of Feed-the-Future money invested in the plains must be spent on the focus crops. C. Summary of the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan CLP has defined a set of performance indicators including a mix of outcome and output indicators to monitor activity progress at all levels of the results framework. Output indicators track the immediate products of activities and provide feedback to managers on activity performance to identify areas where implementation strategies may need to be adjusted. Outcome indicators measure the effects, or results, of activities, at the higher levels of the activity results framework. Indicators were selected based on the overall strategic approach of the activity and closely reflect the work plan to capture the main project activities. Indicators at the activity objective and result levels help us monitor progress against targets, capture and communicate impact, provide input for USAID’s reporting needs, and support ongoing improvements. Indicators for the M&E system were selected based on the overall strategic approach to the activity and closely reflect the work plan, capturing the main activities of the activity and considering the required FTF and custom indicators. The CLP M&E plan includes 20 FTF indicators, 6 custom indicators and 22 activity-level indicators. The IPTT with the name of the indicator, unit of measure, disaggregation, data source, baseline data and targets. The Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) contains: the name of the indicator, the description of the indicator, justification and management utility of each indicator, the frequency of reporting, plan for data acquisition, data quality issues, and plan for data analysis. Review and reporting are also part of the M&E plan. Quarterly and annual technical reports of the activity and the PHS are among other documents that outlines the accomplishment of the activity. IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS No Evaluation Question 1 To what extent has the activity been successful in increasing the household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? 2 To what extent and in what ways have the activity’s approaches and strategies (Theory of Change) contributed to the achievement of its expected results (to increasing revenue and food security at household level)? 3 To what extent will CLP activities continue after the activity, considering the financial (credit…), institutional (water users associations, other local associations, GoH…) and technical (greenhouses, agricultural practices…) aspects of the activities? V. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The methodological approach shall include a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, with data collection from both primary and secondary sources. Among suggested data collection methods include: 1. Review of literature and analysis of relevant documents; 2. In-depth interviews with key informants (KII); and 3. FGDs; 29 4. Survey of program participants (HHS). As part of the evaluation design document, SI shall propose for USAID’s review, a detailed methodological approach to be used to address EQs. This methodology will specify the research design, as well as methods and procedures for sampling, data collection and data analysis. Efforts should be made to use multiple data collection methods and data sources, complementing literature review, interviews, and discussions to allow for triangulation of data and cross-validation of results. The evaluation matrix below provides a summary of the suggested data collection methods by EQs. Questions Suggested Data Sources (*) Suggested Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods To what extent has the activity been successful in increasing the household beneficiaries’ agricultural income? Activity Beneficiaries [Beneficiaries HHS, KIIs, FGDs, desk review] [To be determined by the ET] To what extent and in what ways have the activity’s approaches and strategies (Theory of Change) contributed to the achievement of its expected results (to increasing revenue and food security at household level)? Acitivity Staff, Beneficiaries, Key Informants [Beneficiaries HHS, KIIs, FGDs, desk review] [To be determined by the ET] To what extent will the activities continue after the project, considering the financial (credit…), institutional (water users associations, other local associations, GoH…) and technical (greenhouses, agricultural practices…) aspects of the activities? Beneficiaries, Activity Staff, key Informants [Beneficiaries HHS, KIIs, FGDs, desk review] [To be determined by the ET] VI. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Evaluation Work plan: Upon receipt of this Activity Request, Social Impact (SI) shall submit within two weeks a draft work plan to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The work plan will include: (1) the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; (2) a list of the members of the ET, delineated by roles and responsibilities with their level of effort; (3) the identification of other 30 required personnel and relevant local sub-contractors, their LOE, roles and responsibilities and qualifications; and (4) the deliverable schedule. 2. Evaluation Design: Within two weeks of approval of the work plan, SI must submit to Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft data collection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited; (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan. USAID/Haiti will take up to 10 business days to review and consolidate comments through the COR. Once the ET receives the consolidated comments on the initial evaluation design and work plan, they are expected to return with a revised evaluation design and work plan within 5 business days. 3. In-briefing / inception report: Prior undertaking field work, the ET will have an in-briefing with the USAID/Governance Team and ESS COR to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to clarify any questions or logistical needs. 4. Evaluation Briefing/Presentation: The ET is expected to hold a final presentation in person to discuss the summary of findings and recommendations to USAID within 20 business days after the conclusion of fieldwork. 5. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers having a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, the Governance Office will have 10 working business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the ESS COR will submit the consolidated comments to the ET. The ET will then be asked to submit revised final draft report 5 business days hence, and again the Governance Office will review and send comments on this final draft report within 5 business days of its submission. 6. Final Evaluation Report: The ET will be asked to take no more than 15 business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from the Governance Office. The ET leader will then submit the final report to the COR. All activity data and records (FGD and KII summary reports) shall be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized, and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. VII. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The ET shall be comprised of three Key Personnel positions: (i) a Team Leader, and (ii) a Sector Specialist. SI is strongly encouraged to sub-partner with two local Haitian firms for data collection purposes. The selected Haitian firms should demonstrate proven capacity in collecting data in the relevant fields (quantitative and qualitative data collection) and should have data analysis capabilities to perform all related data management functions. This approach is encouraged to build the local firm capacity and will also provide a Haitian perspective for the data collection and analysis. 31 The Team Leader (TL) is ultimately responsible for the overall management of the ET, coordinating the implementation of the evaluation, assigning evaluation responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the final evaluation report in conformity with this Statement of Work. The TL must be an experienced evaluation expert, with a documented track record of 10 years of experience in the field of evaluation. S/he should have a strong background in the agriculture and environmental field. S/he should be fluent in French and English. S/he should have at least a master’s Degree in Agriculture economics, Public Administration or a related field. The Sector Specialist helps the TL in the overall management of the ET and the final products, in conformity with this Statement of Work. The ATL should be familiar with the Agriculture sector. S/he must possess excellent writing and interpersonal skills and must be familiar with USAID programs, objectives, and reporting requirements. S/he should have experience in designing and implementing evaluations in the agriculture sector and in conducting FGDs. Fluency in French is required. English and Haitian Creole are highly desirable, as is significant prior work experience in Haiti. A Bachelor's degree in Political Science, Public Administration, or a related field is required to ensure that all areas of technical expertise required for the evaluation are effectively covered. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The ET shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. VIII. EVALUATION SCHEDULE Timing (Anticipated Duration) Scheduled Activities 4 Weeks Preparation of the work plan and evaluation design 3 Weeks USAID Approval of the Work Plan and Inception Report 1 week Within 5 business days of the inception report 4 Weeks Data collection 2 Weeks Data analysis and Evaluation Briefing 2 Weeks Draft Report writing 2 Weeks USAID review of Draft Report 1 Week Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report IX. FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the activity being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). 32 The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: • The Evaluation SOW; • Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the ET; • All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; • All sources of information properly identified and listed; and • Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all ET members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of. • Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the ET. • Summary information about ET members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of the evaluation’s conclusion. X. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201MAA, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report.9 • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. 9 See ADS 201MAH, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 33 • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. 34 ANNEX B. EVALUATION MATRIX DATA SOURCES SAMPLE QUESTIONS ANALYSIS PLAN DATA COLLECTION METHOD EQ • Content analysis • Trend analysis • Comparative analysis • Descriptive statistics • Gender analysis To what extent did the activities implemented by CLP increase farmer income? What were the factors that contributed to and/or limited CLP’s ability to improve incomes? • USAID personnel • Chemonics CLP personnel • CLP Technical Advisors • Ministry of Agriculture • Other donors and INGOs • Activity documentation • USAID strategy documents • GOH strategy documents • GOH agricultural statistics • Farmers • Farmers associations • Agro-businesses and input shops • Water users’ associations • Rural Sustainable Development Centers Document Review KIIs FGD HHS EQ1 - TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE ACTIVITY BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN INCREASING THE HOUSEHOLD BENEFICIARIES’ AGRICULTURAL INCOME? • Content analysis • Trend analysis • Gap analysis • Comparative analysis • Descriptive statistics • Gender analysis Did the activities implemented by CLP increase food security? What were the factors that contributed to and/or limited CLP’s ability to improve food security? • USAID personnel • Chemonics CLP personnel • CLP Technical Advisors • Ministry of Agriculture • Other donors and INGOs • Activity documentation • USAID strategy documents • GOH strategy documents • GOH agricultural statistics • Farmers • Farmers associations • Agro-businesses and input shops • Water users’ associations • Rural Sustainable Development Centers Document Review KIIs FGD HHS EQ2 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS HAVE THE ACTIVITY’S APPROACHES AND STRATEGIES CONTRIBUTED TO INCREASING REVENUE AND FOOD SECURITY AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL? • Content analysis • Trend analysis • Gap analysis • Comparative analysis To what extent will the activities implemented by CLP be continued after the activity ends? What were the factors that contributed to and/or limited that sustainability of CLP’s activities? • USAID personnel • Chemonics CLP personnel • CLP Technical Advisors • Ministry of Agriculture • Other donors and INGOs • Activity documentation • USAID strategy documents Document Review KIIs FGD HHS EQ3- TO WHAT EXTENT WILL CLP ACTIVITIES CONTINUE AFTER THE ACTIVITY, CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL 35 DATA SOURCES SAMPLE QUESTIONS ANALYSIS PLAN DATA COLLECTION METHOD EQ • Descriptive statistics • Gender analysis To what extent did CLP consult and engage local organizations at various stages of activity implementation? To what extent did CLP adjust its strategies in response to stakeholder feedback? • GOH strategy documents • GOH agricultural statistics • Farmers • Farmers associations • Agro-businesses and input shops • Water users’ associations • Rural Sustainable Development Centers AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ACTIVITIES? 36 ANNEX C. CLP RESULTS FRAMEWORK Objective: to increase agricultural incomes and exports in Haiti’s Port-au-Prince and Saint-Marc development corridors, specifically increasing incomes for at least 60,000 rural households Intermediate Result 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased Sub-results (outputs) Activities 1.1. Knowledge and availability of improved production technologies and systems increased 1.1.1. Study tour in Mexico (MOU with CIMMYT) 1.1.2. Installation of weather station 1.1.3. Promotion of high-quality seeds for selected crops 1.2. Strengthened extension of agricultural technologies, nutrition information 1.2.1. Work and develop activities with targeted CRDD via grants 1.2.2. Support CRDD to select and train master farmers 1.2.3. Organization of practical training for young agro-professional MARNDR staff 1.2.4. Organization of production campaigns 1.2.5. Provision of training to farmers and associations 1.2.6. Provision of equipment and materials 1.2.7. Adaptation test of improved seed varieties 1.3. Increased access to inputs 1.3.1. Distribution of inputs to BIAs 1.3.2. Development of a fertilization handbook 1.3.3. Development of seed multiplication with farmers through CRDD 1.3.4. Work with private enterprises to import and distribution of inputs 1.4. Capacity of users to manage irrigation systems increased 1.4.1. Assessment of management capacity of water user associations 1.4.2. Cleaning and rehabilitation of irrigation canals 1.4.3. Provision of technical assistance to farmer associations 37 Intermediate Result 2: Watershed Stability above Selected Plains Improved Sub-results (outputs) Activities 2.1. Watershed governance bodies established at the sub-watershed level 2.1.1. Creation of sub-watershed management bodies 2.1.2. Elaboration of watershed management plan 2.2. Critical slopes stabilized through public works 2.2.1. Ravine correction 2.2.2. Production and planting of seedlings 2.3. Critical slopes stabilized through farmer-level investments 2.3.1. Rehabilitation and establishment of greenhouses 2.3.2. Provide training to farmers 2.3.3. Setting up trials on improved varieties of crops 2.3.4. Build and install retention ponds to collect rainwater 2.3.5. Design and implementation of hillside terraces 2.4. Crisis management capacity strengthened 2.4.1. Revision of contingency plans 2.4.2. Provision of training in crisis management 2.4.3. Installation of materials Intermediate Result 3: Agricultural Markets Strengthened Sub-results (outputs) Activities 3.1. Improved transportation infrastructure 3.2. Improved access to storage and processing 3.2.1. Inventory of existing storage and processing facilities 3.2.2. Evaluation of the needs of various actors 3.2.3. Distribution of post-harvest materials 3.2.4. Provision of processing equipment to private sector 3.2.4. Provision fo technical assistance on the use and maintenance of post-harvest materials 38 3.3. Increased access to financial products 3.3.1. Evaluation of the needs of value chain actors 3.3.2. Development of an Agricultural Credit Guarantee Mechanism 3.3.3. Support to agri-business enterprises to develop business plans 3.4. Improved market information systems 3.4.1. Establish a koze peyizan program 3.4.2. Provision of information on commodity prices to farmers 3.5. Relations in targeted value chains strengthened 3.5.1. Facilitation of contractual agreements between cooperatives and private sector Intermediate Result 4: Capacities of Local Organizations Strengthened Sub-results (outputs) Activities 4.1. Local organizations certified to receive direct USAID funding 4.1.1. Provision of training 4.1.2. Provision of equipment, materials and software 4.2. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) established 4.2.1. Signature of PPP agreements with local businesses 4.2.2. Provision of equipment 4.2.3. Provision of technical assistance 4.3. Capacity of local organizations strengthened 4.3.1. Evaluation of capacity 4.3.2. Provision of training 4.3.3. Provision of administrative and technical support 4.3.4. Elaboration of business plan 39 ANNEX D. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED CLP Annual Reports Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Annual Report, Annex 2 IPTT Table, July 12, 2017. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Report. January 15, 2016. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. October 2015 – September 2016 (FY 2016). October 31, 2016. Revised version December 7, 2016. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. October 2016 – September 2017 (FY 2017). Original Submission: October 30, 2017. Resubmission: December 28, 2017. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Quarter 1 FY2018 report, May 2018. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. IPTT Table Annual Report 07 12 17. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. IPTT Table Annual Report 12 7 16. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. IPTT Table Final May 2018. CLP Quarterly Reports Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q1 FY2016 report. January 15, 2016. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q2 FY2016 report. April 15, 2016. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q3 FY2016 report. July 22, 2016. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q1 FY2017 report. October – December 2016. January 17, 2017. Revised: February 17, 2017. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q2 FY2017 report. January – March 2017. April 17, 2017. Revised: May 22, 2017. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q3 FY2017 report. April – June 2017. July 17, 2017. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q1 FY2018 report. October – December 2016. January 16, 2018. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Q2 FY2018 report. January – March 2018. APRIL 15, 2018. CLP Annual Work Plans Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Work Plan: October 2015 – September 2016. November 3, 2015. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Work Plan: July 2015 – September 2016. July 31, 2015. CLP Monitoring & Evaluation Plan Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. FY 2015 M&EP. Revised and Resubmitted: September 30, 2016; November 11, 2016; December 13, 2016. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Revised PIRS. September 2015. Surveys and Data Diagnostic & Development Group S.A. Enquêtes annuelles de suivi des bénéficiaires du projet Chanje Lavi Plantè. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Fevrier 2018. Diagnostic & Development Group S.A. Enquêtes annuelles de suivi des bénéficiaires du projet Chanje Lavi Plantè. Année fiscale 2016-2017. Draft rapport final. Filières Légumes. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Février 2018. Diagnostic & Development Group S.A. Enquêtes annuelles de suivi des bénéficiaires du projet Chanje Lavi Plantè. Année fiscale 2016-2017. Rapport final. Filières Maïs. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Février 2018. 40 Diagnostic & Development Group S.A. Enquêtes annuelles de suivi des bénéficiaires du projet Chanje Lavi Plantè. Année fiscale 2016-2017. Draft rapport final. Filières Mangue. Feed the Future Haiti Chanje Lavi Plantè. Février 2018. Beneficiary list for Arcahaie, Cabaret, Cité Soleil, Croix-des-Bouquets, Ganthier, Kenscoff, Mirebalais, Montrouis, Pétionville, Saint-Marc, Saut-d’Eau and Thomazeau. Journals and Publications Sampling Guide for Beneficiary-Based Surveys in Support of Data Collection for Selected Feed the Future Agricultural Annual Monitoring Indicators. Diana Maria Stukel, Gregg Friedman, February 2016. USAID Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project. Food Security Indicators and Framework for Use in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Food Aid Programs, January 1999. Patrick Diskin, USAID. Agricultural Productivity Indicators Measurement Guide, December 1997. Other Sources Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2015). Haiti. Retrieved from the CIA World Fact Book www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html. Churchesa, C.E., Wamplera, P.J., Sunb, W., Smith, A.J. (2014, 15 March). Evaluation of forest cover estimates for Haiti using supervised classification of Landsat data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 30, 203–216. Colorado State University. "Hurricane Matthew Records/Notable Facts," October 8, 2016. Government of Haiti (GOH) (2010). Action Plan for National Recovery and Development of Haiti. Port￾au-Prince, Haiti: GOH. Retrieved from whc.unesco.org/document/106589. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development [Ministére de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural](MARNDR). (2010). National Agricultural Investment Plan. Port-au-Prince, Haiti: Government of the Republic of Haiti: MARNDR. Retrieved from www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/Haiti_NationalAgricultureInvestmentPlan.pdf. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affaire (OCHA). Haiti Humanitarian Bulletin - Issue 62, June 2016. U.S. Government. (2011). Haiti: Feed the Future FY 2011–2015 Multi-Year Strategy. Washington D.C. Retrieved from www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/country/strategies/files/HaitiFeedtheFutureMultiYearStrategy_P ublic_FINAL.pdf. World Food Programme (WFP). (2008). Executive Brief on Haiti: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis. Retrieved from http://home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp197128.pdf 41 ANNEX E. KII AND FGD INTERVIEWEES STAKEHOLDER GROUP INTERVIEW TYPE NO. OF INTERVIEWS INTERVIEWEES INTERVIEW LOCATIONS Agribusinesses and Agricultural Input Shops KII 18 Association Nationale des Producteurs Agricoles pour l’Avancement de l’Agriculture Haïtien Coopérative Agricole de Barbe (CAB) Centre de Transformation Agro-Industrielle (CETAI) Conseil des Organisations de la 5eme Section Bocozelle (CORP – 5) Fédération des Agriculteurs pour le Développement de Goyavier (FAPDG) Haytian Tractor and Equipment Co. (HAYTRAC) Le Montcel Les Enfant d’Aleth (LEA) Moulin Edner Fortuné Myabel Organisation pour le développement des masses rurales (ODEMAR) Organisation des Paysans pour le Développement de Merceron/Ouest (OPDM/P) Ralph Perry Société coopérative pour le développement économique de Fond Baptiste (SOCODEF) Société Anonyme de Gestion et de Mise en Ouvre de Programmes et de Projet de Matheux Cul-de-Sac Mirebalais 42 Développement (SOGEMOP) Solidarité Haïtienne pour le Développement Rural de Kenscoff (SOHADERK) Society for the Transformation of Food -Processing Products (SOTRAPAL) TransAgri Wahoo Bay Beach Hotel Belzeb Haiti Broilers Konsome Local Moulin Fritz Coleus Moulin Kebert Noman Organisation des Paysans Vaillants de la Hatte Cadette (OPVH) Sosyete Koperativ Belvi Lamontay (SOCOBELAM) Stella BAC and ODVA KII 8 BAC of Arcahaie BAC of Croix -des - Bouquets BAC of Ganthier BAC of Kenscoff BAC of Mirebalais BAC of Saint -Marc BAC of Saut -d’Eau BAC of Thomazeau Cul -de-Sac Matheux Mirebalais CLP Activity Staff KII 4 Chief of Party Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Agriculture Specialist Gender Specialist Cul -de-Sac CRDD KII 6 Association de Gestion du Centre Rural de Développement Durable de Duvier Cul -de-Sac Matheux Mirebalais 43 CRDD/Montrouis (AGCRDDM) CRDD/Robin CRDD/Gotavier CRDD/Fondation Haïtienne de Développement Agricole Durable (FONHDAD) CRDD Kenscoff/Fondation Wynne GOH Officials KII 6 Direction départementale agricole de l’Ouest, MARNDR Direction Générale, MARNDR Sous Direction, MARNDR Service National Semencier, MARNDR Sous -Direction départementale du Centre, MARNDR Organisme de Développement de la Vallée de l’Artibonite Unité Statistiques, MARNDR Conseiller, MARNDR Cul -de-Sac Matheux Mirebalais INGOs KII 4 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU) Societe Cooperative pour la Vie Meilleure (SOCOLAVIM) Cul -de-Sac Matheux Mexico USAID KII 3 M & E Office FTF/Haiti USAID/India Cul -de-Sac India Farmers Associations FGD 8 Cooperative des Associations Chanpyon de Kenscoff et Petionville (COPACK -PV) Matheux Cul -de -Sac Mirebalais 44 Cooperative des Paysans Chanpyon de Mirebalais (COPACMI) Fédération de Développement pour la Production Agricole de Thomazeau (FEDEPAT) Femmes en Voie de Développement de Cabaret Groupe de Femmes Vayantes de Cotin Thomazeau (FEVODECA) Mouvement des Femmes Haïtiennes pour le Développement Rural (MOFHADER) Mouvement National des Jeunes Entrepreneurs Progressistes (MONAJEP) Master Farmers FGD 5 ADCRDDM Association de Gestion du CRDD de Montrouis (ADCRDDM) Cooperative des Paysans Chanpyon de Mirebalais (OPVH) CRDD/ Solidarite Haitienne pour le Développement Rural de Kenscoff (SOHADERK) Cul -de-Sac Matheux Water Users Associations FGD 5 Association des Irrigants Canal Artibonite Sud (AICAN/AICAS-5) Association des Irrigants des Planteurs de l’Arcahaie (AIPA) Association des Irrigants des Planteurs de la Commune de Ganthier (AIPCG) Association des Irrigants de la Cul -de-Sac Matheux 45 Rivière Grise (AIRG) Agape In Truth (AIT) Association Têt Ansanm Irrigants de Haut Saint Marc/Asosyasyon Tetansanm Izaje Odsenmak (ATIH/ATIOS) Association des Citoyens Progressistes pour le Développement de Duvivier Sub-Watershed Management Bodies FGD 3 Comité de Gouvernance du Sous Bassin Versant de la Rivière Grise (CGBVRG) Comité Gouvernance des Sous Bassins Versant de Bretelle (CGSBVB) Comité de Gouvernance du Sous Bassin Versant de Sourcailles (SGSBVS) Comité de Gouvernance du Sous Bassin Versant de Belle Fontaine (CGOBAB) Cul-de-Sac Matheux CLP Farmers HHS 1,214 Cul-de-Sac Matheux Total KII Interviews KII 52 Total FGD Interviews FGD 24 Total HHS Respondents HHS 1,214 46 ANNEX F. KII QUESTIONNAIRES AGROBUSINESSES AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IQ # Question EQ # AGBIZ 1 Describe your participation or your experience with the Chanje Lavi Plantè activity. EQ 2 AGBIZ 2 What were the benefits of participating in the activity for your organization? Please describe. EQ 2 AGBIZ 3 How has your business changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 2 AGBIZ 4 How do you feel the market for agricultural goods has changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 2 AGBIZ 5 To what extent has your involvement with CLP le you to make new business partnerships? EQ 3 AGBIZ 6 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making as a result of CLP activities? OQ AGBIZ 7 What strengths and weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? EQ 2 AGBIZ 8 What kinds of barriers do you see to continuing activities started during CLP? EQ 3 AGBIZ 9 How could these barriers be overcome? EQ 3 AGBIZ 10 What kind of continuing effects do you still observe as a result of this activity? EQ 3 AGBIZ 11 To what extent you are likely to continue activities that you started under CLP now that the project is over? EQ 3 AGBIZ 12 What activities do you feel would be useful for a follow-on agricultural support activity? EQ 3 BUREAU AGRICOLE COMMUNAL IQ # Question EQ # BAC 1 Describe your participation or your experience with the Chanje Lavi Plantè Activity. EQ 2 BAC 2 What support did your organization receive from CLP? EQ 2 BAC 3 Were you a partner with previous USAID activity? Which one? OQ BAC 4 In your opinion, which were the CLP activities that helped farmers the most? What helped farmers the least? Why? EQ 2 BAC 5 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved agricultural inputs as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 BAC 6 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved farming practices as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 BAC 7 In your opinion did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 BAC 8 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 BAC 9 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 BAC 10 What changes have you observed regarding flooding as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 47 BAC 11 What changes have you observed regarding access to market information as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 BAC 12 What changes have you observed regarding post-harvest processing as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 BAC 13 How do you feel the market for your goods changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 2 BAC 14 To what extent did CLP work to build women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making? OQ BAC 15 What strengths and weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? EQ 2 BAC 16 Do you feel that the activities initiated with CLP will continue after the project? Which ones? Why? EQ 3 BAC 17 What recommendations would you offer for the design of a new agricultural support activity? EQ 3 CHANJE LAVIE PLANTÈ ACTIVITY STAFF IQ # Question EQ # CLP 1 Describe your role with and contribution to the Chanje Lavi Plantè Activity. EQ 2 CLP 2 In your opinion, which were the CLP activities that helped farmers the most? What helped farmers the least? Why? EQ 2 CLP 3 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved agricultural inputs as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 CLP 4 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved farming practices as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 CLP 5 In your opinion did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 CLP 6 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 CLP 7 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 CLP 8 What changes have you observed regarding irrigation and erosion control as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 CLP 9 To what extent did CLP work to build women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making? OQ CLP 10 What were the primary strengths and weaknesses you saw in the CLP approach or activities? EQ 2 CLP 11 Do you feel that the activities initiated with CLP will continue after the project? Which activities? Why? EQ 3 CLP 12 What kinds of barriers do you see to continuing activities started during CLP? EQ 3 CLP 13 How could these barriers be overcome? EQ 3 CLP 14 What recommendations would you offer for the design of a new agricultural support activity? EQ 3 CENTRE RURAL DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE IQ # Question EQ # CRDD 1 Describe your participation or your experience with the Chanje Lavi Plantè Activity. EQ 2 48 CRDD 2 What support did your organization receive from CLP? EQ 2 CRDD 3 Were you a partner with a previous USAID activity? Which one? OQ CRDD 4 Did your CRDD receive capacity building assistance from CLP? How do you feel this assistance was most/least useful? EQ 2 CRDD 5 If your organization did receive capacity building, training or technical support, how are you continuing to use the tools provided by CLP? Why or why not? EQ 3 CRDD 6 Did your CRDD undergo certification to become a potential USAID grantee by CLP? How has this certification been useful to your organization? EQ 3 CRDD 7 If your organization was certified, have you been able to secure a grant from USAID as a result of your certification? Do you intend to apply for a grant with USAID? EQ 3 CRDD 8 In your opinion, which were the CLP activities that helped farmers the most? What helped farmers the least? Why? EQ 2 CRDD 9 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved agricultural inputs as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 CRDD 10 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved farming practices as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 CRDD 11 In your opinion did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 CRDD 12 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 CRDD 13 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 CRDD 14 What changes have you observed regarding flooding as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 CRDD 15 What changes have you observed regarding access to market information as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 CRDD 16 What changes have you observed regarding post-harvest processing as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 CRDD 17 How do you feel the market for your goods changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 2 CRDD 18 To what extent did CLP work to build women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making? OQ CRDD 19 What strengths and weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? EQ 2 CRDD 20 Do you feel that the activities initiated with CLP will continue after the project? Which ones? Why? EQ 3 CRDD 21 What recommendations would you offer for the design of a new agricultural support activity? EQ 3 GOVERNMENT OF HAITI OFFICIALS IQ # Question EQ # GOH 1 Describe your interaction with the Chanje Lavi Plantè Activity. EQ 2 GOH 2 Based on your experience, which CLP activities helped farmers the most? Why? EQ 2 GOH 3 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved agricultural inputs (i.e. seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) as a result of CLP intervention? EQ 2 49 GOH 4 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved farming practices as a result of CLP intervention? EQ 2 GOH 5 In your opinion did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 GOH 6 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 GOH 7 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 GOH 8 To what extent do you think that activities started under CLP will continue now that the project is over? Which activities? Why? EQ 3 GOH 9 What kinds of barriers do you see to continuing activities started during CLP? EQ 3 GOH 10 How could these barriers be overcome? EQ 3 GOH 11 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making as a result of CLP activities? OQ GOH 12 What were the strengths and weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? EQ 2 GOH 13 How can future projects like CLP work more effectively to support government policy and planning? EQ 3 GOH 14 What recommendations would you offer for the design of a new agricultural support activity? EQ 3 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IQ # Question EQ # INGO 1 Describe your participation or your experience with the Chanje Lavi Plantè activity. EQ 2 INGO 2 What were the benefits of participating in the activity for your organization? Please describe. EQ 2 INGO 3 How do you feel the market for agricultural goods has changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 2 INGO 4 In your opinion, which were the CLP activities that helped farmers the most. Why? EQ 2 INGO 5 In your opinion did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 INGO 6 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 INGO 7 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 INGO 8 To what extent did CLP help increase women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making? OQ INGO 9 What weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? What were the strengths? EQ 2 INGO 10 Do you feel that the activities initiated with CLP will continue after the project? Which ones? Why? EQ 3 INGO 11 What kinds of barriers do you see to continuing activities started during CLP? EQ 3 INGO 12 How could these barriers be overcome? EQ 3 INGO 13 What would you recommend to the follow-on activity? EQ 3 50 ANNEX G. FGD QUESTIONNAIRES FARMER ASSOCIATIONS IQ # Question EQ # FARMAS 1 What kind of activities did CLP conduct with your association? EQ 2 FARMAS 2 Based on your experience, which CLP activities helped your association the most? Why? EQ 2 FARMAS 3 Were you a partner with previous USAID projects? Which one? OQ FARMAS 4 To what extent did your association receive capacity building assistance such as training, equipment or a business plan from CLP? How do you feel this assistance was most/least useful? EQ 2 FARMAS 5 If your association did receive capacity building, training equipment or a business plan, how are you continuing to use the tools provided by CLP? Why or why not? EQ 3 FARMAS 6 Did your association undergo certification to become a potential USAID grantee by CLP? How has this certification been useful to your organization? EQ 3 FARMAS 7 If your association was certified, have you been able to secure a grant from USAID as a result of your certification? Do you intend to apply for a grant with USAID? EQ 3 FARMAS 8 Which CLP activities in your community helped farmers the most? Why? EQ 2 FARMAS 9 How do you feel the use of improved agricultural inputs has been changed as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 FARMAS 10 How do you feel the use of improved farming practices has been changed as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 FARMAS 11 In your opinion to what extent did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 FARMAS 12 How do you feel household incomes from agriculture have changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 FARMAS 13 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 FARMAS 14 How do you feel access to market information has changed as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 FARMAS 15 How do you feel changes erosion control and irrigation have changed as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 FARMAS 16 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production as a result of CLP activities? OQ FARMAS 17 How many women members are in your association? OQ FARMAS 18 Is your association a women’s association? Y/N. OQ FARMAS 19 How many women leaders are there in your association? What positions? OQ FARMAS 20 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s leadership roles as a result of CLP activities? OQ 51 FARMAS 21 What weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? What were the strengths? EQ 2 FARMAS 22 To what extent do you think that activities started under CLP will continue now that the project is over? Which activities? Why? EQ 3 FARMAS 23 What recommendations would you offer for the design of a new agricultural support project? EQ 3 MASTER FARMERS IQ # Question EQ # MASFAR 1 Describe your participation or your experience with the Chanje Lavi Plantè project. EQ 2 MASFAR 2 In your opinion, which CLP activities helped your community the most. Why? EQ 2 MASFAR 3 As a Master Farmer, what support from CLP did you appreciate the most? Why? EQ 2 MASFAR 4 Were you a partner with previous USAID projects? Which one? OQ MASFAR 5 How do farmers in your community access agriculture-related technical support? EQ 3 MASFAR 6 Have you offered advice or support to other farmers in your community on topics such as crop production or pest management? If yes, do you intend to continue offering technical support to other farmers? EQ 3 MASFAR 7 How do you feel the use of improved inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides a has changed as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 MASFAR 8 How do you feel the use of improved farming practices has been changed as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 MASFAR 9 In your opinion did the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 MASFAR 10 How do you feel household incomes from agriculture have been changed as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 MASFAR 11 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 MASFAR 12 How do you feel that erosion control and irrigation have been changed as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 MASFAR 13 How do you feel that post-harvest processing has been changed as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 MASFAR 14 How do you feel that access to market information have been changed as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 MASFAR 15 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production as a result of CLP activities? OQ MASFAR 16 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s decision-making as a result of CLP activities? OQ 52 MASFAR 17 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s leadership roles as a result of CLP activities? OQ MASFAR 18 What weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? What were the strengths? EQ 2 MASFAR 19 To what extent do you think that activities started under CLP will continue now that the project is over? Which activities? Why? EQ 3 MASFAR 20 What recommendations would you offer for the design of a new agricultural support project? EQ 3 WATER USER ASSOCIATIONS IQ # Question EQ # WATUSE 1 What kind of activities did CLP conduct with your association? EQ 2 WATUSE 2 Based on your experience, which CLP activities helped your association the most? Why? EQ 2 WATUSE 3 To what extent your association received capacity building assistance such as training, equipment or a business plan from CLP? How do you feel this assistance was most/least useful? EQ 2 WATUSE 4 If your association did receive capacity building support such as training, equipment or a business plan, how are you continuing to use the tools provided by CLP? Why or why not? EQ 3 WATUSE 5 Which CLP activities in your community helped farmers the most? Why? EQ 2 WATUSE 6 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved agricultural inputs as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 WATUSE 7 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved farming practices as a result of CLP intervention? Why? EQ 2 WATUSE 8 In your opinion to what extent the CLP have an impact on improving volume of agricultural production at the household level? EQ 1 EQ 2 WATUSE 9 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 WATUSE 10 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 WATUSE 11 What changes have you observed regarding access to market information as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 WATUSE 12 What changes have you observed regarding irrigation and erosion control as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 WATUSE 13 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production as a result of CLP activities? OQ WATUSE 14 How many women members are in your association? OQ WATUSE 15 Is your association a women’s association? Y/N. OQ 53 WATUSE 16 How many women leaders are there in your association? What positions? OQ WATUSE 17 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s leadership roles as a result of CLP activities? OQ WATUSE 18 What strengths and weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? EQ 2 WATUSE 19 To what extent do you think that activities started under CLP will continue now that the project is over? Which activities? Why? EQ 3 WATUSE 20 Describe the type of irrigation system used: OQ WATUSE 21 How does your association collect dues or fees from your members for water use? EQ 3 WATUSE 22 To what extent does the income you collect fully cover your costs? To what extent are there opportunities for your association to increase its income? EQ 3 WATUSE 23 To what extent your association will continue to support to the farming community now that CLP is over? EQ 3 WATUSE 24 What kind of support would your association like if there is a follow-on project? EQ 3 SUB WATERSHED MANAGEMENT BODIES IQ # Question EQ # SWMB 1 Describe your interaction with the Chanje Lavi Plantè Activity. EQ 2 SWMB 2 To what extent your association received capacity building assistance such as training, equipment or a business plan from CLP? How do you feel this assistance was most/least useful? EQ 2 SWMB 3 If your organization did receive capacity building, training or technical support, how are you continuing to use the tools provided by CLP? Why or why not? EQ 3 SWMB 4 Based on your experience, which CLP activities helped farmers the most? Why? EQ 2 SWMB 5 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved agricultural inputs (i.e. seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) as a result of CLP intervention? EQ 2 SWMB 6 What kind of changes did you observe in the use of improved farming practices as a result of CLP intervention? EQ 2 SWMB 7 What kind of changes did you observe in increased household incomes from agriculture as a result of CLP activities? EQ 1 EQ 2 SWMB 8 How do you feel that food security (having access to sufficient food to meet their family’s needs) changed because of CLP? Please describe. EQ 2 SWMB 9 What changes have you observed regarding access to market information as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 SWMB 10 How do you feel that irrigation, erosion control and flooding have been changed as a result of CLP interventions? EQ 2 SWMB 11 To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production and decision-making as a result of CLP activities? OQ 54 SWMB 12 To what extent did you notice any change in decision-making as a result of CLP activities? OQ SWMB 13 How many women members are in your association? OQ SWMB 14 Is your association a women’s association? Y/N. OQ SWMB 15 How many women leaders are there in your association? What positions? OQ SWMB 16 What strengths and weaknesses did you see in the CLP approach or activities? OQ SWMB 17 To what extent do you think that activities started under CLP will continue now that the project is over? Which activities? Why? EQ 3 SWMB 18 Describe the type of irrigation system used: OQ SWMB 19 How does your association collect dues or fees from your members for water use? EQ 3 SWMB 20 To what extent does the income you collect fully cover your costs? To what extent are there opportunities for your association to increase its income? EQ 3 SWMB 21 To what extent your association will continue to support to the farming community now that CLP is over? EQ 3 SWMB 22 What kind of support would your association like if there is a follow-on project? EQ 3 55 ANNEX H. HOUSEHOLD-LEVEL FARMER QUANTITATIVE SURVEY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CHANJE LAVI PLANTE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE MODULE A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION Identification Code Interview details Code A.01. Household number [ ][ ][ ] A09. Date of first visit dd/mm/yyyy [ ][ ] / [ ][ ] / [ ][ ][ ][ ] A02. Commune Croix-des￾Bouquets: 01 Ganthier: 02 Thomazeau: 03 Arcahaie: 04 Cabaret: 05 Montrouis: 06 Saint-Marc: 07 A10. Respondent is present for the first visit 1 = Yes 2 = No (If Yes, go to module B If No, go to A11) [ ] A03. Communal Section A11. Date of 2nd visit dd/mm/yyyy [ ][ ] / [ ][ ] / [ ][ ][ ][ ] A04. Department 1. Artibonite 2. Ouest 3. Centre A12. Reason for second visit 1. Absent 2. Postpone 3. Respondent not appropriate 4. Refused A05. Community/village A13. Respondent is present for the 2nd visit 1 = Yes 2 = No (If Yes, go to module B [ ] 56 If No, go to A14) A06. Primarily male decision-maker in the household [ ][ ] If no male decision maker use code 00 A14. Date of 3rd visit dd/mm/yyyy [ ][ ] / [ ][ ] / [ ][ ][ ][ ] A07. Primarily female decision-maker in the household [ ][ ] If no female decision maker, use code 00 A15. Reason for 3rd visit 1. Absent 2. Postpone 3. Respondent not appropriate 4. Refused A08. Name/code of enumerator ---------------------------- [ ][ ][ ][ ] A16. Respondent is present for the 3rd visit 1 = Yes 2 = No (If Yes, go to module B If No, go to module I (last page)) [ ] 57 MODULE B. INFORMED CONSENT AGREEMENT – HOUSEHOLD SURVEY INFORMED CONSENT: IT IS IMPORTANT TO INTRODUCE THE HOUSEHOLD TO THE SURVEY AND OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF ALL PROPESTIVE RESPONDENTS. IF A PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENT IS ABSENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERVIEW, BE SURE TO RETURN TO THIS PAGE AND OBTAIN CONSENT BEFORE INTERVIEWING HER/HIM. ASK TO SPEAK WITH THE RESPONDENT IDENTIFIED BY THE SAMPLE. IF THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE, YOU MUST RETURN TWO MORE TIMES TO TRY TO FIND THEM (FOR A TOTAL OF THREE ATTEMPTS). IF THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE AFTER THREE ATTEMPTS, YOU MAY REQUEST THE NAME OF ANOTHER RESPONDENT FROM THE BACK UP LIST FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR. YOU MUST OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF THIS RESPONDENT AS WELL. Hello, My name is -----------------------------. I am working with …………………….. (survey firm), an institution that conducts studies in rural areas. I am conducting the evaluation on behalf of USAID. You were selected, along with 1,154 other households, to participate in this interview because of your knowledge of the CLP activity. We would like to understand the perspectives of key stakeholders like you. We will be summarizing our findings in a report, but no names will be connected with any of the information in the report. Only aggregated data will be reported that does not identify you as an interviewee. Neither your name, nor any other personally identifying information will be linked to any of your answers, so you should answer questions freely. I would like to ask you some questions about your experience with CLP and take notes of your responses on a tablet. This interview is confidential and voluntary. Any personally identifying information will be protected to the fullest extent permitted by Haitian and US law, and USAID policy. You should feel safe and comfortable to respond in this conversation. What you tell me will only be used to better understand effectiveness of the activities of Chanje Lavi Plantè activity in order to improve future similar activities and better address in the future the needs of the farm households in your commune. Your participation and your answers will have no impact on any services you currently have access to, nor any impact on your access to other services in the future. Being mindful of the importance of your time, we will try to complete this interview in less than an hour. However, we will appreciate your patience if we take a little longer. You may decline to participate without any penalty. You can also end the interview at any time and have no obligation to answer any questions asked. You should feel comfortable asking any questions at any time during the conversation. If you feel that any of the questions are too difficult to answer or you are not comfortable with a question, this is not a problem. We will just skip to the next question. We believe there are no known risks associated with this research study; however, a possible inconvenience may be the time it takes to complete the study. In case you need more information about the survey, you may contact the person in charge of the 58 study at Social Impact/Haiti, Wesner Antoine at 3698-3754. You may also contact Social Impact headquarters staff at 1-703-465-1884 or irb@socialimpact.com. Thank you. ASK THE FOLLOWING CONSENT QUESTIONS TO ALL PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENTS. AS APPLICAPLE, CHECK AND SIGN THE CONSENT BOX BELOW. B01. Do I have your permission to proceed with the survey? Respondent agreed___________; Respondent did not agree___________ (If agreed go to B02. If disagreed go to Modil I (last page)) B02. Do I have your permission to record your answers? Respondent agreed___________; Respondent did not agree___________ I HEREBY AFFIRM THAT I HAVE READ THE INFORMED CONSENT TO THE RESPONDENT AND THAT HE/SHE CONSENTED TO THE INTERVIEW. Enumerator name: _____________________________ Enumerator signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________________ 59 MODULE C. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS Enumerator: Ask these questions about all household members. Ask the person who is most knowledgeable about the characteristics of household members. Line # Name of household member? (start with primary decision maker and continue with other members) What is [NAME’s) sex? What is [NAME’s] relationship to the primary respondent? What is [NAME’s] age? (in complete year) What is [NAME’s] level of education? C01 C02 C03 C04 C05 01 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 03 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 04 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 05 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 06 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 07 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 08 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 09 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 List all household members including children 1 = Male 2 = Female Relationship codes: 1= cannot read and write 60 in school and other at work 1= head of household 2= spouse 3= son or daughter 4= grandchild 5= son-in law or daughter-in law 6=uncle/aunt 7= cousin 8 =nephew/niece 9=other 2= preschool 3= primary incomplete 4= primary 5= secondary incomplete 6 =secondary 7=other 61 MODULES D E F G: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CROP LIST D0. Did anyone in the household cultivate any plot during the following seasons? Feb. 2018 – July 2018 Yes No Nov. 2017- Feb 2018 Yes No July 2017 – Nov. 2017 Yes No If Yes, check the list of crops for the season; If no, go to the next season If Yes, check the list of crops for the season; If no, go to the next season If Yes, check the list of crops for the season; If no, go to Crop List B D00. Did anyone in the household cultivate any of the following crops between July 2017 and August 2018? (CIRCLE ALL RELEVANT CROPS) CROP LIST A Feb, to July 2018 Nov. 2017 to Feb 2018 July 2017 to Nov. 2017 CROP LIST A (cont’d) Feb. to July 2018 Nov. 2017 to Feb. 2018 July 2017 to Nov. 2017 CROP LIST B Cereals 01. Corn 02. Rice 03. Sorghum/Millet Leguminous crops 04. Beans (red, black, butter, white) 05. Pigeon peas 06. Lima beans 0.7 Blackeye peas 08. Peanuts Vegetables 09. Cabbage 10. Lettuce 11. Spinach 12. Tomato 13. Bell pepper 14. Leek 16. Onion and Shallots 17. Carrot 18. Okra 19. Beets 20. Pepper (hot) Roots and tubers 21. Potato 22. Sweet potato 23. Yam, Masoko 24. Sweet cassava 25. Cassava 26. Malanga, Taro Other 33. Avocado 34. Francis mango 35. Mango (other) 36. Orange 37. Coconut palm 38. Papaya 39. Breadfruit 40. Lemon & lime 41. Grapefruit 42. Pineapple 43. Tangerines, mandarins 62 15. Eggplant 27. Sugarcane 28. Plantain & Banana 29. Watermelon 30. Pumpkin 31. Coffee 32. Cocoa 63 MODULE D. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 1. FEBRUARY 2018 to JULY 2018 D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 Did you plant the following crops during the February 2018 to July 2018 season? (READ THE CROP CYRCLED IN THE LIST) (Circle one) Yes: 1 go to D02 No: 2 go to E01 Please, list all plots and their location you or anyone in your household cultivated with crops you sold or intended to sell during the February 2018 to July 2018 season What is the total area of the plot? What were the crops grown in this plot during the February 2018 to July 2018 season? How much of the area under cultivation was used for [READ CROP] during the February 2018 to July 2018 season? (Enumerator: Estimate percentage for each crop. Percentage total may be less or equal to 100 percent) Plot number Localization Area (in Carreau) Crop codes Area (percent) 1 [ ][ ][ ] a. ____ [ ][ ] b. ____ [ ][ ] c. ____ [ ][ ] d. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 2 e. ____ [ ][ ] f. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 64 g. ____ [ ][ ] h. ____ [ ][ ] 3 i. ____ [ ][ ] j. ____ [ ][ ] k. ____ [ ][ ] l. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 4 m. ____ [ ][ ] o. ____ [ ][ ] p. ____ [ ][ ] q. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 5 r. ____ [ ][ ] s. ____ [ ][ ] t. ____ [ ][ ] u. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 65 MODULE D. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 1. FEBRUARY 2018 to JULY 2018 (Continued) Check D04 TRANSF ER CROPS GROW N D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 During the February 2018 to July 2018 season How much did you pay for land prepara tion to cultivat e (READ PLOT #)? How much did you pay for seed to cultiv ate (READ CROP )? How much did you pay for planti ng/ seedli ng (READ CROP) How much did you pay for fertili zer to cultiv ate (READ CROP )? How much did you pay for pestici des to cultiva te (READ CROP) ? How much did you pay for irrigat ion (READ PLOT) ? How much did you pay for weedi ng (READ PLOT/ CROP )? How much did you pay for harve st (CRO P)? How much (READ CROP) was lost to storm, flooding, drought, rodents, livestock or theft? (If no loss, enter 00) Pl ot # Cr op Gourde s Gour des Gour des Gour des Gourd es Gour des Gour des Gour des Amo unt Un it 1 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 2 a. ___ _ 66 b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 3 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 4 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 5 a. ___ _ 67 b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 68 MODULE D. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 1. FEBRUARY 2018 to JULY 2018 (Continued) Check D04 TRANSF ER CROPS GROW N D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 D20 D21 During the February 2018 to July 2018 season How much (READ CROP) was harvested? What type of processi ng did you apply to (READ CROP) (MULTI PLE RESPO NSE) (READ OUT) How much (READ CROP) was lost due to this processing? IF NO LOSS ENTER 00 How much (REDA CROP) was sold? At what price did you sell (REA D CROP S)? How much mone y did you make from the sale of (REA D CRO P)? How much (READ CROP) was consumed by the households ? Pl ot # Cr op Quant ity Un it Code Quant ity Un it Quant ity Un it Gourd es Gour des Quant ity Un it 1 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to D18 2 e. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 69 f. ___ _ g. ___ _ h. ___ _ If the answer is 0, go to D18 3 i. ___ _ j. ___ _ k. ___ _ l. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to D18 4 m. ___ _ n. ___ _ o. ___ _ p. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to D18 5 q. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 70 r. ___ _ s. ___ _ t. ___ _ If the answer is 0, go to D18 0. None 1. Shelling/ Hulling 2. Drying 3. Milling/ grinding 4. Other 71 MODULE E. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 2. NOVEMBER 2017 to FEBRUARY 2018 E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 Did you plant the following crops during the November 2017 to February 2018 season? (READ THE CROP CYRCLED IN THE LIST) (Circle one) Yes: 1 go to E02 No: 2 go to F01 Please, list all plots and their location you or anyone in your household cultivated with crops you sold or intended to sell during the July 2017 to December 2017 season What is the total area of the plot? What crops were grown on this plot during the November 2017 to February 2018 season? How much of the area under cultivation was used for (READ CROP) during the November 2017 to February 2018 season? (Enumerator: Estimate percentage for each crop. Percentage total may be less or equal to 100 percent) Plot number Localization Area (in Carreau) Crop codes Area (percent) 1 [ ][ ][ ] a. ____ [ ][ ] b. ____ [ ][ ] c. ____ [ ][ ] d. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 72 2 e. ____ [ ][ ] f. ____ [ ][ ] g. ____ [ ][ ] h. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 3 i. ____ [ ][ ] j. ____ [ ][ ] k. ____ [ ][ ] l. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 4 m. ____ [ ][ ] o. ____ [ ][ ] p. ____ [ ][ ] q. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 5 r. ____ [ ][ ] s. ____ [ ][ ] t. ____ [ ][ ] u. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 73 MODULE E. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 2. NOVEMBER 2017 to FEBRUARY 2018 (Continued) Check E04 TRANSF ER CROPS GROW N E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 During the November 2017 to February 2018 season How much did you pay for land prepara tion to cultivate (READ PLOT #)? How much did you pay for seed to cultiv ate (REA D CRO P)? How much did you pay for planti ng/ seedli ng (REA D CRO P) How much did you pay for fertiliz er to cultiv ate (REA D CRO P)? How much did you pay for pestici des to cultiva te (REA D CROP )? How much did you pay for irrigati on (REA D PLOT )? How much did you pay for weedi ng (REA D PLOT / CRO P)? How much did you pay for harve st (CRO P)? How much (READ CROP) was lost to storm, flooding, drought, rodents, livestock or theft? (If no loss, enter 00) Pl ot # Cr op Gourde s Gour des Gour des Gour des Gourd es Gour des Gour des Gour des Amo unt Un it 1 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 2 a. ___ _ 74 b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 3 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 4 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 5 a. ___ _ 75 b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 76 MODULE E. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 2. NOVEMBER 2017 to FEBRUARY 2018 (Continued) Check E04 TRANSF ER CROPS GROW N E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 During the November 2017 to February 2018 season How much (READ CROP) was harvested? What type of processi ng did you apply to (READ CROP) (MULTI PLE RESPO NSE) (READ OUT) How much (READ CROP) was lost due to this processing? IF NO LOSS ENTER 00 How much (READ CROP) was sold? At what price did you sell (REA D CROP S)? How much mone y did you make from the sale of (REA D CRO P)? How much (READ CROP) was consumed by the households ? Pl ot # Cr op Quant ity Un it Code Quant ity Un it Quant ity Un it Gourd es Gour des Quant ity Un it 1 a. ___ _ b. ___ _ c. ___ _ d. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to E18 2 e. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 77 f. ___ _ g. ___ _ h. ___ _ If the answer is 0, go to E18 3 i. ___ _ j. ___ _ k. ___ _ l. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to E18 4 m. ___ _ n. ___ _ o. ___ _ p. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to E18 5 q. ___ _ 0 1 2 3 4 78 r. ___ _ s. ___ _ t. ___ _ If the answer is 0, go to E18 0. None 1. Shelling/ Hulling 2. Drying 3. Milling/ grinding 4. Other 79 MODULE F. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 3. JULY 2017 to NOVEMBER 2017 F01 F02 F03 F04 F05 Did you plant the following crops during the July 2017 to November 2017 season? READ THE CROP CYRCLED IN THE LIST) (Circle one) Yes: 1 go to F02 No: 2 go to G01 Please, list all plots and their location you or anyone in your household cultivated with crops you sold or intended to sell during the July 2017 to November 2017 season What is the total area of the plot? What were the crops grown in this plot during the July 2017 to November 2017 season? How much of the area under cultivation was used for [READ CROP] during the July 2017 to November 2017 season? (Enumerator: Estimate percentage for each crop. Percentage total may be less or equal to 100percent) Plot number Localization Area (in Carreau) Crop codes Area (percent) 1 [ ][ ].[ ] a. ____ [ ][ ] b. ____ [ ][ ] c. ____ [ ][ ] d. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 2 e. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 80 f. ____ [ ][ ] g. ____ [ ][ ] h. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent 3 i. ____ [ ][ ] j. ____ [ ][ ] k. ____ [ ][ ] l. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 4 m. ____ [ ][ ] o. ____ [ ][ ] p. ____ [ ][ ] q. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 5 r. ____ [ ][ ] s. ____ [ ][ ] t. ____ [ ][ ] u. ____ [ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent [ ][ ][ ] percent 81 MODULE F. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 3. JULY 2017 to NOVEMBER 2017 (Continued) Check F04 TRANSFER CROPS GROWN F06 F0 7 F08 F09 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 During the July 2017 to November 2017 season How much did you pay for land preparat ion to cultivate (READ PLOT #)? H ow mu ch did yo u pa y for se ed to cul tiv ate (R EA D C R O P)? How much did you pay for planti ng/ seedli ng (REA D CRO P) How much did you pay for fertiliz er to cultiv ate (REA D CRO P)? How much did you pay for pestici des to cultiva te (REA D CROP )? How much did you pay for irrigati on (REA D PLOT )? How much did you pay for weedi ng (REA D PLOT / CRO P)? How much did you pay for harve st (CRO P)? How much (READ CROP) was lost to storm, flooding, drought, rodents, livestock or theft? (If no loss, enter 00) Plot # Cro p Gourdes G ou rd es Gour des Gour des Gourd es Gour des Gour des Gour des Amo unt Un it 1 a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ d. ____ 82 2 a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ d. ____ 3 a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ d. ____ 4 a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ d. ____ 5 a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ d. ____ 83 84 MODULE F. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SEASON 3. JULY 2017 to NOVEMBER 2017 (Continued) Check F04 TRANSFER CROPS GROWN F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 During the July 2017 to November 2017 season How much (READ CROP) was harvested? What type of processing did you apply to (READ CROP) (MULTIPLE RESPONSE ) (READ OUT) How much (READ CROP) was lost due to this processing? IF NO LOSS ENTER 00 How much (REDA CROP) was sold? At what price did you sell (READ CROPS) ? How much money did you make from the sale of (READ CROP)? How much (READ CROP) was consumed by the households? Plot # Cro p Quan tity Uni t Code Quan tity Uni t Quan tity Uni t Gourdes Gourdes Quan tity Uni t 1 a. ____ b. ____ c. ____ d. ____ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to F18 2 e. ____ f. ____ g. ____ h. ____ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to F18 85 3 i. ____ j. ____ k. ____ l. ____ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to F18 4 m. ____ n. ____ o. ____ p. ____ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to F18 5 q. ____ r. ____ s. ____ t. ____ 0 1 2 3 4 If the answer is 0, go to F18 0. None 1. Shelling/ Hulling 2. Drying 3. Milling/ grinding 4. Other 86 MODULE G. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. Tree Crops sold from JULY 2017 to AUGUST 2018 G00. Do you have fruit crops (trees or plants)? 1 = Yes 2 = No; If No, go to Module H G01 G02 G03 G04 G05 G06 G07 How many trees do you have for this crop From July 2017 to August 2018, how much did you pay to care for (READ CROP) including pruning, harvestin g, pest control? How much (READ CROP) did you harvest from July 2017 to August 2018? How much (READ CROP) did you sell from July 2017 to August 2018? At what price did you sell (READ CROP) ? What was the total value of the sales of (READ CROP) ? Crop Cod e Numbe r of trees Gourdes Quantit y Uni t Quantit y Uni t Gourde s Gourde s Avocado Francis mango Mango (other) Papaya Breadfruit Watermelo n Orange Pineapple 87 MODULE H. SUPPORT RECEIVED DURING CLP IMPLEMENTATION H01. What year (s) did you receive assistance from CLP: 2015: [ ] 2016: [ ] 2017: [ ] 2018: [ ] Don’t know [ ] No answer [ ] H02. What types of assistance did you receive from CLP? CIRCLE THE ANSWER; MULTIPLE RESPONES 1. Training 2. Better access to irrigation 3. Access to better seeds 4. Better access to fertilizer and pesticides 5. Market information 6. Market linkages 7. Better post-harvest techniques and tools 8. Other (describe) 9. No answer H03. Assistance received from CLP for selected crops a. Did you receive CLP assistance for growing BEANS? [ ] Yes : 1 No : 0 b. Did you receive CLP assistance for growing PLANTAIN? [ ] Yes : 1 No : 0 c. Did you receive CLP assistance for growing CORN? [ ] Yes : 1 No : 0 d. Did you receive CLP assistance for growing RICE? [ ] Yes : 1 No : 0 e. Did you receive CLP assistance for growing VEGETABLES? [ ] Yes : 1 No : 0 f. Did you receive CLP assistance for producing MANGOES? [ ] Yes : 1 No : 0 H04. Did you receive assistance from programs other than CLP? a. Before CLP? [ ] Yes :1 No : 0 b. During CLP? [ ] Yes :1 No : 0 H05. If “Yes” what types of assistance did you receive? CIRCLE THE ANSWER; If no, go to H07. 1. Training 2. Better access to irrigation 3. Access to improved inputs 4. Other (describe) 5. No answer H06. Name of other assistance programs: 88 H07. Where you trained as a Master Farmer? [ ] Yes :1 No : 0 H08. If yes, how many years have you been a Master Farmer? [ ] years If No, go to module I at the end. H09. As a Master Farmer what kind of training did you receive? 1. Agricultural techniques 2. Family planning and nutrition 3. Environmental management 4. Information on food and nutrition 5. Information on climate change 6. Other (describe) 7. No answer H10. As a Master Farmer did you provide technical support to other farmers? [ ] Yes :1 No : 0 H11. If yes, what type of support did you provide to other farmers? 1. Agricultural techniques 2. Family planning and nutrition 3. Environmental management 4. Information on food and nutrition 5. Information on climate change 6. Other (describe) 7. No answer 89 MODULE I. CONCLUSION Interview details Code I01. Final outcome of interview 1 Complete 2 No household member at time of visit 3 Respondent not appropriate 4 Household absent for extended period of time 5 Postpone 6 Refused 7 Other (specify) I02. Name/code of supervisor [ ][ ] I03. Name/code of field coordinator [ ][ ]