Midterm Evaluation
Prepared by Antonio Cordella | Last Updated January 19, 2018
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation ii
List of Acronyms iii
Executive Summary 1
1. Background 3
2. Detailed Evaluation Methodology 6
3. Auditing the Program’s Database of Beneficiaries 10
4. Findings 11
5. Suggestions and Requests from Beneficiaries 31
6. Recommendations for the Remainder of the Program 34
Annexes:
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 
Annex 2: Program Database and the Evaluation Sample 
Annex 3: Overview of Indicator Performance 
Annex 4: Export Statistics 
Annex 5: Evaluation Questionnaire 
Annex 6: EQ Organizational Chart 
Annex 7: Evaluator’s CV [REMOVED]
Annex 8: Evaluation Photographs [REMOVED]
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation iii
ADEXVO Association of Dominican Exporters of Asian Vegetables
ADOEXPO Association of Dominican Exporters
AMS Annual Program Statement 
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
CAFTA Central America Free Trade Agreement
CARICOM Caribbean Community
CEDAF Centro para el Desarrollo Agropecuario y Forestal
CEI-RD Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center 
CNC Centro Nacional Competitividad
CONACADO Confederación Nacional de Cacao-Cultores Dominicanos
DR Dominican Republic
EAN Emergency Action Notification
EQ Exporting Quality Program
EU European Union
FAMU Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
FAST Food Safety Agro Sustainability Training
FSMA Food Safety Modernization Act
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GHP Good Handling Practices
GMP Good Manufacturing Practices
HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
HARPC Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food
IESC International Executive Service Corps
IPM Integrated Pest Management
Medfly Mediterranean fruit fly
Min-Ag Ministry of Agriculture of the Dominican Republic
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MT Metric Ton
OCI Organizational Capacity Index
PACA Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act
PCQI Preventive Controls Qualified Individual
PMP Performance Management Plan
SoW Scope of Work
SPS Sanitary & Phytosanitary
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VC Value Chain
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 1
The Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation was carried out between November and 
December 2017 with the scope of evaluating the USDA-funded four-year program’s 
performance. The evaluation was conducted by an independent, third-party consultant who 
worked with a local enumerator. The evaluation encompassed various activities including: 
desk review of technical documents and statistics; interviews and on-site visits with 
producers, processors, association and cluster management, packinghouse owners and staff, 
domestic traders, exporters, extension officers, and sector experts; and direct market 
observations. The evaluation was executed according to the USDA-approved midterm 
evaluation scope of work (SoW). The main findings included the following:
• The program is mostly demand-driven and has shown sufficient flexibility to 
accommodate beneficiary requests for more training than planned on farming methods 
and Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) issues;
• A large majority of interviewed beneficiaries have great appreciation for the program’s 
approach to training (practical and in response to beneficiaries’ actual needs) on 
farming techniques and the relevance of information provided on both sanitary and 
phytosanitary (SPS) issues and marketing issues;
• Beneficiaries believe program interventions have been efficient, relevant, and effective, 
and that they will continue to apply what they have learned after its completion;
• The Performance Management Plan (PMP) contains 36 indicators to monitor the 
program’s achievements over its implementation period. The program has exceeded its 
midpoint target (end of year two [Y2]) for almost a third of these indicators; for two￾thirds of them it has attained less than 50 percent of target; and for one-fifth of the 
performance indicators less than 10 percent of target has been achieved; and one 
indicator (Result Indicator #17) does not have a midpoint target;
Image 1: Indicators Grouped in Sets According to Their Progress Against Year Two Targets
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 2
• For most performance indicators that are below the end of Y2 cumulative target, the 
evaluator considers that the program is on track for year four targets, provided it 
sustains the pace of action and achievement demonstrated during the most recent 
reporting period (April–September 2017) of implementation; and,
• The program had a slow start due to setup and activity fine-tuning, but has shown 
remarkable dynamism during the second half of Y2 that assures the meeting of targets 
if maintained for the remaining period of implementation. 
Recommendations from the midterm evaluation include the following:
• The evaluator recommends continuing and following up with (i) the current training 
approach, (ii) support for getting internationally recognized certifications, (iii) the 
provision of grants to farmers, packers, and processors, as well as the enlarging of 
their scope, and (iv) the facilitation of study tours and exporter and buyer visits;
• The evaluator also recommends focusing more on (i) post-harvest handling techniques 
and methods; (ii) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and sanitary-related activities; 
and (iii) end-market activities;
• For a few (mainly activity) indicators, including activities with members of trade 
associations, the evaluator recommends either (i) scaling down end of year 4 (Y4) 
cumulative targets (due to initial overestimation of the number of trade associations 
operating in the Dominican Republic [DR]); or, preferably, (ii) enlarging the purpose to 
include producer associations, cooperatives, and clusters, all of which would be able to 
trade produce among members;
• For a significant number of performance indicators (related primarily to training 
activities) the evaluator recommends scaling up the Y4 targets, as the program 
showed higher than expected results during the second half of Y2. This scaling up 
would more than compensate for the above scaling down of result indicator targets;
• The evaluator recommends that the program perform some assessments specifically 
requested by beneficiaries participating during focus group discussions, including (i) 
expanding export of produce to the Caribbean islands, (ii) availability and cost of water 
treatment facilities, and (iii) facilitating resolution of business disputes over shipment 
overdue payments;
• For four of the results indicators, the evaluator recommends lowering the end of Y4 
cumulative targets, as the set targets appear unattainable based on current action 
delivery trends and achievements and types of beneficiaries potentially reachable; and,
• Finally, the evaluator recommends the program prepare an exit strategy assuring 
sustainability of activities after program completion.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 3
The Exporting Quality Program is a US$15 million program that runs from October 2015 to 
September 2019, implemented by the International Executive Service Corps (IESC) in the 
DR. The program aims to increase productivity and sales for domestic and export markets of 
high-value fruit and vegetable global value chains: avocado, cocoa, pineapple, and 
greenhouse and Asian vegetables. The program is expected to improve product quality, 
increase production and efficiency, increase the value of post-harvest products, and improve 
market and marketing linkages. The program is organized into the following five activity 
areas:
A. Capacity Building: Producer Groups and Cooperatives; 
B. Capacity Building: Trade Associations;
C. Cold Chain Improvement; 
D. In-Kind Grants: Equipment; and,
E. Public Information Campaigns: Disperse Improved Market Information.
The program activities are designed to work primarily with value chain aggregators, such as 
producer organizations (clusters and associations), cooperatives, packinghouses, processors, 
and trade associations, to reach middlemen—traders and producers. The program looks at 
end markets to determine growth-related demand and requirements, in turn focusing on 
technical solutions related to productivity losses (e.g., orchard underperformance, technology 
gaps) and product losses (e.g., spoilage, cold chain mismanagement, point of entry refusal, 
and food safety). The program’s interventions have focused on productivity and product 
losses of 30 percent or higher in the first two years to achieve the end-of-year-two target 
results related to volume (a 25 percent increase to 55,934 metric tons from a baseline of 
42,505 metric tons) and sales (a 25 percent increase to US$53.2 million from a baseline of 
US$44.7 million). Losses can also be defined as not having access to key markets due to 
certain product bans (e.g., the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata [medfly], thrips, and 
other contaminations) or refusals based on import inspections. The program has endeavored 
to work with a significant number of beneficiaries in each value chain to achieve the end-of￾year-two targets (3,440 direct and 17,200 indirect beneficiaries), which should then allow the 
transformation needed for continued and sustained growth as additional market-driven 
scaling and sector-wide replication occur.
The program is monitoring a total of 36 result and activity indicators, of which 32 had a 
baseline of zero and four had baseline data established within six months of program start￾up. The evaluation focused on the program’s performance against the end-of-year-two 
targets for these indicators, as well as on quantitative and qualitative information obtained 
through survey results, focus group discussions, and interviews with main stakeholders.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 4
Geographic coverage.
The program is carrying 
out activities in the 
areas of Santo 
Domingo, La Vega, San 
Juan, Santiago, San 
Cristóbal, San José de 
Ocoa, Monte Plata, 
Monseñor Nouel, 
Duarte, Puerto Plata, 
Peravia, Sánchez 
Ramírez, and Azua 
provinces. The program 
has recently expanded 
its training activities to 
avocado producers in 
the province of 
Pedernales, located in 
the most southern part of the country bordering Haiti (see Figure 1). 
Trade Trends for Target Commodities
Recent trade patterns and trends of target commodities show exports have largely returned 
to pre-U.S. export ban 2014 levels in terms of value. Resulting from medfly infestations, this 
ban was in place between March 18, 2015 to January 9, 2016. Figure 2 below displays the 
Figure 2: Quarterly Export Trends of Target Commodities (excluding Cocoa)
Figure 1: Map of Program Activities
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 5
value of products from target value chains traded between late 2014 and late 2016, except 
for cocoa products. The trade trend for cocoa products is separated in Figure 3 due to the 
large difference in magnitude between their values and those of the others.
Avocado exports have almost returned to pre-ban export value levels, providing necessary
relief to producers, some of whom preferred not to harvest the crop due to low farm gate 
prices. As for greenhouse production, 2016 total output is back to 2014 levels after the 2015 
drop (again, due to the medfly ban), but there has been a partial shift of production from 
peppers to tomatoes and cucumbers.1 This production shift is confirmed by the export trend, 
with 2016 tomato export value higher than the 2014 level, while pepper export value is still 
well below that amount. Producers of bell peppers in Jarabacoa were the most affected by the 
medfly ban, leaving them with huge losses and high debts; producers in Rancho Arriba and 
Ocoa were also significantly affected. Producers of chilies (an Asian vegetable) were also 
negatively affected by the medfly ban. Cultivation of Asian vegetables was then hit by huge 
and persistent rains during the fall of 2016 and, more recently (August 2017), by the effects 
of Hurricane Harvey. Nonetheless, the export value of okra more than doubled between 2014 
and 2016 (though from a small basis), mainly thanks to increased sales to France. As for 
pineapples, their export value increased between 2014 and 2016, but at a lower rate than 
expected. Pineapple production continues to supply the domestic market, which is still at 
least as remunerative as the export market. Finally, the export value of cocoa products has 
continued to grow steadily.
 
1 Export of green tomatoes was allowed as of April 2015, while export of cucumbers was never banned.
Figure 3: Quarterly Export Trends of Cocoa 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 6
The evaluation team, Antonio Cordella, lead evaluator, and Christian Baez, enumerator, used
a combination of methods to perform the evaluation, including a quantitative survey through 
a questionnaire, focus group discussions with target beneficiaries, and interviews with key
public and private stakeholders including program staff, local implementing partner Center 
for Agriculture and Forestry Development (CEDAF), the Ministry of Agriculture, and USDA. In 
addition, the evaluation team used the data collected by the program’s M&E staff to execute 
the performance analysis of the 36 PMP indicators; the data was validated by direct 
observations and field visit checks. The team also collected and analyzed production and 
trade data from official statistical sources, such as those used during the baseline study. 2
The data collection tools used for the evaluation were similar to those used during routine 
monitoring by the M&E staff, thus results may be compared. The evaluation team also 
executed an informal audit of the data collected by the program’s M&E staff.3
During fieldwork, the evaluation team undertook a survey of program beneficiaries 
(producers, extension officers, packinghouse owners and staff, processors, domestic traders, 
exporters, and service providers) through the submission and completion of an ad hoc 
questionnaire designed by the team and refined with the assistance of the program’s 
technical staff (see Annex 5). The beneficiaries interviewed were randomly selected from 
some 2,617 beneficiaries (whose names and contact information were provided by the 
program) and the questionnaires were filled-in either at program events or over the phone.4
Toward the end of fieldwork activities, five focus groups were organized in which the main 
stakeholders of each value chain provided valuable additional information on program 
activities and results, as well as their expectations for the remainder of the program. 
Photographs of these groups and other meetings are attached as Annex 8. Finally, the team 
met with relevant public and private partners to discuss program achievements to date, 
expectations for the remaining period of implementation, and sustainability of efforts.5
Completion of the survey took a relatively long time due to the difficulty of contacting many 
beneficiaries located in remote parts of the country and often working in the field, where 
telecommunication networks are weak or nonexistent. Once the questionnaire survey was 
completed, the evaluation team conducted data entry, then processed and analyzed the 
 
2 Trade data from ITC Trade Map web site (http://www.trademap.org/); domestic production data from 
Oficina Nacional de Estadìstica (ONE) (http://www.one.gob.do/#).
3 The evaluation team thanks the EQ program staff for the invaluable support provided during the execution of the 
evaluation.
4 Additional information on the program database and an evaluation sample can be found in Annex 2 of this 
report.
5 Partners met include; Pedro Pablo Peña (CEDAF’s Executive Director), Janina Segura (planning manager at 
CEDAF); Emigdio Gomez (SPS Director, Min-Ag); Raul Peralta (Food Safety Director, Min-Ag), and Virgilio A. Mayol 
(USDA agricultural specialist).
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 7
collected evaluation data. The team organized all the collected information into a database
that ensures anonymity of evaluation participants by using identification numbers and 
separating names from participants’ data. The team performed quality assurance at all 
stages: design; testing; fieldwork; data entry; data analysis; and, reporting. 
Survey Sample Screening
The evaluation team carried out the survey between November 15 and December 21, 2017. 
The questionnaire was tested at a program training event on Organizational Capacity Index
(OCI) methodology, where a dozen pineapple beneficiaries were asked to complete the 
questionnaire. The testing went well, and the survey continued over the following five weeks.
The evaluation team administered 337 questionnaires but, after a quality assurance test, 11 
were rejected, leaving the analyzed sample at 326. A further nine beneficiaries were then 
contacted and the questionnaires administered to reach the target of 335 completed 
questionnaires. This sample size ensures a 95 percent confidence level with a 5 percent
margin of error and a 50 percent distribution (see Annex 2).
The majority of surveyed beneficiaries are producers (46 percent of the sample), but there is 
also a significant share of extension officers and consultants (30 percent), most on the 
ministry of agriculture payroll even if working with specific producer associations; exporters 
represent 11 percent of the sample (many of them are also producers and, in certain cases, 
packers); packinghouse staff accounts for just six percent of the sample, mainly dealing with 
both greenhouse and Asian vegetables; cocoa processors add an additional four percent; and 
domestic traders a three percent share; the sample also includes two students and one air 
transporter (see Figure 4). 
Figure 4: Survey Sample by Profession
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 8
As illustrated in Figure 5, the survey sample breakdown by value chain includes operators 
working mainly with cocoa (24 percent of the sample), avocados (21 percent), Asian
vegetables (20 percent), greenhouse vegetables (eight percent), and pineapple (six percent), 
while beneficiaries dealing with all target value chains account for a 16 percent share. This 
group primarily consists of extension officers with some exporters and traders. The remaining 
five percent of the sample includes would-be beneficiaries (e.g. students) and beneficiaries of 
other value chains (bananas, mangoes, coffee, citrus, tobacco, cheeses, meats, and 
sausages) as well as non-food goods (color additives, furniture).
Men represent the largest share of survey beneficiaries, 75 percent. Women have a slightly 
higher representation in the cocoa value chain where they account for almost 33 percent of 
interviewed beneficiaries, as well as in the group of beneficiaries dealing with all value chains, 
i.e., extension officers, traders, and exporters. Women are less present in value chains such 
as Asian vegetables (where they account for only 19 percent of the total), greenhouse 
vegetables (7 percent), avocados (4 percent), and pineapples (3 percent), as displayed in 
Figure 6.
Figure 5: Survey Sample by Value Chain
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 9
Producers are the majority of interviewed beneficiaries in the avocado, cocoa, and pineapple 
value chains, but less so in the Asian and greenhouse vegetable value chains where, in fact, 
most exporters are also producers, as shown in Table 1. All interviewed exporters of Asian
vegetables have packinghouses. The number of extension officers interviewed is significant 
for both greenhouse and Asian vegetables, as well as for cocoa. Surveyed processors are only 
represented in the cocoa value chain. 
Table 1: Number of surveyed beneficiaries by profession and value chain
Producers
Packinghouse 
staff Processors Traders Exporters
Extension 
officers
Avocados 63 7
Pineapples 11 4 5
Greenhouse Vegetables 3 5 1 5 13
Asian Vegetables 22 13 16 12
Cocoa 52 14 1 14
Figure 6: Female Participants by VC 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 10
In accordance with a specific request from USDA made during a teleconference, an informal
audit of the quality of the database supplied by the program was undertaken. The analysis of 
the performance of both Result and Activity Indicators also permitted an indirect audit of the 
database.
The volume of data collected by the program’s M&E team is impressive, as is its organization, 
with separate information for each of the 36 PMP indicators. For each program activity a list 
of participants is provided, though unfortunately not all of them contain valid contact 
information (phone or e-mail) nor profession and value chain to which they belong. It is 
worth noting that some beneficiaries (especially producers) do not have email or phone. 
The database contains a few participants who were mistakenly keyed in twice or even more 
often, due to misspelled or incomplete names. It also contains some would-be beneficiaries 
who should not have been included because they were merely contacted or involved in an 
activity through brief attendance (non-recurring participation).
6 An estimation of the total 
number of the beneficiaries mistakenly included in the database is set at about three to five 
percent of the audit sample. There are also a few beneficiaries attending program activities 
who may not have been included in the database, or at least their names could not be found 
in it (these are estimated at between two and four percent of the audit sample). All in all, by 
balancing the two estimates, the evaluation team assesses the number of beneficiaries over￾estimated in the database at around one to two percent, thus within an acceptable statistical 
margin of error. 
In Result Indicators #7 and #8, on value and volume of sales by program beneficiaries, the 
program has calculated the sales attributable to USDA support by interviewing a 
representative sample of beneficiaries and applying the simple average of their estimation to 
the framing sample. It is recommended that in the future the program applies the weighted 
average instead. In addition, at least one third of volume sales of cocoa products in the 
sample seems to have been computed incorrectly. This should not have a significant impact 
on the positive performance of this Result Indicator; nonetheless it is recommended that the 
program M&E checks the relevant data.
 
6 The typical example of this is high school students attending a conference who are included in the database as 
direct beneficiaries rather than indirect beneficiaries. Most of them refused to fill in questionnaires when contacted 
during the survey.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 11
As for Activity Indicator #2.6 (which counts the number of women in trade association 
management who participate in program-sponsored leadership training and events), the 
evaluation team considers that the program’s M&E team has mistakenly computed as 
beneficiaries all women participating at the three events organized by the program rather 
than only the women in trade association management as indicated by the indicator 
definition.7
It is recommended that the program M&E team recalculate this indicator. This is 
further discussed at the end of the report as recommendation #14, which goes further in 
suggesting the change of “trade organizations” definition. 
It is recommended that beneficiaries attending program activities include more precise 
information including their full name, profession, and related value chain of interest, as well 
as a valid contact number or email address when completing the attendance sheet. The 
information on profession will be useful when performing sampling segmentation during the 
next evaluation at the end of the program, and will provide additional information for routine 
monitoring. A valid beneficiary contact number/address will facilitate performance of the final 
evaluation. 
Findings of the program results evaluation performed by the evaluation team are described in 
the following sections. The main results suggested by the survey analysis are given first, then 
the evaluation of program activities as in the SoW scheme (see Annex 1) is provided. Most of 
the basic information on program activities was provided by the program M&E team. 
Main Survey Results
The results of the survey are shown in Table 2 below. For each question/statement, the table 
provides the percentage of answers given by the interviewed beneficiaries and the average 
score calculated based on the points (from 1–5) given for each statement. A score of 5 
indicates that the interviewed beneficiaries strongly agree with the relevant sentence, while a 
score of 1 indicates they strongly disagree. An average score above 3 indicates a positive 
answer; the higher the score, the more the respondents agree with the relevant question. For 
each section the highest score is highlighted. 
As shown in Table 2, the average score is in almost all cases above 4, the only exception 
being the questions concerning challenges faced by the beneficiary business during the first 
two years of program implementation, challenges that were not directly related to program 
 
7 The M&E team counted 80 women beneficiaries for this activity indicator, while the audit suggests they number 
just three, or five percent of the Y2 target.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 12
activities (e.g., the medfly ban, heavy rains, hurricanes, and so on) and that the program 
had no ability to influence. 
Table 2: Survey Results
Percentage of 
sampled 
beneficiaries 
providing an 
answer
Average 
score
SECTION 1 PROGRAM EFFICIENCY
1.A.1 The quality of my business has improved thanks to program activities 90% 4.24
1.A.2 The value of my business has increased thanks to program activities 75% 4.14
1.A.3 My technical skills have improved thanks to program activities 97% 4.62
1.A.4 My commercial skills have improved thanks to program activities 50% 4.35
1.A.5 Please quantify the improvements due to program activities 60% 41–60%8
1.B.1 The program has helped me to achieve more than I expected 90% 4.34
1.B.2 Please provide more details 9% -
1.C.1 My business has faced major challenges during the last 24 months 30% 3.46
1.C.2 Please name some of these challenges, if any 4% -
1.C.3 The medfly ban has significantly impacted my activity 20% 3.00
1.C.4 The heavy rains in the Fall of 2016 negatively affected my production/trade/exports 30% 3.89
1.C.5 The 2017 hurricanes (heavy rains and strong winds) negatively affected my 
production/trade/exports
25% 3.70
1.C.6 The program has been able to help me to counter these challenges 27% 3.75
1.C.7 How can the program further support you in meeting your business challenges? 7% -
1.D.1 How can the program help you in unexpected situations? 5% -
SECTION 2 RELEVANCE OF INTERVENTION
2.A.1 The program has been able to address the core issues of my activity 82% 4.08
2.A.2 The program has helped strengthen my organization 81% 4.40
2.A.3 How can the program improve the relevance of its assistance to better support you? 7% -
SECTION 3 EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION
3.A.1 The program activity on export promotion has been very effective in improving my 
business
30% 4.09
3.A.2 The program activity on cold chain awareness has been very effective in improving 
my business
19% 4.29
3.A.3 The program activity on branding has been very effective in improving my business 19% 4.20
3.A.4 The program activity on safety measures has been very effective for improving my 
business
87% 4.54
3.A.5 The program activity on phytosanitary measures has been very effective for 
improving my business
86% 4.50
3.A.6 The program activity on traceability has been very effective in improving my 
business
48% 4.35
3.A.7 The program activity on compliance measures has been very effective in improving 
my business
51% 4.35
3.A.8 The program activity on certification has been very effective in improving my 
business
50% 4.30
3.A.9 The program activity on GAP/GHM/GMP has been very effective in improving my 
business
80% 4.47
3.A.1 The program activity on improving/expanding farming productivity has been very 64% 4.35
 
8 On average the interviewed beneficiaries estimated at between 41-60% the improvement due to Program 
activities.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 13
0 effective for improving my business
3.A.1
1
The program activity on improving/expanding processing capacity has been very 
effective for improving my business
23% 4.22
3.A.1
2
The program activity on improving management capacity of my farm has been very 
effective for improving my business
56% 4.24
3.A.1
3
How can the program improve the effectiveness of its assistance? 5% -
3.B.1 The program has encouraged participation of women in its activities 91% 4.05
3.B.2 The program has been very effective at reaching women beneficiaries 88% 4.11
3.B.3 What could be done to improve women’s participation in target value chains? 6% -
3.C.1 The training approach has been very good at enhancing my productivity 81% 4.27
3.C.2 The training approach has been very good at enhancing my processing capacity 26% 4.31
3.C.3 The training approach has been very good at enhancing my managerial skills 54% 4.32
3.C.4 How can we improve the training approach to better support you? 5% -
SECTION 4 SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS TO DATE
4.1 At the end of the program I will be able to continue to apply what I learned with no 
problems
98% 4.64
4.2 I would like this or a similar program of technical assistance to continue after its 
scheduled end
98% 4.90
4.3 How can the program ensure that this type of assistance is available after their 
program ends?
4% -
4.4 I would prefer that a similar program of assistance is continued by the Dominican 
government/public organizations
97% 4.05
4.5 I would prefer that a similar program of assistance is continued by the Dominican 
private sector
97% 4.10
Section 1 – Program Efficiency
Interviewed beneficiaries believe that their technical (score of 4.62) and commercial (score of 
4.35) skills have much improved thanks to program activities and that the program has been 
able to outperform their expectations (score of 4.34). These high scores confirm that 
beneficiaries believe the program has been very effective in providing them with training and 
relevant information.
Section 2 – Relevance of Intervention
Survey results suggest that beneficiaries feel the program has been able to address the core 
issues of their activity and that has helped strengthen their organizations (with both a high 
percentage of answers, 4.08, and of high scores, 4.40).
Section 3 – Effectiveness of Intervention
To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, the evaluation team designed a few statements 
directed to specific groups of beneficiaries according to the training received and/or 
activity/event in which they had participated. This means that the percentage of answers is 
lower than that for other statements, since only the beneficiaries involved with that specific 
activity were asked to provide an answer. The results are very specific for each type of 
professional and training received, and provide much useful and high-value information.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 14
Survey results suggest that activities related to sanitary and phytosanitary measures were 
the ones in which most beneficiaries participated (more than 86 percent of beneficiaries 
answered) and one of the most appreciated, since beneficiaries believe that those activities 
have been very effective in improving their business (scores on these statements averaged 
4.54 and 4.50, respectively). The activities related to good practices (GAP, GHP and GMP) 
also had significant participation (80 percent) and a high appreciation score (4.47). The 
training approach and its ability to enhance beneficiaries’ productivity has also been 
considerably discussed (81 percent of answers) and significantly appreciated (a score of 
4.27).
Among the most highly discussed issues are those related to women’s participation in 
program activities (91 percent of answers) and whether the program has been very effective 
at reaching women beneficiaries (88 percent of answers); most beneficiaries (and especially 
women) considered these activities very successful (scores are above 4 for both statements). 
All other issues in this section, program effectiveness, received answers ranging from low to 
middle percentage shares, but their score is on average above 4, again confirming that 
beneficiaries appreciated the work of the program.
Section 4 – Sustainability Efforts to Date
The interviewed beneficiaries suggest that they would like this or a similar program to 
continue after completion (a score of 4.90) with a slightly less favorable opinion for similar 
programs run either by the Dominican government (a score of 4.05) or by the private sector 
(4.10). Finally, as for sustainability, the interviewed beneficiaries believe they will be able to 
continue to apply what they have learned after program completion (a score of 4.64), thus 
confirming their appreciation for the quality and approach of the training received and the 
usefulness of the events/study tours in which they participated.
Program Design, Implementation, and Efficiency
A. Is the program on track to reach specified targets at midpoint and by the end 
of the program?
The program has 36 indicators, including 20 result indicators and 16 activity indicators. The 
program is on track to reach one-third of specified targets at midpoint (12 indicators), and 
has already accomplished at least 100 percent of the end-of-program targets for three of 
these indicators. The program has achieved more than 50 percent of midpoint targets for an 
additional one-fifth (seven indicators) of total indicators, while for some two-fifths of 
indicators (or 14 indicators) the program has achieved less than 30 percent of target. For 
about one-fifth of indicators, or 7 indicators, the achievement rate is lower than 10 percent of 
target (see Tables 3 and 4).
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 15
• Specifically, what percent is on track and what percent is not on track?
Below is a summary of performance given for each indicator, with different traffic light colors 
to highlight the percentage of accomplishment for each specific target.
Table 3: Performance of result indicators at program midpoint
Indicator ID Indicator Summary
Score Against 
Target
Result Indicator #1 (FFPr 17) # of individuals benefitting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance 77%
Result Indicator #2 (FFPr 18) # of individuals benefitting indirectly as a result of USDA 
assistance 77%
Result Indicator #3 (FFPr 16) # of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training 131%
Result Indicator #4 (FFPr 1) # of hectares under improved techniques or technologies 28%
Result Indicator #5 (FFPr 2) # of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies 19%
Result Indicator #6 (FFPr 3) # of individuals who have applied improved farm 
management practices 0%
Result Indicator #7 (FFPr 13) Value of sales by project beneficiaries 105%
Result Indicator #8 (FFPr 14) Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project 
beneficiaries 193%
Result Indicator #9 Percentage of tests of target post-production agricultural 
products that come back clean 200%
Result Indicator #10 # of direct beneficiaries achieving internationally recognized 
certifications 0%
Result Indicator #11 Average percent reduction in time a product takes to get 
through problem points in a value chain 0%
Result Indicator #12 # of partner packinghouses using a traceability system 0%
Result Indicator #13 Quantity of post-harvest equipment and facilities improved 10%
Result Indicator #14 # of food safety/standards-ready target commodities with 
improved marketing and branding 20%
Result Indicator #15 (FFPr 9) Value of new public and private sector investment leveraged 46%
Result Indicator #16 Value of buyer/seller contracts facilitated 37%
Result Indicator #17 Average OCI score of target producer groups No end of Y2 
target
Result Indicator #18 % of target value chain groups that have a systematic way 
of disseminating and updating market information 0%
Result Indicator #19 (FFPr 8) # of public–private partnerships formed 79%
Result Indicator #20 (FFPr 7) # of enterprises and organizations that applied improved 
techniques and technologies 53%
Color Legend: 
Result Indicator #1 is probably the indicator that best gauges the overall accomplishment of 
the program. This indicator aims at measuring the number of individuals directly participating 
in the USDA-funded interventions. The program has achieved 77 percent of this midpoint 
Green highlight Achieved or surpassed target
Yellow highlight On track to achieve target
Red highlight Has not met target 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 16
target. The performance analysis of this indicator also shows how the program, after a slow 
start, has taken off during the second half of Y2 implementation, as seen in Figure 7.
The results of a few other performance indicators suggest that the program reacted positively 
to beneficiary demand for practical training on upgraded cultivation methods. The program 
provided several trainings on FSMA-related issues in response to increasing demand for 
information on that subject from beneficiaries, packers and exporters, and even producers. 
For instance, Result Indicator #3, a round-up of all activity training indicators (counting the 
number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food 
security training) has exceeded its target by almost one-third. Most other activity indicators 
gauging training activities also show a very high level of performance achievement much 
higher than targets. Performance indicators on sales (Result Indicators #7 and #8) also show 
positive results. 
The actual performance of Result Indicator #9, which counts the percentage of tests of target 
post-production agricultural products that come back clean, is more difficult to evaluate. The 
problem here is that the program has only collected tests on the presence of salmonella in 
chilies, all of which came back 100 percent clean (an achievement in itself). However, no test 
has been carried out for the presence of other diseases and/or pest infestations that are 
known to be present in the value chains. Tests/measures showing declines of such 
infestations (and/or pesticide residue levels) over the period of implementation would in fact 
suggest a more robust positive result of program activities. 
Certain program activities—that have already been initiated but will count as results only 
when finalized—have low or even zero percentages of accomplishment. But they are 
Figure 7: Result Indicator #1: Achievement by Reporting Period
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 17
expected to be on track (or nearly so) with a certain delay due to late/slow start of program 
core activities (see the following section). They include indicators such as (i) beneficiaries 
achieving internationally recognized certifications (Result Indicator #10); (ii) the average 
percent reduction in time a product takes to get through problem points in a value chain 
(Result Indicator #11); (iii) packinghouses using a traceability system (Result Indicator 
#12); (iv) number of post-harvest equipment and facilities improved (Result Indicator #13); 
(v) number of food safety/standards-ready target commodities with improved marketing and 
branding (Result Indicator #14); (vi) value of new public and private sector investment 
leveraged (Result Indicator #15); (vii) value of buyer/seller contracts facilitated (Result 
Indicator #16); (viii) number of public–private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (Result Indicator #19); and (ix), organizations/groups that applied improved 
techniques and technologies (Result Indicator #20). For these result indicators to be on track 
at program completion, the performance pace achieved during the second half of Y2 must be 
maintained for the remaining period of implementation.
Less positive is the performance evaluation of certain other indicators—again, with low or 
even zero percent target achievement—that not only are not quite on track, but are not 
expected to be on track by the end of the program. It is therefore advisable to scale back 
expectations for completion of these objectives. These indicators include: (i) surveying 
beneficiaries who have applied new techniques or technologies (Result Indicators #4 and 
#5); (ii) assessing the success rate among beneficiaries who have applied improved farm 
management practices (Result Indicator #6); and (iii) identify the target value chain groups 
that have a systematic way of disseminating and updating market information (Result 
Indicator #18). 
A complete evaluation for each indicator is provided in Annex 3 of this report.
• For targets not on track to be met, specify changes (if any) to the initial 
assumptions or within the operating context that warrant a review and 
recommended revision of the targets.
A few changes have been proposed to modify the initial assumptions for Result Indicator
#11, measuring the average percent reduction in time a product takes to get through 
problem points in a value chain. Certain activities of Result Indicator #11 have been 
regrouped to include two value chains,
9 while other activities have been refocused to take 
into consideration actual beneficiary demand (e.g., cocoa fermentation and processing 
facilities), changed regulatory environment (repeal of the medfly ban), and changing climate
 
9 For instance, (a) internationally recognized certification and (b) improved processing capacity now apply for both 
avocados and pineapples, while (c) IPM and (d) post-harvest treatment now apply for both Asian and greenhouse 
vegetables.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 18
conditions (more, longer rainy seasons than expected). An alternative metric for the indicator 
result has been proposed when time-related measurement proved difficult to apply. 
As for the indicators that are expected to be not quite on track by the end of the program, it 
is advisable to revise and scale down the life-of-project targets. In particular it is 
recommended to (i) scale down by one-quarter the end of Y4 cumulative target of Result 
Indicator #4, setting the new end of Y4 cumulative target at 3,750 hectares under improved 
techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance; (ii) scale down by one-quarter the 
end of Y4 cumulative target of Result Indicator #5, with a new end of Y4 cumulative target of 
4,500 producers who have introduced improved techniques or technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance; (iii) scale down by at least one-third the end of Y4 cumulative target of 
Result Indicator #6, setting the new end of Y4 cumulative target at 830 producers who have 
introduced improved farm management practices such as governance, administration, or 
financial management as a result of USDA assistance; (iv) scale down the end of Y4 
cumulative target of Result Indicator #18 by at least half and reduce the denominator from 
10 organizations to just five (either trade or producer associations, cooperatives, or clusters), 
with the new end of Y4 cumulative target set at 50 percent of target value chain groups that 
have a systematic way of disseminating and updating market information.
For a few Activity Indicators with low performance scores, the main problem is that there was 
an initial misunderstanding regarding the number of trade organizations operating in the 
target value chains, thought to be seven but in fact only two. This has resulted in setting 
targets that the evaluation team considers unattainable, whereas they could be achieved by 
resetting them at the level of the initial rationale, that is, by reducing them by a ratio of 7 to 
2 (i.e., by 3.5 times); or by enlarging the scope of the indicator to include not only trade 
associations but also producer associations, cooperatives, and clusters. For instance, (i) for 
Activity Indicator #2.4—counting the number of trade association members benefitting from 
the end-market assessments—it is recommended to reduce the end of Y4 cumulative target 
to 40 members (rather than 140); (ii) for Activity Indicator #2.5—counting the number of 
trade association individuals benefitting from trade association capacity building activities—it 
is recommended to maintain the end of Y4 cumulative target but also include in the 
computation of this indicator producer associations, cooperatives, and clusters; (iii) for
Activity Indicator #2.6—counting the number of women in trade association management 
who participate in program-sponsored leadership training and events—the end of Y4 
cumulative target could be reset at 30 (rather than 107) women or, as an alternative, 
enlarge the goal to include other types of organizations; and, (iv) for Activity Indicator
#2.7—counting the value of grants provided to trade associations—it is recommended that 
the scope of the indicator be enlarged to include other types of organizations as above. 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 19
Table 4: Performance of Activity Indicators at Program Midpoint
Indicator ID Indicator Summary Score Against 
Target
Activity Indicator #1.1 # of trainings delivered to increase capacity of fruit and vegetable 
operators
700%
Activity Indicator #1.2 # of producers benefitting from training and technical assistance 214%
Activity Indicator #1.3 # of processors benefitting from training and technical assistance 181%
Activity Indicator #1.4 # of packinghouse staff benefitting from training and technical 
assistance 61%
Activity Indicator #1.5 Value of grants provided to producers 14%
Activity Indicator #2.1 # of processors/exporters trained in marketing and branding 
techniques 123%
Activity Indicator #2.2 # of direct beneficiaries participating in trade shows, buyer visits 
to the DR, and exporter visits to the United States and Europe 613%
Activity Indicator #2.3 # of producer organization members benefitting from end-market 
assessments
215%
Activity Indicator #2.4 # of trade association members benefitting from the end-market 
assessments
18%
Activity Indicator #2.5 # of trade association individuals benefitting from trade 
association capacity building activities 0%
Activity Indicator #2.6 # of women in trade association management who participate in 
program-sponsored leadership training and events 143% / 5%
Activity Indicator #2.7 Value of grants provided to trade associations 5%
Activity Indicator #3.1 # of individuals attending cold chain knowledge sharing events 370%
Activity Indicator #4.1 # of fruit processors benefitting from in-kind equipment to create 
value added products 50%
Activity Indicator #4.2 Value of in-kind grants provided to processors 42%
Activity Indicator #5.1 # of individuals reached by public information campaigns 60%
Color Legend:
B. What have been the primary reasons for current achievements compared to 
result and activity indicator targets?
The program had a slow start due to setup, staffing, and establishing suitable long-term 
accommodations. In practical terms, most, if not all, activities in the first six months of 
program implementation focused on setup activities; core activities only started during the 
second half of year one. Core activities carried out during the second part of year one and 
first part of Y2 include: (i) carrying out value chain analysis for each target commodity and a 
cold chain assessment; (ii) performing a few study tours abroad; (iii) organizing several 
training sessions, workshops, and buyer visits; and (iv) participating in various events. It was 
in the second part of Y2 that program activities began to flourish, with plenty of training on 
farming methods, farmer field schools, workshops on FSMA issues, IPM-related activities, 
Green highlight Achieved or surpassed target
Yellow highlight On track to achieve target 
Red highlight Has not met target 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 20
OCI, and so on. The training approach, focusing on practical demonstrations, has been a 
driver of success and much appreciated, especially by farmers.
• Specifically, what should be maintained and/or scaled up?
Analysis of program activities and performance suggests that the program is a demand￾driven program that has provided more training than expected and thus has exceeded Y4 
targets for a few result indicators. It is advisable to scale up a few target indicators related to 
training activities. This scaling up would de facto compensate for the scaling down 
recommended for four result indicators and the modifications suggested for an additional four 
activity indicators (concerning trade organization definitions). Specifically, the following:
• The end of Y4 cumulative target for Result Indicator #3—counting the number of 
individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food 
security training—could be increased by one-quarter, therefore training a cumulative 
8,500 individuals; 
• The end of Y4 cumulative target for Activity Indicator #1.1—counting the number of 
trainings delivered to increase capacity of fruit and vegetable producers, processors, 
and packinghouses—could be expanded by seven times, so the training target would 
be set at 120; 
• The end of Y4 cumulative targets for Activity Indicators #1.2 and #1.3—counting the 
number of producers and processors benefitting from training and technical assistance, 
respectively—could go up by 50 percent and 100 percent, setting the new targets at 
4,650 producers and 150 processors, respectively; 
• The end of Y4 cumulative target for Activity Indicator #2.1—counting the number of 
processors/exporters trained in marketing and branding techniques—could be 
increased by one-quarter, which would set the target at 600 individuals; 
• The end of Y4 cumulative target for Activity Indicator #2.2—counting the number of 
direct beneficiaries participating in trade shows, buyer visits to the DR, and exporter 
visits to the United States and Europe—could be doubled, thus set at 200 individuals; 
• The end of Y4 cumulative target for Activity Indicator #2.3—counting the number of 
producer organization members benefitting from end-market assessments—could be 
tripled, reset at 180 individuals;10
• The end of Y4 cumulative target for Activity Indicator #3.1—counting the number of 
individuals attending cold chain knowledge sharing events—could also double, with the 
new target set at 750.
 
10 This indicator could in fact be merged with Activity Indicator #2.4 if the trade organization definition is enlarged 
to include other types of organizations.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 21
C. What Have Been the Major Challenges to Program Implementation and How 
Has the Program Responded to These Challenges?
A major challenge to program implementation has been the recruitment of suitable 
candidates for the key position of value chain facilitator. The recruitment process has taken 
longer than expected and this has caused a delay for the start of the program’s core 
activities. In practical terms, no beneficiary related activities were recorded during the first 
six months. In addition, it took longer than expected to fine-tune the program activity 
delivery machine and the program only saw progress in the second half of Y2 in particular 
thanks to (i) the organization and delivery of a series of practical trainings focusing on 
farming practices and methods (pruning, fertilization, irrigation, GAP, etc.) and targeting 
producers; (ii) workshops providing useful information on FSMA-related issues targeting all 
actors in the target value chains; (iii) practical training on good handling practices targeting 
packinghouse staff and good manufacturing practices targeting processors; and (iv) seminars 
on strengthening organizational capacity for a selected number of private partners, including 
producer and trade organizations, cooperatives, and clusters. 
An additional challenge has been the organization and delivery of program activities via a 
public information campaign, the results of which have been largely below expectations for at 
least the first 18 months of program implementation. This resulted in a change of personnel 
in charge of such activities in the latter part of Y2. 
Implementation of activities related to the dispersal of improved market information was also 
problematic. The program has started directly disseminating the weekly Emergency Action 
Notifications (EAN) on pest border detentions provided by USDA Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) and has included market information in weekly emails regarding 
prices for selected Dominican products in different terminal markets in the United States. 
However, the program is still looking for suitable means or an interested group/organization 
to continue distributing this information. The program also expects to publish relevant 
information through a webpage of the ministry of agriculture’s food safety department; that 
webpage, however, is still in the design phase. 
• Specifically, to what extent has the Mediterranean fruit fly ban affected 
program implementation?
On March 18, 2015, USDA APHIS issued import restrictions on “host commodities from the 
Dominican Republic into or through the United States,” upon detection of the medfly in the 
Punta Cana area on the eastern coast of the DR. Among the banned produce were all 
avocado varieties produced in the country, though in late April 2015 shipments of Hass 
variety avocados were allowed, as APHIS does not consider Hass avocados a fruit fly host.
Peppers and tomatoes were banned too, though in late April shipments of green tomatoes 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 22
were allowed. The export ban was repealed on January 7, 2016 for produce originating from 
23 provinces and, in December 2017, for the remaining seven provinces of the DR.11
The medfly ban was the main subject of awareness for most potential beneficiaries during the 
first months of program implementation. It has continued to negatively affect a significant 
number of beneficiaries dealing with avocados, tomatoes, and both bell and chili peppers. 
The vegetable producers of Jarabacoa, in particular, most of whom incurred large, 
unsustainable debts, had to cease or significantly scale down production.12 The program has 
been providing support to greenhouse producers in Rancho Arriba (in the province of San 
José de Ocoa) as well as chili producers in the city of La Vega, to assist them in increasing 
exports and export value, though it has been less successful in reaching out to greenhouse 
producers in Jarabacoa and Constanza (both located in La Vega province). 
• To what extent did unexpected heavy rains in the fall of 2016 affect Asian
vegetable exports?
The program has helped Asian vegetable producers and exporters through training on IPM, 
GAP, GHP, the strengthening of organizational capacity, and the upgrading of existing 
traceability systems to conform to FSMA requirements. In the fall of 2016, heavy rains hit the 
DR and several locations in the country were inundated. This has particularly affected 
producers of Asian vegetables, whose production has been partly damaged. The 2017 
hurricanes, three of which had significant landfalls in the DR, have had a similar effect. 
Hurricane Harvey caused heavy, persistent rains that negatively affected Asian vegetable 
output and quality. 
D. What, if any, unintended but important direct results (positive or negative) 
have occurred?
The program has been working closely with other USDA-financed programs, namely Food 
Safety Agro Sustainability Training (FAST) and the Participatory Agency Program Agreement 
for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in the DR and Central America, to prepare the 
target commodity industry for FSMA compliance, a synergy appreciated by USDA officials. 
Another unintended but important direct result has been preparation of the national 
interpretation guide for GLOBALG.A.P. certification. A primary objective of program activities 
 
11 Beneficiaries of the EQ program are located in just one of these nine provinces, Monte Plata, and mainly 
produce pineapples, a commodity not affected by the ban.
12 Greenhouse vegetables are mainly produced in three areas of the DR: (i) Rancho Arriba and Ocoa; (ii) 
Jarabacoa; and (iii) Constanza. The first two areas specialize in the production of bell peppers mainly for the U.S. 
market, while the third is more oriented toward production of cucumbers, while all three produce tomatoes, 
mainly for the domestic market. The medfly ban principally affected producers of U.S.-bound bell peppers.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 23
is to obtain internationally recognized certifications. One of these certifications is 
GLOBALG.A.P., increasingly needed if target beneficiaries want to export avocados and 
pineapples to European (as well as other) markets. GLOBALG.A.P. universal standards 
generally apply to all countries, but it is possible to adapt them to the characteristics of a 
specific country (e.g., the DR) through a process of localized interpretation that provides 
guidance to certification bodies and producers on how best to implement GLOBALG.A.P. 
control points and compliance criteria at the national level. This is done through the drafting 
of a national interpretation guide that must be approved by the GLOBALG.A.P. secretariat 
and the technical committee for crops.
• How should these results be assessed in the overall program context?
Training on FSMA-related issues is among the most appreciated activities that the program 
delivers to producers, packinghouse owners, and exporters.
Approval of the GLOBALG.A.P. national interpretation guide would be a significant direct 
result of program activities that are expected to facilitate increased GLOBALG.A.P. 
certification in the DR and increase exports (and export value) to European markets.
• How has the program responded to these guidelines?
The program has facilitated adoption of this GLOBALG.A.P. national interpretation guide by 
providing an international consultant to support the national technical working group (based 
at the local partner, CEDAF) responsible for drafting such a guide. Approval of the guide is 
expected soon.
E. To what extent are staffing, management, and oversight costs suitable given 
the number/scope of activities carried out?
The program has a total staff of 20 employees plus two collaborators employed by the local 
partner, CEDAF. Program chief of staff is Brian Rudert, the only U.S. citizen on the team—the 
others include one French national and the remainder are Dominican. Half of the employees 
are women; one of the program’s four senior positions is filled by a woman. About half of the 
positions are administrative, with the remaining half being mainly operational, including four 
value chain facilitators, two thematic specialists, and a training analyst who covers most of 
the program’s field activities. A second training analyst has been employed since the 
beginning of year three. The important task of program communication is covered by one 
media specialist and one assistant; both these positions were re-staffed during the second 
half of Y2. 
Over the first two years of program implementation, there has been limited staff turnover,
with changes occurring in a total of only four positions. Staffing of the program has seen a 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 24
slow start with just one-third of the positions filled during the first six months of program 
activities. Key value chain facilitator positions were only filled during the second half of year 
one. The number of program employees appears adequate; employment of a second training 
supervisor seems reasonable taking into consideration the escalated number of activities 
during the second year that are envisaged to continue at least at the same, improved, pace 
during the remaining program life. Program management also seems adequate to satisfy 
program needs; after the above-mentioned slow start the program seems to have found a 
suitable pace that, if maintained, will result in fulfillment of most of the program’s target 
results. Viewed this way, the minor change in the management organization during the 
second year is a move to consolidate the accelerated pace of program implementation.13
The program changed its “brand” name to Exporting Quality; in Spanish “Exporta Calidad”
seemed easier to remember and recognize than the original name (“Exportando Calidad e
Inocuidad”). The name change, together with the adoption of a new logo resembling a quality 
seal, are intended to improve the understanding of program objectives and create a more 
immediate visual identification of the program. No significant oversight costs were identified 
during this program midterm evaluation. The program currently occupies the entire second 
floor of the building hosting CEDAF. 
Relevance of Interventions
F. To what extent do program activities address the core issues of target 
beneficiaries?
The issue of the relevance of interventions has been addressed through interviews with key 
stakeholders, focus groups, and a survey in the form of a questionnaire. There is general 
acknowledgement among beneficiaries that program activities addressed their core 
concerns.14 Small-scale producers15 showed deep appreciation of the program’s training 
 
13 The training and communication units now report directly to the M&E manager; the market linkage facilitator is 
to report directly to the chief of party.
14 The program has carried out the following core activities: Avocados: low small farmer productivity, diversify 
market opportunities by expanding exports to European markets for green skinned avocados, help expand Hass 
and other plantings along border with Haiti, expand certifications, strengthen producer organizations through OCI, 
traceability; Pineapples: support continued expansion of plantings, expand access to European premium 
markets, invest in increased processing capacity, certifications, strengthen SPS system to prevent entry of pests 
and diseases and promote rational pesticide use, country and company branding, strengthen producer 
organizations through OCI; Asian vegetables: reduce expensive European and U.S.-border detentions because 
of pests, prepare for FSMA compliance, strengthen producer organizations through OCI, improve post-harvest 
handling, traceability; Greenhouse vegetables: reduce expensive European and U.S.-border detentions because 
of pests, prepare for FSMA compliance, strengthen producer organizations through OCI post-harvest; Cocoa: low 
small farmer productivity, ensure that new plantings use grafted plants and preserve specialty genetic base, 
create local market value added opportunities.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 25
activities dealing with good agricultural practices (GAP) and applied farming methods and 
technologies. Small-holder avocado producers were satisfied with their participation in 
practical training activities dealing with pruning, fertilization, land drainage, irrigation, and 
GAP; pineapple producers were more than pleased to have learned the up-to-date cultivation 
methods and handling technologies applied in Costa Rica (during the study tour and 
subsequent briefing workshops presenting the visit results); exporters of Asian vegetables 
appreciated that the program has focused on their needs and not only those of the 
producers; the producers and exporters of greenhouse vegetables acknowledged the 
importance of the study tour in the United States, where they were able to acquire 
knowledge of new production techniques and packing technologies, as well as meet with 
potential buyers; processors of cocoa products were mostly satisfied with the practical 
training received on good manufacturing practices that enlarged their understanding of issues 
ranging from contamination and cross-contamination of residues and the importance of 
constant low temperature for the quality of chocolate products.
Effectiveness of Interventions
G. Which interventions/activities have the highest potential/are most effective
for achieving the program’s higher-level results (increased agricultural 
productivity and market transactions)?
Analysis of the survey results and focus group discussions suggest that beneficiaries believe 
that the most effective approach for achieving the program’s higher level results is to: (i) 
continue with the practical training and ad hoc study tours focusing on improved agricultural 
methods and practices (pruning, fertilization, land drainage, irrigation, IPM) for achieving 
greater agricultural productivity; (ii) continue workshops on FSMA-related issues to get 
needed, relevant information for continuing to export to the U.S. market, and the provision of 
assistance for installing traceability systems; (iii) continue to provide assistance to get 
internationally recognized certifications (GLOBALG.A.P., fair trade) and grants to improve 
handling and processing of the target commodities; and, (iv) continue with buyer visits for 
direct contact with importers, ensuring more market transactions, and ad hoc study tours 
providing up-to-date information on applied technologies in each of the target value chains. 
 
15 Small-scale producers are producers operating at a small scale, used to distinguish from industrialized 
producers. The distinction between small- and large- scale producers is arbitrary. What is considered small-scale 
in one country may be considered large-scale in another. In DR small-scale producers can be considered those 
cultivating less than 3 hectares of land, but less than 5 hectares for cocoa producers and less than 0.5 hectare for 
greenhouses.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 26
H. How effective is the program at reaching women beneficiaries? What could be 
done to improve women’s participation?
This gender issue has been investigated through interviews with key actors, focus groups, 
and a survey in the form of a questionnaire. In general, beneficiaries have reported that the 
program has been very effective at reaching women beneficiaries, as shown by the great 
success of the three leadership workshops held during the first two years of program 
implementation. Among beneficiaries, there is a relatively high number of cocoa, Asian, and 
greenhouse vegetable women owners and operators.
Most appreciation for program activity on gender issues comes, as expected, from women 
beneficiaries, while not all male beneficiaries agree on the positive aspects of this
achievement. As for what can be done to improve women’s participation, there is consensus 
on letting women take more responsibility in the various value chain activities and 
disseminating relevant information on women’s roles and achievements in specific value 
chains, as well as supporting women’s associations working on target value chains. 
I. How effective has the training approach been to build and/or enhance 
capacity of target beneficiaries?
The interviewed beneficiaries have generally described most of the practical activities in 
which they took part as very effective. Most farmers have shown great appreciation for 
training activities such as pruning, fertilization, land drainage and irrigation methods, good 
agricultural practices, and IPM. Beneficiaries also mentioned the great utility of the training 
they received, praising their practical aspects especially compared with training provided by 
other programs in which they had participated in the past. Direct observations of farming 
methods used in Costa Rican pineapple plantations and the efficiency of packinghouse staff 
there in handling pineapples were considered very successful.
Packers expressed the greatest appreciation for the training received in good handling 
practices and the various trainings and workshops on FSMA issues. The six packinghouses
that have applied for installation of the traceability system are eager to get the software 
installed and become ready to continue exporting to the United States by complying with the 
new FSMA requirements. Cocoa processors found practical activities on good manufacturing 
practices (e.g., contamination and cross contamination and constant cold temperature for 
chocolate products) very useful. As for cold chain awareness, beneficiaries particularly 
appreciated the study tour visits and ad hoc training on issues such as sliding doors, energy 
savings resulting from using suitable flooring, and advice on the avoidance of handling of 
produce at night when the risk of insect infestation is higher. Exporters acknowledged the 
utility of study tours and buyer visits, as well as the importance for farmers and 
packinghouses to get internationally recognized certifications. 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 27
J. To what extent do public authorities and private sector partners have an 
influence (positive or negative) on the achievement of program objectives?
The program has actively engaged with both public and private partners. The main public 
partners were the phytosanitary and food safety departments of the ministry of agriculture. 
When interviewed, both directors expressed appreciation for the fruitful collaboration with the 
program, though they think more should have been done by the program. 
The phytosanitary director said that beneficiaries were unsatisfied with program 
activities/achievements and that they expected much more from the program. Indeed, he 
believes that not enough has been done to fight diseases and pests such as thrips, an insect 
that continue to infest both Asian and greenhouse vegetable crops.
16 He greatly appreciated 
the Asian vegetable IPM demonstration farm activity in La Vega but expected this activity to 
be extended to other farms.
17 He would also like the program to assist in keeping non-native 
pests and diseases out of the DR, in particular for cocoa and pineapple crops. In addition, he 
would like the program to reorient the activities of the last two years of implementation to 
make available more physical facilities while continuing to provide practical training activities.
As for the director of food safety, he acknowledged that the synergy with the program has 
improved during its second year of implementation. The program has entered an alliance with 
the ministry of agriculture’s food safety directorate on various issues such as training on 
post-harvest handling and food safety. The most important of these issues is, specifically,
salmonella testing and a related GAP/GHP training program that has focused on a few DR 
firms on the FDA automatic detention list because of salmonella contamination. The number 
of border detentions for residual pesticides has been steadily reduced over the last few years, 
for instance, there were 18 in 2015, but just four so far in 2017. The food safety director 
would like to see its department officials more involved in program activities and would 
appreciate program assistance in obtaining an international recognition/certification of low 
cadmium content in DR cocoa products. 
Other public partners include the National Council for Competitiveness (CNC), a partner for 
cold chain activities, the Dominican Center for Export and Investment (CEI-RD), a partner for 
the Agri-Food Fair (“Agroalimentaria”) in Santo Domingo, and “Pro-Consumidor,” a consumer 
association partner for the program’s public campaign. 
CEDAF, the main local implementing partner of the program, has been actively participating 
at most program activities and is already preparing to continue most of the program activities 
 
16 Some 70 border detention notifications were received during the first 11 months of 2017 (approximately as 
many as in previous years), more than half of them related to thrips infestation. 
17 The program plans to expand support to five additional IPM demonstration farms in the upcoming reporting 
period.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 28
at the end of the fourth year of implementation. The CEDAF director acknowledged full 
cooperation and synergy with the program and its activities. CEDAF is very active in 
performing the organizational capacity strengthening of some of the program’s private 
partner organizations as well as carrying out farmer field school activities for various target 
commodities and training on post-harvest handling of produce (FSNA, food safety, GHP, 
etc.). In addition, CEDAF is already the DR reference organization for GLOBALG.A.P.
certification (it hosts the relevant working group for drafting the national interpretation 
guide), and it is upgrading an existing (but simpler) traceability system to be FSMA-compliant
that is expected to be ready for installation in six packinghouses by March 2018.
Other private partners include the Association of Dominican Exporters (ADOEXPO), the 
Dominican Business Association (JAD), the Agriculture University in Santiago (ISA), a partner 
for postharvest activities, the cocoa cooperative CONACADO and the Foundation for Organic 
Cocoa, FUPAROCA, partners for cocoa farmer field schools, and seven value chain
organizations where the OCI methodology is being applied.
All these partners, both public and private, had a positive influence on the achievement of 
program objectives. Some of them are part of the program steering committee, while all of 
them have participated in various program activities and events.
Sustainability Efforts to Date
K. What factors contribute to sustainability of program results and how has the 
program focused on these?
A few factors contributing to the sustainability of program results are compared with the 
program activities and achievements to date. 
The program responds to clear needs. There is a clear need for the provision of technical 
assistance to operators of the target commodities, ranging from the need for improved
farming techniques and practices for all value chain producers, to getting GLOBALG.A.P.
certification for avocados, a fruit for which supply largely exceed demand, and pineapples, for 
which future supply is expected to exceed demand; to the introduction of IPM for Asian and 
greenhouse vegetables; to preparations for taking on commercial challenges faced by all 
target value chain actors; to the need to add value through wet fermentation to that of 
improving processing knowledge and practices for small cocoa associations.
Presence of the “train the trainers” component. This has been one of the most 
appreciated training components to date, particularly for farming techniques and practices. It 
includes training by consultants (both foreign and local) and farmer field schools, where 
experienced farmers are expected to train other farmers. The program has also supported 
the training of Preventive Controls Qualified Individuals (PCQIs) who must prepare food 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 29
safety plans needed by most food processors and packinghouses for export to the United 
States.18 There has been general satisfaction among beneficiaries regarding the utility of such 
practical activities and recurring demand to continue and expand them.
Flexibility and adaptability. The program has shown sufficient flexibility and adaptability to 
respond to the changing environment and meet beneficiary demands. This is suggested by 
the change of focus toward activities most demanded by beneficiaries, such as hands-on 
training in farming practices and workshops on FSMA regulations and cold chain awareness, 
as well as study tours to learn more advanced techniques, practices, and applied 
technologies. 
Collaborative partners. Local partners have shown considerable collaboration in program 
implementation and taken appropriate actions to ensure sustainability for most of the 
activities started by the program, in particular farmer field schools, traceability systems, 
certification (GLOBALG.A.P.), strengthening organizational capacity of relevant groups, 
organization of women in trade seminars, and dissemination of bulletins on border detections 
that provide details about shipments not allowed to enter the United States because of 
pests/diseases found in the produce.
Results orientation and program evaluation. The program has 36 indicators to gauge its 
performance both at its midpoint and at the end of program implementation. This assures 
that the program follows, as much as possible, an approach oriented toward the achievement 
of results. In addition, the program evaluation aims at keeping the project’s goals and 
outcomes on track and helps the chief of party identify if something is not working as 
expected and then reorient the program toward achievable results.
Strong Leadership. The program has strong leadership from both the chief of party and 
senior staff as well as appropriate and helpful background support from IESC in Washington,
DC.
The program uses local staff. Most staff is local, with foreigners mainly providing short￾term input on specific issues. The program has also made significant use of local 
consultancies for implementing specific activities, such as farming techniques, farmer field 
schools, and strengthening the commercial capacity of groups. All these aspects favor 
sustainability in the medium- to long-term.
Support from local government, policy makers, and business. To date there has been
significant support from local government, policy makers, and businesses that are among the 
 
18 FSMA requires that facilities have a food safety plan implemented by the deadline date; the plan must be 
prepared and applied by a properly trained PCQI.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 30
major beneficiaries of the program, as demonstrated by the large number of public extension 
officers trained by the program.
High visibility in communities. This aspect is probably the weakest of the factors listed 
here. Beneficiaries sometimes struggle to understand the role of the program in delivering 
the training or other activities in which they have participated. This is partly since many 
activities have taken place in collaboration with other institutions or programs, sometimes 
even under their names. This weakness has been already considered by the program with 
changes in the communication team and a strategy to improve program visibility, but more 
must be done in the remaining two years of program implementation to improve the 
effectiveness of the communication activities.
L. Is there a well-developed exit strategy?
A program exit strategy is a plan describing how the program intends to withdraw its 
resources while ensuring that achievement of the program’s goals is not jeopardized and that 
progress toward these goals will continue. The goal of an exit strategy is to ensure the 
sustainability of a program’s objectives after its completion. Ongoing and timely monitoring 
of benchmarks is critical to the successful implementation of exit strategies and the 
monitoring of exit strategy benchmarks should be integrated into the program’s overall
monitoring and evaluation plan. This can prevent duplication of monitoring efforts and 
maximize use of existing data. 
To date, no exit strategy plan has been prepared by the program. The chief of party expects 
that the long-term sustainability of the program will be assured by continuation of program 
activities by CEDAF, the local partner. In this respect, the preparation and approval of the 
GLOBALG.A.P. national interpretation guide is expected to ensure more internationally 
recognized certifications in the next few years and after program completion, while 
implementation of the organizational capacity methodology should result in strengthening the 
commercial capacity of an extended number of organizations after the program’s end. 
Also expected is continuation of the activities of farmer field schools for all target 
commodities; these have been a significant success among producers to date and are easy to 
replicate with relatively few additional funds. Installation of the improved traceability system 
is also expected to be extended to many more exporters who are eager to get the help of a 
modern instrument to comply with FSMA requirements. 
Private sector partner ADOEXPO is expected to continue activities for women in trade by 
organizing at least one additional workshop. Value chain aggregators who have incentives to 
adopt new practices are expected to continue to apply IPM and treatment with hot water to 
eliminate post-harvest pests and diseases. The food safety department of the ministry of 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 31
agriculture is, on its side, eager to continue disseminating the weekly EAN on pest border 
detentions provided by USDA APHIS.
During the first two years of implementation, the program has shown itself to be both flexible 
and demand-driven. Most activities for the remaining two years of the program are already 
planned and they are expected to be performed as planned. Nonetheless, the evaluation 
exercise has permitted the beneficiaries to identify what activities are most needed from their 
points of view. In addition, they have requested that the program facilitate a few additional 
activities that could be carried out in the remaining time and that would benefit most of the 
beneficiaries.
Producers were particularly eager that the program continue to provide training activities on 
farming methods (pruning, fertilization, irrigation, land preparation, drainage) and practices 
(such as good agricultural practices and IPM) and maintain the same practical approach that 
has been very much appreciated. Study tours in Costa Rica were greatly appreciated by 
pineapple producers, where they learned farming practices that are now applied in their 
farms and witnessed the high efficiency of Costa Rican packinghouses in handling the 
produce. They requested more study tour opportunities for other producers.
Packers requested that the program continue to provide training on GAP to producers, as well 
organize more workshops providing practical information on FSMA-related issues. They 
requested more training on post-harvest handling practices for their staff as well, and 
anticipated that installation of the traceability system upgraded with program support be 
completed soon. 
Processors of cocoa products requested more ad hoc practical training on good manufacturing 
practices, as well as assistance on organizational issues and commercial practices. All of them 
were eager to receive grants to procure needed processing equipment. 
Exporters were for the most part satisfied with study tours that permitted them to be in 
contact with importers and observe new technologies applied abroad. Buyer visits were also 
appreciated, though up to now they resulted in fewer commercial deals than expected and 
hoped for. Exporters also believed their training in the impact and usefulness of cold chain 
awareness and related activities was significant, including new information on floor insulation 
(which can reduce energy costs by up to 20%), pre-cooling and cooling storage within 1–2 
hours of harvesting, cooling facilities, screen doors, equivalence of regulations, and improved 
knowledge of temperature and humidity management. 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 32
During the focus group discussions, a few relatively new issues and related requests for 
program assistance were put forward by participants. These might become part of the new 
activities to be carried out by the program in its remaining period of implementation. These 
issues are discussed in the following section, followed by the summarized list of 
recommendations for the remainder of the program.
The DR is part of the Dominican Republic–Central America–United States Free Trade 
Agreement (DR-CAFTA) between the United States, five Central American countries (Costa 
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) and the DR. The DR is also part of 
CARIFORUM, a free trade agreement between the fourteen countries of the Caribbean 
Community, or CARICOM, and the DR. These two agreements aim at creating new economic 
opportunities by eliminating tariffs, opening markets, reducing barriers to services, promoting 
transparency, facilitating trade and investment among the signatory countries, and furthering 
regional integration. As many as 40 million individuals reside in a total of 28 different island 
nations in the Caribbean, each of which possesses its own unique economic characteristics. 
However, trade among them is limited; for instance, the DR exports only US$180 million in 
goods to other Caribbean countries in an average year. One possible explanation for this 
limited trade flow might be a presumed lack of adequate transport services, but studies have 
found that, in fact, there is no lack of direct services among the sub-regions. In addition, due 
to the increase in transshipment services, almost all countries in the Caribbean area have 
different options to trade with each other. 
The main explanation for low trade levels seems instead to be found in production patterns, 
history, and language barriers. Transport services between the Caribbean islands are, 
however, costlier and far less frequent than those to and from North America (e.g., Miami). 
This difference should become less relevant as transshipment within the Caribbean area, 
between countries such as the DR, Jamaica, and Panama, gains market share vis-à-vis 
transshipment to Miami. Such changes, as well as improvements in DR port efficiency and 
information dissemination about available transport options, as well as non-transport-related 
initiatives, could potentially help increase trade between the DR, CARICOM, and CAFTA’s 
Central American members. 
It is therefore recommended that the program assess the possibility of expanding exports of 
fruit and vegetables to the Caribbean islands, study which are the main obstacles to trade 
and challenges for exporters, and propose solutions for expanding trade. Further support 
activities could then be proposed based on the study’s results and recommendations.
Stakeholders asked that the program further support small-holder producers in getting 
internationally recognized certification by providing financial support for building/refurnishing 
facilities needed for their farms to conform to GAP and HACCP/HARPC requirements. These 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 33
facilities include restrooms, storage depots, signs, etc. The program already provides 
producers with grants covering consulting expenditures for obtaining GLOBALG.A.P. 
certification; the relevant annual program statements for grant opportunities could be 
therefore modified to include the building/refurbishing of needed facilities in the expenditures 
covered by the program’s financial support in the form of grants. 
Packers and producers have asked the program to assist them in finding a solution to the 
increasingly pressing problem of water sanitation. Using untreated water can cause rejection 
of the exported produce due to sanitary problems. This is a problem that must be taken in 
account because of increasing water pollution as well as the introduction of more stringent 
requirements for allowing exports of produce (e.g., FSMA regulations). The program could 
help in assessing this water sanitation problem and verifying the availability of water 
treatment systems in the country, their effectiveness, their installation, and procurement 
costs. For instance, it is expected that a water treatment system based on reverse osmosis 
should be easily available at reasonable costs in the DR. The program may also consider 
using available grants for covering part of the expenditure to install similar water treatment 
systems in beneficiary facilities (packinghouses, farms, and processing units) as part of the 
process of gaining internationally recognized certification. It is recommended that the 
program carry out such an assessment on water treatment systems. 
A few beneficiaries have requested that the program design an activity to facilitate the 
recovery of overdue payments for shipments of fruit and vegetables to the United States. 
Beneficiaries are aware of the existence of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
(PACA) system in the United States, but believe that they need a faster solution to solve this 
overdue payment issue.19 The problem is that by the time a solution is found through PACA 
assistance, the typical DR exporter may have already gone bankrupt. Leading beneficiaries 
have asked the program for help in finding a possible solution to such overdue payment
issues that takes into consideration specific characteristics of Dominican exporters. It is 
recommended that the program take steps to verify whether and how it can help 
beneficiaries in finding a viable solution to overcome such a problem.
 
19 PACA was enacted at the request of the fruit and vegetable industry to promote fair trade in the industry. PACA 
protects businesses dealing in fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables by establishing and enforcing a code of fair 
business practices and by helping companies resolve business disputes. PACA usually receives requests from 
companies for assistance with problems unique to the industry, such as interpretation of inspection certificates, 
advice on contract disputes, and bankruptcy payments. Working in partnership with the fruit and vegetable 
industry, PACA facilitates fair trade practices through education, mediation, arbitration, licensing, and 
enforcement.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 34
Implementation of the following activities is recommended, along with the planned activities 
of the program:
1) Continue current training activities focusing on practical demonstrations, which 
are especially useful for low productivity small producers. 
2) Maintain support for producers willing to get internationally recognized 
certification with grants, possibly being more flexible in setting the application 
requirements. The evaluator recommends that the program also provide grants 
for the building/refurbishing of basic facilities such as toilets, storage depots, etc., 
to facilitate acquisition of the certification. 
3) Continue workshops dealing with FSMA issues, as well as facilitate installation of 
the improved traceability system for as many beneficiaries as possible.
4) Retain support for processors willing to invest in upgraded equipment to add value 
to DR produce, possibly being more accommodating in setting the application 
requirements, taking into consideration the financial and patrimonial situation of 
small associations/processors.
5) Continue the facilitation of study tours even if the Y4 target has been already 
achieved, because they are very useful for beneficiaries in terms of 
updating/upgrading their knowledge through practical, direct observation, and 
because they often come at no extra cost for the program (most beneficiaries 
being willing to pay for the tour themselves).
6) Focus on developing a strategy for getting beneficiaries involved in the application 
of improved farm management practices. 
7) Focus on post-harvest handling techniques and processes because DR vegetables 
have more quality problems and a shorter shelf-life than those produced in other 
countries.
8) Focus on IPM activities, because the sanitary conditions of most vegetables 
produced in the DR continue to be poor and hence unsuitable for export. 
9) Focus on end-market activities to establish increased linkages with importers and 
attain increased export sales of target commodities.
10) Focus on strengthening the organizational and commercial capacity of newly 
formed associations and of associations that never received assistance from 
international funded programs. The evaluator believes that assistance provided to 
these types of organizations will be more successful and long-lasting than 
assistance provided to other groups. 
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 35
11) Follow up on the above activities benefitting beneficiaries during the remaining 
period and take the necessary exit strategy steps to ensure they continue to be 
carried out once the program is over.
12) As for performance indicators, a few program activities with low or zero 
achievement score have already been started and will bear fruit in the next
reporting period, while other planned activities are not as easily carried out in a 
satisfactory way and need to be scaled down. A few indicators can be scaled up, 
instead. 
13) Scale down the end of Y4 cumulative targets of a few Result Indicators: Result 
Indicator #4 to be set at 3,750 hectares under improved techniques or 
technologies; Result Indicator #5 at 4,500 producers who have introduced 
improved techniques or technologies; Result Indicator #6 at 830 producers who
have introduced improved farm management practices; Result Indicator #18 at 
50 percent of target value chain groups that have a systematic way of
disseminating and updating market information.
14) Rephrase “trade organizations” as “organizations trading target commodities” for 
a few Activity Indicators to include producer organizations. As an alternative, (i) 
reduce substantially (i.e., by a ratio of 7 to 2) the end of Y4 cumulative target of 
Activity Indicator #2.4 (setting the new target at 40 members rather than 140); 
and that of Activity Indicator #2.6 at 30 (rather than 107) women or, as an
option, enlarge the purpose to other organizations; or (ii) enlarge the scope of the 
indicator to include not only trade associations but also producer associations, 
cooperatives, and clusters, for both Activity Indicators #2.5 and #2.7.
15) Scale up the end of Y4 cumulative target of a few performance indicators: (i) 
Result Indicator #3 to train a cumulative number of 8,500 individuals; (ii) Activity 
Indicator #1.1 set at 120 trainings; (iii) Activity Indicators #1.2 and # 1.3 at,
respectively, 4,650 producers and 150 processors; (iv) Activity Indicator #2.1 at 
600 individuals; (v) Activity Indicator #2.2 at 200 individuals; (vi) Activity 
Indicator #2.3 at 180 individuals; and (vii) Activity Indicator #3.1 at 750 
individuals.
16) Perform a market assessment on the possibility of expanding exports of target 
fruit and vegetables to other Caribbean islands. 
17) Make an assessment of how to procure water treatment systems for 
packinghouses and processors as well as producers.
18) Verify the possibility and viability of assessing how to facilitate the resolution of 
business disputes related to the overdue payments for fruit and vegetable 
shipments to the United States as well as to other countries. 
19) Prepare an exit strategy assuring sustainability of activities after program 
completion.
Dominican Republic – Exporting Quality Program Midterm Evaluation 36
In addition, it is recommended to amend Annex E of the agreement signed between IESC and 
USDA to reflect the actual OCI scoring system that uses a scale of 1 to 100; and to set the 
end of Y4 target of Result Indicator #17 at 85 rather than 3 as in Annex E, with no 
intermediate targets. Finally, it is recommended that USDA authorize the obtaining of a FSMA 
Preparedness Assessment facilitated by the program as a certification valid for being counted 
in Result Indicator #10.
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 1
The Exporting Quality (EQ) Program is a program in the Dominican Republic that aims to 
increase productivity and sales for domestic and export markets of high-value fruit and 
vegetable global value chains: avocado, cacao, pineapple, and greenhouse and oriental 
vegetables. The program will improve product quality, increase production and efficiency, 
increase the value of post-harvest products, and improve market and marketing linkages.
Purpose of Midterm Performance Evaluation
Per USDA’s Food Aid Division (FAD) M&E Policy, the purpose is to critically and objectively 
review and take stock of EQ’s program implementation, assess relevance of interventions, 
provide early signal of effectiveness of interventions (or lack of), document lessons learned, 
assess sustainability efforts to date, and discuss/recommend mid-course corrections as 
necessary.
Consultant Tasks:
Objectives and Evaluation Questions
Specifically, the evaluator/evaluation team will assess the following:
1. Program design, implementation, and efficiency
a. Is the program on track to reach specified targets at midpoint and by end of the 
program?
• Specifically, what percent is on track and what percent is not on track?
• For targets not on track to be met, specify changes (if any) to the initial 
assumptions or within the operating context that warrant a review and 
recommended revision of the targets.
b. What have been the main reasons behind current achievement against result and 
activity indicator targets?
• Specifically, what should be maintained and/or scaled up?
c. What have been the major challenges to program implementation and how has EQ
responded to these challenges?
• Specifically, to what extent has the Med-fly ban affected program implementation?
• To what extent did unexpected heavy rains in the Fall of 2016 affect oriental 
vegetable exports?
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 2
d. What, if any, unintended but important direct results (positive or negative) have 
occurred? 
• How should these be assessed in the overall program context?
• How has EQ responded to these?
e. To what extent is staffing, management, and oversight costs suitable given the 
number/scope of activities carried out?
2. Relevance of interventions
a. To what extent do EQ activities address the core issues of target beneficiaries?
3. Effectiveness of interventions
a. Which interventions/activities have the highest potential in being the most effective 
approach to achieve the program’s higher-level results (increased agricultural 
productivity and more market transactions) 
b. How effective is EQ at reaching women beneficiaries? What could be done to improve
women’s participation?
c. How effective has the training approach been to build and/or enhance capacity of 
target beneficiaries?
d. To what extent do public authorities and private sector partners have an influence 
(positive or negative) on the achievement of program objectives?
4. Sustainability efforts to date
a. What factors contribute towards sustainability of program results and how has EQ
focused on these?
b. Is there a well-developed exit strategy?
Methodology Guideline
The evaluator/evaluation team will use a mixed methods approach, including but not limited 
to quantitative surveys, focus group discussions with target beneficiaries, and key informant 
interviews with government officials and relevant public/private stakeholders including EQ
staff and USDA. 
The data collection tools for collection of key data should be similar to the tools used during 
the baseline study or during routine monitoring (to the extent possible) so that results may 
be comparable.
The quantitative sample size should ensure a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of 
error. The total direct beneficiaries as of March2017 is 698, which could be used for the 
sampling frame.
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 3
The evaluator/evaluation team will meet with IESC and USDA to discuss proposed 
methodology prior to initiating evaluation activities.
Key Activities
The evaluator/evaluation team will undertake the following key activities:
1. Desk review
a. Review program-related documents including:
• EQ agreement and any modifications
• Approved M&E plan
• Baseline study report
• Semi-annual reports 1, 2, 3, and 4
• Approved work plan
• USDA M&E policy
• Value chain assessment reports
• Beneficiary mapping report
• Any other relevant program documents provided by IESC
b. Review other relevant documents to understand the operating environment in which 
EQ operates:
• Biweekly communiques
• Program Facebook Page 
2. Develop and finalize evaluation methodology
a. In collaboration with IESC and USDA,
• Confirm sampling frame and finalize sampling technique and sample size;
• Develop and propose survey design and data collection tools for quantitative 
survey, follow-up focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. Refine 
or create any tools necessary to answer the evaluation questions; and
• Based on the desk review, propose any additional topics or issues for analysis in 
the final evaluation at the end of the program.
3. Field data collection
• Plan and coordinate all necessary logistics to conduct evaluation. In terms of 
office space, the evaluator/evaluation team will co-locate with the EQ program 
in Santo Domingo. The evaluator/evaluation team will also receive assistance 
from EQ in locating relevant beneficiaries. Other than this, all resources (HR 
and material) should be arranged by the evaluator/evaluation team. 
• Translate, pre-test, and finalize data collection tools including survey
instruments and focus group questionnaire.
• Train enumerators, as needed.
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 4
• Carry out fieldwork with liaison support from EQ staff, particularly M&E 
manager and analyst.
4. Data analysis and reporting
• Scrub, synthesize, analyze, and interpret data from survey, focus groups, and 
interviews.
• Prepare and submit datasets with relevant documents to EQ and USDA.
• Prepare a draft evaluation report addressing the objectives and questions of this 
midterm evaluation as well as propose course correction or scale-up 
recommendations for review by EQ.
• Present evaluation findings in-person to EQ, and relevant stakeholders
• Submit final report.
Timeframe and Proposed Level of Effort
This contract should take about eight weeks starting on or about October 16, 2017. An 
illustrative timeline is presented below.
Activity Level of 
Effort
Due Date Comments
Desk review 2 days NA Does not have to be 
consecutive days
Kick-off meeting with 
USDA and IESC staff to 
discuss expectations, 
protocol, methodology, 
and timeline
1 day TBD IESC/EQ staff to coordinate. 
Develop draft evaluation 
work plan (including 
methodology and draft
data collection tools) 
5 days TBD
Present draft evaluation 
work plan to USDA and 
IESC. Refine based on 
comments received. 
2 days TBD IESC/EQ staff to coordinate 
presentation date and location.
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 5
Field work/data collection 15 days NA Includes training of 
enumerators, if needed.
Data entry and scrubbing 3 days NA
Data analysis and report 
writing
8 days NA
Submit draft report to 
IESC for comments and 
clarifications
NA Within 7 weeks 
of contract 
signing
EQ will review and provide 
comments within 5 days of 
receiving draft report
Prepare oral presentation 
of findings to USDA, 
IESC/EQ, and relevant 
stakeholders and conduct 
presentation.
2 days TBD IESC/EQ staff to coordinate 
presentation date, location, and 
required attendees.
Finalize report and submit
to IESC.
3 days Within 8 weeks 
of contract 
signing
Submit to IESC and USDA
Deliverables
1. Evaluation work plan that describes the following:
• Understanding of the program based on desk review and kick-off meeting
• Final evaluation methodology, including detailed sampling plan, field work plan, 
and any limitations of the proposed approach
• Description of planned quality control measures
• Description of communication protocol
• Final timeline
2. Electronic copies of all clean and final versions of data collection tools, both in English 
and Spanish
3. Clean and final versions (both English and Spanish) of quantitative datasets and 
qualitative transcripts in agreed upon format
4. Electronic draft midterm evaluation report in English, addressing all evaluation 
objectives and questions
5. Oral presentation materials of evaluation findings in agreed upon format
6. 15 – 20 high quality pictures of the process
Annex 1: Scope of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of EQ Program 6
7. Electronic English version of the final evaluation report in PDF and Word, as well as two 
printed copies in color (one for USDA/DR and one for the EQ office). The final report 
should include, but not limited to:
• List of acronyms/abbreviations
• Table of contents
• Executive summary
• Background
• Detailed evaluation methodology
• Findings
• Recommendations for the remainder of the program
• Annexed scope of work
• Annexed data collection instruments
Annex 2: The Program Database and the Evaluation Sample 1
The midterm evaluation scope of work requires that the quantitative sample size should 
ensure a 95 percent confidence level with a 5 percent margin of error. As of Sept. 30, 2017, 
the total number of direct beneficiaries tracked by the program monitoring and evaluation
team was 2,650, which was used as a sampling frame. The sample size of the evaluation 
survey was 335 direct beneficiaries.
The program provided the evaluation team with a database containing the names of 
beneficiaries and events in which they participated. The program database of direct 
beneficiaries had data disaggregated by value chain (VC) and gender but not a breakdown (in 
a specific Excel column) by profession (farmer/producer/packinghouse
staff/exporter/extension officer, etc.).
1 Therefore, the stratification focused on (i) gender and 
(ii) VC relevance: a total of seven VC groups were identified, including the five target VCs of 
avocados, cocoa, pineapples, greenhouse vegetables, and oriental vegetables, plus one group 
including activities related to two or more VCs and an additional group including an 
unspecified VC. Almost three quarters of the beneficiaries are men. Women show slightly 
higher representation in cocoa and greenhouse vegetable VCs and are underrepresented in 
the avocado and, particularly, pineapple VC. The value chain is unspecified for as much as 43
percent of the beneficiaries, while an additional seven percent are active in two or more VCs. 
An initial screening of the beneficiaries of unspecified VCs showed that they included all 
professions targeted by the program, i.e., producers, packinghouse staff, processors, traders, 
and exporters, but mostly extension officers (from the Ministry of Agriculture and other public 
institutions) and private consultants. This has been confirmed by the survey.
Table A1: Sampling Frame by Value Chain and Gender
VCs Total Male Female
Avocados 372 14% 323 87% 49 13%
Pineapples 140 5% 129 92% 11 8%
Greenhouse vegetables 167 6% 116 69% 51 31%
Oriental vegetables 267 10% 209 78% 58 22%
Cocoa 361 14% 256 71% 105 29%
2 or more target commodities 195 7% 139 71% 56 29%
Unspecified VCs 1115 43% 754 68% 361 32%
Total 2,617 100% 1,926 74% 691 26%
 
1 Disaggregation by profession was available for a number of indicators but not for the entire database of 
beneficiaries used for performing this evaluation.
Annex 2: The Program Database and the Evaluation Sample 2
The evaluation team met with the program and IESC home-office staff to discuss and validate 
evaluation methodology prior to initiating the evaluation activities. A total of 2,617 
beneficiaries were used as the sampling frame, therefore the quantitative sample size—to 
ensure a 95 percent confidence level with a 5 percent margin of error and a 50 percent
distribution level, which is the most conservative—was set at about 329–335 beneficiaries,2
from whom suitable feedback was gathered in the form of questionnaire surveys and focus 
groups discussions.
The survey sample was selected through preliminary stratification using the above 
proportions for each of the seven VC groups and the gender distribution in each of them. The 
sample breakdown by gender and VC is in Table A2 below. In most surveys it is almost 
impossible for all the selected individuals to be available to fill in the questionnaires, 
therefore the survey sample was increased by 50 percent to ensure that the target of 335 
completed survey questionnaires was attained. In practical terms, since (i) the provided 
database does not contain contact information for some of the randomly selected 
beneficiaries, and (ii) the random selection in some cases selected the same beneficiary 
twice; in both these cases, the next beneficiary in the database list with contact information 
was selected to replace the missing ones (unless contact information could be provided for 
the randomly selected respondents).
Table A2: Random Sample by VC and Gender
VCs
Number of 
individuals Male Female
Avocados 48 41 6
Pineapples 18 17 1
Greenhouse vegetables 21 15 7
Oriental vegetables 34 27 7
Cocoa 46 33 13
2+ Fruits and vegetables 25 18 7
Unspecified 143 97 46
Total 335 247 88
 
2 Since individuals participating in USDA-sponsored trainings in multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each 
fiscal year, the sample size ensures a 95 percent confidence level with a 5 percent margin of error ranging between 
229 (i.e., all fiscal year #1 beneficiaries also participated in fiscal year #2 activities) and 335 (i.e., no fiscal year #1 
beneficiaries participated in fiscal year #2 activities) beneficiaries.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 1
Result Indicator #1 (Food for Progress (FFPr)17): Total number of individuals 
benefitting directly as a result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator measures the number of individuals directly participating in the 
USDA funded interventions. The individuals must be engaged with a project activity or come 
into direct contact with a set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the program. 
This may include, for example, farmers, processors, and others receiving training, inputs, or 
financial services.
1 The cumulative target at the end of Y2 is 3,440 beneficiaries and that at 
the end of year four is 8,000 beneficiaries. They are disaggregated as follows:
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 600 3,440 2,650 23% below target 6,248 8,000
Male 0 540 3,096 1,946 37% below target 5,623 7,200
Female 0 60 344 704 105% above target 625 800
The performance indicator tracks access to services that can lead to adoption of improved 
agricultural techniques, technologies, practices, services, and policies that lead to greater 
agricultural productivity and expanded agricultural markets. The EQ program had trained 
2,650 beneficiaries by the end of year two, thus remaining below the target by 23 percent.
Almost three-quarters of the beneficiaries are men, with women relatively more represented 
in cocoa and greenhouse value chains (VCs) and underrepresented in the avocado VC. This 
tracks approximately the actual gender representation in the target value chains2
.
Nonetheless, the EQ program seems likely to achieve the end of year four cumulative target 
if it can sustain the performance pace achieved between April and September 2017 (see 
chart below).
 
1
Individuals merely contacted or involved in an activity through brief attendance (nonrecurring participation) do 
not count. Individuals participating in USDA-sponsored trainings in multiple fiscal years may be counted once in 
each fiscal year.
2 Additional information on gender representation in each VCs can be found in Annex 2.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 2
The informal audit of the database suggests that a certain number of beneficiaries were 
counted twice while a relatively larger number of them should not be counted as direct 
beneficiaries because they were involved in an activity through brief attendance (e.g., high￾school students attending workshops); in addition, a similar number of would-be direct 
beneficiaries do not consider themselves as such3
. On the other hand, the evaluation team 
encountered a relatively significant number of beneficiaries who did attend program activities 
but whose names were not found in the database. All in all, the evaluation team estimated 
the number of individuals who should be excluded from the number of direct beneficiaries
counted to be between 1 percent- 2 percent, thus within an allowable statistical margin of 
error.
Result Indicator #2 (FFPr18): Total number of individuals benefitting indirectly as a 
result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator measures the number of individuals indirectly benefitting from 
USDA-funded interventions. These individuals will not be directly engaged with a project 
 
3 The total share of mistaken double entries, nonrecurring participation, and nonbeneficiaries has been estimated 
by the evaluating team at about 4–5 percent of the Y2 cumulative beneficiaries.
Figure 1: Result Indicator #1: Number of Direct Beneficiaries (Cumulative Actual)
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 3
activity or come into direct contact with a set of interventions (goods or services) provided by 
the project. This may include, for example, family members of farmers who were trained. If 
an individual is already counted as a direct beneficiary, the individual should not also be 
counted as an indirect beneficiary.
The indicator is calculated using a multiplier of five. The result is, therefore, an estimate. The 
multiplier considers grown children who help with the farm/business (not toddlers or babies).
It also includes other farmers (neighbors or friends) of the direct farmer beneficiary as s/he 
may have passed on or demonstrated new knowledge, skill, equipment. Being directly 
correlated with Result Indicator #1, the performance of the EQ program is the same as 
above, hence by program midpoint its performance is 23 percent below target.
Result Indicator #3 (FFPr16): Number of individuals who have received short-term 
agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance 
This performance indicator aims at measuring increased agricultural productivity due to USDA 
intervention. Its unit of measurement is the number of individuals to whom significant 
knowledge or skills have been imparted through formal or informal interactions that are 
intentional, structured, and purposed. The relevant data is collected using attendance sign-in 
sheets and technical assistance trackers.
The indicator is a roll-up of all activity training indicators. Training can enhance human 
capacity and hence may result in transformational capacity development. The cumulative 
target at the end of year two is 1,783 trainees and that at the end of year four is 6,333. They 
are disaggregated as follows:
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Total 0 365 1,783 2,336 31% above 
target 4,120 6,333
Male 0 329 1,604 1718 7% above 
target 3,708 5,699
Female 0 37 178 618 247% above 
target 412 633
Producer 0 - 515 1,060 106% above 
target 1,820 3,010
People in firms 0 290 1,182 828 30% below 
target 2,149 3,106
People in 
government 20 60 292 387% above 
target 100 140
The EQ program has trained 2,336 beneficiaries by the end of year two, thus exceeding the 
target by 31 percent. Trained men total 1,718 and represent 74 percent of trainees, women 
number 618 (26 percent). Producers are the largest group of these trainees (1,060, or 45 
percent), then staff of firms (828, or 35 percent) and people in government (292, or 13 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 4
percent). Both producers and, especially, people in government (i.e., extension officers) are 
overrepresented when compared with the target. 
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to scale up the Life of Project target by at 
least one-quarter, i.e., the new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 8,500 
individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security 
training.
Result Indicator #4 (FFPr1): Number of hectares under improved techniques or 
technologies as a result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator aims at measuring the improved quality of land and water 
resources (FFPr1.1). The indicator measures the area in hectares of land first brought under 
improved techniques or technologies during the reporting year. Technologies to be counted 
must be agricultural-related and/or land-based innovations that include climate change 
adaptation and mitigation.
EQ program staff is to calculate data using program activity information reported in 
aggregate reporting forms and confirmed using direct observation and interviews during site 
visits as needed. They should count hectares affected by GLOBAL G.A.P., traceability, and 
climate smart-related activities, as well as hectares affected by traps (greenhouses) and IPM 
trainings. The cumulative target at the end of year two is 2,150 hectares and that at end of 
year four is 5,000 hectares. Indicators are disaggregated as follows:
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Total 0 375 2,150 596.69 72% below 
target 3,905 5,000
Pest management 0 188 1,075 18.30 98% below 
target 1,953 2,500
Climate mitigation 
or adaptation 0 75 430 -
100% below 
target 781 1,000
Other 0 113 645 578.40 10% below 
target 1,172 1,500
Data is to be used to monitor the extent to which improved techniques or technologies and 
climate smart activities are used by direct program beneficiaries. Land under improved 
techniques or technologies because of USDA assistance amounted to 596.69 hectares at the 
midpoint of EQ program implementation, or just 28 percent of target. Integrated pest 
management (IPM) has been introduced in a small percentage (3 percent) of acreage, while 
no climate smart techniques have been introduced so far. Most of the beneficiaries have 
introduced improved techniques to increase crop productivity (fertilization, pruning, 
irrigation, etc.).
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 5
Given the progress so far, it is expected that the end-of-program target will not be achieved. 
It is therefore recommended to scale down the target by at least one-quarter, i.e., the new 
end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 3,750 hectares under improved techniques or 
technologies because of USDA assistance.
Result Indicator #5 (FFPr2): Number of individuals who have applied new 
techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator aims at measuring the increased use of improved agricultural 
techniques and technologies (FFPr1.2). The indicator measures the total number of 
agricultural producers who applied new techniques or technologies anywhere within the 
targeted VCs because of USDA assistance. This includes innovations in efficiency, value￾addition, on-farm post-harvest management, sustainable land management, and water 
management. 
Program staff is to deduce an estimate from a sample of direct program beneficiaries who
submit engagement reporting forms, which will have relevant questions that collect data for 
this indicator. The information must be confirmed through direct observation and interviews 
during site visits for a random sample. The cumulative target at the end of year two is 2,580 
beneficiaries applying improved techniques and/or technologies, while that at end of year 
four is 6,000 such beneficiaries. They are disaggregated as follows:
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 450 2,580 503 81% below 
target
4,686 6,000
Male 0 405 2,322 384 83% below 
target 4,217 5,400
Female 0 45 258 119 54% below 
target 469 600
Pest management 0 225 1,290 48 96% below 
target 2,343 3,000
Climate mitigation 
or adaptation 0 90 516 -
100% below 
target 937 1,200
Other 0 135 774 396 49% below 
target 1,406 1,800
Technological change and its adoption (i.e., behavior change) by different actors in the 
agricultural supply chain are critical to increasing agricultural productivity. Producers who 
have introduced improved techniques or technologies because of USDA assistance totaled 
503 individuals at the midpoint of EQ program implementation, or just 19 percent of target. 
Three-quarters of them are men; women’s share is higher than expected, but their number is 
too small to achieve target. Some 68 farmers have introduced (integrated) pest 
management, while most of the beneficiaries have applied improved techniques to increase 
crop productivity (fertilization, pruning, irrigation, etc.).
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 6
Given the progress so far, it is expected that the end-of-program target will not be achieved. 
It is therefore recommended to scale down the target by at least one-quarter, i.e., the new 
end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 4,500 producers who have introduced 
improved techniques or technologies because of USDA assistance.
Result Indicator #6 (FFPr3): Number of individuals who have applied improved farm 
management practices (i.e., governance, administration, or financial management) 
as a result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator aims at measuring improved farm management (FFPr1.3). This 
indicator measures the total number of beneficiaries who are applying the knowledge or skills 
received in USDA supported training in farm management practices. They take account of on￾farm, agricultural-related management practices including calculating input, output, and labor 
needs; incorporating business practices related to the management of land, equipment, 
facilities, transportation, and shipping; the use of IT; financial planning, cash flow, balance 
sheets; record-keeping; maintaining and using inventories, etc.
The cumulative target at the end of year two is 425 beneficiaries applying improved farm 
management practices, while that at the end of year four is 1,250 such beneficiaries. They 
are disaggregated as follows:
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 - 425 -
100% below 
target 850 1,250
Male 0 - 383 -
100% below 
target 765 1,125
Female 0 - 43 -
100% below 
target 85 125
Ag producer 0 - 425 -
100% below 
target 850 1,250
Record-keeping is essential for all international certifications and Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA) as well. No producer has yet introduced such improved farm management 
practices. The program has published a scope of work for a consultant to train farmers in the 
use of record-keeping. It is recommended that the program focus on developing a strategy 
for getting beneficiaries involved in the application of improved farm management practices. 
It is believed that behavior change in farm management practices by different actors in 
agriculture may result in increased agricultural productivity and increased income for 
farmers.
Given the progress so far, it is expected that the end-of-program target will not be achieved. 
It is therefore recommended to scale down the target by at least one-third, i.e., the new end 
of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 830 producers who have introduced improved
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 7
farm management practices such as governance, administration, or financial management
because of USDA assistance.
Result indicator #7 (FFPr13): Value of sales by project beneficiaries
Result Indicator #7 (FFPr13) collects the value (in US$) of sales of the five targeted VCs by 
all program beneficiaries, not just farm-gate sales. The actual number reported for the 
indicator must be the value of sales of produce by direct project beneficiaries in each 
reporting period. Only sales in the reporting period attributable to USDA investment are 
counted. Methods of data collection include forms completed and signed by program 
beneficiaries (producer groups and processors), as well as document review of sales reports, 
if available.
The EQ program aims at increasing the cumulative value of sales by beneficiaries by 25 
percent after two years, by 45 percent after three years, and by 65 percent at the end of the 
four years of program implementation. Therefore, the EQ program target sales by the 
beneficiaries are US$ 11.2 million by the end of year two from a baseline of zero and US$ 
29.1 million by the end of year four. These sales should only include those attributable to 
USDA support. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 11,186,750 11,718,778 5% above 
target 20,136,150 29,085,550
Avocados 0 0 2,910,500 894,711 69% below 
target 5,238,900 7,567,300
Pineapples 0 0 1,619,250 2,927,446 81% above 
target 2,914,650 4,210,050
Asian
vegetables 0 0 2,563,750 1,653,194 36% below 
target 4,614,750 6,665,750
Greenhouse 
vegetables 0 0 1,783,500 1,236,721 31% below 
target 3,210,300 4,637,100
Cocoa 0 0 2,309,500 5,006,703 117% above 
target 4,157,100 6,004,700
According to information collected by the M&E staff of the EQ program, sales of direct 
beneficiaries totaled US$66.5 million at program midpoint, of which US$ 11,7 million 
attributable to USDA support, thus exceeding target by five percent. As for value chain 
breakdown, the sales of pineapples and cocoa were well above the end on year two target, 
while those of Asian and greenhouse vegetables and avocados were all well below that 
target. It should be noted that:
a) Only a fraction (218) of total direct beneficiaries was able to provide information on 
actual sales, though they are among the biggest producers and exporters4
;
 
4 A total of 218 beneficiaries provided information on their sales of target commodities.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 8
b) The program has calculated the sales attributable to USDA support by interviewing a 
representative sample of 68 beneficiaries and applying the simple average of their 
estimation to the framing sample. It is recommended that in future the program 
applies the weighted average instead.
c) the estimate refers to the sales of the last available period (i.e., the 2016 calendar 
year) rather than the October 2016—September 2017 period of reference of the 
indicator5
; 
d) the analysis of available international trade statistics suggests that the export value of 
target commodities has not significantly grown between 2014 (baseline) and 2016 
(last available year on Trade Map and it exclude the fourth quarter of that year) except 
for cocoa, pineapples, tomatoes, and certain Asian vegetables (e.g., okra). The medfly 
ban has in fact had a significant impact on exports of avocados and peppers during 
2015 (see the Tables in Annex 4).
Result indicator #8 (FFPr14): Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project 
beneficiaries
Result Indicator #8 (FFPr14) collects the volume (in gross metric tons or MT) of sales of the 
five targeted VCs by all project beneficiaries, not just volume of farm-gate sales. The actual 
number reported for the indicator must be the gross volume of sales of a produce by direct 
project beneficiaries in each reporting period. Only the gross volume of sales in the reporting 
period attributable to USDA investment is counted. Methods of data collection include forms 
completed and signed by program beneficiaries (producer groups and processors) as well as 
document review of sales reports, if available.
The EQ program aims at increasing the cumulative volume of sales by project beneficiaries by 
25 percent after two years, by 45 percent after three years, and by 65 percent at the end of 
the four years of program implementation. Therefore, the EQ program target volume of sales 
by the beneficiaries is MT 55,934 by the end of year two from a baseline of MT 42,505, and 
MT 70,208 by the end of year four. These sales should only include those attributable to 
USDA support. Volume in MT of sales at the farm and enterprise level of targeted produce is 
a measure of competitiveness of those receiving USDA assistance. Moreover, it helps track 
supply, access to markets, and progress toward commercialization.
 
5 This is justifiable because RD beneficiaries are used to report sales on calendar year (which also corresponds to the fiscal 
year, contrary to USA and program reference periods) and they will be able to report 2017 sales not before early 2018.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 9
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 10,626 20,491 93% above 
target 19,127 27,628
Avocados 0 0 2,998 4,590 53% above 
target 5,396 7,795
Pineapples 0 0 2,519 4,841 92% above 
target 4,534 6,549
Asian
vegetables 0 0 2,070 1,911 8% below 
target 3,726 5,381
Greenhouse 
vegetables 0 0 2,289 1,288 44% below 
target 4,119 5,950
Cocoa 0 0 752 7,862 946% above 
target 1,353 1,954
According to information collected by the M&E staff of the EQ program, sales of direct 
beneficiaries totaled almost MT 286,000 at program midpoint, of which MT 10,626 million 
attributable to USDA support thus exceeding target by 93 percent. As for value chain 
breakdown, sales of avocados, pineapples and cocoa were well above the end on year 2 
target, while those of Asian and greenhouse vegetables were below that target. When 
evaluating this performance, considerations like those above in result indicator #7 apply. In 
addition, at least one third of volume sales of cocoa products in the sample appears to have 
been calculated wrongly6
. This should not impact significantly the positive performance of this 
Result Indicator; nonetheless it is recommended that the Program M&E checks the relevant 
data. 
Result Indicator #9: Percentage of tests of target post-production agricultural 
products that come back clean 
This custom performance indicator aims to measure the improved quality of post-production 
agricultural products (part of Food for Progress 2.2.1). “Clean” means the products that 
undergo a test pass post-production processing and handling requirements. The percentage 
is calculated by dividing the tests that come back favorable (numerator) by the total number 
of tests (denominator). The indicator counts only lab tests from packing-house partners. The 
cumulative target at the end of year two is 50 percent and that at the end of year four is 80 
percent. The calculation should be made from a review and tally of available lab reports.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 Zero 50% 100% 100% above 
target 70% 80%
 
6 An informal audit of the database shows that the average price of cocoa products ranges between US$ 2 per MT and US$ 1,000 per MT, thus indicating a 
clear overestimation of the volume sold as confirmed by the performance of the indicator.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 10
Post-production agricultural products that “pass,” or come back with no significant findings,
indicate improved quality. The EQ program has achieved 100 percent of clean lab tests, thus 
exceeding the target foreseen for the end of year two. Produce samples were tested for the 
presence of salmonella in chili peppers produced in La Vega, Santiago, and Moca by farmers 
and packing houses. It should be noted, however, that tests should also be performed on 
other kinds of infestations, such as thrips (an insect whose presence has been detected in 
both Asian and greenhouse vegetables) or any sort of fungi, bacteria, or virus. The aim of the 
indicator is to show progressive improvement in the quality of post-production produce 
measured by the reduction of the infestation level. Testing vegetables for thrips in Y1 would 
have provided a baseline value of infestation to be compared with that at the end of Years 2, 
3, and 4 to evaluate the progress of the program assistance. The performance of this 
indicator is difficult to assess even with (or because of) a result of 100 percent clean tests as 
an initial indicator. The salmonella infection was due to bad agricultural practices, such as 
using dirty, salmonella-infected sacks to collect chili peppers and the simple application of 
good agricultural practices (i.e., the use of clean sacks) has solved the problem (an 
achievement of the program, nonetheless). 
Result indicator #10: Number of direct beneficiaries achieving internationally 
recognized certifications
This custom performance indicator aims to measure the improved quality of post-production 
agricultural products (FFPr2.1.1) through increased adoption of established standards by 
industry (Food for Progress 2.1.1.1). The indicator counts the total number of targeted 
processors and packing houses that become certified in GLOBALG.A.P., organic, fair trade, 
International Standardization Organization (ISO), and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 
Points (HACCP). Program beneficiaries must complete, sign, and send a reporting form to 
program staff. Program staff will use traceability reports and conduct random site visits to 
verify data.
The cumulative target at the end of year two is to get three internationally recognized 
certifications, and that at the end of year four is to obtain 13 such certifications. An increase
in the number of processors being certified means there is an increase in adoption of 
established standards. No such certification was obtained by the midpoint of program 
implementation. However, two groups of producers of, respectively, avocados and pineapples 
linked to two packing houses have been receiving program assistance to get GLOBALG.A.P., 
an internationally recognized certification increasingly needed to export to the European 
Union and, partly, to the United States. The program issued an annual program statement for 
grant applications to support the technical assistance required by farmers, packing houses, 
and cocoa processors to prepare themselves for a certification of their choice. The program 
received five applications, of which two grants have been executed so far. In addition, the 
program has supported the activity of the working group on GLOBAL G.A.P. certification for 
the approval of a national interpretation guide for the application of the GLOBAL G.A.P. 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 11
standards adapted to the DR’s characteristics; once approved, the guide is expected to 
facilitate obtaining GLOBAL G.A.P. certification for DR beneficiaries.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 Zero 3 0
100% below 
target 8 13
The USDA has asked the program to expand the FSMA Preparedness Assessment work they 
are doing under USDA CAFTA for five Dominican packing houses to include an additional five 
to ten. Even though there is not an official FSMA certification, the FDA is preparing to perform
audits of compliance with preventive controls and produce safety regulations. Therefore, any 
FSMA Preparedness Assessments the program facilitates may count toward this indicator. It 
is recommended that the USDA authorize the counting of the obtaining of such FSMA 
Preparedness Assessments as a certification for this performance indicator.
Result Indicator #11: Average percent reduction in time a product takes to get 
through problem points in a value chain 
This custom performance indicator measures the average percent reduction in time a product 
takes to get through problem points in the VC. The performance indicator tracks the change 
in time (expressed in percent of time reduced) of target commodities getting through pre￾identified specific problem points in the VC that the program will help to address. Such a 
reduction will measure the increased efficiency of post-production processes (FFPr2.1.2). The 
end of Y2 target was set at 10% in term of time reduction and that at the end of Y4 at 30%. 
There has been no achievement so far, though certain activities are in progress and are 
expected to bear fruit in the next reporting periods, for instance for international recognized 
certification. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 Zero 10% 0% 100% below 
target 20% 30%
In the baseline report 12 problem points were identified and a baseline value established. 
They were intended to be assessed during the first part of program implementation to verify 
actual interest on the part of beneficiaries to invest in reducing/eliminating such problem 
points. At program midpoint, it is recommended to focus on those problem points that can 
realistically be dealt with by program activities, while eliminating the others. The newly 
selected problem points have been refocused or modified to take into consideration the actual 
needs and requests of the program’s direct beneficiaries, as described below.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 12
AVOCADO AND PINEAPPLE VALUE CHAIN PROBLEM POINTS
Problem point 1 GLOBAL G.A.P. certification takes time to be awarded, while it could 
be done more quickly with adequate and ad hoc technical assistance. There is 
considerable potential for expanding avocado and pineapple premium exports to the European 
Union. In the few years, exports of both avocados and pineapples to the European Union have
increased significantly (almost double for avocados, though from a low base), but to ensure a 
steady and sustainable flow of produce to non-U.S. markets, GLOBAL G.A.P. certification is 
needed. A few producers have already obtained or are close to obtaining such certification, 
while others are initiating the process. This takes time and has a cost (on average US$5,000 
per 4-hectare farm to get a certification and an annual fee of about US$2,000) and technical 
knowledge is a scarce resource to meet the demand of possibly interested producers. 
Objective: The program may facilitate the process of obtaining GLOBAL G.A.P. certification for 
direct beneficiaries, reducing the time of certification attainment from 12 months (or more) to 
nine months (or less) for groups of 20–25 producers per organization (e.g., packing house, 
processor). The facilitation may take the form of contributing to the payment of consulting fees 
and/or contributions to the building/refurbishing of farm facilities (bathrooms, depots for 
inputs/outputs, etc.) needed to get/maintain certification.
Problem point 2: Processing capacity is very low for both avocados and pineapples.
The supply of avocados far exceeds demand and sometimes producers do not harvest their 
produce because the sale price does not cover harvesting costs.
7 Domestic demand for 
pineapples is currently stronger than supply, but this may change soon because much sugar 
cane and pastureland is being converted to pineapple plantations and production is expected 
to expand by 20–30 percent per annum. Processing capacity is therefore critical to assure VC
competitiveness for produce when supply exceeds demand. Currently there is no processing of 
avocados (either into guacamole or oils for cosmetic use), and very little processing of 
pineapples (pulp, juice). The program may facilitate the investment in processing machines by 
providing in-kind grants for the purchase of processing equipment for pineapples (for juice, 
pulp, or dried slices) and avocados (for guacamole or oils for consumption or cosmetic use). 
The program may facilitate the process of purchasing processing equipment providing in-kind 
grants for up-to one quarter of capital expenditures and by so doing shortening the time for i) 
getting the equipment and ii) processing the produce.
Objective: To reduce problem point time by at least 30 percent, in terms of shortening the 
period needed for purchasing the equipment from 15 months (or more) to 10 months (or less); 
or by reducing the processing time for obtaining high-quality manufactured produce by at least 
 
7 The avocado supply is expected to increase significantly in the next few years thanks to a recently enacted forestation policy targeting 
the areas bordering Haiti and providing subsidies to farmers planting trees, including avocado trees. 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 13
30 percent, from several days (if done manually) to just a few hours (if done with high￾performing equipment). 
GREENHOUSE AND ASIAN VEGETABLES VALUE CHAIN PROBLEM POINTS
Problem point 3: Too many pest treatments are reducing the quality and sanitation
of the produce as well as increasing production costs, therefore lowering the 
competitiveness of the produce. Improvement in the safety of exported produce can be 
facilitated by introducing good agricultural practices in pest management and reducing the level 
of pesticide residues in the exported produce. Currently, for instance, there is an intensive use
of fumigation, especially for controlling thrips infestations that must be reduced to obtain high￾quality produce and lower production costs. Greenhouse and Asian vegetables production could 
greatly benefit by the application of IPM and the introduction of microbial agents that can 
control or suppress the growth and multiplication of insect pests, thus reducing the need for 
fumigations or pesticide use. The program could introduce a pilot project to reduce the use of 
fumigation and other pesticides by applying IPM in a few selected neighboring medium-sized 
farms to improve the quality and sanitation of the produce while lowering production costs.
Objective: To reduce problem point time by at least 30 percent, in terms of reducing the time 
to introduce improved pest management from 24 months (or more) to 16 months (or less) by 
adopting biological-based IPM techniques to reduce pest levels at the farm level with reduced
pesticide use.
Suggested Alternative Measure: To reduce the cost of pest treatments (or the number of 
necessary treatments) by at least 30 percent.
Problem point 4: Hot water treatments is required to cut the level of pest infestation 
in vegetables exported to Europe, but this treatment has reduced the shelf life of the 
produce.
Hot water treatments were originally used to control fungi, but later the application was 
extended for insect disinfestations as an alternative to the more expensive vapor heat 
treatments. The cost of hot water immersion technology is about 10 percent that of a 
commercial vapor heat treatment. Hot water treatments can be used for insect disinfestations 
of tropical horticultural produce to control fruit flies. For insect control, temperatures range 
from 43–49°C but the application time is longer than for fungi because the entire vegetable,
not only the surface, must be brought to a higher temperature. Treatment times range from
30 to 120 minutes and can be reduced if only insects found in the outer layers are to be killed.
However, heat treatment may cause a shorter shelf life for produce if the treatment is not done 
with the right modalities of temperature and timing of immersion. Therefore, the program may 
provide technical assistance to refine the modalities of the use of hot water treatments that is 
required for exports bound to Europe, reducing the impact on vegetable shelf-life.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 14
Objective: To reduce problem point time by at least 30 percent, in terms of a shorter period
to obtain packaged vegetables with low levels of pest infestation suitable for export to Europe.
Suggested Alternative Measure: To prolong the shelf life of vegetables treated with hot 
water by at least 30 percent, or reduce the post-harvest losses of vegetables treated with hot 
water by 30 percent.
COCOA BEAN VALUE CHAIN PROBLEM POINTS
Problem point 5: The need to expand the process of wet fermentation to add value to 
small producers’ activities.
The DR cocoa industry pioneered the wet fermentation that adds quality and value to exported 
cocoa products. This fermentation process is already performed in most of the cooperatives 
and associations that are member of the National Confederation of Dominican Cocoa Producers 
(CONACADO), as well as by most exporters, but there are a few smaller associations that deal 
directly with foreign buyers, that would prefer to expand the on-farm fermentation process 
rather than use facilities of third-party enterprises or sell the unfermented product to exporters.
The program might help by providing in-kind grants for facilitating the supplying of this 
fermentation equipment. 
Objective: To reduce problem point time by at least 30 percent, in terms of reducing the
period of time needed by cocoa producers to build structures and purchase fermentation 
equipment by providing in-kind grants, from 24 months (or more) to 15 months (or less).
Suggested Alternative Measure: increase by at least 30 percent the value of produce added 
by the investment.
Problem point 6: Improve and modernize the manufacturing of cocoa product, 
especially those targeting the high-value tourist sector. 
The sorting and packaging of processed cocoa products is often done by hand or with old 
equipment. There is a need to invest in new, better-performing processing and packaging 
equipment, able to meet good manufacturing practice requirements, but small producers’ 
associations/processors lack capital to invest in such equipment. The program can provide in￾kind grants to cover up to one-quarter of capital expenditures for modernizing processing and
packaging tools, such as presses, refiners, evaporators, roasters, filling and weighing 
machines, etc. 
Objective: To reduce problem point time by at least 30 percent, reducing the time needed by
cocoa processors to purchase processing/packaging equipment by providing in-kind grants, 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 15
from 24 months (or more) to 15 months (or less); or by reducing the manufacturing time for 
obtaining packaged produce.
Result Indicator #12: Number of partner packing houses using a traceability system 
as a result of USDA assistance
This custom performance indicator aims to measure the increased efficiency in post￾production processes (FFPr2.1.2) and the increased use of improved post-production 
processing and handling practices (FFPr2.1.2.1). The indicator counts the number of target 
packing houses with previously nonfunctioning or no existing traceability systems. These 
partners are requested to cost-share the traceability system. Program staff will track, use 
traceability reports, and conduct random site visits to verify data. The cumulative target at 
the end of year two is eight packing houses, and that at end of year four is 30 packing 
houses.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 Zero 8 0
100% below 
target 15 30
The use of market traceability data is correlated with the use of improved post-production 
processing and handling practices. No partner packing house has installed a traceability 
system as of the end of year two. However, the program has supported specific activities to 
update and improve the existing traceability software to track produce from farm to fork. The 
updated software will be able to manage packing-house operations, including the planning of 
supply, stock management, sale management, and post-sale assistance. The basic module 
could be upgraded on demand with additional components, including IPM, HACCP, GLOBAL 
G.A.P., and similar specific packages. This traceability system will be able to meet new FSMA 
export traceability requirements (that shift responsibility for applying safety measure and 
controls from U.S. importers to DR exporters), that will be compulsory for food exports to the 
United States starting in May 2018. Six packing houses are expected to install this 
traceability software by March 2018.
Result Indicator #13: Quantity of post-harvest equipment and facilities improved 
after USDA assistance
The indicator counts the quantity of post-harvest equipment upgraded and facilities improved 
after USDA assistance (this may include grants, technical assistance, and training). As with 
the one above, this custom performance indicator aims at measuring increased efficiency in 
post-production processes (FFPr2.1.2) and the improved post-harvest infrastructure 
(FFPr2.1.2.2). Project staff must track deals as grants and technical assistance occur. Follow￾up after trainings on SPS, FSMA, and others must be conducted on a sample of beneficiaries 
through a survey.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 16
The cumulative target at the end of year two is having 40 units of post-harvest equipment 
upgraded and packing-house facilities improved, and that at the end of year four is to have 
137 units of post-harvest equipment upgraded and packing houses facilities improved. This is 
a direct measure of the activity involving modernizing post-harvest infrastructure in the VCs. 
At the midpoint of program implementation, only four units of post-harvest equipment were 
upgraded, just 10 percent of target. The program did not include in this Indicator three 
trainings provided to cocoa processors that may count as improved facilities. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 7 40 4
90% below 
target 99 137
Result Indicator #14: Number of food safety/standards-ready target commodities 
with improved marking and branding
This custom performance indicator aims to measure the improved marketing of agricultural 
products (FFPr2.1.3, 2.2.1). The indicator counts the number of target commodities that 
achieved food safety and quality standards (aka, elevated as “food-safety ready”) with 
program assistance and improved branding and marking. Program staff is tasked to compare 
former packaging/branding/marking with improved ones. The cumulative target at the end of 
year two is five commodities to achieve food safety and quality standards, and that at the 
end of year four is 20 such commodities.
Improved branding and marking of commodities evaluated as "food-safe ready" increases 
marketing potential. Only one commodity has the achieved food-safety ready standard by the 
end of year two, thus the program has reached just 20 percent of target. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 5 1
80% below 
target 10 20
The program Chief of Party believes that the method to get improved marking and branding 
for target commodities is in place but there is a need to apply it throughout; interviewed 
beneficiaries confirmed their interest in establishing country-wide or product-wide brands for 
certain premium vegetables. 
The program believes that the packaging improvements it facilitated for long beans, avocados, 
and pineapples should be included in this indicator (currently they are not).
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 17
Result Indicator #15 (FFPr9): Value of new public and private sector investment 
leveraged as a result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator aims to measure increased access to markets to sell agricultural 
products (FFPr 2.2). Investment is defined as any use of public or private sector resources 
intended to increase future production, output, or income, to improve the sustainable use of 
agriculture-related natural resources (soil, water, etc.), to improve water or land 
management anywhere along the food chain, and natural resource management. “Leveraged 
as a result of USDA assistance” indicates that the new investment was directly encouraged or 
facilitated by activities funded by, or resources provided by, the USDA. New investment 
means investment made during the reporting year. The cumulative target at the end of year 
two is to have US$600,000 of new public and private sector investment leveraged, and that 
at end of year four is US$1.22 million in such investment.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 
Investment 0 Zero US$ 600,000 US$278,236 54% below 
target US$ 1,087,500 US$ 1.222,500
Private 
investment US$ 219,986
Program grants US$ 58,150
The program requires beneficiaries to contribute to the investment with a 3:1 cost share, that 
is, the program provides a maximum of 25 percent of the investment cost. The 3:1 cost￾share requirement considers sustainability. The investment from the local beneficiary 
considers 5-year contribution projections (i.e., beyond the expected life of the program).
Increased public and private sector investment is critical in sustainability in agricultural
production and trade. The EQ program has leveraged US$278,236 of new private sector 
investment by midpoint implementation, thus remaining 54 percent short of the target. 
Program grants accounted for 21 percent of the total investment.
Result Indicator #16: Value of buyer/seller contracts facilitated
This custom performance indicator aims to measure improved linkages between buyers and 
sellers (FFPr2.2.2). The indicator counts the value in US$ of deals resulting from program 
facilitation activities. The number of deals will be automatically tracked to provide context for 
the total value. The contracts must be tracked by program staff. Beneficiaries are asked to 
share information when deals occur using engagement reporting forms.
The cumulative target at the end of year two is to facilitate contracts for a total value of US$1 
million, and that at end of year four is a total value of US$9 million of such contracts. A high 
value (and number) of contracts facilitated contributes to the start of improved linkages 
between buyers and sellers. The EQ program has facilitated contracts for a total value of 
US$374,584, thus remaining 63 percent short of the target. 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 18
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 US$ 1,000,000 US$374,584 63% below 
target US$ 5,000,000 US$ 9,000,000
Result Indicator #17: Average OCI score of target producer groups
This performance indicator aims to measure improved capacity of key groups in the 
agriculture production sector (FFPr1.4.4). The EQ program is using the Organizational 
Capacity Index (OCI) methodology to strengthen the capacity of eight key producer 
organizations to deliver services to their associates.
8
Activities started in early 2017 with the visit of an international expert, and continued in the 
following months with the selection of the initial five of the eight targeted associations and 
the delivery of technical support to the first three in the first two years of program 
implementation9
. This activity has continued at beginning of year three of program 
implementation, expanding support to all five selected associations. Some of these activities 
were carried out during the field mission of this evaluation, when two additional organizations 
were selected while the program plans to engage with the remaining one in early 2018. The 
evaluator and the enumerator both assisted in some of these OCI related activities in 
November 2017. There is no mid-point target for Result Indicator #17 regarding the 
organizational capacity of target producer groups since it was anticipated that change in 
organizational capacity takes time to fully manifest. However, Annex E of the signed 
agreement between IESC and USDA wrongly states the annual targets for this Result 
Indicators at between 2 and 3 on a scale of 1 to 4. It is recommended to amend Annex E of 
the above agreement to reflect the actual OCI scoring system that uses a scale of 1 to 100. 
The end of year 4 target should be set at 85 rather than 3 as in Annex E, with no 
intermediate targets, as below10
.
 
8 The Organizational Capacity Index (OCI) is an objective measurement expressed in numbers, in a prearranged 
scale, of the levels of development of a producers' organization, from the point of view of the following: i) 
democracy in the management of the organization; ii) the provision of services to its members; iii) economic and 
financial performances; iv) human development of the members; and v) aspects of management, administration, 
and the running of the organization. As a diagnostic tool, the OCI facilitates the analysis of the performance of the 
organization, and organizes the provision of support for improving or adjusting organizational performance. It 
allows prioritizing the formulation of strategies and activities of organizational strengthening against available 
resources in a way that allows the organization to effectively consolidate its business management in the medium 
term.
9 The baseline study selected five organizations and applied the OCI methodology to all of them. Only three of them 
have been retained, while of the other two, one is member of CONACADO, a strong group of cooperatives operating 
in the cocoa VC that has been considered not in need of organizational strengthening support; the remaining one 
has almost ceased operations. 
10 Noteworthy, the new target of 85 out of 100 (i.e. 85% of maximum score) is higher than the target in Annex E 
that is 3 out of 4 (i.e. 75 percent of the maximum score).
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 19
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL No target Not applicable 85
The OCI-related organizational strengthening encompasses all three forms of producer 
organization currently existing in the DR: cooperatives, producer associations, and clusters.
Cooperatives appear to be the strongest form of producer organization in DR, including 
activities such as the collective buying of inputs, processing and packaging of members’ 
crops, commercialization of members’ produce, and provision of credit (saving and loans); 
furthermore, cooperatives can be established as for-profit organizations. Associations are a 
weaker form of producer organizations, because they cannot provide credit to their members 
and can only be established as not-for-profit organizations. Clusters appear to be the 
weakest form of such organizations, looser than the previous two but still having juridical 
status (an anomaly as compared with clusters established in other Latin American and 
Caribbean countries). 
In general, the selected organizations for which the OCI methodology has been applied show 
relatively strong performance in member participation and human development, while being 
weak in issues related to commercialization of the produce. This organizational strengthening 
activity will be provided both to i) organizations that have already received technical 
assistance from donors in the past and are eager to request similar kinds of financial support 
(for instance, they expect the program to contribute to or directly finance the employment of 
a commercial director, something the program is not likely to provide), and ii) newly formed 
organizations with no previous experience of donor support. It would be extremely 
interesting to see the results of this organizational strengthening activity at the end of four
years of implementation by comparing the results obtained for each of such different forms of 
organization with their dissimilar experiences as beneficiaries of foreign funded programs.
Result Indicator #18: Percentage of target value chain groups that have a 
systematic way of disseminating and updating market information
This custom performance indicator aims to measure increased access to improved market 
information (FFPr1.4.3 and 2.4.3). Target VC groups include producer groups and trade 
associations. “A systematic way” means that a process exists in written form or in practice. 
The indicator is calculated through direct observation and review of what direct beneficiaries 
submit. The denominator is seven trade associations and three producer groups. The 
cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 50 percent of target VC groups that have 
a systematic way of disseminating and updating market information, and the target for the 
end of year four is to have 100 percent. 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 20
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 Zero 50% Zero 100% below 
target 70% 90%
The rationale behind this indicator is that if a systematic method exists, then access to 
improved market information increases. The EQ program has a zero percent score in this 
indicator. It appears that the number of existing trade associations was overestimated, with 
just two of them (rather than seven) operating in the DR. Consequently, the denominator for 
the calculation of this indicator should be reduced and the expected performance of this 
indicator might need to be significantly scaled down. 
The program has informed the evaluation team that the web design for the ministry of 
agriculture Food Safety Directorate (DIA) website is underway, though it is still unclear how 
to measure producer group and trade association use of it. The program has started directly 
disseminating the weekly Emergency Action Notifications (EAN) on pest border detentions -
which give details about shipments not allowed to enter the USA because of pests/diseases 
found in the produce - provided by USDA APHIS. The EAN information is useful as it shows in 
what ports detentions are taking place, for what products, and for what pests/diseases. The 
program has included market information in weekly emails regarding prices for selected 
Dominican products in different terminal markets in the United States. The EQ program is 
looking for suitable means or an interested group/organization to continue disseminating this 
information.
Given the progress so far, it is expected that the end-of-program target will not be achieved. 
It is therefore recommended to scale down the year four target by at least half, i.e., the new 
year four target would be set at 50 percent of target VC groups that have a systematic way 
to disseminate and update market information because of USDA assistance. In addition, the 
denominator used for the calculation of the index could be reduced from 10 to just five 
organizations (either trade or producer associations, cooperatives, or clusters).
Result Indicator #19 (FFPr8): Number of public–private partnerships formed as a 
result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator aims to measure increased leverage of private sector resources
(FFPr1.4.5 and 2.4.5). The indicator counts the number of public–private partnerships (PPPs)
in agriculture or nutrition formed during the reporting year due to USDA intervention. A PPP 
is considered formed when there is a clear agreement, usually written, to work together to 
achieve a common objective. There must be either a cash or in-kind significant contribution 
to the effort by both public and private entities. An agricultural activity is any activity related 
to the supply of agricultural inputs, production methods, agricultural processing, or 
transportation.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 21
The cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 19 PPPs formed, and that at the end 
of year four is to have 50 PPPs. More partnerships assume more investments in agriculture, 
which should increase agricultural productivity and trade. The EQ program has facilitated the 
formation of 15 PPPs at midpoint implementation, thus remaining 21 percent short of target. 
Most of these partnerships focused on agricultural production (80 percent of total), while the 
remaining share focused on postharvest transformation.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 19 15 21% below 
target 32 50
Agriculture 
production 0 0 15 12 20% below 
target 15 30
Agriculture 
postharvest 
transformation
0 0 4 3
25% below 
target 17 20
Result Indicator #20 (FFPr7): Number of private enterprises, producer 
organizations, water user associations, women's groups, trade and business 
associations, and community-based organizations that applied improved techniques 
and technologies as a result of USDA assistance
This performance indicator aims to measure improved capacity of key organizations in the 
trade sector (FFPr2.4.4). The indicator tracks the number of private enterprises, producer 
organizations, etc. that applied improved techniques or technologies11
. The cumulative target 
at the end of year two is to have 57 enterprises/organizations that applied improved 
techniques and technologies and the target at the end of year four is to have 195 such 
enterprises/organizations. 
Disaggregation Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 3 57 30 47% below 
target 113 195
Private 
enterprises 0 0 36 11 69% below 
target 45 77
Producer 
organizations 0 3 18 18 On target 63 108
Trade and 
business 
associations
0 0 3 1
67% below 
target 5 10
 
11 The entity is only counted once per reporting year, even if multiple technologies/practices are applied. Any 
groups applying a technology that was first applied in the previous year and continues to be applied in the 
reporting year should be counted under “continuing.” However, if they added a new technology or practice during 
the reporting year to those they continued to apply from the previous year(s), they would be counted as “new.” 
No entity should be counted under both “new” and “continuing” in one year.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 22
The indicator tracks private sector and civil society behavior change to increase agricultural
sector productivity. Data for this indicator complements FFPr#2 indicator, i.e., Result 
Indicator #5. The EQ program has facilitated the application of improved techniques and 
technologies in 30 enterprises/organizations at midpoint implementation, thus remaining 47 
percent short of target. The program performance is on target for producer organization (18 
of them have applied improved techniques and technologies by the end of Y2), but below 
target for both private enterprises and trade/business organizations).
Activity Indicator #1.1: Number of trainings delivered to increase capacity of fruit 
and vegetable producers, processors, and packing houses
This performance indicator aims to measure the 
increased value added to post-production 
agricultural products (FFPr2.1). The indicator 
counts the number of trainings delivered under 
activity 1. Trainings include formal and informal 
settings. Training topics include fruit processing, 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, post￾harvest handling, etc. The cumulative target at 
the end of year two is to perform 11 trainings, 
and that at end of year four is to perform 17 
trainings. At midpoint, the EQ program has 
already carried out 77 trainings, thus significantly 
exceeding the target by seven times over. Figure 
2 provides an approximate breakdown of trainings 
beneficiaries by their respective activity value 
chain(s).
Disaggregation Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 3 11 77 600% above 
target 15 17
Trainings included improved farming techniques, pest management, processing, packaging, 
good agricultural practices, good manufacturing practices, GLOBAL G.A.P. and fair-trade 
certifications, traceability, cold chain procedures and awareness, market access, border 
inspections, study tours abroad, organizational capacity, etc. Three of these trainings were 
carried out in collaboration with other USDA/USAID funded programs, mainly focusing on 
FSMA-related issues.
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to scale up the Life of Project target by 
seven times, i.e., the new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 120 trainings 
Figure 2: Breakdown of Trainings Provided 
Under Activity Indicator #1.1
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 23
delivered by the program to increase capacity of fruit and vegetable producers, processors, 
and packinghouses.
Activity Indicator #1.2: Number of producers benefitting from training and 
technical assistance
This performance indicator aims to measure the increased value added to post-production 
agricultural products (FFPr2.1). The indicator counts the number of individual producers who 
benefit from activity 1 training and technical assistance
The cumulative target at the end of year two 
is to train or provide technical assistance to 
515 producers, and that at end of year four is 
to train/assist 3,100 farmers. At midpoint, the 
EQ program has trained and/or provided 
technical assistance to 1,100 farmers, thus 
largely exceeding the target more than two 
times over. Beneficiaries of this activity were 
mostly men (84 percent). Figure 3 provides an 
approximate breakdown of beneficiaries by 
their respective value chain(s).
Trainings included improved farming 
techniques, pest management, good 
agricultural practices, certification in GLOBAL 
G.A.P. and fair trade, traceability, market 
access, border inspections, study tours abroad, organizational capacity, etc. Three of these 
trainings were carried out in collaboration with other USDA-funded programs, namely the 
Food Safety Agro Sustainability Training (FAST) and the so-called PAPA-CAFTA focusing on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in the DR and Central America and related to FSMA 
issues.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 15 515 1.100 114% above 
target
1.820 3.010 
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to scale up the Life of Project target by at 
least 50 percent, i.e., the new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 4,650 
producers benefitting from training and technical assistance provided by the program.
Figure 3: Breakdown of Activity Indicator #1.2 
Progress by VC
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 24
Activity Indicator #1.3: Number of processors benefitting from training and 
technical assistance
This performance indicator aims to measure 
the increased value added to post-production 
agricultural products (FFPr2.1). The indicator 
counts the number of individual processors 
who benefit from post-harvest processing 
training and technical assistance.
The cumulative target at the end of year two 
is to train or provide technical assistance to 
47 processors, and that at the end of year 
four is to train/assist 74 processors. At 
midpoint, the EQ program has trained and/or 
provided technical assistance to 85 
processors, thus exceeding the target almost 
two times over. Beneficiaries of this activity 
were mostly women (64 percent). Figure 4
provides an approximate breakdown of 
beneficiaries by their respective value 
chain(s).
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 32 47 85 81% above 
target 62 74
Trainings included improved processing and packaging techniques, good manufacturing 
practices, certification, GLOBAL G.A.P. and Fair Trade, traceability, cold chain procedures, 
market access, border inspections, study tours abroad, organizational capacity, etc. Two of 
these trainings were carried out in collaboration with other USDA/USAID funded programs; 
mainly focusing on FSMA-related issues.
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to double the Life of Project target, i.e., the 
new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 150 processors benefitting from training 
and technical assistance provided by the program.
Figure 4: Breakdown of Activity Indicator #1.3 
Progress by VC
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 25
Activity Indicator #1.4: Number of packing-house staff benefitting from training 
and technical assistance
This performance indicator aims to measure 
the increased value added to post￾production agricultural products (FFPr2.1). 
The indicator counts the number of 
individual packing-house staff who benefit 
from post-harvest handling training and 
technical assistance. The cumulative target 
at the end of year two is to train or provide 
technical assistance to 600 packing-house 
staff, and that at the end of year four is to 
train/assist 1,800 packing-house staff. 
At midpoint, the EQ program has trained 
and/or provided technical assistance to 367 
packing-house staff, thus remaining below 
the target by almost 40 percent. 
Beneficiaries of this activity were mostly 
men (76 percent). Figure 5 provides an approximate breakdown of beneficiaries by their 
respective value chain(s).
Disaggregation Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 40 600 367 39% below 
target 1.200 1.800
Trainings included improved processing and packaging techniques, good manufacturing 
practices, GLOBAL G.A.P. and Fair-Trade certification, traceability, cold chain procedures, 
market access, border inspection, study tours abroad, organizational capacity, etc.12. Three 
of these trainings were carried out in collaboration with other USDA-funded programs (FAST, 
DR-CAFTA) and focused on FSMA-related issues, including the training of Preventive Controls 
Qualified Individuals (PCQI).
Activity Indicator #1.5: Value of grants provided to producers
This performance indicator aims to measure improved capacity of key groups in the 
agriculture production sector (FFPr1.4.4). The EQ program has a total budget of US$301,250 
for grants provided to producers of the five VCs. The midpoint target is to provide grants of 
 
12 Among these activities, the M&E staff also included training in farming techniques, which are not necessarily 
compulsory training for packing-house staff, though information on GAP may be useful.
Figure 5: Breakdown of Activity Indicator #1.4
Progress by VC
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 26
US$41,250. The program has earmarked these grants to help producers get internationally 
recognized certification, including GLOBAL G.A.P., GHP, GMP, Fair Trade, Organic, and ISO 
certifications. The program publishes an Annual Program Statement (APS) for certification 
and then selects participants based on their application. 
Grants provided to producers in the first two years of program implementation totaled 
US$5,678.14, or 14 percent of target. All these grants were provided during the second year 
of program implementation. Following the APS applications, six packing houses from the 
avocado and pineapple VCs applied for assistance in obtaining internationally recognized 
certifications. The program signed two contracts for implementation of the GLOBAL G.A.P. 
quality standards during the April – September 2017 period. The two recipient companies 
have already selected the consultants who will advise and prepare them for the certification 
process. They are exporters of fruit and vegetables to the United States and Europe who 
procure produce from small and medium-sized producers and required the GLOBAL G.A.P. 
certification for groups of between 20 and 50 producers of avocados and pineapples. The 
program will help the beneficiaries cover the cost of these consultants. The other four 
applicants are still in the process of complying with APS requirements. 
Disaggregation Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 US$ 
13,750
US$ 41,250 US$ 5,678 86% below 
target
US$ 201,250 US$ 301,250
During focus group discussions, some exporters requested that the EQ program provide 
financial help to producers getting GLOBAL G.A.P. certification for the building/refurbishing of 
facilities such as bathrooms, depots for inputs/outputs, etc. These projects can represent a 
significant cost for small-holder producers who might be unable to get the certification for 
lack of funds to build these basic facilities. It is recommended that the program provide 
grants for this type of intervention at farm level to facilitate acquisition of the certification. 
Activity Indicator #2.1: Number of processors/exporters trained in marketing and 
branding techniques
This performance indicator aims to measure the improved marketing of agricultural products 
(FFPr2.1.3, 2.2.1). The indicator counts the number of individual processors and exporters who
receive training to improve approaches to marketing and branding. Training topics could 
include fundamentals of marketing or specific topics including packaging, labeling, etc. The 
cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 240 processors/exporters trained in 
marketing and branding techniques, and that at the end of year four is 480 such 
processors/exporters.
This is a direct measure of the activity on delivering training on marketing and branding 
techniques. The EQ program has trained 294 processors/exporters in marketing and branding 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 27
techniques by the end of year two, thus exceeding the target by 23 percent. Men represented 
68 percent of this activity’s total beneficiaries.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 120 240 294 23% above 
target 360 480
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to scale up the Life of Project target by at 
least one quarter, i.e., the new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 600 
processors and /or exporters trained in marketing and branding techniques.
Activity Indicator #2.2: Number of direct beneficiaries participating in trade shows, 
buyer visits to the DR, and exporter visits to the United States and Europe
This performance indicator aims to measure 
improved linkages between buyers and sellers
(FFPr2.2.2). The indicator counts the number 
of direct beneficiaries participating in trade 
shows, buyer visits to the DR, and exporter 
visits to the United States and Europe. A direct 
beneficiary is an individual and can be counted 
multiple times if benefitting from attending 
multiple program-sponsored events. The 
cumulative target at the end of year two is to 
have 16 individuals participating in trade 
shows, buyer visits to the DR, and exporter 
visits to the United States and Europe, and 
that at the end of year four is to have 100 such 
beneficiaries.
This is a direct measure of the activity of facilitating buyer-seller relationships. The EQ
program has facilitated participation in trade shows, buyer visits to the DR, and exporter 
visits to the United States and Europe for 98 beneficiaries, thus exceeding the target six 
times over and almost achieving the year four target two years ahead of schedule. Three￾quarters of these beneficiaries were men, while the breakdown by VC shows the dominance 
of Asian vegetables,
13 followed by pineapples, avocados, greenhouse vegetables, and cocoa.
 
13 These are defined as horticulture in the M&E database.
Figure 6: Breakdown of Activity Indicator #2.2
Progress by VC
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 28
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 16 98 513% above 
target 48 100
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to double the Life of Project target, i.e., the 
new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 200 direct beneficiaries participating in 
trade shows, buyer visits to the DR, and exporter visits to the United States and Europe.
Activity Indicator #2.3: Number of producer organization members benefitting from 
end-market assessments
This performance indicator aims to measure 
mproved linkages between buyers and 
sellers (FFPr2.2.2). The indicator counts 
producer organization members who sell 
directly to the international and domestic 
markets, i.e., the number of individuals 
benefitting from end-market assessments. 
Program staff is to track this indicator using 
standard trackers and engagement reporting 
forms. 
The cumulative target at the end of year two
is to have 40 members of producer 
organizations benefitting from the end￾market assessments, while that at the end of 
year four is to have 60 such beneficiaries.
The EQ program has facilitated direct sales 
to international markets by 86 members of 
producer organizations, thus exceeding not only year two target by more than twice over, but 
already exceeding the year four target by 43 percent. Men are by far the largest share of 
beneficiaries (91 percent of the total). The program has facilitated a trip to Europe for 
avocado and pineapple exporters and disseminated the results. There are also upcoming trips 
to the United States and Canada for exporters of Asian vegetables. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 40 86 115% above 
target 60 60
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to triple the Life of Project target, i.e., the 
new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 200 Given the achievement so far, it is 
Figure 7: Breakdown of Activity Indicator #2.3 
Progress by VC
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 29
recommended to double the Life of Project target, i.e., the new end of year 4 cumulative 
target would be set at 180 direct beneficiaries participating in trade shows, buyer visits to the 
DR, and exporter visits to the United States and Europe.
Activity Indicator #2.4: Number of trade association members benefitting from the 
end-market assessments
This performance indicator aims to measure improved linkages between buyers and sellers 
(FFPr2.2.2). The indicator counts the number of trade association members who sell directly 
to the international and domestic markets, i.e., the number of individuals benefitting from 
end-market assessments. The cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 60 
members of trade organizations benefitting from the end-market assessments, while that at 
the end of year four is to have 140 of these beneficiaries.
The EQ program has facilitated direct 
sales to international markets of 11 
members of trade organizations, thus 
scoring just 18 percent of target. Men are 
by far the largest share of these 
beneficiaries (82 percent of total). As for 
VC disaggregation, Asian vegetables 
accounted for almost two-thirds of the 
total, with avocados adding the remaining 
third. The problem here is that the 
number of trade associations operating in 
the DR was mistakenly thought to be 
seven, while only two are currently in 
operation14. It is recommended therefore 
to reduce the target by 3.5 times (i.e. 
applying a 7 to 3 ratio), thus reducing the 
year four target to 40 members, in line with the initial rationale for this indicator.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 60 11 82% below 
target 120 140
 
14 This should be compared with Activity Indicator #2.4, in which the number of active producer organization was 
probably underestimated and the number of producer organization members benefitting from the end-market 
assessments should more correctly be set at 140 as the Y4 target rather than 40. 
Figure 8: Breakdown of Activity Indicator #2.4 
Progress by VC
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 30
Activity Indicator #2.5: Number of trade association individuals benefitting 
from trade association capacity building activities
This performance indicator aims to measure improved capacity of key organizations in the 
trade sector (FFPr2.4.4). Trade associations include those involved in domestic and 
international trade. This indicator counts the number of individual trade association staff and 
members who benefit from trade association capacity building activities. 
The cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 196 trade association individuals 
benefitting from trade association capacity building activities and that at end of year four is 
to have 504 such beneficiaries. No individuals have benefited from trade association capacity 
building activity yet. One of the problems here is that the PMP foresaw the existence of seven 
trade associations active in the trade of targeted fruit and vegetables in the DR, when in fact 
only two exist. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 28 196 0
100% below 
target 364 504
The program believes that it is a mistake to maintain an artificial distinction between 
producer and trade associations, since in the DR many associations function as both producer 
and trade organizations. For instance, this distinction has delayed the starting of the OCI 
exercise with ADEXVO (a trade association that sells Asian vegetables). The program is also 
supporting COOPARRIBA (a cooperative that exports greenhouse vegetables) in the 
preparation of a business plan and the identification of a commercial director to expand their 
export business. Newly formed ASOPROMIPOPLA in Monte Plata wants to engage in direct 
marketing of membership production of pineapple with program assistance. In addition, 
much of the OCI training activities would contribute to this indicator. It is recommended to 
maintain the same target for year four but to include in the computation of this indicator not 
only trade associations but also producer associations, cooperatives, and clusters. 
Activity Indicator #2.6: Number of women in trade association management 
who participate in program-sponsored leadership training and events
This performance indicator aims to measure improved capacity of key organizations in the 
trade sector (FFPr2.4.4). The indicator counts the number of mid-level to senior-level women 
who are active in the targeted trade association’s management or overall cluster. The 
cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 56 women involved in trade association 
management who participate in program-sponsored leadership training and events, and the 
target at the end of year four is to have 107 of these beneficiaries.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 31
This activity contributes to building trade association capacity, which increases access to 
markets for women. According to data provided by the M&E team, the EQ program has
facilitated the participation in program-sponsored leadership training and events of 80 
women involved in trade association management, thus exceeding the target by 43 percent. 
Beneficiaries, particularly women, demonstrated great appreciation for these activities during 
the quantitative survey.
The evaluation team considers that the program’s M&E team has mistakenly computed as 
beneficiaries not only women in trade association management (the evaluation found just 
three, or 5 percent of the year two target), but all women who participated in the three 
seminars on women’s leadership organized by the program. Again, here the problem is the 
number of active trade organization operating in the DR. The end of year four cumulative 
target could be reduced to just 30 women by applying a ratio of 7 to 2 (would-be 
organizations vs. existing ones)), or the purpose enlarged to include other types of 
organization. In any case, it is recommended that the program M&E team recalculate the 
result of this indicator. 
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL (as 
calculated by 
Program)
0 30 56 80 43% above 
target 81 107
TOTAL (as 
calculated by 
Evaluator)
56 3
95% below 
target
Activity Indicator #2.7: Value of grants provided to trade associations
This performance indicator aims to measure improved capacity of key organizations in the 
trade sector (FFPr2.4.4), and counts the total value of grants provided to trade associations. 
The cumulative target at the end of year two is to provide grants totaling US$16,000 to trade 
associations, and that at end of year four is to provide US$34,000 of such grants.
This indicator is a direct measure of the grant activity involving trade associations. At 
midpoint the EQ program has provided grants in the amount of US$816, thus remaining 95 
percent short of target. This activity is somewhat associated with Result Indicator #17, i.e. 
the strengthening of the organizational capacity that has been initiated only in the Oct 16-
Mar 17 period of program implementation. In addition, it faces the same problems as in 
Activity Indicator #2.5 above, i.e., just two trade organizations are dealing with target 
commodities, though many more producer associations/cooperatives export produce and 
could be also included as beneficiaries of this indicator. It is recommended that the of this 
indicator be enlarged to include additional types of organizations, such as producer 
associations, cooperatives, and clusters.
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 32
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 US$ 16,000 US$ 816 95% below 
target US$ 26,000 US$ 34,000
Activity Indicator #3.1: Number of individuals attending cold chain 
knowledge sharing events
This indicator aims at measuring increased efficiency in post-production processes (FFPr2.1.2) 
and increased use of improved post-harvest infrastructure (FFPr2.1.2.2). The indicator counts 
the number of individuals attending educational visit to Panama, cold chain workshops in the 
Agroalimentaria Fair in Santo Domingo, WFLO-led in-country demonstrations of cold chain 
facilities, and the Global Cold Chain Alliance annual Latin America Conference. An individual 
can be counted more than once if attending different demonstrations of various aspects of a 
cold chain facility.
The cumulative target at the end of year two is 129 individuals attending cold chain sharing 
events, and that at the end of year four is 358 individuals attending such events. This is a 
direct measure of activities aiming at strengthening the cold chain through private–private and 
public–private partnerships. At midpoint of the EQ program implementation, as many as 477 
individuals attended cold chain sharing events, thus exceeding the year two target by almost 
four times, and the year four target by one-third. Men represented two thirds of the total 
beneficiaries of this activity.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 100 129 477 270% above 
target 233 358
Given the achievement so far, it is recommended to double the Life of Project target, i.e., the 
new end of year 4 cumulative target would be set at 750 individuals attending cold chain￾knowledge sharing events.
Activity Indicator #4.1: Number of fruit and vegetable processors 15
benefitting from in-kind equipment to create value added products
This performance indicator aims to measure the increased value added to post-production 
agricultural products (FFPr2.1). Fruit and vegetable processors include cocoa, pineapple, 
avocado and Asian and greenhouse vegetable producers who receive equipment and/or 
assistance from the program and who will have more opportunities to create value added 
 
15 The program was amended in August 2017. One of the changes in the program description was to include 
vegetable processors to activity four. Therefore, the Evaluator recommends that the indicator definition should be 
changed to include vegetable processors as well. 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 33
products and improve HACCP and HARPC conditions that would address recent rejections 
from the U.S. market.
The cumulative target at the end of year two is four fruit processors benefitting from in-kind 
equipment to create value added products, and that at the end of year four is 20 such 
processors. At midpoint of the EQ program implementation, two processors have benefitted 
from in-kind equipment to create value added products, or one half of the target. More 
relevant information is provided below (Activity Indicator #4.2).
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 4 2
50% below 
target 15 20
Activity Indicator #4.2: Value of in-kind grants provided to processors
This performance indicator aims to measure increased value added to post-production 
agricultural products (FFPr2.1). The EQ program has a total budget of US$350,000 for in-kind 
grants provided to processors of one or more of the five VCs. The midpoint target is to 
provide in-kind grants of US$140,000. The program has earmarked these grants to help 
processors purchase equipment to improve processing capacity. A maximum amount is 
established for each beneficiary, ranging from US$20,000 (for processors of cocoa and 
greenhouse and Asian vegetables) to US$30,000 (for avocado and pineapple processors). 
The program publishes a RFA and subsequently verifies the actual need for deploying of the 
equipment and the applicant’s financial situation to evaluate long-term sustainability of the 
procurement. The program provides a maximum of 25 percent of the equipment’s 
procurement cost (i.e., a cost share ratio of at least 3:1 by the grant recipient). Total 
procurement costs may also include installation and operational costs, but exclude border 
taxes and shipment/freight costs. The beneficiaries must advance most of the equipment’s 
capital cost, after which the program provides the balance for purchase of the machine. 
In-kind grants provided to processors in the first two years of program implementation 
totaled US$58,150, or 42 percent of the midpoint target. All these grants were provided 
during the second year of program implementation. Beneficiaries are two processors of 
pineapple who received, respectively, a pineapple peeler /corer from Italy and a pulper to 
make pineapple pulp and juice from California, in the United States. Three applications for 
cocoa processing equipment were also approved during the Apr 17 – Sep 17 period and those 
grants are expected to be finalized during the Oct 17 – Mar 18 period. 
Annex 3: Overview of Performance for Each Result Indicator and Activity Indicator 34
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 US$ 140,000 US$ 58,150 58% below 
target US$ 315,000 US$ 350,000
Local processors of fruit and vegetables are usually small and lack the financial resources to 
modernize processing equipment. By providing up to a quarter of the procurement cost, the 
program speeds up purchasing of equipment that, without the in-kind grants, may be 
delayed by months or years, or perhaps never finalized. The program requires recipients to
do the market search for equipment they need, then verifies that the applicant has financial 
capacity to sustain the 3:1 cost share ratio. This ensures buy-in and demand-driven 
ownership but has created delays in grant realization. The program is expected to employ a 
short-term consultant in early 2018 to speed up the process of evaluation and approval of the 
in-kind grants.
Activity Indicator #5.1: Number of individuals reached by public information 
campaigns
This performance indicator aims to measure increased access to improved market 
information (FFPr1.4.3 and 2.4.3). The indicator measures the estimated number of 
beneficiaries (farmers, producers, middlemen, etc.) who receive messaging from the 
campaign, which includes radio, newspaper, and TV audiences. Technical staff collects data 
from radio, newspaper, and media viewership and listenership reports and submits it to the 
M&E manager. 
The cumulative target at the end of year two is to have 500,000 individuals reached by public 
information campaign, and that at end of year four is to have 1.5 million such individuals 
(this assumes that about 12 percent of the DR's total population of 10.4m will be reached by 
the campaign). The indicator is therefore a direct measure of the public information campaign 
activity. The public information campaign has reached almost 300,000 individuals at midpoint 
of program implementation, thus remaining 40 percent below target.
Disaggregation
Baseline 
Value 
(Year)
End of 
Y1 
Target
End of Y2 
Target 
(Cumulative)
Achievement 
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
Percent met
End of Y2
(Cumulative)
End of Y3 
Target 
(Cumulative)
End of Y4 
Target 
(Cumulative)
TOTAL 0 0 500,000 298,629 40% below 
target 1,000,000 1,500,000
Annex 4: Export Statistics 1
Table A4.1: DR global exports of selected targeted commodities, thousands of US$, 2014–2016
Value Chain
Exported value 
in 2014
Exported value 
in 2015
Exported value in 
2016–Q1 to Q3
Avocados 22,530 16,585 18,664
Pineapples 3,690 4,979 4,123
Tomatoes 9,230 7,993 10,143
Peppers 27,887 10,044 11,449
Cucumbers 7,309 9,728 6,466
Eggplants 7,255 6,299 4,345
Okra 583 488 1,141
Green Beans/Long Beans 1,721 1,600 1,160
Cocoa Beans 212,116 250,786 202,037
Cocoa and Cocoa Preparations 227,076 264,185 212,319
Source: ITC Trade Map, www.trademap.org
Table A4.2: DR total global exports of selected targeted commodities, thousands of US$, by quarters,1
2014–2016
Value Chain
Exported 
value in 
2014-Q4
Exported 
value in 
2015-Q1
Exported 
value in 
2015-Q2
Exported 
value in 
2015-Q3
Exported 
value in 
2015-Q4
Exported 
value in 
2016-Q1
Exported 
value in 
2016-Q2
Exported 
value in 
2016-Q3
Avocados 8,328 9,987 942 1,011 4,645 10,825 3,233 4,606
Pineapples 1,029 1,515 1,282 794 1,388 1,540 1,522 1,061
Tomatoes 2,757 2,813 1,279 1,283 2,618 5,060 2,671 2,412
Peppers 6,850 7,381 1,402 394 867 3,705 4,504 3,240
Cucumbers 2,295 2,609 2,330 2,137 2,652 2,653 1,707 2106
Eggplants 1,970 1,796 1,271 1,161 2,071 1,517 1,154 1674
Okra 129 63 26 14 385 390 573 178
Green 
Beans/Long 
Beans
580 438 422 387 353 346 429 385
Cocoa Beans 27,877 47,503 103,849 76,757 22,677 21,827 100,816 79,394
Cocoa and 
Cocoa 
Preparations
31,689 50,535 106,433 80,897 26,320 24,345 103,781 84,193
Source: ITC Trade Map, www.trademap.org
 
1 Calendar year quarters.
Annex 5: Evaluation Questionnaire 1
EXPORTING QUALITY AND SAFETY MIDTERM EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: This is an anonymous questionnaire. The facilitator will provide you the 
anonymous identification number. The match between this number and your name is only 
known to the facilitator. Please provide information regarding your activity, kind of 
production, and gender. Please give your answers or comments in writing, or indicate the 
extent to which you evaluate the activities/performances of the Exporting Quality and Safety 
(EQS) Program on the topics on a scale of 1 (least) to 5 (highest). If you believe a question 
does not apply to you, please leave it blank.
Code number _________ Male Female Date _____________
Producer Trader Processor Exporter Extension 
Officer
_________
Avocado Pineapple Cocoa Greenhouse Oriental Vegetables ____________
SECTION 1 Strongly 
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 
Agree
1.A.1 The quality of my business has improved thanks to program activities 1 2 3 4 5
1.A.2 The value of my business has increased thanks to program activities 1 2 3 4 5
1.A.3 My technical skills have improved thanks to program activities 1 2 3 4 5
1.A.4 My commercial skills have improved thanks to program activities 1 2 3 4 5
1.A.5 Please quantify the improvements due to program activities 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
1.B.1 The program has helped me to achieve more than I expected 1 2 3 4 5
1.B.2 Please provide more details
1.C.1 My business has faced major challenges during the last 24 months 1 2 3 4 5
1.C.2 Please name some of these challenges, if any 
1.C.3 The medfly ban has significantly impacted my activity 1 2 3 4 5
1.C.4 The heavy rains in the fall of 2016 negatively affected my 
production/trade/exports
1 2 3 4 5
Annex 5: Evaluation Questionnaire 2
1.C.5 The 2017 hurricanes (heavy rains and strong winds) negatively 
affected my production/trade/exports 1 2 3 4 5
1.C.6 The program has been able to help me to counter these challenges 1 2 3 4 5
1.C.7 How can the program further support you in your business challenges?
1.D1 How can the program help you in unexpected situations?
SECTION 2 Strongly 
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly 
Agree
2.A.1 The program has been able to address the core issues of my 
activity
1 2 3 4 5
2.A.2 The program has helped strengthen my organization 1 2 3 4 5
2.A.3 How can the program improve the relevance of its assistance to better support you?
SECTION 3 Strongly 
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly 
Agree
3.A.1 The program activity on export promotion has been very effective 
in improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A2 The program activity on cold-chain awareness has been very 
effective in improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.3 The program activity on branding has been very effective in 
improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.4 The program activity on safety measures has been very effective in 
improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.5 The program activity on phytosanitary measures has been very 
effective in improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A6 The program activity on traceability has been very effective in 
improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.7 The program activity on compliance measures has been very 
effective in improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.8 The program activity on certification has been very effective in 
improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.9 The program activity on GAP/GHM/GMP has been very effective in 
improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.10 The program activity on improving/expanding farming productivity 
has been very effective in improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
Annex 5: Evaluation Questionnaire 3
3.A.11 The program activity on improving/expanding processing capacity 
has been very effective inr improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.12 The program activity on improving management capacity of my 
farm has been very effective in improving my business
1 2 3 4 5
3.A.13 How can the program improve the effectiveness of its assistance?
3.B.1 The program has encouraged participation of women in its activities 1 2 3 4 5
3.B.2 The program has been very effective at reaching women 
beneficiaries.
1 2 3 4 5
3.B.3 What could be done to improve women’s participation in target value chains?
3.C.1 The training approach has been very good at enhancing my 
productivity
1 2 3 4 5
3.C.2 The training approach has been very good at enhancing my 
processing capacity 
1 2 3 4 5
3.C.3 The training approach has been very good at enhancing my 
managerial skills
1 2 3 4 5
3.C.4 How can we improve the training approach to better support you?
SECTION 4 Strongly 
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly 
Agree
4.1 At the end of the program I will be able to continue to apply what I 
learned with no problem.
1 2 3 4 5
4.2 I would like this or a similar program of technical assistance to 
continue after its scheduled end
1 2 3 4 5
4.3 How can the program ensure that this type of assistance is available 
after it ends?
1 2 3 4 5
4.4 I would prefer that a similar program of assistance is continued by 
the Dominican Government/Public Organizations
1 2 3 4 5
4.5 How can the program ensure that this type of assistance is available after this program ends?
CHIEF OF PARTY *
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
EXPORTING QUALITY PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE 
ASSISTANT
FINANCE & ADMIN
MANAGER *
PROCUREMENT / 
GRANTS SPECIALIST
HR/OFFICE 
MANAGER
PINEAPPLE & 
AVOCADO VC 
FACILITATOR
CACAO VC 
FACILITATOR & 
GENDER 
INTEGRATION
GREENHOUSE & 
VEGETABLES VC
FACILITATOR
TRACEABILITY
SPECIALIST 
(CEDAF)
OCI SPECIALIST
(CEDAF)
ACCOUNTANT
RECEPCIONIST AND HR 
ASSISTANT
DRIVERS 1 DRIVERS 2
TRAINING ANALYST 1
M & E
MANAGER *
DEPUTY CHIEF OF PARTY *
COMMUNICATIONS 
ASSISTANT
M & E
ANALYST
COMMUNICATIONS 
SPECIALIST
MARKET LINKAGES
EXPORT TEAM 
FACILITATOR
TRAINING ANALYST 2
CARLOS PUELLO
LANDO REYES
NILSY DELGADO
PEGGY AVIOTTI EMMANUEL GUZMÁN
SANTIAGO RIVAS
JULISSA ALMÁNZAR VÍCTOR DE OLEO
ANA TAVÁREZ
TEÓFILO SURIEL
BRIAN RUDERT
MARÍA DEL VILLAR
MARGARITA DE LOS SANTOS
JEANNATY SOLÍS
VLADIMIR RAMÍREZ
RAQUEL TRAVIESO
DANIEL RIVAS
MICHELLE DE LOS SANTOS
GERMAN JIMÉNEZ
CARLODYS ALMEYDA PAULETTE BONSEÑOR PATRICIA NÚÑEZ
 IESC Home Office
Associate Vice President, Chad Ford
Senior Program Manager, Gabriela Kliewer*
Senior Program Associate, David Stein
* Denotes Key Personnel