Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program￾Dominican Republic Project Baseline Survey Agreement No: FCC-517-2015/008-00 Baseline Study Status of the Livestock Sector in Eleven Provinces of the Dominican Republic Prepared by: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 13 October 2016 OTSCORP, S.A. OPTIMA, Technical Services Acknowledgments The Baseline Study authors wish to communicate our appreciation to the individuals and institutions that generously contributed with documentation, information, advise and expert opinions during the preparation of this study. First of all, to the members of the NCBA CLUSA unit in Santo Domingo and JAD for their advisory technical contributions and logistics support. Other institutions and individuals provided valuable documentation and information, among them: BAGRICOLA, CONALECHE, the Ministry of Agriculture and its Livestock unit (DIGEGA), MEGALECHE extension agents, FAO, CEPAL, IDIAF, PRORURAL, as well as several presidents of producers´ associations who coordinated farm visits. ONE facilitated the use of the Precenso information for the Farm Survey, its technical personnel painstakingly prepared the database to comply with institutional norms. DISCLAIMER: the author´s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the United States Government (USG). Project Baseline Study Status of the Livestock Sector in Eleven Provinces of the Dominican Republic TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................. I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 METHOD ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 FARM SURVEY SAMPLING .................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 FARM SURVEY, DATA COLLECTION......................................................................................................................... 7 1.5 OTHER SURVEYS: MILK COLLECTION CENTERS (MCC), BEEF PROCESSORS AND DAIRY PROCESSORS................................... 7 1.6 OTHER DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS................................................................................................................ 8 2 OVERVIEW OF THE LIVESTOCK SUBSECTOR.................................................................................................... 9 3 THE DAIRY VALUE CHAIN .............................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 DAIRY FARMING.............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 MILK COLLECTION CENTERS (MCC) .................................................................................................................... 20 3.3 DAIRY PROCESSORS.......................................................................................................................................... 25 4 THE BEEF VALUE CHAIN................................................................................................................................ 29 4.1 BEEF CATTLE FARMING ..................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 SLAUGHTERHOUSES - PROCESSORS...................................................................................................................... 35 4.3 SMALL BEEF PROCESSORS – MEATPACKING ESTABLISHMENTS ................................................................................... 38 5 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SUPPORT SERVICES.................................................................................................... 41 5.1 EXTENSION SERVICES........................................................................................................................................ 42 5.2 CREDIT.......................................................................................................................................................... 44 5.3 PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS (PO)...................................................................................................................... 46 5.4 INPUT SUPPLIERS ............................................................................................................................................. 52 5.5 POLICY, IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE ....................................................................................................... 53 6 UPDATED PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN (PMP) AND PROGRESS MANAGEMENT TABLE (PMT) .......... 54 7 MID-TERM AND FINAL EVALUATIONS .......................................................................................................... 56 8 THE BASELINE AND IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES....................................................................... 58 9 CONTRIBUTION TO FURTHER SUBSECTOR ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 59 10 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................ 60 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEX 1: RESULTS FRAMEWORKS ....................................................................................................................... 65 NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic. – Project Baseline Study ANNEX 2: PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN (PMP) AND PROGRESS MANAGEMENT TABLE (PMT)..................... 1 ANNEX 3: SUMMARY RESULTS OF BAGRICOLA EXTENSION AGENTS FOCUS GROUP............................................... 9 ANNEX 4: SUMMARY RESULTS OF MEGALECHE EXTENSION AGENTS FOCUS GROUP............................................13 ANNEX 5: FARM SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................................................................................................17 ANNEX 6: PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS FOCUS GROUP, QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS..............................................25 ANNEX 7: MILK COLLECTION CENTERS (MCC) SURVEY AND RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES .....................................27 ANNEX 8: SLAUGHTERHOUSE – PROCESSOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................35 ANNEX 9: SMALL DAIRY PROCESSORS, SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESULTS...................................................40 ANNEX 10: FARM SURVEY RESULTS, SUMMARY TABLES.......................................................................................50 TABLES TABLE 1 – NUMBER OF CATTLE FARMS BY PROVINCE (ALL AND SELECTED PROVINCES) ACCORDING TO SIZE, 2015................................... 4 TABLE 2 – SAMPLING FRAME, NUMBER OF FARMS BY SIZE CATEGORIES FOR SELECTED AND OTHER PROVINCES ....................................... 5 TABLE 3 - FARMS SAMPLE: NUMBER OF FARMS BY SIZE CATEGORY ................................................................................................ 5 TABLE 4 – FARMS SAMPLE, NUMBER OF FARMS BY PROVINCE....................................................................................................... 6 TABLE 5 – FARM SAMPLE, SIZE DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................ 6 TABLE 6 – NUMBER OF FARMS BY PROVINCE ACCORDING TO “TYPE OF PRODUCTION” .....................................................................10 TABLE 7 – NUMBER OF MILKING COWS, DAILY PRODUCTION IN RAINY AND DRY PERIODS AND FARM PRODUCTIVITY (LCD) BY PROVINCE ....14 TABLE 8 – FARM SURVEY, DAIRY FARM PRODUCTIVITY, LITERS PER COW PER DAY ACCORDING TO FARM SIZE ........................................15 TABLE 9 – NUMBER OF FARMS PRODUCING MILK GRADES A, B AND C BY PROVINCE .......................................................................17 TABLE 10 – FARM SAMPLE, NUMBER OF FARMS THAT REPORT REJECTIONS OF MILK TAKEN TO MCCS BY PROVINCE ACCORDING TO FREQUENCY OF REJECTION (471 DAIRY FARMS) ...............................................................................................................19 TABLE 11 – NUMBER OF MCC BY SOURCE, NATIONAL AND PROJECT SELECTED PROVINCES ..............................................................20 TABLE 12 – MILK COLLECTION CENTERS SURVEYED BY PROVINCE................................................................................................21 TABLE 13 – MCCS LEGAL STATUS.........................................................................................................................................21 TABLE 14 - FINANCING OF MCCS SURVEYED ..........................................................................................................................22 TABLE 15 – MCC INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................................22 TABLE 16 – NUMBER OF MCC BY VOLUME OF MILK RECEIVED DAILY..........................................................................................23 TABLE 17 - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (TA) RECEIVED BY MCCS ...................................................................................................24 TABLE 18 – NUMBER OF COOLING UNITS AND CAPACITY IN LITERS BY PROVINCE.............................................................................25 TABLE 19 – PROCESSORS´ INVESTMENT NEEDS ACCORDING TO TYPE OF INVESTMENT .....................................................................27 TABLE 20 - SUPPLY AND CONDITIONS OF RECEPTION OF MILK BY PROCESSORS ...............................................................................28 TABLE 21 - PRODUCERS AND SALES BY TYPE OF CHEESE.............................................................................................................28 TABLE 22 – NUMBER OF HEADS OF BEEF PRODUCING CATTLE IN PROJECT PROVINCES IN FARM SURVEY..............................................30 TABLE 23 – NUMBER OF SPECIALIZED BEEF PRODUCTION FARMS* ...............................................................................................31 TABLE 24 – NUMBER OF HEADS OF BEEF CATTLE BY PROVINCE ACCORDING TO RACE TYPE ................................................................32 TABLE 25 – NUMBER OF BEEF FARMS REPORTING FIVE* MAIN PROBLEMS BY PROVINCE ..................................................................33 TABLE 26 – NUMBER OF FARMS BY DESTINY OF FINAL SALES ......................................................................................................33 TABLE 27 – NUMBER OF BEEF FARMS THAT RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS..............................................34 TABLE 28 – NUMBER OF BEEF FARMS THAT REQUEST TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY PROVINCE AND TOPIC...............................................34 TABLE 29 – COMPLIANCE SCORES OF SLAUGHTERHOUSES BY TYPE...............................................................................................37 TABLE 30 – SMALL BEEF PROCESSORS, TYPE OF INVESTMENTS PLANNED BY PLANT..........................................................................39 TABLE 31 – INPUT SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION BY PLANT.............................................................................................................39 TABLE 32 – MAIN DEFICIENCIES IN PLANT OPERATION ..............................................................................................................40 NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic. – Project Baseline Study TABLE 33 – SMALL BEEF PROCESSORS, MAIN PROBLEMS REPORTED ............................................................................................ 40 TABLE 34 – SMALL BEEF PROCESSORS, DEMAND FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORTED................................................................. 41 TABLE 35 – BAGRÍCOLA, LOANS OUTSTANDING ON 30 APRIL 2016 IN SELECTED PROVINCES........................................................ 44 TABLE 36 – NUMBER OF LOANS ACCORDING TO USE REPORTED BY BAGRÍCOLA.......................................................................... 45 TABLE 37 – NUMBER OF FARMS BY PROVINCE ACCORDING TO CREDIT RECEIVED IN THE LAST 3 YEARS BY SOURCE................................. 46 TABLE 38 – NUMBER OF ASSOCIATIONS AND MEMBERS BY PROVINCE AND FEDERATION IN THE PROJECT AREA.................................... 47 TABLE 39 – NUMBER OF CATTLE FARMS PRODUCER ASSOCIATIONS BY PROVINCE........................................................................... 47 TABLE 40 – NUMBER OF FARMS BY PROVINCE ACCORDING TO ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP .............................................................. 49 TABLE 41 – SERVICES PROVIDED BY TWO MAIN FEDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 50 TABLE 42 – SERVICES PROVIDED BY ASSOCIATIONS TO THEIR MEMBERS ....................................................................................... 50 NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic. – Project Baseline Study ACRONYMS ADHA Asociación Dominicana de Hacendados y Agricultores AGAMPTA Asociación de Ganaderos de Monte Plata BAGRÍCOLA Banco Agrícola de la República Dominicana BCRD Banco Central de la República Dominicana CAFTA­DR Central América Free Trade Agreement – Dominican Repúblic CBI Cooperative Business International CEPAL Comisión Económica para América Latina y El Caribe CONALECHE Consejo Nacional para la Reglamentación y Fomento de la Industria Lechera CTC Consejo Técnico Consultivo del Proyecto DIGEGA Dirección General de Ganadería, Ministry of Agriculture DR Dominican Republic FAD Food Assistance Service of FAS FAS Foreign Agriculture Service of USDA FEDA Fondo Especial de Desarrollo Agropecuario FTA Free Trade Agreement FEDEGANO Federation of Livestock Farmers of the Northwest FFPr Indicator Food for Progress indicator IAD Instituto Agrario Dominicano IDIAF Instituto de Investigaciones Agrícolas y Forestales JAD Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana LAVECEN Laboratorio Veterinario Central, Ministry of Agriculture lcd Liters of milk per cow per day (l/c-d), an indicator of farm productivity MA Ministry of Agriculture M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MoH Ministry of Health NCBA CLUSA National Cooperative Business Association – Cooperative League of the USA ONE Oficina Nacional de Estadística PMP Performance Monitoring Plan (indicators to measure Project performance) PO Producers Organization (Asociations and federations) PROGANA Local name of the SAFE Project REDDOM Rural Economic Development Dominicana SAFE Safe Agriculture/Food Export Program – DR or PROGANA (the Project) SO Strategic Objective SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards – USDA TAMU Texas A&M University TOR Terms of Reference USDA United States Department of Agriculture Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic USDA/NCBA Agreement No. FCC-517-2015/008-00 Project Baseline Study Status of the Livestock Sector in Eleven Provinces of the Dominican Republic EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Baseline Study aims to describe the current state of the livestock sector in the 11 provinces1 of the Dominican Republic, selected for Project implementation. It has four specific objectives: i. To determine Project baseline values and sources for PMP indicators, which include 16 FFPr standard (mandatory) indicators; ii. To establish a reference point (baseline) for mid-term and final evaluations; iii. To assist in the identification of activities to be supported by the Project; and, iv. To contribute to the livestock subsector on-going diagnosis and provide a basis for further analysis. This description includes local expert opinions on probable causes of problems commonly identified in the sector. The available literature was reviewed and various instruments to collect primary information were used, namely, a Farm Survey of 505 farms in the 11 provinces and surveys of milk collection centers (MCC) and small beef and dairy processors. Focus groups and extensive interviews with farmers and farm visits were also part of primary sources used. The study´s central elements are the description of the two “value chains” (dairy and beef) and the state of the main “support services” to the sector: extension services, credit, producer organizations, input suppliers and public policy. The Project,2 as designed by NCBA CLUSA following USDA guidelines, has two Strategic Objectives (SO): (1) to increase productivity in the livestock sector and (2) to expand trade of livestock products for the target value chains (dairy and beef). These objectives will be achieved through a sequence of “results” and “activities” stated in the Results Frameworks developed for the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Food For Progress (FFPr) projects. Expected results include increased use of improved agricultural techniques; improved farm management; implementation of trade measures (US equivalency requirements) to facilitate beef exports; and, increasing the volume and quality of milk available to the dairy processing industry. 1 La Altagracia, El Seibo, Hato Mayor, Monte Plata, Duarte, Maria Trinidad Sanche, Puerto Plata, Santiago Rodriguez, Dajabon, Independencia y San Juan. 2 The “Project” in this document refers to the: “USDA/NCBA CLUSA Safe Agriculture/Food Export Program (SAFE) - Dominican Republic”, known locally as “Fortaleciendo la Cadena de Valor de la Ganadería Dominicana” (PROGANA). NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP ii Baseline Study – Executive Summary Most Project “activities”, the basic units of Project implementation, will be financed by “cofinanciamientos” or matching grants (grants that require a contribution by beneficiaries).3 Some activities, such as promotional or informational events, document preparation for regulatory reforms and related goods and services may be financed by grants without matching contributions or by direct expenses by the implementing unit.4 These “activities” refer to outputs or set of goods and services necessary to achieve a given result or outcome as stated in the Results Frameworks (Annex 1). The University of Texas, Borlaug Institute, and Cooperative Business International (CBI) will assist the Project in the development of techniques and technologies and training, activities in support of the livestock sector. The 11 provinces for Project implementation, of a total of 31 provinces in the country, were selected on the basis of areas covered by 5 federations of livestock farmers’ associations that operate nationally and the provinces most representative of dairy and beef farming, according to NBCA CLUSA staff. Information sources on the livestock subsector in the Dominican Republic are limited. The last agricultural census took place in 1982, although there are various studies, reports, presentations, small surveys and - above all – local expert knowledge, especially on the dairy “value chain”. These sources complemented the main primary source of this study: The Project Baseline Farm Survey. The Project concept refers to “value chains” in dairy and beef, not only the primary farming activity; therefore, in addition to the Farm Survey, three smaller surveys were conducted for this study: (i) Survey of Milk Collection Centers (MCC); (ii) Survey of slaughterhouses; and (iii) Survey of small dairy processors (cheese, yogurt and sweets artisan operations). Information from these surveys was complemented with two focus groups on extension services and producer organizations (PO) and semi-structured interviews of input suppliers and policy analysts. One of these interviews, small meat packing establishments, became a small survey that identified relevant issues on sanitary regulation, financial viability and technical assistance. The small surveys did not have the statistical rigor of the Farm Survey, but they were designed on the basis of extensive background information (qualitative, for the most part) on each activity and its relevancy within the value chain, according to local experts and extension personal. For convenience and time limitations, data collection for these surveys followed the routes of the Farm Survey. The livestock sector in the DR has some basic and general characteristics: duality, informality and low productivity. There are a few highly productive farms and many traditional, low-productivity, small family units; a few modern beef processors ready to export and many municipal slaughterhouses that can barely meet minimum sanitary standards; a few large dairy processors that supply major supermarkets and a national school program and numerous “cheese makers” (queserías) that process low-quality milk and operate in questionable sanitary conditions. Very few farms keep cattle registers. Most small dairy and 3 The Project will encourage leveraging of resources from private sector sources, either from beneficiaries’ own funds, bank loans or other sources. 4 NCBA CLUSA implementing unit is preparing a manual for this purpose. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP iii Baseline Study beef processors lack sanitary permits. The “quality-price structure” in the dairy value chain is considered a perverse5 incentive for dairy farmers. In the aggregate, the agricultural sector employed 575,499 people in 2015, 13.4% of total employment (according to ONE statistics) and accounted for only 5.8% of GDP (according to BCRD data), reflecting its low productivity with respect to other sectors of the economy. Women participation was only 5.6% of total employment in agriculture. In livestock farms only 2% of farm workers are women, while 5% are farm owners, according to the Baseline Farm Survey. Approximately 1.0 million hectares are dedicated to cattle farming (ONE, 2016); 54% of all farms are less than 6.25 hectares (100 tareas) in size, 88% less than 312.5 Ha (5,000 tareas). There are 319,676 farm units in the country, according to Precenso data; 47,910 are cattle farms; of these, 27,265 are located in the 11 provinces selected for Project implementation; 15.4% are less than 1 Ha in size, less than 1% are larger than 312.5 Ha. The rest, 84% (20,335 farms), were selected to design the sampling frame for the farm survey. Most production of beef is sold in the domestic market. Beef exports were less than US$1.0 million, dairy exports reached U$8.0 million in 2014. Beef imports were US$36.0 million and milk imports (powder and liquid) were US$129.0 million (Ministerio de Agricultura, 2015). These figures reflect the opportunities of the livestock sector to increase its share of the respective markets and explains the Project´s Strategic Objectives directed to increasing productivity and trade expansion. It important to recognize that the livestock sector operates in a cultural, social and political context that affects its performance. Many farmers, small, medium and large, do not operate their farms as business enterprises, but as holders of wealth or assets, and even as status symbols; some of them are operated by caretakers, not business managers. Enforcing sanitary regulations on small processors of cheese and cooked meats would have a serious impact on their finances as they run low cost, low quality, low price operations. Producer Organizations (PO), besides proving an array of services to their members, have effective political influence in the rural sector. Adequate regulations exist but enforcement is weak because – among other reasons – it could have adverse social, economic and political impacts on farmers and consumers. Dairy farming. Two fundamental indicators of dairy farm productivity in the context of Project objectives are: the number of liters per cow per day (l/c-d) or “lcd”; and, the quality of milk delivered to MCCs. The various studies coincide on the low productivity of dairy farms by reporting lcd indicators regarded as very “low”, lower than 7.0 lcd. 5 Quality grades are not determined by farmers or MCC but by processors; a framer could take grade A milk to the MCC but, because of MCC handling, it gets mixed with lower grades and the farmer gets paid for grade B or C, which carry lower prices, a disincentive for farmers to deliver grade A milk. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP vi Baseline Study – Executive Summary Investment in improving MCCs is most likely to be highly efficient because of their impact on the quality￾price structure that affects farmers´ incentives to produce higher quality milk and obtain higher prices at a modest investment cost. Dairy processors. As with every other instance in the dairy and beef value chains, there is a wide range of milk processors sizes, technologies and quality characteristics. For the large processors (Rica, Nestlé, Parmalat and others), that transform raw milk into consumer products, like liquid milk sold at local supermarkets, and even powder milk (imported and domestic), the main issues are related to trade regulation, in particular, subsidies of imported dairy products in the countries of origin and tariffs, which are complex and constantly changing, in the framework of various trade agreements. The main questions for this group are related to the feasibility of expanding the local processors´ share of the domestic market, namely: can they compete with subsidized imports? Is national production of milk sufficient (in quantity and quality) to meet processor´ potential demand? National brands have a massive presence in the domestic market but, according to (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), “La importación de leche fluida se incrementó 30 veces del 2012 al 2015 y sigue subiendo” (Imports of liquid milk increased 30 times between 2012 and 2015 and keep increasing). To the extent that Project objectives (FFPr SO2) call for “Expanded trade of agricultural products, domestic, regional and international”, NCBA CLUSA, its CTC and its partner JAD, the MA and other agencies in charge of international trade policy should follow up recommended policy adjustments to promote an increasing and competitive share of the local dairy market within the framework of current trade agreements. (See “Recommendations for developing a National Livestock Improvement Program” (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2015) and section 5.5). Small dairy processors. At the other end of the spectrum, some one-room artisan cheese manufacturers process low quality milk under questionable sanitary conditions. This group, which includes medium size establishments, use 60%6 of national milk production (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), mostly lower grade milk. However, even these low-price producers feel affected by “cheap cheese imports”. They also act as shock absorber when there is an excess of lower quality milk in the market. There are social as well as economic issues in the possible transformation of this market; they generate jobs and keep low quality milk suppliers viable. According to (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), “The problem is not only the high cost of domestic cheese, which cannot compete with imported products, but the low efficiency, quality and performance of small and medium processors”. A survey was conducted among small cheese manufacturers (“queserías”), yogurt and sweets processors. It is estimated that there are 520 small processors nationally, mainly artisan cheese manufacturers (Thinkbig, 2015). There is no official registry of these establishments, most of them function informally. Of 26 visited, only one had a sanitary permit, which is required by law; most processors interviewed do not have odor extraction equipment or adequate washing equipment, do not manage liquid or solid waste properly, do not control the presence of insects or rodentsin their facilities, half of personnel in operations do not have health cards. Of these, 20 establishments produced 18,171 lbs. of dairy products, mainly 6 Another source (Thinkbig, 2015) estimates this consumption at 50%; CONALECHE´s estimate cited in (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2015) is 54%. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP vii Baseline Study cheese, and processed 72,500 liters of milk daily. This group generated 111 permanent and 24 part-time jobs and women´s participation was over 50%. All respondents cited as main concerns: costs of electricity and competition (domestic and international prices). Although most plants surveyed do not meet sanitary standards, they are quite dynamic. They receive on average 28,000 liters of milk daily directly from 390 farms and 6 MCC at an average price of RD$18; 80% of cheese factories take in “warm milk”, only one of 19 receives cold milk; 38% perform quality control tests. Contamination risk is high due to lack of adequate equipment and handling practices. The beef value chain. Literature and information on the beef value chain is limited, most literature on livestock is concentrated on the dairy subsector. When survey respondents were asked about the farm´s “type of production”, only 17 respondents (3.4%) indicated “beef”; 81 (16%) responded: “double purpose” (beef and dairy). Most farmers, (407 or 80.6%), perceive their own farms as dairy farms. However, when technical details were requested, 65 respondents (12.9%) described beef operations taking place in their farms, although they could be also “double purpose” farms, 38 of 65 “beef farms” also produce milk and reported its quality. According to this criterion (technical aspects of production), 430 farms (85%) were reported to produce milk. Some have marginal operations as beef cattle farms. These results mainly reflect the informality of the sector, only 2.6% of farms maintain cattle registers, very few farms specialize in beef or milk. The most frequently discussed general issues in the beef value chain are related to the possibilities and requirements for exporting to the U.S. market, its impact and the efficiency of beef cattle farming as measured by the age and weight at which cattle is taken to the slaughterhouse. However, most farms do not keep registers, only 13 of 65 beef producing farms do so. The beef value chain also shows an extreme duality in its structure, with a few modern, vertically integrated post-farm operations, likely to qualify for exports in the short-run, and many small processors that produce low cost, low quality, low price consumer products (various types of sausages and other cooked products). Beef cattle farming. Cattle raised for beef is estimated at 572,000 heads in 2016 (Morrobel, José A., 2016). According to the Farm Survey, there is an average of 147.2 heads per farm, which means that in the 11 Project provinces there are 383,383 heads or 67% of the national estimate. As mentioned, according to the Farm Survey, only 65 (12.9%) of 505 farms declared to specialize in beef production by responding to the related technical questions. More than half (38) of beef farms also produced milk, delivered it to MCC and reported their quality. Cattle race or brand is often mentioned – more so in dairy farms – in terms of the need to adapt cattle to local conditions. Most beef farms use “mestiza” as the main or only race of cattle for beef production. Only in one Project-selected province (Duarte), Brahma is used. The work by TAMU and CBI on livestock technology should contribute to this assessment. With respect to the main problems identified by beef farmers, more than 50% of farmers report the quantity and quality of pastures as two of the five main problems, closely follow by prices of balanced feed, water sources and the price of medicine. Beef producing farms sell their stock to intermediaries, slaughterhouses (small and industrial or Types A and B), meatpacking establishments and other farmers. Technical assistance is a main issue with respect to beef farms. Half of beef farms surveyed reported having received technical assistance. However, close to one-half of beef farms expressed their need to receive NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP viii Baseline Study – Executive Summary technical assistance in the same topics. An in-depth evaluation should be made with respect to the effectiveness of technical assistance provided. Slaughterhouses, beef processors. According to (Morrobel, José A., 2016), there are 162 slaughterhouses nationally, where an average of 700 units are processed daily. However, this average sums-up a wide range, from small municipal facilities that process as few as one unit per day to modern large processors with more than 800 units per day. Only 7 beef processors supply 85% of the domestic market, according to this source. Slaughterhouses-beef processors may be classified in three general categories: Type A: Modern beef processors, vertically integrated, which could become exporters in the short-run, when equivalence standards are in place, they require minor adjustments. There are between 5 and 10 establishments identified in this category. Type B: Private traditional slaughterhouses that provide services to beef distributors, require substantial adjustments and investments, and are unlikely to be eligible for export in the short run. Type C: Municipal slaughterhouses that require substantial improvements to meet minimum sanitary and environmental requirements. A survey was prepared with a list of 76 items between facilities and procedures required by a modern slaughterhouse (Type A). The 2 modern facilities in the sample, the same facilities that the government´s working group has identified to be most likely eligible for exporting in the short-run when equivalence is established, have identical scores: 70/76, while the municipal slaughterhouses only had 12/76. The main constraints currently are related to the government´s capacity to appoint and train permanent inspectors in each facility as required by equivalence standards. Also, laboratory capacity needs to be improved. There are two consultant reports on microbiology tests and methods related to LAVACEN requirements and beef export possibilities to the U.S. (Cook, Jr., L. Victor, 2015) and MoH inspection personnel required by equivalence standards (McDermott, Steven, 2015). They provide detailed recommendations on the specific aspects that must be implemented. There is a MA-MOH working group and a CTC monitoring subcommittee working on these issues in the context of the equivalence objective, which is fairly advanced. The current state of procedures development for achieving equivalence, the capacity of at least 5 candidates for exports and the status of LAVACEN may be taken as baseline indicators for Project monitoring and evaluation. Small beef processors – meatpacking establishments. Cooked meat (beef and pork), in the form of sausages, salamis and other popular delicatessen, is consumed by more than 90% of the Dominican population. Production is supposed to be regulated by Comisión Nacional de Normas del Ministerio de Industria y Comercio (Cominor) (National Standards Commission of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce). Regulation 329 is comprehensive in establishing the regulatory framework applicable to this sector, however, no official registry exists of meatpacking plants. Some sources, estimate the existence of more than 100 establishments (Esteban Delgado, s. f.) in the country, only 20 are said to be registered (Evaristo Rubens, 2012). Most production seems to take place outside current standards. 15 interviews were programmed for this assessment but only 5 responded. Many processors do not allow visits or provide information, even though some of the work takes place in the open, it literally spills onto the streets. Hygienic conditions are evidently inadequate and processors are cautious in providing information. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP ix Baseline Study In the sample of 5 plants visited, 3 function without association to any organization; 2 belong to the “Asociación de Productores de Embutidos” (Sausage Producers Association). They employ a total of 37 women and 152 men on a full-time basis. Four plants purchase from 83 suppliers 93.000 Kg of beef and pork products per month to produce mainly salami, ham and ham spread. No information on sales was available. The most common operational deficiencies observed are: the absence of hot water supply for washing facilities and utensils; lack of proper timing for post-grinding and temperatures above 7°C; 3 plants do not have protocols for environmental management; plants do not apply HACCP or control of critical points, even though they are part of Regulation 329; there are no training plans. Only one processor reported not having received technical assistance, the rest have received public and private assistance. Improvement of sanitary conditions and compliance with regulations are clear priorities. This sector is not expected to participate in exports but the domestic market (including the tourist sector) also requires quality and safe products. It must be recognized also that compliance with sanitary and quality standards may imply increasing costs, but it is a tendency that should be promoted. Public and private support services. Support services (Producer associations, extension agents, input and credit suppliers, and public policies and their enforcement) are the vehicles by which the Project will implement activities that generate results and eventually achieve Project objectives as designed by the Results Frameworks. For this reason, it is important to assess their current capacity and requirements. Credit and Credit Extension. Livestock financing comes mainly from Banco Agrícola de la República Dominicana (BAGRÍCOLA), a public sector bank, and CONALECHE, a public sector program with participation of private sector organizations in partnership with BAGRÍCOLA. Other lenders such as private commercial banks and cooperatives have a minor share of financing in this subsector. Lending to milk producers is facilitated by payment arrangements through processors from the proceeds of milk purchases and PO intermediation (“bridge credit”). Some PO take loans from banks for on-lending to members. According to the Farm Survey, 59% of respondents claimed to have received credit in the last three years. The share of private banks is only 13%, 72% of farmers in the sample went to CONALECHE and BAGRÍCOLA for financial services. At the end of the first trimester of 2016, BAGRICOLA had the equivalent of US$42.5 million in 4,019 loans outstanding in the Project selected provinces. The average balance was $10,571. During the last 14 years, CONALECHE made 2,611 loans in the 11 selected provinces with a total of RD$1,844 million (US$40.3 million), an average of US$10,500 per loan. Interest rates vary but are lower than commercial rates. A variety of activities are eligible for this type of credit: cattle purchases; farm improvements, including construction and repairs of farm infrastructure, in-farm housing, milk marketing costs, and cheese manufacturing. Quarterly follow up of BAGRÍCOLA and CONALECHE lending to livestock farmers is recommended. Almost all credit agents have technical backgrounds in agriculture (agronomic engineers, mainly), none in financial areas. Moreover, 9 of 25 have not received training while on the job and none has received training in credit extension or financial aspects, despite the fact that 13 of 25 agents have more than 5 years on the job; 7, between 1 and 5 years; and, only 5 have been on the job less than one year. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP x Baseline Study – Executive Summary Most credit extension agents (24 out of 25) identified training requirements in credit, finance, project formulation and evaluation and related topics. Many agents mentioned as requirements “farm or real estate assessment”, which reflects the fact that most of their duties only require analysis of property values related to mortgages or collateral required by banks, and loan collection. Credit extension is at an elementary level, concentrated in verifying property values and collecting payments. It is necessary to upgrade extension services to the level of financial advisory (not only to farmers but to POs and processors), especially in an environment expected to demand investments in new techniques and technologies. Since the Results Frameworks call for “Increased use of financial services” and “Improved farm management (operational and financial)”, the Project, in coordination with Banco Agrícola, but open to credit cooperatives and other private credit suppliers, should design a training program in credit extension concentrated on financial aspects, in particular the financial viability of new processes as more farms are operated as business concerns instead of the prevailing informal model. It is expected that this would improve access to formal credit sources, which would be required by the implementation of “improved techniques and technologies” and other Project activities. Technical assistance and extension services. Information on technical assistance (TA) services provided and required was requested from every instance of the dairy and beef value chains, with similar results. The majority of farmers and processors have received TA but require additional assistance on the same topics. An in-depth analysis of TA effectiveness is required; in particular, the relevancy of TA contents and its implementation. It is important to observe that the Project emphasizes implementation of “techniques and technologies” as the main instrument of improving productivity and expand trade. MEGALECHE is a DIGEGA (Department of MA) program operated for the last 15 years to provide extension services for dairy farmers. Its extension agents are either veterinary doctors or agronomic engineers, some with training in animal sciences and related topics. There are 36 field technicians working at the national level. All of the MEGALECHE focus group participants (24) have received training in dairy-related areas during the last four years and all of them expressed the requirements of additional training in various areas related to their work (animal health, nutrition, milk quality, reproductive aspects, etc.). No performance reports are available. Implementation of new “techniques and technologies” will require additional training of extension agents. The private sector extension system needs strengthening trough POs. Producer Organizations (PO) are a fundamental element in the structure of the livestock sector, they are also strategic partners in Project implementation. Almost all Project activities will involve a PO, beneficiaries will be members of a PO. Grants will be made mainly through POs. In order for POs to fulfill its role in Project implementation activities, they will have to meet criteria established by the Project; and, in order to meet these criteria, many of them will require assistance to strengthen their capabilities. Project success will be determined to some extend by the performance of POs and the Project´s contribution to their strengthening. According to the Farm Survey, more than 80% of farmers in the sample belong to an association, 5.5% to a cooperative; 14% are independent. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP xi Baseline Study In the 11 target provinces, there are 5 federations organized according to region: Cibao Central, FEDACIBAO; Costa Norte, FEDEGANORTE; Línea Noroeste, FEDEGANO; Región Este, FEDAGARE; Región Sur, FEGASUR. According to these federations, they represent more than 250 cattle farming associations nation-wide. REDDOM conducted an inventory of POsthat lists 123 associations of which 83 operate in the Project area. This inventory identified 58 associations (of a total of 83) in the Project area with 4,250 members. It is estimated that 30% of cattle farm operators (approx. 20,000) in the Project area are members of a PO associated with a federation. With respect to these associations technical, financial and management capacity, two groups are clearly distinguished. One group – 10 to 14 associations – present adequate operational capacity, offices and physical infrastructure, functioning organizational structure, adequate communications and accounting procedures. A second group – 5 to 7 associations – require strengthening, lack physical infrastructure for operations, organizational procedures, accounting systems and Internet. They have a high rate of overdue membership payments. This group requires further individual diagnosis in order to determine viable activities necessary to meet eligibility criteria for Project support. The most active associations sell agricultural inputs to their members. The 6 largest POs sold more than DR$2.5 million (US$54,700) per month; 15 POs that operate MCCs took in 1.869.800 liters of milk in June 2016, 12 associations represented in the focus group hosted 63 training events, 14 POs provided technical assistance in the month of June 2016 (137 farm visits) 9 associations have agreements with financial institutions on behalf of their members, 11 POs have agreements with government institutions for technology transfer activities, 12 have executed training events in the last year. Association members have a positive perception of their organizations. Because of their institutional and financial capacity, these associations, as well as their federations could be important assets as vehicles for Project implementation. For example, they could co-finance and assist in the implementation of improvements to MCCs taking into account that associations – even those that need strengthening – usually own and operate MCCs; larger association could assist those with less capacity in aspects of capacity improvement and operation of MCCs; federations or larger associations could assist – through their current or improved extension systems – in the implementation of techniques and technologies developed by the Project. Policy, implementation and compliance. Project strategic objectives are either related to policy or complementary to policy, in particular, equivalence standards for beef exports, milk price policy and sanitary measures in the domestic dairy and beef markets. Policies may be in place but implementation and compliance need improvement. These aspects are well-known among local experts and authorities, for example: (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2015), (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), (Gómez, Arnaldo J., 2016) and others previously cited. Establishing equivalence standards is one of the main objectives of the beef value chain. Work in this area is well-advanced; MoH and MA have a working group; NCBA CLUSA has been involved, a CTC committee has been monitoring it. However, challenges remain, especially with respect to central government budget allocation to implement the required inspection system, including laboratories. Evaluations and recommendations by (Cook, Jr., L. Victor, 2015) and (McDermott, Steven, 2015) need implementation. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP xii Baseline Study – Executive Summary As discussed in previous sections, the current milk price-quality structure is not conducive to an efficient market, it is not an incentive for farmers to produce grade A milk. Transportation of low quality milk and use of peroxide need to be addressed. The Project may contribute to resolution of these issues. Solutions as simple as providing MCCs with a second or third tank to separate grades, together with improving testing equipment at centers, could make substantial marginal contributions. Recommendations. The Baseline study covers a wide variety of areas that require attention to improve dairy and beef value chain performance and, given the limited amount of resources at Project disposal, it is important to focus on strategic activities such as those related to the price-quality structure in the dairy chain such as improving MCCs and finalize requirements for U.S. equivalence in beef exports. Availability and quality of basic information is a main constraint for adequate monitoring and evaluation of any program or project. There are specific areas where significant improvements can be implemented with complementary resources: farm cattle registry; small cheese and beef processors registry and sanitary permits as basis for regulatory compliance; private sector extension agents’ registry; MCC registry; among others. Specific recommendations are made in section 8 of the main report in order to assist Project implementation with respect to the specification of general activities and priorities to meet PMP and FFPr indiators. Limitations of the Baseline Study. The amount of time and resources assigned to the Baseline Study was far too short. Information sources were limited. Much time had to be allocated to the conciliation of different sources on the same subject (MCC, small processors of beef and dairy products), despite the kind cooperation of officials in all institutions consulted. ONE´s Precenso needed verification and updating. There is no information and there was no survey of intermediariesin the beef cattle market. This is relevant for analysis of the beef value chain. Farmers do not have cattle registers or scales and there is an advantage in favor intermediaries. This is also important for its implications on the equivalence work and future exports. In-depth analysis is needed on the effectiveness of technical assistance. In all instances of the value chains it was reported that technical assistance had been received in numerous topics and that it was required in the same topics. Further analysis is required to determine results, especially given the Project´s focus on techniques and technologies to improve productivity and expand trade. 1 Baseline Study Status of the Livestock Sector in Eleven Provinces of the Dominican Republic 1. Introduction7 The Project, 8 as designed by NCBA CLUSA following USDA guidelines, has two Strategic Objectives (SO): (1) to increase productivity in the livestock sector and (2) to expand trade of livestock products for the target value chains (dairy and beef). These objectives will be achieved through a sequence of “results” and “activities” stated in the Results Frameworks (Annex 1) developed for the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Food For Progress (FFPr) projects. Expected results include increased use of improved agricultural techniques, improved farm management and implementation of trade measures (US equivalency requirements) to facilitate beef exports and increase the volume and quality of milk available to the dairy processing industry. Project “activities”, the basic units of Project implementation, will be financed by “cofinanciamientos” or matching grants (grants that require a contribution by beneficiaries).9 Some activities, such as promotional or informational events, document preparation for regulatory reforms and related goods and services may be financed by grants without beneficiaries‘ monetary contributions or by direct expenses by the implementing unit. 10 These “activities” refer to outputs or sets of goods and services necessary to achieve a given result or outcome. In the Results Frameworks (Annex 1) they correspond to items not numbered under an FFPr result. The University of Texas, Borlaug Institute, and Cooperative Business International (CBI) will assist the Project in the design and development of techniques and technologies, activities in support of the livestock sector, identified in the Results Frameworks as “improved knowledge” and training. Eleven of the 31 provinces in the country were selected for Project implementation on the basis of areas of work covered by 5 federations of livestock farmers’ associations that operate nationally and the provinces most representative of dairy and beef farming, according to NCBA CLUSA RD staff. These federations and the respective provinces are: FEDEGANO – Santiago Rodríguez y Dajabón FEDEGANORTE – Puerto Plata y María Trinidad Sánchez FEGACIBAO – Duarte 7 This version includes USDA comments to a final draft presented on 13 September 2016. 8 The “Project” in this document refers to the: “USDA/NCBA CLUSA Safe Agriculture/Food Export Program (SAFE) - Dominican Republic”, known locally as “Fortaleciendo la Cadena de Valor de la Ganadería Dominicana” (PROGANA). 9 The Project will encourage leveraging of resources from private sector sources, either from beneficiaries’ own funds, bank loans or other sources. 10 NCBA CLUSA implementing unit is preparing a manual for this purpose. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 2 Baseline Study – Executive Summary FEGASUR – San Juan e Independencia FEDAGARES – Monte Plata, El Seibo, Hato Mayor y La Altagracia. Project grants and matching grants will be financed from the proceeds of monetizing 16,100 metric tons (MT) of Crude Degummed Soybean Oil and 4,320 MT of Yellow Grease Tallow over a five-year period (October 2015 – September 2020), although implementation is only starting as of October 2016, with an estimated cost of $21.03 million (NCBA CLUSA, 2015). NCBA CLUSA will contract Cooperative Business International (CBI) as a monetizing agent. CBI will also provide technical services in livestock development. This Baseline Study aims to describe the current status of the livestock sector in the 11 provinces of the Dominican Republic selected for Project implementation, it has four specific objectives: i. To determine Project baseline values and sources for PMP indicators (Annex 2), which include 16 FFPr Standard Indicators; ii. To establish a point of reference (baseline) for mid-term and final evaluations; iii. To assist in the identification of activities to be supported by the Project; iv. To contribute to the livestock subsector on-going diagnosis and provide a basis for further analysis. The structure of this report follows these objectives. In section 1, a description of the main primary and secondary data sources is presented. Section 2 is intended to provide a brief statement of the livestock sector as a frame of reference for dimension and context; sections 3 and 4, organized by the two value chains (dairy and beef) and their main components, provide a description of their current state (baseline). Section 5 describe the instruments (support services) available for implementing Project interventions; they are the vehicles by which the Project will channel direct and indirect interventions (“activities” as in the Results Frameworks) to achieve Project Strategic Objectives(SO1 and SO2). Sections 6-9 summarize the baseline contribution to the four specific objectives of the Baseline Study. Section 10 presents conclusions, recommendations and limitations of the Baseline Study. This study was made possible with the valuable assistance of the NCBA CLUSA technical staff in Santo Domingo, including members of the Project´s CTC (Consejo Técnico Consultivo). 2. Method 2.1 Context Information on the livestock subsector in the Dominican Republic is limited. The last agricultural census dates from 1982. In 1998, a “National Registry of Agricultural Producers” was prepared by the then Secretaría de Estado de Agricultura (SEA) and – based on this registry – a survey of livestock farms was published (SEA, 1999) directed to medium and large farms. In 2015, the Ministry of Agriculture published a summary of agriculture sector statistics for the period 2002-2014 (Ministerio de Agricultura, 2015) based on various government agency sources, including the Ministry´s own Department of Agricultural Economics. In the absence of census data, various studies and programs have conducted their own surveys of specific regions or subsectors, most notable on the dairy subsector (see References). There are also numerous brief reports and presentations, as well as experts and informants with considerable knowledge of the subsector. It seems that at a general level, the subsector – dairy in particular – has been well-diagnosed, although it requires more in-depth study of specific technical issues and, above all, implementation of recommendations and effective regulation enforcement. 3 The various studies of the dairy subsector contain similar findings and recommendations. Final design and implementation of investment projects and effective communication to translate recommendations into actions at the farm level and primary processing are needed; the many programs and projects supported by the government in cooperation with international organizations seem to have had modest results or lack information to assess their impact, although there are some successful experiences (see, for example: (Valerio, Daniel, 2016) and others). In 2015, the Oficina Nacional de Estadística (ONE) conducted a preliminary farm census, the Precenso Nacional Agropecuario (ONE, 2016) as preparation for the VIII Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2015. The planned census was not implemented, apparently for budgetary reasons. According to ONE: “The Precenso Nacional Agropecuario 2015 was an operation to collect information on the location of productive units [farms] and identification of farmers aimed at the realization of the VIII Censo Nacional Agropecuario.” (Translated from (ONE, 2016) by author.) The Precenso was clearly the most appropriate source to design the sampling frame of the Project Baseline Farm Survey described in the next section. It was recent (published in April 2016) and included a count of all farms in the country in which all livestock farms in the 11 Project provinces could be identified. The Project concept refers to “value chains” in dairy and beef, not only the primary farming activity; therefore, in addition to the farm survey, three smaller surveys were conducted for this study: (i) Survey of Milk Collection Centers (MCC); (ii) Survey of slaughterhouses; and (iii) Survey of small dairy processors (cheese, yogurt and sweets artisan operations). Information from these surveys was complemented with two focus groups on extension services and producer organizations (PO). Extension agents and POs are key actors for project implementation. Structured as well as informal interviews were carried out with dairy distributors (that compete with imported dairy products), small beef processors (small meatpacking establishments),11 financial institutions that serve the livestock sector (BAGRÍCOLA, CONALECHE, FONDAGRO), public regulatory agencies (including CTC committee members for beef and dairy) and private input suppliers. Information was also collected from farmers and PO officials during farm visits. Experts, key informants and NCBA CLUSA staff contributed significantly to understanding the sector´s structure and performance and designing data collection instruments. This report is not intended as diagnosis of the livestock sector; as baseline, it is mainly descriptive of the sector in the Project provinces. However, it makes frequent observations with regard to evident relations among variables and behaviors that could help future Project implementation, monitoring and evaluation and in-depth studies of specific areas. Finally, it is important to recognize that the livestock sector operates in a cultural, social and political context that affects its performance. Many farmers, small, medium and large, do not operate their farms as business enterprises, but as holders of wealth or assets, and even as status symbols; some of them are operated by caretakers, not business managers. Enforcing sanitary regulations on small processors of cheese and cooked meats would have a serious impact on their finances as they run low cost, low quality, low price operations. Producer Organizations (PO), besides proving an array of services to their members, have effective political 11 A planned structured interview became a survey of 5 plants as interviewers were allowed these plant visits. 7 G. Technical aspects. Farm operation and management. H. Infrastructure and operation. Prior to actual collection of data, a draft questionnaire was tested with 25 farm owner/operators representing the northern region (Luperón, Puerto Plata), which traditionally produces milk and dairy products; the area of El Seibo where the activity is relatively new and the conditions of pastures and infrastructure are more precarious; and, a farm in Independence province in the southern region. Test results were discussed with project officers, enumerators, team coordinator and general coordinators in a focus group setting. The test, in addition to the previous preparatory activities, provided valuable information for final questionnaire design and planning in order to ensure that its content was compatible with conditions of production and processing on the field. In particular, the following results were obtained (from Pre-test Report): • Contact procedures with producers was established for three of the 11 provinces from local leaders and PO, this procedure is applicable in the other provinces according to the information collected to date. • Compatibility of questionnaires contrasting the reality in the field with the theoretical formulation designed in office. • Communication aspects with producers were clarified with respect to wording or presentation of questions. • Specific names of grasses, types of financial products available, alternatives for recognition of cattle breeds, forms of milk transport and measuring options of available technology in scenarios where other programs exist were revised. • Issues that should receive special help from the interviewer, especially in financial calculations and some environmental issues were identified. These results were included in the final version of the questionnaire (Annex 5). 2.4 Farm survey, data collection The data collection team was led by a livestock expert with extensive knowledge of the sector in the Dominican Republic. A team of supervisors and enumerators was organized. A manual with detailed instructions was prepared by the team statistician and discussed with supervisors and enumerators in several training sessions. Enumerators for the most part were local extension agents who have detailed knowledge of local farms and their owner or operators. This characteristic allowed an immediate verification of answers provided by respondents to assure data quality; in most cases, the enumerator-extension agent knew the farm details as well as the respondent. Field work was carried out in 15 work days. Each province had a local team of enumerators￾extension agents. Upon questionnaire completion, it was verified by supervisor and immediately uploaded on an Internet-based platform for a second round of verification by the baseline team statistician. After resolving suspected inconsistencies, some of which required on-farm verification, it was downloaded in an SPSS database. 2.5 Other surveys: Milk Collection Centers (MCC), beef processors and dairy processors These surveys were not statistically rigorously designed because of the lack of information on possible sampling frames. In each case a background study of the respective activity had to be carried out, as described below, before designing a small survey. An additional survey on small beef processors was conducted as it was impractical to conduct a survey of large modern establishments together with small informal operations using the same formal instrument. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 8 Baseline Study – Executive Summary Milk Collection Centers(MCC). Information on MCCs is scattered, unsystematic and outdated. From the available sources it is inferred that there are over 100 MCCs in the country. Several press articles in 2015 reported 90 centers (Today Digital, 2015), (Listin Diario, 2015), while CONALECHE reports 95 (CONALECHE, 2015) (see Table 7.1 in Annex 7); according to this source, 59 MCCs are located in the 11 provinces covered by the Project. Some MCCs close temporarily for lack of milk supply, especially during the dry period. Integrating information from various sources, 102 MCCs were identified in the 11 provinces (see Table 11). Of these, 57 were selected due to their proximity with farms in the farm survey, as information was collected simultaneously, although the two surveys are independent. Annex 7 presents the questionnaire used for data collection in MCCs. Slaughterhouses – Processors. Annex 8 presents the questionnaire used to collect information on slaughterhouses. However, survey preparation activities indicated that there are substantial differences among slaughterhouses. There are at least 3 clear categories: (i) the large and modern slaughterhouses- processors, vertically integrated, some of which are candidates for exports in the short-run; (ii) private slaughterhouses that serve the domestic market and would require large investments to qualify as export candidates; and, (iii) the municipal slaughterhouses, small, often operated as individual concessions, that provide local services and face basic sanitary issues. In this context, the survey was oriented to verify compliance with a check list of facilities and procedures that a regular slaughterhouse should have. On the basis of this assessment 12 slaughterhouses were selected: 2 are most likely candidates for exports, one is representative (not statistically) of private slaughterhouses (according to local experts) and nine were municipal slaughterhouses selected during Farm Survey data collection. As mentioned, an additional informal survey was conducted of small meat packing establishments (section 4.3) and other “informal” surveys were conducted among participants of the focus groups on extension and PO. Small dairy processors. Although dairy processors include large suppliers of milk and other dairy products to supermarkets as well as a large number of informal “queserías” (small cheese, yogurt and sweets manufacturers), the survey was directed to the latter because of their relevance to the domestic market and the share of the domestic milk supply produced by dairy farms (54%). Relevant issues for large processors are related to international trade regulation, while the small cheese manufactures face issues of sanitary standards, quality and competitiveness in the local market. Annex 9 presents the questionnaire used to collect survey information for small, artisanal dairy processors. This survey was conducted on 26 small processors, producers of cheese, yogurt and sweets. They were selected in parallel to the Farm Survey data collection process. While these surveys do not have the statistical rigor of the Farm Survey, they do provide a realistic view of the dairy and beef value chains that could be compared to future observations, according to the four objectives of the Baseline Study. These surveys had a “qualitative sampling frame” because the samples were based on the empirical knowledge of experts and field technicians consulted, mostly local extension agents that served as enumerators in Farm Sample data collection. 2.6 Other data collection instruments Because extension agents and POs are key elements in value chains operations and in Project implementation, two focus groups were organized, as described in sections 5.1 – 5.3, in order to understand their role in the value chains, their capacity and requirements. Structured interviews were conducted with input suppliers(Section 5.4) and policy experts (Section 5.5). 9 Figure 4. Focus group, extension agents MEGALECHE (5 July 2016 at JAD) Figure 5. Focus Group, credit extension agents, BAGRÍCOLA (5 July 2016 at JAD) 3. Overview of the livestock subsector The agricultural sector of the Dominican Republic employed 575,499 people in 2015, 13.4% of total employment (according to ONE statistics); however, it accounted for only 5.8% of GDP (according to BCRD data). Women accounted for only 5.6% of total employment in agriculture. In livestock farms only 2% of employees are women, while 5% are farm owners, according to the Baseline Farm Survey (see Tables A.10.1 and A.10.2 in Annex 10). Women participation increases along the value chain stages; in MCCs, it is 23% (see section 3.2). Approximately 220,000 persons (5.1% of total employment) were employed in the livestock sector, accounting for less than 1.5% of GDP. (Ministerio de Agricultura, 2015). This low average productivity (as reflected by the relation between shares of GDP and employment) is qualified by wide ranges for most variables that characterize the sector: few highly productive farms and many traditional, low-productivity, small family units; a few modern beef processors ready to export and many municipal slaughterhouses that can barely meet minimum sanitary standards; a few large dairy processors that supply major supermarkets and a national school program and numerous “cheese makers” (queserías) that process low￾quality milk and operate in questionable sanitary conditions. Approximately 1.0 million hectares are dedicated to cattle farming (ONE, 2016); 54% of all farms are less than 6.25 hectares (100 tareas) in size, 88% less than 312.5 Ha (5,000 tareas). There are 319,676 farm units in the country, according to Precenso data; 47,910 are cattle farms; of these, 27,265 are located in the 11 provinces selected for Project implementation; 15.4% are less than 1 Ha in size, less than 1% are larger than 312.5 Ha. The rest, 84% (20,335 farms), were selected to design the sampling frame for the Farm Survey. Most production of beef issold in the domestic market. Beef exports were less than US$1.0 million, dairy exports reached U$8.0 million in 2014. Beef imports were US$36.0 million and milk imports (powder and liquid) were US$129.0 million (Ministerio de Agricultura, 2015). These figures reflect the opportunities of the livestock sector to increase its share of the respective markets and explains the Project´s Strategic Objectives directed to increasing productivity and trade expansion. According to the Farm Survey, most farms are dairy farms (80.6%), contrary to the generally-held view that most farms are “double purpose” (dairy and beef) farms. Some studies (CEPAL, 2016) report up to 70% double purpose farms. DIGEGA projected a total of 1,590,531 heads of cattle for the 11 provinces in 2016; 30% beef farms, 16% 11 (5) “Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (FFPr indicator 15)” (6) “Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of USDA Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)” (7) “Number of improved beef and dairy production demonstrations established or improved with USDA support” (12) “Value of sales by Project beneficiaries (FFPr Indicator 13)” (13) “Volume of Commodities (metric tons) sold by Project beneficiaries (FFPr Indicator 14)” (43) “Number of new markets to which beef or dairy product is exported” (44) “Number of agreements signed (Contracts, MOUs, etc.) between beef or dairy exporters and buyers in the US as a result of USDA assistance” (47) “Number of individuals benefitting indirectly from USDA-funded agricultural productivity interventions (FFPr indicator 18)” General evaluation (midterm and final) indicators for the livestock sector will be related to increases in productivity (lcd), milk quality and beef exports (Section 7) and the Project activities that may have been associated with their increase. The PMP indicators will serve as guidelines for Project programming and implementation (section 8). For example, in order to comply with (4) above (FFPr Indicator 16), activities to provide training in “short-term agricultural sector productivity” should be designed and implemented by the Project. The Project should also encourage the use of data from the surveys, especially the Baseline Farm Survey, to improve the analysis of the livestock sector, as suggested in section 9. 4. The dairy value chain The literature on the dairy subsector is relatively abundant. More than 10 general studies prepared since 2006 have been reviewed, some as recent as 2015 and 2016 (see References), as well as many presentations by experts that contribute significantly to the sector´s general diagnosis and status in 2016. The various studies describe the general characteristics of the subsector based on the scarce data available, small surveys (usually at the regional level), and extensive individual field observations by stakeholders, technicians and experts; they coincide in identifying the general problems of the dairy value chain. In 2006, IICA published a study (IICA, 2006) with data for the period 1994-2004. It identifies 23 – by now well￾known – “major” problems from farm to consumer and offers many recommendations at each stage. These problems seem to remain in 2016. On 27 September 2007, the Instituto Politécnico Loyola held the V Simposio Agronómico, where 14 papers were presented on production and competitiveness of the Dominican dairy sector (Instituto Politécnico Loyola, 2007). Similar problems were identified. In 2008, CONALECHE had observed, as one of the main problems, the “market power” of importers and industrialists who purchase inexpensive powder- milk abroad, reduce local farm-gate prices “arbitrarily” and affect farmers´ income (CONALECHE, 2008). It offers nine recommendations, still valid today. Some studies make recommendations on practices and techniques at the farm level, which are part of the general technical knowledge of the sector (Tejada, Frank, 2014). In 2014, in the context of the project “Modelo para incrementar el nivel de productividad y acceso a mercados de productores lecheros familiares en la República Dominicana” (PROLEFAM) (Model to increase productivity and NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 12 Baseline Study – Executive Summary market access for family-based milk producers in the Dominican Republic) , sponsored by MA, FAO and CONALECHE, a baseline study was prepared based on a survey of 242 farms (Rodríguez-Minier, Hernán, 2014). This project and its results (Valerio, Daniel, 2016) are relevant to the Project because its objective (increase productivity) is similar to one of the SAFE/PROGANA Project´s strategic objectives, although for a different group of beneficiaries: family farms. Its execution of technical assistance and training activities have shown successful results (see (Valerio, Daniel, 2016), PROLEFAM presentation). In 2015, under IDIAF coordination, a diagnostic study was published on the main characteristics of the livestock sector in four zones (García Lagombra, Gregorio et. al., 2015) based on a sample of 140 farms, including data on dairy farm productivity. In 2016, CONALECHE presented, at a CTC meeting, a comprehensive summary of the dairy chain situation, which identifies main problems and tendencies in farming, transport, MCC and processing. (Gómez, Arnaldo J., 2016) In April 2016, CEPAL presented a summary of “The Dairy Value Chain in the Dominican Republic” (CEPAL, 2016). It identifies a series of “restrictions, systemic and by link of the value chain”, similar to those identified in the 2006 IICA report cited above. However, aggregate figures do not show results: data from 1994 to the present do not show significant increases in liters per cow per day or improvements in milk quality. This is confirmed by results from the Baseline Farm Survey (see Table 7). It is possible that improvements have been made but projects implemented lack information on results achieved, most projects are short-term and lack final evaluations, although some farm visits (“samples” of 1 observation) show some successful activities. PMP indicators. The following PMP indicators apply to both dairy and beef value chains. Project records will record activities and results related to the “Seal of Quality” promotion when established. Promotional activities between buyers and sellers as well as private-public partnerships will also be recorded. These indicators will be registered as part of Project implementation. (29) “Number of value chain actors participating in the Seal of Quality” (30) “Number of products using the Seal of Quality in their marketing” (31) “Number of people reached through the Seal of Quality public information campaign” (46) “Number of value chain linkage meetings held between buyers/sellers in the dairy and beef sector” (53) “Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator 8)” Baseline values for these indicators are zero; obviously, it will be necessary to design and establish the “Seal of Quality” instrument in order to measure its application. JAD, a Project partner, has the capacity and position to assist in achieving targets for (53), FFPR indicator 8, and PMP indicator (46), above. 4.1 Dairy farming Two fundamental indicators of dairy farm productivity in the context of Project objectives are: the number of liters per cow per day (l/c-d) or “lcd”; and, the quality of milk delivered to MCCs. The various studies coincide on the low productivity of dairy farms by reporting lcd indicators regarded as very “low”: • 2.75 to 3.41 lcd between 1994 and 2004. (IICA, 2006). • 5.56 lcd average; highest: 7.0 in Puerto Plata; lowest: 5.0 in Monte Plata. (García Lagombra, Gregorio et. al., 2015) NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 16 Baseline Study – Executive Summary Figure 7. Diversifying feed sources, introduction of "nopal" in animal feed, in a local farm (MontePlata) An average increase in productivity of 1.0 lcd will generate approximately 600,000 liters of milk per day, which would have a significant impact on the local market considering the following figures in liters per day (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016): Current production (2015): 1,750,000 liters Imports: 800,000 Total supply: 2,550,000 Local requirements: 2,700,000 Deficit: 150,000 Therefore, an increase in output of 600,000 liters per day would eliminate the deficit and reduce imports by more than 50%. MILK QUALITY. With respect to “quality of milk delivered to MCCs”, another key indicator of farm productivity, a basic problem is that most farms do not have testing or grading facilities or equipment, or cooling tanks, so they have to rely on the MCC to determine quality when milk is delivered. Transportation from farm to MCC (time and temperature, among other factors) could be the main determinant of milk quality delivered to MCCs. Three variables in the Farm Survey facilitate understanding of this issue. Respondents were asked: i. Do you know the quality of milk produced in your farm? ii. Indicate the milk grade produced: A, B, C, or D; iii. How many times milk from your farm has been rejected at the MCC (never, once, twice, more than twice)? 29 Management. More than 60% of processors in the survey require basic improvements in their management processes. They do not have proper accounting, there are no occupational health plans. More than one-half of processors lack quality control and sanitary records, there are no operating manuals and have not considered related training programs. Processors´ priorities. Four main problems were identified by small cheese processors: milk quality; milk and other inputs prices; cheese selling prices; and lack of equipment. They affect more than 70% of respondents. (see Annex 9, Table 9.6). It must be recognized that processors´ demand for low quality milk makes supply of low grade milk viable, a main issue in farm-to-MCC handling. It would be necessary to establish minimum accepted quality standards, but enforcement would be a problem as illustrated by the continuing use of peroxide for transportation of milk collected by trucks at the farm gate, which is against regulations. Technical assistance. 50% of small processors have received TA from public institutions and 30% from private providers. Between 30 and 50% of respondents have received TA in the most basic aspects: cheese manufacturing, sanitary practices and BMP. However, their impact is not evident. It will be necessary to inquire about the contents and quality of TA in relation to the beneficiaries´ economic and social realities (costs and lack of equipment, especially) and why its impact is so modest. TA demand includes areas which have been covered previously, 8 processors expressed that they need assistance in cheese manufacturing. Table 9.7, Annex 9 presents a list of TA areas and requirements as expressed by processors in the survey. PMP indicators. The following PMP indicators apply to dairy processors. None have received training in SPS standards. (25) “Number of dairy processing facilities audited for compliance with SPS standards” (26) “Number of dairy processor staff trained in SPS measures” Project activities could be oriented at enabling beneficiaries of training in SPS standards to become competitive and improve their share in the local market. As indicated by (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), “The problem is not only the high cost of domestic cheese, which cannot compete with imported products, but the low efficiency, quality and performance of small and medium processors”. Recommended key indicators for mid and final evaluation should include the number of establishments that obtained sanitary permits, the rate of growth of sales by domestic cheese, yogurt and sweets establishments. 5. The beef value chain Literature and information on the beef value chain is limited, most literature on livestock in the Dominican Republic is concentrated on the dairy subsector. When survey respondents were asked about the farm´s “type of production”, only 17 respondents (3.4%) indicated “beef”; 81 (16%) responded: “double purpose” (beef and dairy). Most farmers, (407 or 80.6%), perceive their own farms as dairy farms. However, when technical details were requested, 65 respondents (12.9%) described cattle beef producing operations taking place in their farms, although they could be also “double purpose” farms, 38 of 65 “beef farms” also produce milk and report its quality. According to this criterion (technical aspects of production), 430 farms (85%) were reported to produce milk. Some have marginal operations as beef cattle farms. This may account for the widely held view that most farms are “double purpose” farms, but it mainly reflects the informality of the NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 38 Baseline Study – Executive Summary Figure 21. Plant wastewater treatment at the Alonso slaughterhouse Figure 22. Grupo Alonso packing room 5.3 Small beef processors – meatpacking establishments Cooked meat (beef and pork), in the form of sausages, salamis and other popular delicatessen, is consumed by more than 90% of the Dominican population. Production is supposed to follow (FAO Database, s. f.) norms and regulated by Comisión Nacional de Normas del Ministerio de Industria y Comercio (Cominor) (National Standards Commission of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce). This entity, established in 2012, approved the norm to regulate labelling of meatpacking products (Esteban Delgado, s. f.). Regulation 329 is comprehensive in establishing the regulatory framework applicable to this sector, however, no official registry exists of meatpacking plants. Some sources, estimate the existence of more than 100 establishments (Esteban Delgado, s. f.) in the country, others estimate the total at 46, but only 20 are said to be registered (Evaristo Rubens, 2012). Most production seems to take place outside current standards. 15 interviews were programmed for this assessment but only 5 responded. Many processors do not allow visits or provide information, even though some of the work takes place in the open and it literally spills on the streets. Hygienic conditions are evidently inadequate and processors are cautious to provide information. In the sample of 5 plants visited, 3 function without association to any organization; 2 belong to the “Asociación de Productores de Embutidos” (Sausage Producers Association). They employ a total of 37 women and 152 men on a full-time basis. Financing comes primarily from commercial banks, but no details were provided. Clearly, as in the case of small cheese processors, sanitary conditions are a major issue and it does not seem to be in their investment plans, which are directed mostly to technology and equipment (Table 30). NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 42 Baseline Study – Executive Summary 6.1 Extension services The livestock extension system is one of the main vehicles to implement “improved techniques and technologies” and other Project activities along the value chains. The MA through its livestock department – DIGEGA – has established a special extension unit – MEGALECHE – to assist dairy farmers. BAGRÍCOLA has a team of credit extension agents in the provinces. Cooperatives like FONDAGRO have their own credit extension agents. Some PO have extension agents to assist their members; there are individual private extension agents providing technical assistance to livestock farmers. Two focus groups for extension agents were organized (5 July 2006) as part of the baseline study, with participation of 49 extension agents, in order to understand their work in the sector, their capacities and requirements. Credit Extension. According to a survey taken during the focus group meeting for BAGRÍCOLA credit extension agents (Annex 3), almost all agents have technical backgrounds in agriculture (agronomic engineers, mainly), none in financial areas. Moreover, 9 of 25 have not received training while on the job and none has received training in credit extension or financial aspects, despite the fact that 13 of 25 agents have more than 5 years on the job; 7, between 1 and 5 years; and, only 5 have been on the job less than one year. Most credit extension agents (24 out of 25) identified training requirements in credit, finance, project formulation and evaluation and related topics. Many agents mentioned as requirements “farm or real estate valuation”, which reflects the fact that most of their duties only require analysis of property values related to mortgages or collateral required by banks, and loan collection. Most agents have spent several years in the same area, which normally covers one province and gives them a good knowledge of their clients and their business. In most cases they can “obtain results” (have their client’s loans approved) in less than 3 months. Little interaction is reported with other institutions, except the MA and POs which serve as intermediaries or coordinators of members’ loans processing. It appears that there is little coordination between credit extension and technical extension services. According to one participant in the focus group, “No relation exists, neither do I know whether they [Megaleche extension agents] are working in our work zone, I would like to meet him [the Megaleche extension agent] and establish some type o relation and collaboration” Most participants agreed with this observation. In general, credit agents are familiar with production issues in their zones, not so much with credit aspects. However, much of their functions are related to loan collection. This is reflected in their demand for specific training (Annex 3). For purposes of baseline information, credit extension is at an elementary level, concentrated in verifying property values and collecting payments, therefore, it is necessary to upgrade extension services to the level of financial advisory (not only to farmers but to POs and processors), especially in an environment expected to demand investments in new techniques and technologies. Since the Results Frameworks (Annex 1) call for “Increased use of financial services” and “Improved farm management (operational and financial)”, the Project, in coordination with BAGRÍCOLA, but open to credit cooperatives and other private credit suppliers, should design a training program in credit extension concentrated on financial aspects to be evaluated at the mid-term evaluation. It is expected that this would improve access to formal credit sources, which would be required by the implementation of “improved techniques and technologies” and other Project activities. The PMP includes the following indicator: 43 (11) “Number of farmers in the dairy and/or beef sector making farm decisions based on economic considerations or analysis as a result of USDA assistance” (42) “Number of training sessions in accessing financial services for post-harvest technologies provided to firms.” NCBA CLUSA will provide semi-annual data on credit extension with the cooperation of BAGRÍCOLA, which collaborate in the focus group. (See also Section 5.2 on credit). MEGALECHE is a DIGEGA (Department of MA) program operated for the last 15 years to provide extension services for dairy farmers. Its extension agents are either veterinary doctors or agronomic engineers, some with training in animal sciences and related topics. There are 36 field technicians working at the national level. All of the MEGALECHE focus group members (24) have received training in dairy-related areas during the last four years and all of them expressed the requirements of additional training in various areas related to their work (animal health, nutrition, milk quality, reproductive aspects, etc.). All participants have been in the program for more than 3 years, some up to 20 years. Each technician serves 50 farms on average per month but it ranges from 15 to more than 100 visits, according to the focus group participants (Annex 4). The program has three components: (i) Producer training (workshops, courses, conferences); (ii) Mass media diffusion (radio and TV programs, brochures, flyers, etc.); and, (iii) Direct visits to producers (direct interaction with producers, mainly when specific problems are reported). MEGALECHE´s services are free of charge. Extension agents coordinate their work with several institutions: producer associations and federations, producer cooperatives, CONALECHE, milk distributors, input suppliers and dairy processors. According to focus group participants, technicians are continuously trained according to producer requirements. MEGALECHE has received international training from various foreign experts (Israel, Argentina, Cuba and other countries). MEGALECHE has a structured plan of operations. Technicians develop a plan according to the region´s perceived requirements and work on this plan, which is evaluated quarterly. Coordinators meet and supervise their work. Technicians frequently communicate with specialized support units at the MA and other institutions. Activities include "National Field Days" conducted annually with approximately 1,400 participants. According to focus group participants, they provide certification for producers to obtain credit: “without this certification the loan is not approved.” These certifications are related to the CONADES-BAGRÍCOLA program; BAGRÍCOLA extension agents report little interaction with MEGALECHE extension agents. No performance reports are available. Implementation of new “techniques and technologies” will require additional training of extension agents. The private sector extension system needs strengthening trough POs. PMP indicators include: (14) “Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management practices (i.e. governance, administration, or financial management) as a result of USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator 3)” (16) “Number of business plans produced for beef and dairy production with USDA assistance” (17) “Number of extension agents trained in improved agriculture techniques and technologies”; (18) “Number of private enterprises, producer organizations, water user associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community based-organizations (CBOs) that applied improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator 7)” (56) “[Increase in the] Number of private sector dairy and beef extension agents supporting farmers in partnership with government extension services”. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 48 Baseline Study – Executive Summary Source: (REDDOM, 2015) According to these federations, they represent more than 250 cattle farming associations. The MA, according to (Thinkbig, 2015, p. Pág 27), reports only 43 registered associations. There is no information on the number of associations not affiliated with a federation. The organization “Rural Economic Development Dominicana (REDDOM)” conducted an inventory of POs, that lists 123 associations of which 83 operate in the Project area (Table 39, Table 39). A focus group was organized on 21 July 2016 with officers from federations and associations in the 11 target provinces, a questionnaire was completed by each participant on their PO´s institutional capacity and operations; main problems were also reported (Annex 6). The objective of this exercise was to assess POs´ present capacity and requirementsto assist in the implementation of Project activities and contribute to Project results. The group was comprised of representatives of 2 federations and 19 POs (16 associations and 3 cooperatives). Figure 24. Producer organizations focus group (5 July 2016) The referred study identified 58 associations (of a total of 83) in the Project area with 4,250 members (Table 38). It is estimated that 30% of cattle farm operators (approx. 20,000) in the Project area are members of a PO associated with a federation. Most producers are located in Dajabón, Santiago Rodríguez, Duarte y Puerto Plata provinces. FEDEGANO (2,096 members) and FEDECIBAO (1,060 members) have the highest number of members (REDDOM, 2015). 51 operations, organizational procedures, accounting systems and Internet. They have a high rate of overdue membership payments. This group requires further individual diagnosis in order to determine viable activities necessary to meet eligibility criteria for Project support. The most active associations sell agricultural inputs to their members. The 6 largest POs sold more than DR$2.5 million (US$54,700) per month; 15 POs that operate MCCs took in 1.869.800 liters of milk in June 2016, 12 associations represented in the focus group hosted 63 training events, 14 POs provided technical assistance in the month of June 2016 (137 farm visits) 9 associations have agreements with financial institutions on behalf of their members, 11 POs have agreements with government institutions for technology transfer activities, 12 have executed training events in the last year. Association members have a positive perception of their organizations. Because of their institutional and financial capacity, these associations, as well as their federations could be important assets as vehicles for Project implementation. For example, they could co-finance and assist in the implementation of improvements to MCCs taking into account that associations – even those that need strengthening - usually own and operate MCCs; larger association could assist those with less capacity in aspects of capacity improvement and operation of MCCs; federations or larger associations could assist – through their current or improved extension systems – in the implementation of techniques and technologies developed by the Project. Problems reported. 50% of focus group participants indicated that most problems are external to their organizations: access road conditions, high cost of inputs, access to credit, cost and supply of electricity and providers of technical assistance. Seven associations report lack of cooling equipment as a major problem. (Annex 6). In addition to survey questions, collective opinion identified structural problems such as: “Milk quality is paid collectively; this affects individual producers who better manage their production.” This statement coincides with the requirement – expressed frequently – that cooling, storage and separation of milk grades must be improved at the MCCs. It must also be recognized the various initiatives to adopt technologies to improve productivity at the farm level. For example, Asociación de Ganaderos de Monte Plata AGAMPTA, a highly diversified PO with respect to services provided to its members, has a plan to: “Improve productive systems with adequate genetics and higher quality forage in order to decrease use of concentrated feed and improve competitiveness.” This initiative is recommended by other PO – with less capacity – to improve pastures, forages and feed supplements. However, as shown in Annex 6, POs as a group require much strengthening to perform their function as provider of support services to value chains. This group is very diverse, some of the associations are not financially sustainable as service providers, they are more social than economic organizations. Others, like AGAMTA have the capacity of a large viable private firm, with productive infrastructure and operations that can benefit its members. The Project should rely in the short run on this type of PO to support implementation of its activities while assisting those with potential to become viable organizations. PMP indicators. The following indicators have been established by NCBA CLUSA: (18) Number of private enterprises, PO, water user associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community based-organizations (CBOs) that applied improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator 7). (19) Number of grants provided to businesses (POs, dairy processors, and meat processors) to establish or improve an extension system. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 52 Baseline Study – Executive Summary (20) “Value grants provided to businesses (POs, dairy processors, and meat processors) to establish or improve an extension system” (21) “Number of private sector institutions that are providing monetary or in-kind resources in support of agriculture productivity (e.g. in areas including research, market information, agricultural inputs, etc.) as a result of USDA Assistance” (37) “Number of grants provided to dairy producer groups/processors to establish or improve milk collection centers” (38) “Value of grants provided to dairy producer groups/processors to establish or improve milk collection centers” (56) “Number of dairy producer association members trained in milk collection center establishment/management” There are no direct output indicators of PO institutional strengthening; however, Results FFPr 1.4.4 and FFPr 2.4.4 in the Results Frameworks (Annex 1), calls for “improved capacity of key groups in the production and trade sectors”. Therefore, the Project will develop a strategy to support POs as they are key to Project implementation. The midterm and final evaluations will update the information on PO with respect to their capacity and performance. Final evaluation should include an assessment of the PO contribution to livestock development. 6.4 Input suppliers Conceptually, private input suppliers are expected to facilitate implementation of “improved techniques and technologies” by beneficiary farms and other establishments in order to increase productivity in the livestock sector – a Project´s strategic objective (SO1). As mentioned in the previous section, associations supply some inputs to their members but they purchase them from commercial input suppliers locally. As part of the Baseline Study, five large input suppliers were interviewed via e-mail and followed-up by phone. Together, they operate 203 agencies nationally and supply all the range of farm needs, from seeds and fertilizers to farm equipment and supplies to MCCs. Al of them provide supply inputs and credit to PO and individuals. Payment grace periods vary from 30 to 60 days, thereafter, they usually charge 2% monthly. Input suppliers do not report any import problems. All of them have promotional activities through field agents, sales representatives, farm visits and promotional events with farmer associations and other groups of current and potential clients. Their marketing strategies depend on the results of these activities, which provide them with realistic demand estimates. They also receive massive amounts of promotional literature from input manufacturers and suppliers abroad, which is the primary source of new products. They expressed their interest in learning about “improved techniques and technologies” promoted by the Project in the livestock sector. They find it useful to deal with associations which are considered extensions of their distribution networks and contribute to timely payments from individual clients. Private Input suppliers will not be a constraint to Project activities. In fact, it seems that farmers, PO as well as input suppliers will benefit from increasing the dimension of trading through producers’ associations; this may be part of PO strengthening promoted by the Project. Therefore, no direct support from the Project is deemed necessary to private suppliers besides information on new technologies. 53 6.5 Policy, implementation and compliance Trade, fiscal, credit and regulatory policies are main factors in the livestock sector performance. In fact, Project strategic objectives are either related to policy or complementary to policy, in particular, equivalence standards, milk price policy and sanitary measures in the domestic dairy and beef markets. Also, policies may be in place but implementation and compliance need improvement, as shown in previous sections. These aspects are well￾known among local experts and authorities, for example: (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2015), (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), (Gómez, Arnaldo J., 2016) and others previously cited. Establishing equivalence standards is one of the main objectives of the beef value chain. Work in this area is well￾advanced; MoH and MA have a working group; NCBA CLUSA has been involved, a CTC committee has been monitoring it. However, challenges remain, especially with respect to central government budget allocation to implement the required inspection system, including laboratories. Evaluations and recommendations by (Cook, Jr., L. Victor, 2015) and (McDermott, Steven, 2015) need implementation. Approval of equivalence standards will be a major Project accomplishment (see SO2 in Results Framework). However, it is assumed that once equivalence standards are approved, the pre-qualified producers will be exporting. This may not be a valid assumption if Dominican beef products are not competitive,15 given high local costs and inefficiencies in beef farming and processing. Also the impact on the domestic beef market has to be considered. These aspects need monitoring by authorities and the Project. As discussed in previous sections, the current milk price-quality structure is not conducive to an efficient market, it is a disincentive for farmers to produce grade A milk. Transportation of low quality milk and use of peroxide need to be addressed. The Project may contribute to resolution of these issues. Solutions as simple as providing MCCs with a second or third tank to separate grades, together with improving testing equipment at centers, could make substantial marginal contributions. Enforcing current regulations should have an impact on the efficiency and performance of the dairy and beef sectors. According to (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2016), “El problema no es solo, los altos niveles de importación, sino la falta de aplicación de las regulaciones y de supervisión de estas en todos los segmentos.” (“The problem is not only high levels of imports but the lack of application of regulations and supervision in very segment [of the value chain]”) and recommends: “to comply with the laws, regulations and norms that are written and approved.” As shown in previous sections, sanitary issues are most important in the small dairy and beef processors markets. Regulations are in place but not enforced, for example: Regulation 329 in beef processing and regulations on the use of peroxide. PMP indicators. The following indicators are related to policy and policy implementation. (22) “Value of private sector investment/resources supporting agriculture research/extension that is consistent with government priorities as a result of USDA assistance” (45) “Number of international trade missions conducted with host country ag exporters and foreign buyers” (49) “Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 5) (FFPr indicator 12)” 15 According to MA/DIGEGA beef prices are competitive, local costs are estimated at nearly 50% of international prices. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 54 Baseline Study – Executive Summary (49) “Number of assessments completed of GoDR beef food safety regulations and systems” (50) “Number of training sessions in trade policy analysis and advocacy provided for individuals” (51) “Number of individuals trained in trade policy analysis and advocacy” (52) “Number of beef Regulatory Policy and Regulatory Framework meetings for public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure” (53) “Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator 8)” (57) “Number of events supported by USDA aimed at promoting private-public partnerships for improving beef and dairy development at the farm, processor and exporter” 7. Updated Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and Progress Management Table (PMT) Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). The PMP shown in Annex 2 was modified from the original M&E Plan (NCBA CLUSA, 2015), which had more than 120 indicators. The revised PMP has 57 indicators (NCBA CLUSA, 12 August 2016), not including disaggregation (by gender, new/continuing, etc.). Some indicators were eliminated because they were duplicate or there were no sources of information (for example: most farms do not maintain registries to collect information on age and weigh of cattle taken to slaughterhouses and other variables); others were added because they were related to specific results in the Results Frameworks (Annex 1) and others were consolidated into groups of activities. A separate document was prepared that compares the original list of PMP and PMT indicators (Attachment E of the Award document (USDA, 2015)) with the revised version. The objective of the updated PMP was to define at least one indicator for each result in the Results Frameworks, which are the basis upon which the Project should be monitored and evaluated, according to USDA M&E guidelines. PMP indicators are a combination of output and outcome indicators. They should be distinguished in the context of compliance with the Results Frameworks. For example, (34) “Number of training sessions in milking and milk handling conducted for dairy farmers” is an output indicator, but: (33) “Number of dairy farmers using improved milking and milk handling techniques as a result of USDA assistance” is an outcome indicator. (34) is recorded when such activities are co-financed; (33) is the result of periodic follow￾up visits to farmers that received training in “milking and milk handling”. This distinction is important in the light of Farm Survey results where a large percentage of respondents claimed to have received technical assistance in milk quality, but a similar percentage would like to receive the same assistance. This may be interpreted as a problem of quality, coverage or sufficiency of the TA received or a request for a more advanced level of training in the same topic. Project evaluation will help explain this issue. The proposed PMP includes the recommended indicators and the “strategy for collecting performance data” as required by USDA M&E policy (USDA/FAS, 2013), which includes: • Data Sources; 55 • Method/Approach of Data Collection or Calculation; • When and who collects the data; • Why and who analyzes, uses and reports the data. Detailed definitions of the standard FFPr indicators (mandatory) are given in (USDA/FAS, 2014). Strategic Objectives (SO1 and SO2) indicators should reflect the achievement of the highest level results in the Results Frameworks (Figures 1 and 2). FFPr Standard Indicators 13-18 are defined as SO1 and SO2 indicators. In the revised PMP, FFPr indicators 15-18 have been assigned to SO1; indicators 13 and 14 have been assigned to SO2. Data on these and other indicators qualified as “as a result of USDA assistance” and “Project beneficiaries” will be collected, first, at the activity level, when a grant is approved and; and second, when it has been executed (closing). Thereafter, periodic visits (semi-annual, annual) would provide additional data points, which could feed into the M&E system for use in measuring performance (in terms of results, outputs and outcomes in the Results Frameworks) and the mid-term and final evaluations. For example, when a grant application is approved, the estimated number of jobs to be created as a result of this grant should be recorded into the SAFE Project system and would be verified al closing, when its implementation is completed. Periodic visits to the grant recipient will verify these figures. This information would be aggregated for all grants so that it will be constantly updated as “performance monitoring” with respect to job creation. It is essential, therefore, that grant applications and closing documents require the relevant information to facilitate data collection. In the attached PMP table, Standard FFPr indicators numbers (USDA/FAS, 2014) are highlighted. The PMP table follows the Results Frameworks (Figures 1 and 2). Each result, from the Results Frameworks, has at least one indicator. Revised indicators follow the list of annual and Project targets (PMT schedule) prepared by NCBA CLUSA DR (12 August 2016). At the activity level, all indicators are output indicators. At the results levels, indicators may be outcome or output (intermediate results). Although at the higher levels they should be outcome indicators, SO1 and SO2 indicators 15-18 are output indicators. In this case, the respective “custom indicators” are more appropriate indicators of Strategic Objective 1 achievement than the corresponding SO1 indicators. “Private sector” includes cooperatives and PO (producer associations and federations) as well as commercial firms; many PO are input suppliers, operate milk collection centers and supply extension services, among other services to their members. Categories of milk quality supplied by farmers to milk collection centers referred as A, B, C, D, are equivalent to 1, 2, 3, 4 used at some collection centers. In some cases, indicators may be used to compare Project performance against regional or national results. For example, liters of milk per cow per day (for rainy and dry seasons) for Project supported farms compared to regional or national averages. This difference is a more accurate indicator of project impact. Implementation of this PMP requires definition of a number of operational procedures and guidelines; for example, definition of “improved techniques and technologies” in beef and milk production and post-harvest, among many others. These definitions will be part of the Project´s operation manuals. The Progress Management Table (PMT) establishes the baseline values, annual targets during Project implementation and Project target or end target for PMP indicators. The table in Annex 2 is ordered according NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 56 Baseline Study – Executive Summary to the Results Frameworks and PMP, the numbers in the first column correspond to those indicators selected by NCBA CLUSA DR for the updated PMP and PMT (12 August 2016). Most indicators have a baseline value of zero when their definition states: “as a result of USDA support”. Other indicators that refer to “Project beneficiaries” also have a baseline value of zero. Practically all PMT indicators have a zero baseline value. Only a few indicators have a positive baseline value, which comes from the various surveys conducted for the Project Baseline Study (sections 2-5). For example, one of the main indicators of productivity in dairy farming is the “percentage increase in liters per cow per day” (as a result of USDA support), in order to calculate this value, a baseline value must be estimated; this value is 7.5 l/c-d in 2016 (from the Farm Survey); then, it is possible to verify annual targets of 10% and Project target of 50% in 2020. Baseline values of indicators “(12) Value of sales by Project beneficiaries (FFPr Indicator 13)” and “(13) Volume of Commodities (metric tons) sold by Project beneficiaries (FFPr Indicator 14)” will be collected once “Project Beneficiaries” are known. It was not possible to obtain a reliable value of these indicators in the Farm Survey due to the lack of registries at the farm level. Most initial and periodic values of PMP indicators will be obtained during Project implementation. As mentioned, it is recommended that the Project Operations Manual require that each application for a “cofinanciamiento” or activity financed with Project resources include the expected value of the relevant PMP indicator, which will be verified at the closing of the respective activity and at periodic (semi-annual) follow-up inspections. 8. Mid-term and final evaluations According to M&E policy, “The purpose of the interim [midterm] evaluation is to critically and objectively review and take stock of the project’s implementing experience and the implementing environment, assess whether targeted beneficiaries are receiving services as expected, assess whether the project is on track in meeting its stated goals and objectives, review the project-level results frameworks and assumptions, document initial lessons learned, and discuss necessary modifications or mid-course corrections that may be necessary to effectively and efficiently meet the stated goals and objectives.” (USDA/FAS, 2013, p.11) “Each project is required to undergo a comprehensive, independent final evaluation. The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess whether the project has achieved the expected results as outlined in the results framework. The final evaluation should assess areas of project design, implementation, management, lessons learned and replicability. It should seek to provide lessons learned and recommendations for USDA, program participants and other key stakeholders for future food assistance and capacity building programs. The evaluation will likely use mixed methods approaches as outlined in the agreed upon evaluation plan.” (USDA/FAS, 2013, p.14) The bases for these evaluations will be the PMP indicators and the follow-up surveys to the baseline study: • PMP indicators are output and outcome indicators, they will be registered in the M&E System at approval and closing of each grant or matching grant. 16 Grant applications should request pertinent information to evaluate each according to PMP and evaluation indicators. Thereafter (6 months), status of each grant´s results will be recorded into the system, this information will be gathered from M&E staff visits 16 See Project overview (Chapter II). All activities which imply monetary expenses or costs to the Project, included those which are financed on a grant basis should be registered in the M&E system. For example: translation services for equivalence documentation, public information campaigns, events to promote public-private cooperation, etc. An operations manual is being prepared. 57 to grant beneficiaries to verify that they are operating and achieving the expected results defined in the grant award. • Follow-up baseline surveys will be conducted for the mid-term evaluation, 2.5 years after beginning of Project implementation, and at Project closing For each “cofinanciamiento” or grant, it is recommended that the following seven-step procedure be applied. As mentioned, this procedure will be executed at grant application evaluation and approval, at closing (once grant implementation has been finalized) and thereafter at a six month and a year inspection in order to verify that the grant is generating the expected results and impact. At each step, expected vs. achieved results will be compared and differences explained. 1. Diagnosis. Each grant (“cofinanciamiento”) application should state the problems that are intended to be resolved with grant resources. 2. Planning. The grant´s objectives should be clearly established in terms of expected outputs and outcomes referred to Project results according to PMP indicators. A brief ex ante evaluation should be included demonstrating the proposed grant´s viability (technical, economic, financial, social (gender), institutional). 3. Financing. Applications should demonstrate compliance with Project guidelines and criteria for grant approval. The approved schedule of costs including required beneficiary contributions should be compared with final costs and any differences explained or justified. 4. Implementation and outputs. Applications should describe grant implementation procedures. At closing of each grant, implementation procedures and grant outputs will be verified. 5. Operation and outcomes. Outputs defined in step 2 for each grant are supposed to generate outcomes. For example, new techniques and technologies in dairy production supplied by the Project (outputs) are “operated” or applied by beneficiaries (farmers) to produce outcomes: increased quantities of milk per cow per day (a PMP indicator). Expected and actual outcomes will be compared and differences explained. 6. Impact. Impact indicators refer to final objectives, SO1 and SO2. The impact of a grant may not be observable in the short run, as in the above example. However, if the grant is generating expected outcomes, probability of achieving its impact may be assigned and later confirmed as part of the PMP system. 7. Ex post evaluation. Each grant should have an ex post evaluation at the time of closing. This will be a summary of the above steps. This procedure should facilitate the identification of “lessons learned”. Aggregation. The above steps will be applied to each grant. The midterm and final evaluation will contain the aggregate for all grants implemented from which lessons learned may be derived and recommendations will be made with respect to any required changes (at mid-term). In addition, PMP indicators, with emphasis on results data (from the Results Framework), will be available to complete this part of the midterm and final evaluation. Questions such as: Were annual targets achieved? What are the prospects (at midterm) to achieve final targets? What adjustments are required to achieve final targets? Follow-up baseline. These results will be complemented with the follow-up baseline study and survey. The purpose of this exercise is to identify changes in the subsectors as a result of Project implementation and other interventions. Some of the questions raised at this stage may require an analysis of the relative contribution of the Project with respect to other programs and projects implemented in the same period. An effort must be NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 58 Baseline Study – Executive Summary made to measure Project “attribution” (changes attributed to the Project) by including a control group which can be obtained from the baseline sample and final follow-up and will facilitate the application of a “difference in differences” (DiD) statistical method. This econometric method is widely used in Impact Evaluation Studies, when there is sufficient information (sample of more than 500 farms) on “before and after” implementation as well as “beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries” (Project beneficiaries and control group). It estimates through a regression procedure the “net” effect of the Project, taking into account that some factors not related to the project were influential in both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries’ behavior. For example, supply of Grade A milk by dairy farmers to milk collection centers (a key variable in the PMP), could have been influenced by price reforms applicable to both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, but the Project supplied “improved techniques and technologies” to beneficiaries only. The DiD method separates the Project contribution (attribution) from the general factors applicable to both groups. Project implementation should be able to determine the group of beneficiaries in the farm sample, since not all in the sample will be beneficiaries, a sample of non-beneficiaries in the farm sample would be selected as the control group in the baseline as well as the second and third baseline updates. 9. The baseline and identification of Project activities As indicated, the third specific objective of the Baseline Study is to assist y the identification of specific activities for Project implementation. It must be noted that these are not new activities, they are defined in the context of the Results Frameworks and PMP indicators, which are the specific guidelines to the identification of eligible activities to be implemented by the Project. The Baseline Study helps in the identification of specific activities and priorities within these instruments. If the Project plans to comply with indicators of the Results Frameworks, it needs to implement activities which generate such results, these activities are expressed through the PMP indicators. Thus the PMP indicators constitute the main guideline for Project planning. For example, the following PMP indicators, (37) “Number of grants provided to dairy producer groups/processors to establish or improve milk collection centers” (38) “Value of grants provided to dairy producer groups/processors to establish or improve milk collection centers” refer to activities that contribute to a result expressed by FFPr 1.2.2 “Improved Infrastructure in Beef and Dairy Value Chains” in the Results Frameworks. However, “establish or improve milk collection centers” is a “general activity” that needs to be further specified. According to the Baseline Study, MCCs are strategic elements in the dairy value chain, especially because modest investmentsin MCCs (co-financing additional tanksto separate milk grades, lab equipment and training, in one package) could have an immediate impact of the quality-price structure, essential for dairy value chain efficiency and farmer’s welfare. This is not an additional activity, it is within the context of the Results Frameworks, but it is a recommended specification o specific identification of an activity that will contribute to the referred result. It will also require complementary measures or activities in regulatory enforcement of the “price-quality structure”, which are eligible – although implicit – in the Results Frameworks and PMP indicators. 59 Similarly, the Baseline Study has identified and recommended: • A challenge for the Project is to find short-term interventions that would result in productivity increases, as measured by the liters per cow per day (lcd) indicator, during the Project implementation period (2016-2020). Farm practices (herd management, pasture management, feed improvement) could be activities that improve productivity in the short run. • The Project may implement activities to help farmers improve the percentage of milk grade A delivered to MCCs and reduce rejections, although it will be necessary to identify those factors that contribute more efficiently to achieve these results. This is closely related to MCC improvement as mentioned above. • Improving or establishing MCC registration is needed. MoH and MA/DIGEGA should establish and maintain such registry. The questionnaire in Annex 7 may be used for that purpose. • To the extent that Project objectives (FFPr SO2) call for “Expanded trade of agricultural products, domestic, regional and international”, NCBA CLUSA, its CTC and its partner JAD, the MA and other agencies in charge of international trade policy should follow up recommended policy adjustments to promote an increasing and competitive share of the local dairy market within the framework of current trade agreements. (See “Recommendations for developing a National Livestock Improvement Program” (Ponce Ceballos, Pastor, 2015) and section 5.5). • Technical Assistance is an important Project component. TA activities design should follow an in-depth evaluation with respect to the effectiveness of TA provided and the necessary adjustments, as indicated in the previous sections. • Credit extension is at an elementary level, concentrated in verifying property values and collecting payments, therefore, it is necessary to upgrade extension services to the level of financial advisory (not only to farmers but to POs and processors), especially in an environment expected to demand investments in new techniques and technologies. The Project, in coordination with BAGRÍCOLA, but open to credit cooperatives and other private credit suppliers, should design a training program in credit extension concentrated on financial aspects. • Private sector extension systems need strengthening through POs (associations and federations), including sustainable financing, which relates them to implementation of new techniques and technologies to be developed by TAMU and CBI assistance. There are no direct output indicators of PO institutional strengthening; however, results FFPr 1.4.4 and FFPr 2.4.4 in the Results Frameworks, call for “improved capacity of key groups in the production and trade sectors”. Therefore, the Project should develop an integrated strategy to support POs, as they are key to Project implementation. • Adequate coordination should be established to complement related projects and programs. For example, the development of animal registries in livestock farms should be coordinated with the traceability project under implementation, as they will be relevant for the equivalence objective pursued. 10. Contribution to further subsector analysis As indicated in previous sections, there is abundant literature on livestock and in particular the dairy subsector in the Dominican Republic and numerous recommendations to improve the sector´s performance. However, most studies are general studies that require in-depth analysis to determine factors responsible for observed deficiencies. For example, what factors are responsible for the seemingly low values of liters per cow per day 61 Survey of more than 500 farms and surveys of milk collection centers (MCC), beef and small dairy processors. Focus groups and extensive interviews with farmers and farm visits completed information sources. The study has four specific objectives: (i) to determine Project baseline values and sources for PMP indicators, which include FFPr mandatory indicators; (ii) to set a point of reference (baseline) for mid-term and final evaluations; (iii) to assist in the identification of activities to be supported by the Project; (iv) to contribute to the livestock subsector on-going diagnosis and provide a basis for further analysis. The report´s central elements are the description of the two “value chains” (dairy and beef) and the state of support services to the livestock sector, namely: extension services, credit, producer organizations, input suppliers and public policy. Sections 3, 4 and 5 describe the current state and characteristics of these value chains and support services. Essentially, the dairy sector is characterized by its low productivity, as measure by liters per cow per day (lcd) and milk quality delivered at MCCs, poor sanitary conditions and financial viability of small cheese processors and lack of competitiveness with respect to imports. While in the beef value chain the main aspect is the on￾going process to achieve U.S. equivalence, between 5 and 10 beef processing firms have the capacity to export. At the farm level, the productive structure is characterized by its informality, very few farms keep basic records or animal registries. All segments of the value chains are characterized by a dual structure, with a few large, modern and efficient establishments and many small, traditional, informal, family enterprises. Each one of the support services requires strengthening, in particular the technical assistance – extension systems. And all of these require the political will to support the relevant instances involved in regulatory activities and the necessary allocation of public resources. Recommendations. This Baseline Study covers a wide range of areas that require attention to improve dairy and beef value chain performance and, given the limited amount of resources at Project disposal, it is important to focus on strategic activities within the Results Frameworks. Specific recommendations have been made throughout the assessment of the referred value chains and support services. With respect to the four specific objectives of the Baseline Study, sections 6 to 9, summarize baseline findings and derive recommendations: i. Project activities have been defined in general17 in the Results Frameworks and implicitly in the PMP indicators; specific activities should be formulated and designed so that they contribute to the corresponding results. For this reason, PMP and PMT are organized according to planned results as stated in the Results Framework, which is the conceptual basis of the Project and, therefore, the basis for M&E. (section 6) ii. The Baseline Study provides the initial point of reference for the mid-term and final evaluations. These evaluations require updates of key variables collected in the Farm Survey and other surveys as well as the data collected for PMP indicators. Therefore, it is important that the implementing unit maintain continuously an adequate information system to facilitate said evaluations. (section 7) 17 For example, PMP indicator #16: “Number of beef or dairy farmers that have produced a business plan as a result of USDA assistance” indicates that the Project will implement training activities that will contribute to result FFPr 1.3.1 “Improved Knowledge Regarding Farm Management”. However, these activities must be formulated and designed in specific terms as grants, matched grants or “co-financiamientos”, i.e., specific activities that would train farmers to “produce business plans” or hire services to produce such plans. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 62 Baseline Study – Executive Summary iii. The Baseline Study, in various areas, has identified specific activities and priorities for Project implementation. These are not new or additional activities but specifications of the general activities implicit in the PMP indicators and the PMT. These recommendations are summarized in section 8. iv. The Farm Survey generated a data base of 505 observations and 70 variables. Although its main purpose was the description of the livestock sector current state for future comparisons, it presents an opportunity for in-depth analysis of sector behavior, as suggested in section 9. Limitations of the Baseline Study. The amount of time and resources assigned to the Baseline Study was far too short. Information sources were limited. Much time had to be allocated to the conciliation of different sources on the same subject (MCC, small processors of beef and dairy products), despite the kind cooperation of officials in all institutions consulted. ONE´s Precenso needed verification and updating after much time and efforts (institutional and individual) were spent on obtaining the required data base. This affected the timing for data collection, processing and analysis. In any case the Farm Survey and other surveys achieved their purpose and are rich sources of information for current and future analysis There is no information and there was no survey of intermediaries in the beef cattle market. This is relevant for analysis of the beef value chain. Farmers do not have cattle registries or scales to measure age and weigh of cattle and there is an advantage in favor intermediaries. This is important for market efficiency and its implications on the equivalence work and future operation of exports. In-depth analysis is needed on the effectiveness of technical assistance. In all instances of the value chains it was reported that technical assistance had been received in numerous topics and that it was required in the same topics. Further analysis is required to determine results, especially given the Project´s focus on techniques and technologies to improve productivity and expand trade. 63 References CEPAL. (2016). Lácteos, Primera Mesa de Diálogo. PPt Presentation, Santo Domingo. CONALECHE. (2008). La Lechería: pieza clave de la competitividad y de la soberanía alimentaria dominicana (Presentación) (p. 17). Cook, Jr., L. Victor. (2015). Evaluación y Recomendaciones para pruebas microbiológicas Equivalentes al FSIS (p. 11). Santo Domingo. Esteban Delgado. (s. f.). Aprueban norma para embutidos. Recuperado 3 de septiembre de 2016, a partir de http://www.elcaribe.com.do/2012/07/27/aprueban-norma-para-embutidos Evaristo Rubens. (2012, julio 31). En el país hay 46 embutidoras pero solo 20 están registradas. Recuperado 3 de septiembre de 2016, a partir de http://hoy.com.do/en-el-pais-hay-46-embutidoras-pero-solo-20- estan-registradas/ FAO Database. (s. f.). Policy - Decreto No. 528-01 que aprueba el Reglamento General para Control de Riesgos en Alimentos y Bebidas en la República Dominicana | Global database on the Implementation of Nutrition Action (GINA). Recuperado 3 de septiembre de 2016, a partir de https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/es/node/17807 García Lagombra, Gregorio et. al. (2015). Diagnóstico estático de la ganadería de doble propósito en cuatro zonas de la República Dominicana (p. 44). IDIAF. Gómez, Arnaldo J. (2016). Situación de Lácteos en República Dominicana. Presentado en CONALECHE-CTC, JAD. Gomez Nogueira, C., et al. (2016). Fortalecimiento de la cadena de valor de lácteos en la República Dominicana (p. 8). CEPAL. IICA. (2006). Estudio de la Cadena Agroalimentaria de Leche de Vaca en la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo. Instituto Politécnico Loyola. (2007). Lecherías, Producción y Competitividad (p. 195). Santo Domingo, DR: Fundación Loyola. McDermott, Steven. (2015). Informe sobre el Personal de Inspección del Ministerio de Salud, República Dominicana (p. 12). Santo Domingo. Ministerio de Agricultura. (2015). Estadísticas del Sector Agropecuario de República Dominicana, 2002-2014. Santo Domingo. Morrobel, José A. (2016). Economía lechera dominicana (p. 18). Santo Domingo. NCBA CLUSA. (2015). SAFE DR Program Monitoring & Evaluation Plan. ONE. (2016). VIII Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2015. Precenso Nacional Agropecuario 2015. Informe de Resultados (p. 196). Santo Domingo: ONE. Ponce Ceballos, Pastor. (2015). Algunas consideraciones sobre políticas, estrategias y acciones técnicas para Preparar y Presentar al Gobierno Nacional un Programa de Mejora del Sector Ganadero Dominicano. Ponce Ceballos, Pastor. (2016). La lechería en RD en el 2016: Mitos, Realidades y Soluciones. Presentado en JAD, Santo Domingo. REDDOM. (2015). Tablas de Asociaciones de ganaderos por federación en República Dominicana. NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic OTSCORP 64 Baseline Study – Executive Summary Rodríguez-Minier, Hernán. (2014). Informe de de línea base fincas lecheras (p. 46). Santo Domingo: PROLEFAM￾FAO-CONALECHE. Román M, José A. (2016). Programa de mejoramiento del ganado de leche (MEGALECHE). Resultados de la Primera Encuesta: Nivel Tecnológica Duvergé. SEA. (1999). Registro Nacional de Productores Agropecuarios. Santo Domingo. Tejada, Frank. (2014). Política Agrícola. Santo Domingo, DR. Thinkbig. (2015). Diagnóstico de 4 cadenas de valor con presencia de PYMES en RD, Cadena de productos lácteos (p. 62). USDA. (2015). Cooperative Agreement between the USA and NCBA for the provision of agricultural commodities through the Food for Progress Act (USDA Award FCC-517-2015-008-00). USDA/FAS. (2013). Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. USDA/FAS. (2014). Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Indicators and Definitions. Valerio, Daniel. (2016, Abril de). Modelo para incrementar el nivel de productividad y acceso a mercados de productores lecheros familiares en la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo. 65 Annex 1: Results Frameworks 1 Annex 2: Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and Progress Management Table (PMT) 15 48 Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance (Stage 5) (FFPr indicator 12) This FTF outcome indicator tracks the number of policies, regulations, and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance Unit: number of policies/regulations/administrative procedures Disaggregated by: Stage Observation/an analysis of host government, reports into Project records Project records Annual Data collectors – collect Project M&E staff verify The indicator measures the number of policies/regulations/administrative procedures in the various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment for agriculture Project M&E staff (analysis and presentation) and management (analysis, use, and reporting to USDA) 49 Number of assessments completed of GoDR beef food safety regulations and systems This custom output indicator tracks the number of assessments completed of the Government of the Dominican Republic’s beef food safety and regulations system Unit: number of assessments Disaggregated by: none Assessment documentation, report into Project documents Project records Annual Data collectors – collect Project M&E staff verify Tracks the output indicator to determine equivalency with U.S. beef food safety and regulation systems Project M&E staff (analysis and presentation) and management (analysis, use, and reporting to USDA) 50 Number of training sessions in trade policy analysis and advocacy provided for individuals This custom output indicator measures the number of training sessions held in trade policy analysis relted to the livestock sector. Unit: number of individuals Disaggregated by: none Training records Project records Semi- Annual Training staff provide info to Project M&E staff Tracks the amount of time spent building capacity of targeted firms to access financial services Project M&E staff (analysis and presentation) and management (analysis, use, and reporting to USDA) 51 Number of individuals trained in trade policy analysis and advocacy This custom output indicator measures the number of of individuals that received training in trade policy analysis relted to the livestock sector. Unit: number of individuals Disaggregated by: gender Training records Project records Semi- Annual Training staff provide info to Project M&E staff Tracks the amount of time spent building capacity of targeted firms to access financial services Project M&E staff (analysis and presentation) and management (analysis, use, and reporting to USDA) NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic 18 reporting to USDA) 17 Annex 5: Farm Survey Questionnaire VERSIÓN: 01 FECHA:24-06-2016 A. IDENTIFICACIÓN DE LA UNIDAD PRODUCTIVA 1. Nombre del propietario 2. Cédula 3. Sexo M F 4. Nombre del predio: NS/NR No Aplica 5. Superficie en pastos mejorados (tareas) 6. Superficie en pastos naturales (tareas) 7. Superficie total (tareas) 8. Señale el tipo de producción: Leche Carne Doble propósito 9. Provincia 10. Municipio 11Subregión 12Sección 13. Barrio o paraje 14Señale la tenencia de la tierra: Propia con título Propia sin t tulo Arrendada Posesión Sucesión 15Número promedio de trabajadores empleados en el mes (la mano de obra familiar no remunerada o sin pago no se incluye) 15.1 Mujeres a término fijo 15.3 Hombres a término fijo 15 2 Mujeres temporales 15.4 Hombres temporales 15 5 Total mujeres 15.6 Total hombres (sume renglones 15.1 y 15.2) (sume renglones 16.1 y 16.2) B. ASOCIATIVIDAD DE LA UNIDAD PRODUCTIVA 1. La Unidad Productiva pertenece a una organización de productores? (RU) Si Pase a la pregunta B2 No Pase a la sección C Financiamiento 2. Escriba el nombre de la organización de productores 3. Señale el tipo de organización (RU) Cooperativa Asociación Independiente NS/NR C. FINANCIAMIENTO 1. La Unidad Productiva recibió en los últimos tres años financiación? (RU) Si Pase a la pregunta C2 No Pase a la sección D 2. Señale la naturaleza jurídica de la entidad financiera, el valor de la inversión, el capital de trabajo, el plazo e intereses (RM) Valor del capital de trabajo Banco privado Pagada Pendiente Banco público Pagada Pendiente Cooperativa Pagada Pendiente Conaleche (Bagrícola) Pagada Pendiente Otra entidad Pagada Pendiente (pesos) (pesos) (meses) mensual % de la financiación Valor de la inversión Plazo Interés Señale el estado FORMULARIO UNIDADES PRODUCTIVAS DE CARNE Y LECHE República Dominicana IMPORTANTE los datos que PROGANA solicita en este formulario son estrictamente confidenciales con fines estadísticos POR FAVOR LEA LAS INSTRUCCIONES RESPECTIVAS DE LA CARTILLA ANTES DE DILIGENCIAR EL FORMULARIO O BOLETA NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic 18 19 6. Señale los cinco principales problemas que afectan la producción de carne (RM) 6.1 Calidad del ganado (raza) 6.13 Altos precios de los agroquímicos 6.2 Enfermedades del ganado 6.14 Bajo precio del kilo en pie 6.3 Calidad de los pastos 6.15 Altos precios de la energía eléctrica 6.4 Cantidad de pastos 6.16 Falta de transporte 6.5 Producción de pastos 6.17 Estado de las carreteras 6.6 Baja fertilidad de los suelos 6.18 Vías de acceso a las fincas 6.7 Conservación de forrales 6.19 Falta de energía eléctrica 6.8 Escasez de fuentes de agua 6.20 Falta de compradores 6.9 Inundaciones 6.21 Falta de crédito 6.10 Altos precio de los medicamentos 6.22 Intermediarios 6.11 Altos precios de los alimentos balanceados 6.23 Otro 6.12 Altos precios de los fertilizantes 6.23.1 ¿Cuál? 7. De los anteriores problemas, cuál considera es el más urgente por atender? 8. ¿Ha recibido asistencia técnica en el último año para mejorar la producción de carne? (RU) Si Pase a la pregunta D9 No Pase a la pregunta D10 9. 9.1 Manejo de enfermedades 10.1 Manejo de enfermedades 9.2 Manejo de pastos 10.2 Manejo de pastos 9.3 Conservación de pastos 10.3 Conservación de pastos 9.4 Calidad de carne 10.4 Calidad de carne 9.5 Alimentación de ganado 10.5 Alimentación de ganado 9.6 Mejoramiento del ganado 10.6 Mejoramiento del ganado 9.7 Sistemas silvopastoriles 10.7 Sistemas silvopastoriles 9.8 Control de plagas 10.8 Control de plagas 9.9 Certificación de mataderos 10.9 Administración de fincas para carne 9.10 Administración de fincas para carne 10.10 Cambio climático 9.11 Otro 10.11 Otro 9.11.1 ¿Cuál? 10.11.1 ¿Cuál? 11¿Cuántas cabezas de ganado de producción de carne perdió en el último año? 12 ¿Cuáles fueron los costos promedio anuales por producción de carne en el último año? (pesos) Señale los temas en los que recibió asistencia técnica en el último año para la producción de carne (RM) 10. Señale los temas en los cuales le gustaría recibir capacitación para mejorar la producción de carne (RM) NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic 20 E. PRODUCCIÓN DE LECHE 1. La unidad productiva realiza producción de leche? (RM) Si Pase a la pregunta E2 No Pase a la sección F 2. Escriba el número de animales para producción de leche (RM) Número Número 2.1 Total cabezas de ganado 2.2 Total vacas adultas 2.3 Total vacas paridas 2.4 Novillas 2 - 3 años 2.5 Novillas 1 - 2 años 2.6 Novillos 2 - 3 años 2.7 Novillos 1 - 2 años 2.8 Becerras 0 - 12 meses 2.9 Becerros 0 - 12 meses 3. Escriba el promedio de litros de leche producidos por vaca (RM) 3.1 Raza 1 3.2 Raza 2 3.3 Raza 3 4. Conoce la calidad de la leche que produce ? (RU) Si Pase a la pregunta E5 No Pase a la pregunta E6 5. Señale la calidad de la leche producida (RM) 6. ¿Cuál fue el precio máximo recibido por litro de leche en el último año? (pesos/L) 5.1 Calidad A 5.3 Calidad C 5.2 Calidad B 5.4 Calidad D 7. ¿Cuál fue el precio mínimo recibido por litro de leche en el último año? (pesos/L) 8. 9. 10¿Cuáles fueron los costos promedio por litro de leche en el último año (costo/litro) 11. Señale la(s) entidad(es) que le compra(n) la leche (RM) 11.1 Centro de acopio 11.2 Fábrica de quesos 11.3 Fábrica de yogurt 11.4 Planta procesadora 11.5 Bidonero 11.6 Fábrica de dulces Ventas en L/día Precio del L/día (pesos) ¿Cuáles fueron los ingresos promedio mensuales por venta de leche en el último año? (pesos) ¿Cuáles fueron los costos promedio mensuales por producción de leche en el último año? (pesos) Número Raza 1 Raza 2 Raza 3 Nombre de la raza Total de vacas en ordeño Promedio de litros diarios (L/día) Promedio de litros en época de lluvias (L/día) Promedio de litros en época seca (L/día) 21 12. Señale las veces en que le han rechazado la leche en el centro de acopio en el último año (RU) 12.1 Una vez 12 3 Más de dos veces 12 2 Dos veces 12.4 Nunca 13. La finca fue visitada por técnicos de saneamiento del DIGEGA en el último año? (RU) Si No Pase a la pregunta E16 14. Señale los problemas sanitarios en el último año (RM) 15. ¿Qué medidas tomó para solucionar los problemas sanitarios? 14.1 Tuberculosis Pase a la pregunta E12 15.1 Visita del veterinario 14.2 Brucelosis Pase a la pregunta E12 15.2 Medicación formulada por el veterinario 14.3 Otro Pase a la pregunta E12 15.3 Medicación sin formulación veterinaria 14.3.1 ¿Cuál? Pase a la pregunta E12 15.4 Medicación por experiencia 14.4 Ninguno Pase a la pregunta E13 15.5 No aplicó medicamentos 15.6 Otra medida 15.6.1 ¿Cuál medida? 16. Señale los cinco principales problemas que afectan la producción y la calidad de la leche (RM) 16.1 Calidad del ganado (raza) 16.13 Altos precios de los fertilizantes 16 2 Enfermedades del ganado 16.14 Altos precios de los agroquímicos 16 3 Calidad de los pastos 16.15 Bajo precio de la leche 16.4 Cantidad de pastos 16.16 Altos precios de la energía eléctrica 16 5 Producción de pastos 16.17 Altos precios del transporte 16 6 Baja fertilidad de los suelos 16.18 Falta de transporte 16.7 Conservación de forrales 16.19 Estado de las carreteras 16 8 Limpieza de locales 16.20 Vías de acceso a las fincas 16 9 Escasez de fuentes de agua 16.21 Falta de energía eléctrica 16.10 Inundaciones 16.22 Falta de compradores 16.11 Altos precio de los medicamentos 16.23 Otro 16.12 Altos precios de los alimentos balanceados 16.23.1 ¿Cuál? 17. De los anteriores problemas, cuál considera es el más urgente por atender? 18¿Cuántas cabezas de ganado de producción de leche perdió en el último año? NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic 22 F. INVERSIONES 1. Para los próximos dos años señale en qué planea invertir (RM) 1.1 Equipos 1.2 Construcciones 1.3 Pastos 1.1.1 Ordeño mecánico 1.2.1 Mejoramiento sala de ordeño 1.3.1 Pastos de piso 1.1 2 Picadora de forraje 1.2.2 Mejoramiento de corrales 1.3 2 Pastos de corte 1.1 3 Otro 1.2.3 Mejoramiento de cercas 1.3 3 Otro 1.1 3.1 ¿Cuál? 1.2.4 Otro 1.3 3.1 ¿Cuál? 1.2.4.1 ¿Cuál? 1.4 Ganado 1.5 Energía 1.6 Agua 1.4.1 Compra de novillas 1.5.1 Instalación red eléctrica 1.6.1 Mejoramiento sala de ordeño 1.4.2 Compra de toros 1.5 2 Instalación paneles solares 1.6 2 Mejoramiento de corrales 1.4.3 Otro 1.5 3 Otro 1.6 3 Mejoramiento de cercas 1.4.4 ¿Cuál? 1.5 3.1 ¿Cuál? 1.6.4 Conducción de agua 1.6 5 Otro 1.7 Genética 1.8 No planea invertir 1.6 5.1 ¿Cuál? 1.7.1 Sistema de inseminación artificial 1.7.2 Implantación de embriones G. ASPECTOS TÉCNICOS 1. En el último año recibió asistencia técnica? (RU) Si Pase a la pregunta G2 No Pase a la pregunta G4 2. Seleccione la naturaleza jurídica de la entidad de la cual recibió asistencia técnica (RM) 2.1 Publica Nombre de la entidad 2.2 Privada Nombre de la entidad 2.3 Internacional Nombre de la entidad 3. Señale los temas en los que recibió asistencia técnica en el último año para la producción de leche (RM) 3.1 Manejo de enfermedades 3.12 Ordeño higiénico 3.2 Manejo de pastos 3.13 Control sanitario vacas 3.3 Conservación de suelos 3.14 Control de plagas 3.4 Calidad de leche 3.15 Agroforestería (SAF) 3.5 Alimentación de ganado 3.16 Manejo de agua 3.6 Programa de cruzamiento 3.17 Riego 3.7 Implantación de embriones 3.18 Secuestro de carbón 3.8 Inseminación artificial 3.19 Administración 3.9 Reproducción 3 20 Administración de fincas para carne 3.10 Sistemas silvopastoriles 3 21 Otro 3.11 Sanidad en ordeño 3 21.1 ¿Cuál? 4. Señale los temas en los cuáles le gustaría recibir capacitación para mejorar la producción de leche (RM) 4.1 Manejo y prevención de enfermedades del ganado 4.7 Implementación de sistemas silvopastoriles 4.2 Manejo de forrajes 4 8 Administración de fincas ganaderas 4.3 Establecimiento de forrajes 10.9 Mejoramiento de la calidad de la carne 4.4 Manejo reproductivo del ganado 10.10 Otro 4.5 Alimentación de ganado 10.10.1 ¿Cuál? 4.6 Mejoramiento de la calidad de la leche 23 H. INFRAESTRUCTURA Y FUNCIONAMIENTO 1. Señale el tipo de instalaciones con que cuenta la unidad productiva 1.1 Instalaciones de ordeño con techo (RU) Si No 1.2 Instalaciones de ordeño con agua (RU) Si No 2. Señale el tipo de fuente de agua de la Unidad Productiva (RM) 2.1 Fuente dentro de la finca 2.5 Laguna dentro de la finca 2.9 Pozo profundo 2.2 Fuente externa a la finca 2.6 Laguna externa a la finca 2.10 Manantial 2.3 Arroyo dentro de la finca 2.7 Acueducto público 2.11 Otro 2.4 Arroyo externo a la finca 2.8 Acueducto comunitario 2.11.1 ¿Cuál? 3. Escriba los tipos de pasto con que cuenta la Unidad Productiva (RM) 3.1 Tipo 1 3.2 Tipo 2 3.3 Tipo 3 3.4 Tipo 4 3.5 Tipo 5 3.6 Tipo 6 4. Señale el tipo de tecnología disponible en la unidad productiva (RM) 4.1 Plan de Negocios en el último año Si No 4.9 Control de malezas Si No 4.2 Producción propia de pastos Si No 4.10 Sistemas silvopastoriles Si No 4.3 Rotación de potreros Si No 4.11 Sistemas agroforestales Si No 4.4 Manejo de cercas eléctricas Si No 4.12 Generación de energía no convencionales Si No 4.5 Ensilaje para épocas secas Si No 4.13 Banco forraje Si No 4.6 Riego Si No 4.14 Ordeño mecánico Si No 4.7 Programas de fertilización Si No 4.15 Lavado a presión de la sala de ordeño Si No 4.8 Programas de control de plagas Si No 4.16 Otro Si No 4.16.1 ¿Cuál? 5. La instalación de ordeño tiene piso de cemento? (RU) Si No 6. Si No 7. Las instalación de ordeño tiene sistema de drenaje? (RU) Si No 8. Señale el tipo de recipiente que usa para la leche ordeñada? (RU) 8.1 Plástico 8.2 Metal 9. ¿Cuánto tiempo se tarda la leche en llegar al centro de acopio? 10Escriba el tipo de transporte que usa al centro de acopio (RM) 10.1 Semovientes 10.3 Vehículo (camión, camioneta, etc) 10.5 Otro 10 2 Motocicleta 10.4 Camión cisterna 10.5.1 ¿Cuál? Nombre Tareas Posterior al ordeño se lava las instalaciones y los recipientes? (RU) NCBA CLUSA, Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program – Dominican Republic 24 11Señale el estado en el que se encuentra el vehículo (RM) Bueno Regular Malo 12Señale el estado de la carretera al centro de acopio (RM) Bueno Regular Malo OBSERVACIONES (Registre las aclaraciones que considere necesarias a la información suministrada) Nombre: Nombre: Cargo: Celular: Firma y cédula Correo electrónico: Día Mes Año Ciudad y fecha de diligenciamiento Persona a quien dirigirse para consultas Persona que recibe el formulario Ciudad Fecha de diligenciamiento Novedad: