1 Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) Program Nicaragua MAS Program Mayor Accesso a Alimentos Saludables (Better Access to Healthy Foods) Baseline Evaluation and Market Study June 2020 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared independently by CYCCO/FUNICA 2 MAS Program Baseline Evaluation and Market Study Project Concern International (PCI) is implementing the Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables (MAS) project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in the Jinotega department of Nicaragua from 2019 to 2022. The project aims to improve the effectiveness of food assistance by improving the cost-effectiveness of food assistance, improving the timeliness of food assistance, and improving the utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable food that meets quality standards. It aims to reach 10,609 children from 60 schools, ten food supply businesses, 260 producers, and 420 parents belonging to the parent-teacher association (PTA) in the schools. This study establishes the current status of nine project indicators, validates the theory of change, identifies the suppliers’ capacities, and analyses the impact of local food purchases on markets. It presents conclusions and recommendations that will be useful to the program to ensure the effective accomplishment of indicators and to achieve quality implementation. Agreement Number: LRP-524-2019-005-00-A Project Duration: 2019-2021 Implemented by: Project Concern International – (PCI) Evaluation Authored by: CYCCO/FUNICA DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. 3 Table of Contents Acronyms........................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6 1. Program Information and Project Background................................................................... 10 2. Study Summary....................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Purpose of the Evaluation and Key Questions........................................................... 11 2.2. Methodology and Limitations.................................................................................... 12 2.3. Sampling Strategy...................................................................................................... 13 2.4. Data Collection Instruments....................................................................................... 14 2.5. The Team and Participating Actors............................................................................ 15 2.6. Report Structure ......................................................................................................... 15 3. Results and Analysis................................................................................................................ 16 3.1. Initial Project Assessment.......................................................................................... 16 3.1.1. Relevance and Theory of Sustainable Change........................................................... 16 3.1.2. Current Status of the Project Indicators..................................................................... 17 3.1.3. Organizational Capacity of School Food Committees (SFC) and PTAs for School Food Procurement, Control, and Management .......................................................... 27 3.1.4. Internal and External Factors that May Influence the Project’s Results.................... 28 3.1.5. The Project’s Sustainability ....................................................................................... 29 3.1.6. Elements for the Final Evaluation.............................................................................. 30 3.2. Market Study.............................................................................................................. 31 3.2.1. Supply and Demand Analysis.................................................................................... 31 3.2.2. Characteristics of Suppliers Selected by PCI............................................................. 34 3.2.3. Ability to Comply with PCI’s Requirements............................................................. 39 3.2.4. Alternative Suppliers and Service Providers.............................................................. 43 3.2.5. Risks and Impacts on the Product Value Chain......................................................... 43 4. Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................... 44 Annexes............................................................................................................................................ 47 4 Acronyms ADD Acceptable Dietary Diversity CECOOPSEMEIN, R.L. Center of Producer Society Cooperatives Eco Vegetables of Nicaragua, Limited Liability COOMSEPODA, R.L. Producer Society Cooperative Father Odorico D’Andrea, Limited Liability COOPPANOR, R.L. Potato Producers Society Cooperative, Limited Liability COOSEMTRI, R.L. Producer Society Cooperative La Trinidad, Limited Liability COOSMPROJIN, R.L. Jinotega Producers Society Cooperative Limited Liability CUCULMECA ECA Education and Communication Association ECOFODESA Community Credit and Marketing Company Development Fund, Public Limited Company ECOMAVSA Credit and Marketing Company Father Miguel Ángel Vásquez ECOPRASA Community Credit and Marketing Company Pedro Pablo Rivera Alaniz, Public Limited Company EDUCO Education and Coo/ation Foundation EMAJUSA Communal Credit Company Manos Amigas 26th of July, Public Limited Company ESJUSA Company Esperanza 23rd of June, Public Limited Company FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GRINSA Northern Industrial Group, Public Limited Company IPSA Institute for Agricultural Health and Protection LRP Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program MAD Minimum Acceptable Diet MAF Minimum Acceptable Frequency MAS Increased Access to Healthy Foods MESA Better Education and Health MINED Ministry of Education MINSA Ministry of Health MT Metric Ton PCI Project Concern International PINE Comprehensive School Nutrition Program pp Percentage points 5 PTA Parent-teacher Association SACACLÍ Producer Society Coo/ative Sacaclí, Limited Liability SFC School Food Committee SM School Meal SOPROCOM Society of Producers and Retailers, Limited Liability TOMATOYA Agricultural Coo/ative of Services Tomatoya-Chagüite Grande, Limited Liability USDA United States Department of Agriculture WFP World Food Program 6 Executive Summary Project Concern International (PCI) is implementing the Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables (MAS) project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in the Jinotega department of Nicaragua from 2019 to 2022. The project aims to improve the effectiveness of food assistance by improving the cost-effectiveness of food assistance, improving the timeliness of food assistance, and improving the utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable food that meets quality standards. It aims to reach 10,609 children from 60 schools, ten private-sector agribusinesses, 260 producers, and 420 parents belonging to the parent-teacher association (PTA) in the schools. The strategic partners for this intervention are the Ministry of Education’s (MINED) Comprehensive School Nutrition Program (PINE), the private food producers, and parents. This study combines the project’s baseline evaluation with a market analysis. The primary goal of the baseline study is to measure baseline values for the the project’s indicators, validate indicator targets, provide a foundation for conducting an impact evaluation at endline, and validate project strategies. The market study’s primary goals are to determine if the the LRP model is feasible for the required quantities and whether the program could result in any significant negative market impacts. The evaluation uses a quasi-experimental design with a sample of intervention and matched control schools, with a mixed methods approach. The sample size was estimated on a finite population with a significance level of 95.0% and an error of 5.0% using a two-stage cluster sampling approach that randomly selected schools in the first stage, then students within the schools at the second stage. The variables of interest were analyzed to find out if the differences observed were significant using the appropriate statistical test described in this report. Adequate Dietary Diversity (ADD), school meal (SM) acceptance by students, and the Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) were measured in the control and intervention schools. The ADD in intervention schools was 21.4%, the lowest of the three nutrition indicators measured for the baseline. The SM acceptance by students was 94.6%. The student’s estimated MAD, which is a combination of Minimum Acceptable Frequency (MAF) and MAD, was 64.2%, mostly due to a high MAF (97.2%). The students’ overall ADD was 62.9%, 41.5 percentage points (pp) higher when compared with the ADD in school meals only, implying that students obtain a majority of their dietary diversity outside of school. The evaluation observed higher MAF in urban areas, which had a significant difference. 7 It is recommended that potatoes and cream are excluded from the SM to avoid increases in carbohydrates and fats, and to instead replace them with seasonal fruits. It is also recommended that the following tools should be included: checklists, monthly menu templates with standardized recipes, compliance checks for completion of the PINE logbook, and a nutrition education and advocacy strategy aimed at motivating parents to contribute fruit to the SM due to its nutritional value. Transportation costs were calculated based on information provided by the suppliers and were projected considering inflation at 6.0%, devaluation at 3.5% as of 2021, and the number of deliveries established in the purchase plan. Additionally, consolidated vegetable and tuber deliveries were considered. The cost of transportation1 for produce purchased is in line with estimates made by the project. In addition, the cost of the product purchased for food assistance was $1.8 million, similar to the target of $1.9 million. This indicator was calculated considering the number of deliveries set out in the PCI purchasing plan and the pre-bids provided by the vendors evaluated. Seven percent of producers implement practices to improve the cost-effectiveness of delivery, a low result due to the fact that in the existing market model where producers sell products on the farm and buyers are responsible for practices that would improve cost-effectiveness. Sixty percent of the ten agri-businesses participating in the project are implementing practices and processes to improve the cost-effectiveness of delivery to schools and markets. It is expected that the goal to improve the cost-effectiveness of delivery to schools and markets to 80.0% will be met at the end of the project. The sales value and volume of produce sold annually by producers and businesses exceeded $5.5 million and 14,082MT, respectively. Sixty percent of agri-businesses participating in the project comply with administrative and financial practices; the project should strengthen them in costing, strategic planning tools, and financial analysis. The market study showed that of the ten private-sector food suppliers preselected by PCI, only six were marketing the products selected by the project for school meals, the remaining four’s main business activity was financial services. None of the six active suppliers sold potatoes and beans because they lack buyers, even though they had a high mass of producers for these products. Production, nationally and in Jinotega, generates surpluses to satisfy current demand. PCI’s purchases, due to their size, can be absorbed without causing negative effects on market dynamics. 1 It is considered that the purchase will be delivered to the schools. Therefore, PCI would not incur any additional storage and handling cost, as it would be included in the transportation cost. 8 Produce prices showed slight increases over time. Vegetables presented fluctuations due to lack of production planning, causing oversupply in the market. This meant that prices fell, and producers’ income was reduced. Tuber and vegetable cooperatives used staggered vegetable production and irrigation, allowing availability all year round. Milk, cream, and egg suppliers indicated that they had no issues with availability. Beans were harvested between the months of September and March, allowing national and local supply throughout the year. For vegetables, microbiological contamination and maximum pesticide residue limits were monitored by the buyer but not by the supplier because sales prices did not allow them to cover the cost of carrying out these tests. Food suppliers can produce the quantities required by PCI and meet quality standards. Local procurements supported by USDA for MAS will allow for a greater number of members to be incorporated into a guaranteed market, generating increases in income through production diversification or through increased quality and better prices. Private dairy and egg businesses showed a higher level of consolidation in the area of management and organizational structure. Vegetable cooperatives were more consolidated in the provision of technical and financial services, with potential for improvement in management and strategic orientation. Funding, production support, supplies, and technical assistance services were not a limitation to production as the cooperatives were able to provide them. The cooperatives had means of transportation that met the criteria to ensure safe produce transfer. The risk factors that affected the production chain were mainly climatic, and for the marketing chain, risks were seen in price fluctuations and produce scarcity. The businesses are in a position to make commercial commitments to PCI with updated employer obligations, legal and financial records, and tax commitments. The PTAs focused on operational activities, such as preparing and handing out the SM, and less on strategic planning. Schools have the capacity to store non-perishable produce but lacked the facilities to store dairy produce and vegetables. It is recommended that PCI define strategies and actions to ensure adequate food handling and storage, both in schools and at homes. PCI should direct their actions to strengthen the PTAs’ strategic capacities and invest in school facilities, including the consideration of a sustainable cold chain. The project is relevant to donor and national policies as it contributes to the reduction of food insecurity. Some assumptions of the theory of change are currently not valid, so it is recommended the theory be adjusted to improve diet by focusing on promoting local purchasing, capacity building for the ten agribusiness, producers, and PTAs. The public policy framework is a barrier to 9 sustainability and the scaling up of results as the governemnet centralizes food purchases and producer cooperatives are not eligible to supply food according to the national procurement system. It is recommended that a project sustainability strategy is developed that includes documentation and dissemination of project strategies and successes, and engagement with local government. 10 1. Program Information and Project Background In 2017, Nicaragua maintained a consistent economic growth rate of 4.6%. Due to the social and political unrest that the country has experienced since April 2018, the economy contracted to 4.0% and -3.9% in 2018 and 2019, respectively. In 2020, growth is expected to fall -6.3%, recovering slowly to 0.7% by 2021. 2 Poverty increased to 13.1% in 2019 (from 9.5% in 2017), adding more than 240,000 people into poverty. PINE is a strategic program of MINED. Within the framework of national policies, its objective is to help improve children’s food culture, education, and nutrition in preschools and public primary schools with a rights-based approach. PINE is a public good provided by the Nicaraguan Government to school children. Nationwide, 1.8 million children receive food through PINE programs that is rich in carbohydrates, fats, and plant-based protein but does not include fruits or vegetables. In this context, PCI, with the support of the USDA, designed the MAS project that aims to improve the effectiveness of food assistance through by improving the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of food assistance, the use of nutritious food, and the strengthening of PTAs, businesses, cooperatives, and food producers. This will be achieved through the following activities: purchasing produce locally; providing technical and administrative strengthening of local agricultural businesses and producers; promoting relationships between PTAs, producers, and suppliers; and strengthening producers technical capacity. Annex 5 details the results framework. The project aims to provide nutritious food to 10,609 primary school students (5,100 boys and 5,509 girls) in 60 schools in two municipalities, Pantasma and Jinotega (found in the department of Jinotega), by September 2022. Ultimately, the objective of the project is to build a local market for healthy and nutritious food in collaboration with PTAs, the Government, and food suppliers. 2 World Bank 11 2. Study Summary 2.1. Purpose of the Evaluation and Key Questions The evaluation answered the key questions by assessing the current project indicators and the feasibility of the achieving indicator targets. It analyzed the validity and relevance of the theory of change established at the beginning of the project and the validity of the sustainability elements. It also assessed the performance of the PTAs, as well as providing important information to be considered for project implementation. For the market study, the following were analyzed: the impact of local purchases on the food market, the seasonal production in terms of the schools’ demand, and the product-price distribution to determine their trends over time. The key evaluation themes include: • determine the relevance of the project, • ascertain the consistency of the logical framework and if any modifications were necessary, • calculate quantitative values for the selected indicators, • assess the objectivity of indicator targets, • evaluate the actors’ knowledge and skills to recommend improvements, • identify opportunities and threats, • determine potential problems or challenges, • ascertain the degree of empowerment and participation of local actors, and • validate the strategies designed for MAS. In the market study, the key study themes include: • Do food supplies meet or exceed demand? • Are there problems with competition at different levels of the market system? • What are the possible negative effects caused by MAS purchases? • Are there problems of seasonal availability for specific produce? • What are the seasonal variation in supply of food commodities or availability trends? Is there historical price data for specific produce proposed in the project over the last 3 to 5 years? Hypothesis 12 El diseño de evaluación inicial tomó en cuenta la hipótesis que será comprobada en el estudio final del proyecto, planteada de la siguiente manera: the cost-effectiveness and timelines of food assistance and utilization of nutritious foods improves as a result of Local Regional Procurement compared to schools participating in a USDA-funded MGD program Measured Indicators To test the hypothesis, the baseline evaluation and market study measured three groups of indicators. The first focused on ascertaining the current state of ADD, schoolchildren’s perception of the SM, and the MAD, which relate to the utilization of nutritious food. The second aimed to learn about the value and volume of sales, as well as the administrative and financial practices of the businesses and producers. The third was to determine the value of procurements, costs of transport, and food handling paid for by PCI. These last two groups relate to the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of food assistance. The indicators are detailed in the terms of reference, see Annex 5. The hypothesis will be further tested through the measurement of additional indicators throughout the life of the project and during the project’s final evaluation. Planning and Implementation of the Evaluation The evaluation was carried out in 60 working days, divided into four major phases. The first phase took place in March 2020 and focused on developing a workplan and analysis of secondary information. The second phase was data collection from schools, agribusinesses, and producers from March 26 to April 27, 2020. Phase three was data analysis and drafting the report in May 2020. The fourth phase was editing the final report and translating it into English in June. PCI is planning an internal phase of results dissemination, learning and project adaptation for July 2020. Project management software was used for planning and monitoring the study, ensuring that tasks were completed in the established timeframe. 2.2. Methodology and Limitations The evaluation used a quasi-experimental design method with an intervention and control population that were selected due to their similar characteristics and geographical proximities to the intervention schools. The use of a control group will allow PCI to demonstrate impact during the final evaluation by measuring changes for indicators between the control and intervention schools. The information collected used mixed methods to obtain quantitative and qualitive data. Quantitative data was collected through surveys, while qualitative data was gathered via focus groups, interviews, 13 guided questionnaire, and workshops with different stakeholders. Both the baseline and market studies used participatory, constructive, and knowledge-based approaches. The variables, where sample size allowed it, were analyzed using the Student’s t-test3 and Fisher’s exact test to detect significant differences with p<0.05 between the project and control groups, and InfoStat4 was used to make comparisons between municipalities and origin. Qualitative variables were analyzed by frequency analysis. Limitations included: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing a rethink of data collection strategies; (b) no student lists available to determine the study subjects, as had been predefined in the sampling strategy; (c) producers being absent from their homes; (d) student absenteeism due to fear of the pandemic; (e) PINE’s food control notebooks with information gaps; and (f) dispersed locations of producers belonging to a cooperative or business. To overcome the limitations, the team made the following adjustments: (a) asked teachers to directly invite children’s parents to activities, (b) used a random numbers application for the students’ list, and (c) sought support from the cooperatives’ managers and technical teams to ensure producers participated. 2.3. Sampling Strategy The samples were taken from the municipalities of Santa Maria de Pantasma and Jinotega. For students, the sample size was calculated using the sampling formula for known populations with a confidence interval of 95.0% and a sampling error of 5.0%. A stratified sampling strategy was used to select 22 schools and then 668 students from those schools from a sample frame of 60 intervention schools and 10,609 students. Schools selected for the control group for this baseline evaluation will also be included in the control group for the final evaluation. Control schools share similar characteristics with intervention schools, including:  Taking part in the MGD FFE (MESA II) project, and thus receiving USDA-donated commodities and PINE food, including rice, beans, oil, wheat flour, and oil. Starting in FY20, MESA II began to phase out commodity distribution, which will be completed by FY22 when MGD commodity distribution will no occur, only fresh LRP commodities in intervention schools. 3 Student t-test for two samples is used to test whether two groups (two populations) are different in terms of a quantitative variable and to construct confidence intervals. 4 (Di Rienzo, Casanoves, Balzarini, González, & Tablada M.) URL http://www.infostat.com.ar 14  Encouraging parents to contribute different nutritious foods to complement school meals, including vegetables, protein, and fruit. The frequency of parent contributions varies across all schools; on average, parents complement school meals only 41 days of the 180 days in the school year or 23%.  Conducting local capacity strengthening activities for PTA members who are actively involved in the project to enhance sustainability readiness.  Easy access to main roads; school size; type of community (urban, rural); socioeconomic level; and native language. The main difference between the two groups is that intervention schools will be receiving eight locally-procured fresh food products, to allow the final evaluation to identify the difference between schools that provide fresh food to their students and schools that do not. PCI will also ensure that there are no spillover effects from the MAS intervention to the control schools during project implementation so that the control group is not contaminated and can serve as an good comparison group during the final evaluation. For producers, the sample size was calculated using the sampling formula for known populations (676 producers) with a confidence interval of 95.0% and a sampling error of 5.0%. The simple random sample strategy was used to select 269 producers who were members of the eight cooperatives engaged with project MAS. The R-sampling statistical package was used so that all selected actors had the same probability of being chosen Annexes 3.1 and 3.2 display the schools, cooperatives, producers, and focus groups. The baseline evaluation selected a control group of producers based on the criterion of being members of six cooperatives that did not qualify as project suppliers, given their reduced supply capacity compared to the eight cooperatives engaged with project MAS. The final evaluation will use the same criterion for selecting a control group of producers. 2.4. Data Collection Instruments For the baseline evaluation, the data collection techniques were hedonic rating tests, student surveys about eating frequency, questionnaires and focus groups for PTA members, food consumption frequency checklists in PINE’s food control notebook in the schools, and food handling and manipulation observation lists in schools. 15 For the market study, the following techniques were used: surveys of producers, focus groups for service suppliers, semi-structured surveys of cooperatives and businesses, visits to service providers and product suppliers, and interviews with the World Food Program (WFP) and Pantasma mayor’s office. For all techniques used, the respondents’ prior consent was obtained and information confidentiality was ensured. The surveys were adapted to the KoBoToolbox platform and the KoBoCollect application, which allowed information to be collected using Android devices. This facilitated data collection, systematization, quality control, and information analysis. The methodological tools are presented in Annex 3.4. 2.5. The Team and Participating Actors The main consulting team was Danilo Saavedra (Coordinator), Carmen María Reyes (Nutrition Specialists), Araceli Jiménez (Economist), Rafael Salazar (Economist), Elías Bucardo (Statistician) and Lyndsey Chapman (English Translator). The nutrition specialist had a team of nutritionists, namelyLigia Teresa Yllescas, Berna Mendieta, and Brenda Romero. The producers’ survey was conducted by Axel Calero, Harvey Valverde, Victor Bucardo, and Samir Gutierrez. PCI staff participated from the initial planning through to the consultancy’s, both in the office and out in the field. The participating actors included (a) schoolteachers, (b) third to sixth grade students, (c) school PTAs, (d) cooperatives and businesses, (e) producers, (f) traders, (g) WFP, (h) Pantasma’s mayor’s office, and (i) members of PCI’s management and operational team. 2.6. Report Structure This report contains an executive summary detailing the evaluation’s most important findings and the methodologies used to collect and process the qualitative and quantitative data. The results show the indicators’ current state with an analysis of how realistic, achievable, and attributable to the project they are. They also identify certain internal and external risks for compliance, sustainability, and some elements for the final evaluation, which allow the project’s impact to continue beyond the life of the project. The market study addressed the analysis of supply and demand, the suppliers’ characteristics, ability to meet product quality, and risks and impacts that could affect the value chains. At the end of this report, conclusions and recommendations of where the project should focus its actions are presented. 16 3. Results and Analysis 3.1. Initial Project Assessment 3.1.1. Relevance and Theory of Sustainable Change The project contributes to improving dietary diversity of the SM, thus reducing food insecurity and hunger. The initiative is relevant to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.5 It also contributes to the U.S. Government’s Global Food Security Strategy6 and, in particular, to the overarching goals of agricultural growth, strengthening people and system’s resilience and nutrition. The project contributes to the National Human Development Plan7 and the National Education Plan for 2017 to 20218 in Nicaragua, which aims to bring school feeding programs to 100.0% of primary school students. The initiative is consistent with the Food Sovereignty and Security Law 693 (Asamblea Nacional de Nicaragua, 2009). The theory of change focuses on improving the supply of and access to healthy and culturally acceptable food, as well as the development of a sustainable and locally owned school feeding program. The first part of this is achievable in improving food supply and access. However, there will be challenges sustaining the school feeding program due to the country’s socio-political conditions. The public policy framework is directed, in part, towards food security and sovereignty and the centralization of food purchases by MINED’s PINE. It is recommended that the elements of the theory of change focus on improving the School Meal in terms of nutrition and diversity, making the procurement process more effective; strengthening the capacities of enterprises, producers, and PTAs; producing healthy food; and developing a project knowledge management strategy, including the documentation and dissemination of policy briefs, project processes, dissemination of good practices and results. In addition, it is important to have outcome indicators that measure the expected change of the project and to validate the theory of change. Possible outcome indicator could be agricultural productivity, producer’s income, prevalence of overweight and obesity, school retention, and cognitive functions. 5 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-230 6 U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy FY 2017-2021 7 Gobierno de Nicaragua, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Humano 2018-2021 8 Gobierno de Nicaragua, MINED Plan de Educación 2017-2021. 17 3.1.2. Current Status of the Project Indicators LRP 1.1. Cost of transportation, storage, and handling of commodities procured as a result of USDA’s assistance (by product). PCI’s goal is $46,249.0. The indicator baseline value is $43,620 for the life of the project. Table 2.1 shows how this was calculated. The indicator was estimated based on average costs provided by the private sector providers9 to consolidate weekly deliveries for vegetables, dairy and eggs, and quarterly deliveries of beans. The target budget established by PCI is similar to the one estimated in the evaluation and should be kept as is. 10 LRP 1.1.1. Cost of commodities procured as a result of USDA’s assistance (by produce and country of origin). PCI’s target is $1.9 million. The indicator was calculated using benchmark estimates from pre-selected businesses, which were projected by applying an annual inflation of 6% and a devaluation of 3% from 2021, for the purchase volumes and weeks per year planned for the project. The total cost of the produce was estimated at $1.8 million, slightly below the project target. Table 2.2 and 2.3 show how this was calculated. Food prices should be monitored weekly at wholesale markets and potential suppliers, considering the current context of the country, climate variability, supply costs, and the impact of COVID-19. LRP 1.1.2. Percentage of producers who have adopted practices and processes to improve the cost-effectiveness of delivery. PCI’s target is 80.0%. According to PCI's project plan, the following practices will be promoted and were measured during this evaluation: (a) delivery recording and tracking systems, (b) use of appropriate packaging for transportation, and (c) delivery schedules to meet school procurement schedules. Of those evaluated, only the use of packaging and delivery recording were used. The average percentage of practices used by the intervention producers was 4.3%. No significant differences were found between the intervention and control producer groups (see Table 2.16). Other practices that producers were implementing in their production systems were identified: 98.0% performed chemical control, 79.0% did not burn, 48.0% had natural fences, 38.0% used crop rotation, 55.0% performed safe disposal of pesticide containers, and 49.0% reforested. Trainings and technical 9 For cost estimation purposes, inflation of 6% and devaluation of 3.5% were assumed 10 This recommendation is made considering the Cordoba's crawling peg policy with respect to the dollar, which allows for partial absorption of the internal inflation rate. 18 assistance are needed to implement practices throughout the production process in order to achieve the indicator target, especially for those where the level of implementation is low (see Table 2.19). Sixy percent of the eight cooperatives and two businesses11 have implemented improvement practices and processes, 12 which helps them compete in the market. However, it is advisable to incorporate practices such as sanitation protocols and safety controls in the field, that minimize the risk of quality loss and pesticide contamination (see Table 2.4. and 2.5). LRP 1.3. Percentage of schools serving school meals with Adequate Dietary Diversity (ADD). PCI’s target is 90.0%. The percentage of schools serving school meals with an ADD was measured using the eight food groups from Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA)13 and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)14 guidelines. ADD is achieved when four or more food groups are present out of eight groups, and they are consumed daily. Intervention schools are already participating in PCI’s McGovern-Dole Food for Education program and thus receive three of the food groups daily: Group 1 consisted of grains, cereals, and tubers; Group 2 of pulses and nuts; and Group 8 of food cooked with oil or fat. Therefore, this study measures ADD by the presence of two additional food groups out of five: animal protein (egg, milk and animal source foods), fruits and vegetables rich in vitamin A, and other fruits and vegetables. The ADD was calculated with data from the PINE logbooks, which was present in all but two schools and from the snack contribution logbook in only 28.6% of intervention schools. The results for ADD correspond to 20 schools, due to the two missing logbooks. According to the survey, 21.4% of project schools served meals with vegetables and animal proteins, giving them ADD, (see Table 1.3). The schools with ADD are mainly located in the rural areas of Santa María de Pantasma; this difference is explained by parents’ contributions to the SM (see Table 1.2). The plan for analysing the indicators shows the difference between the types of ADD in Annex 3.3.15. 11 The calculation was made using the selected businesses. 12 Delivery tracking system, use of appropriate packaging for transportation, scheduling of deliveries to meet school procurement schedules, and reduction of food loss due to transportation. 13 (Swindale, Anne; Paula Bilinsky. FANTA, 2006, pág. 12) 14 (FAO, 2013) 19 Overall, ADD for the SM was made up of 21.4% from protein, 7.1% from fruits, and 64.3% from vegetables (see Table 1.3). The lack of fruit in the school diet limited the inclusion of two very important food groupsfound in Group 5 foods rich in vitamin A, and Group 6, other fruits and vegetables. Vegetables, such as peppers, onions, and tomatos, were consumed as a condiment added to fried rice, as this is part of the families’ eating habits. Nevertheless, the nutritional contribution was low. Milk consumption was limited by price and availability as it’s an agricultural region. Of the control schools, 16.7% served food with ADD. They had a vegetable consumption of 83.3%, 19 pp higher than the project school group, no fruit consumption, and a protein intake of 16.6%, 4.7pp lower than the project schools (see Table 1.2). ADD between project and control schools is not statistically significant. MAS’s goal is for 90.0% of schools to have ADD. According to the results obtained, 21.4% has been achieved and to reach the project’s goal it has to increase by 68.6 pp. The current SM and MAS’s contribution would total six food groups. Three products provide protein, two of animal origin and one of vegetable origin. In the case of vegetables, three products selected by the project provide vitamins and minerals and one is rich in vitamin A. Potatoes are part of Group 1, as well as rice, corn, and cereal, which are already provided in the SM. Cream belongs to Group 8 of foods prepared with fat, which is already covered by oil in the SM.. Therefore, it is expected the established target will be achieved by the end of the project. Percentage of Students with an ADD Schoolchildren’s overall ADD (including at￾home and in-school dietary diversity), though not a specific project indicator, was calculated to obtain complementary information for dietary diversity obtained through school meals. According to the surveys, 62.9% of schoolchildren had ADD. When comparing students’ and schools’ ADD within intervention schools, 41.5 pp of students have an ADD compared to ADD within just the 62.9 21.4 2.8 7.1 34.3 71.4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Students Schools Not Acceptable/Low Not Acceptable/Average Acceptable/High Figure 1: Schools and Students’ at Home Level of Dietary Diversity 20 schools. Conversly, 37.2 pp more schools have a low rated ADD compared to students. 15 Disaggregated by sex, 63.7% of boys and 62.2% of girls had ADD, showing no significant difference. When analyzing the students’ ADD, it was much higher than the ADD found in schools. The high ADD of the school children in the project group was related to the variety of diet at home, since lots of these foods were homegrown (see Table 1.4). According to the survey, 63.8% of urban schoolchildren had ADD compared to 62.7% of rural school children, a statistically significant difference (see Table 1.4). Children aged between 10 and 11-years-old have an ADD of 68.8%, higher than other ages. There was a statistical difference between school children aged 10 to 11 and those over 11. The fifth and sixth grade primary school students showed an ADD with similar percentages, ranging from 64.4% to 67.9%, respectively. The fourth grade showed the lowest percentage of 56.3%, showing a significant difference between the fourth to sixth grades. In the municipalities, Santa María de Pantasma had a higher percentage of students with ADD at 65.3% and Jinotega at 60.6%, although this difference is not statistically significant. In the control schools, 62.9% of schoolschildren had achieved ADD (see Table 1.5), not significantly different from intervention schools. The foods that were consumed with high frequency by the project schoolchildren were Group 1 at 84.1%, being predominantly rice; Group 8 at 83.4%, mainly in the form of oil in rice and fried beans; and Group 2 at 76.0%, which were mostly consumed at home. The groups with the lowest consumption were Group 4, foods of animal origin, at 15.6% and Group 5, foods rich in vitamin A, at 28.4%. Group 6, other fruits and vegetables was consumed by 46% of schoolchildren. Fruits were mainly consumed according to the season, and vegetables (onion, pepper, tomato, chayote, and carrot) were added to rice in small quantities as a condiment, so their nutritional contribution was not important. In both cases, amounts consumed were very low, considering that the recommendation intake of these foods is five portions per day (see Table 1.6). 15 High/Adequate = 4 or more food groups at least 6 days/week; Average = four or more food groups 3-5 days/week; low = fewer than 4 food groups consumed in a week. 21 There was a statistical difference in the t-test for schoolchildren in the project and control groups for food Groups 3 and 4. There was a significant difference for food Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 for urban/rural, and for food Groups 2, 4, and 5 for municipality. Table 1. Frequency of Schoolchildren's Consumption of Food Intervention Students by Location and Municipality, March to May 2020 Food groups High consumption frequency (6 to 7 days) with intervention group Condition Location Municipality Contol n=277 Intervention n=391 % Rural n=322 % Urban n=69 % Jinotega n=198 % Santa María de Pantasma n=193 % 1. Grains, cereals, roots and tubers 83.4 84.1 87.0* 71.0* 78.8 89.6 2. Pulses and nuts 69.3 76.0 80.4* 55.1* 68.7* 83.4* 3. Dairy products 7.2* 33.0* 32.0* 37.7* 29.8 36.3 4. Animal protein 6.5* 15.6* 14.9 18.8 13.1* 18.1* 5. Rich in vitamin A 33.8 28.4 26.1* 39.1* 30.3* 26.4* 6. Other fruits and vegetables 38.3 46.0 44.7 52.2 49.5 42.5 7. Eggs 41.5 38.9 40.1 33.3 38.9 38.9 8. Fatty and oily foods 82.7 83.4 82.9 85.5 81.8 85.0 Source: Elaborated from the results of the survey "consumption frequency by food group for schoolchildren in intervention schools". * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 LRP 1.3.1. Percentage of students who report liking school meals using a 5-point hedonistic facial scale according to gender. PCI’s target is 90.0%. Of students, 94.6% reported liking school meals using the mixed 5-point hedonic facial scale. PCI’s goal was exceeded by 4.6 pp. School meals were more accepted in the urban area at 97.1%, compared to the rural area at 94.1%. However, there was no significant difference in relation to location. In both municipalities, the percentage of acceptance was high and did not differ significantly, 94.4% and 94.8%. Among the age groups, 88.6% of over 11-year-olds accepted the SM, the other ages had a similar behavior with 95.5% and 96.7%. There was a significant difference for the 10 to 11-year-old group and the over 11- year-old group. Disaggregated by sex, the /centages were similar, with girls at 95% and boys at 94% (see Table 1.7). A statistically significant difference was found between all primary grades. Boys Graph 2: Acceptance and Rejection of the School Meal, March to May 2020 94.6 5.4 Acceptance Rejection 22 preferred rice and fortified cereal (with milk). The food that was least liked was beans at 29.2%, due to the way it was prepared, and the type provided by the schools. The local variety of bean is more accepted as it is eaten at home. Of the eight foods surveyed, milk is the most preferred food, with 95.5% of students liking bagged milk and slightly fewer (94.7%) liking powdered milk. The second favorite was tomatoes for girls and potatoes for boys. The food ingredient that both sexes least preferred were carrots and beans. The PTAs showed 93% acceptance of the eight foods to be included in the SM through the support of MAS. Beans were the food with least acceptance with 71.4% acceptance and 28.6% rejection. This data confirmed what 29.2% of school children expressed about beans being the food they least liked. In the control schools, 92.4% of students reported that they liked the SM (see Table 1.8). There was no significant difference in acceptance of the SM for students in the control and project schools. LRP 1.3.2.1. Value of annual sales for businesses and producers receiving USDA assistance. PCI’s target is $1.9 million Total annual sales for project businesses and producers in 2019 was $5.5 million, of which $3.6 million corresponded to sales by producers, giving an average of $21,200.0 per producer (based on 170 producers). There were no significant differences with respect to the control group. The sales for the six businesses and cooperatives that marketed the selected produce was $1.9 million (see Table 2.6 and 2.20). Regarding PCI’s established target, total sales exceeded $3.6 million. According to the results, the indicator needs to be adjusted. However, the annual sales indicator is affected by external factors, such as price, decrease in production volumes, planting areas, and company dynamics, among others. Below, the 2019 sales value is broken down by produce type, producer type, age, and gender for the project group: • Of total sales, $2.6 million (47%) comes from vegetables, $1.6 million (28%) from tubers, $1.1 million (19%) from the sale of eggs, $0.3 million (5%) from beans, and $0.04 million (1%) from cream and milk. • According to the typology defined by USDA, 13.3% come from small producers, 52.0% from non-small producers, 34.7% from small businesses. 82.5% of sales were made by older adults and 17.5% by people under 30. Ninety-five percent of sales were made by men and 5.0% by women. 23 • Of the ten private sector suppliers included in the project, 43.0% of sales were made by COOSEMPODA, 19.0% by Klifford, 17.0% by SACACLI, 11.0% by Tomatoya, 8.0% by COOSMPROJIN, 1.0% by GRINSA, and 1.0% by ECOPRASA. • The value of sales for small producers was $733,357.71; for non-small producers, it was $2,874,663.98; and $1,918,534.90 for small businesses. • Of the value of sales from small producers, $33,258.03 correspond to adult women (>= 30 años) representing 4.5% of the sales value for this group, while $184,236.76 corresponded to male small producers under 30 years of age, and $515,862.92 to male small producers 30 or older. No female small producers under 30 were found for this group. With non-small producers, the value of sales from adult women was $130,367.03, while young male non￾small farmers sold $176,104.62 and adult men sold $2,568,192.34. Again, no young women were found for this group. Small businesses were all owned by men 30 or older. • Small producer sales included vegetables (excluding carrots) for a value of $221,057.71, tubers for $455,591.37 and beans for $56,708.62. Non-small producers sold vegetables for a value of $1,556,518.63; tubers for $1,119,038.19 and beans for $199,107.17. Finally, small businesses sold a value of $1,072,986.00 in eggs, $807,122.00 in vegetables, $13,315.40 in milk and $25,111.50 in fresh cream. LRP 1.3.2.1. Volume of produce (MT) sold by businesses and producers receiving USDA assistance. PCI’s target goal is 3,600 MT. In 2019, project producers sold 12,327 MT, with an average volume of 72.5 MT per producer (based on 170 producers). There were no significant differences with respect to the control group. The businesses sold 1,754.1 MT (see Table 2.6), giving a total volume of 14,082 MT. The total estimated volume exceeded the target by 10,324 MT. This indicator needs to be adjusted. Below, the product volume sold in 2019 is broken down by produce type, type of producer, age, and gender for the project group: • Of the volume sold, 10.1 thousand MT (72%) were vegetables, 3.1 thousand MT (22%) were tubers, 0.5 thousand MT (4%) were eggs, milk and fresh cream, and 0.4 thousand MT (3%) were beans. • 76.0% were made by adults and 24.0% from young people under 30 years. 94.0% of the volume sold was by men and 6.0% by women. • Of the ten private sector suppliers included in the, 55.0% of the volume sold was from COOSEMPODA, 15.0% from COOSMPROJIN, 14.0% from SACACLI, 10.0% from Tomatoya and 4.0% from GRINSA. 24 • Based on the type of producer, 20.0% of the volume of products sold were from small producers, corresponding to 2,838.46 MT, while 67.0% or 9,489.83 MT were from non-small producers, and 12.0% or 1,754.10 MT from small businesses, for an overall total of 14,082.39 MT of products sold. • A total of 156.31 MT or 4.5% of the products sold by small producers corresponded to adult women (>= 30 years of age), while 705.83 MT were sold by men under 30, and 1,976.32 MT by men 30 or older. With non-small producers, the volume of products sold by women over 30 was 522.60 MT; men under 30 sold 575.44 MT; and men over 30 sold 8,391.71 MT. The sample did not find any female under 30 for any of the types of producers. Small businesses were all owned by adult males over 30 and sold a volume of 1,754.09 MT. • Small producers sold a volume of 855.60 MT of vegetables (there were no carrots), 1,763.37 MT of tubers, and 219.49 MT of beans. Non-small farmers sold 8,042.30 MT of vegetables, 1,307.91 MT of tubers, and 139.62 MT of beans. And small businesses sold 1,198.70 MT of vegetables and 528.70 MT of eggs, 16.70 MT of milk and 10 MT of fresh cream. LRP1.3.2.4. Percentage of suppliers who apply improved financial and administrative practices. PCI’s target is 70% This indicator was measured using a self-assessment methodology of associative enterprises16 that took into account a total of 11 practices, five related to administration (implementation of operations and functions manuals, existence and implementation of strategic plan, implementation of business and operational plans) were aimed at determining the existence of instruments that allowed management bodies to supervise and direct the organization's activities. Six were related to finance (use of accounting systems, implementation of accounting procedures manual, preparation of financial statements and monthly reports, conducting audits at least once a year, evaluation and review of financial statements, production process planning, requirements to comply with commercial contracts) were aimed at ensuring the systematization and use of accounting information for decision making. The indicator was calculated considering those businesses that have implemented at least four of the 11 practices. Sixty percent (6/10) of the businesses evaluated complied with administrative and financial practices. Financial practices were used more than administrative practices. In the financial area, five of the businesses implemented 100.0% of the practices, two 83.0%, and three 67.0%. In the administrative area, two businesses implemented 100.0% of the practices, three 80.0%, 16 (Ilabaca Ugarte, Gottret, & Junkin, 2010). http://www.renida.net.ni/renida/funica/REC10-II25.pdf 25 three 60.0%, one 20.0%, and one 0%. The planned target is expected to be met (see Table 2.8 to 2.11). It is recommended that PCI strengthen administrative and strategic orientation capacities, as well as the capacity to interpret financial instruments for decision-making and costing. In the case of the producers, none of them complied with the administrative and financial requirements (Unique Registry of Taxpayers Number, General Directorate of Revenue Registry, commercial or formal invoices). LRP 1.3.3. Percentage of school-aged children receiving a MAD. PCI’s target is 90.0%. The MAD is the combination of two indicators: the MAF, considered to be three or more meals per day, and ADD in schools, determined by the presence of four or more of the eight food groups in the diet. Figure 3 shows that students in the project schools had a MAF of 97.2% and an MAD of 64.2%. For the control group, 67.5% had a MAD, 3.3 pp above the project group, however this difference is not statistically significant. By municipality, 67.9% of Jinotega had a MAD, 6.9 pp more than the municipality of Santa María de Pantasma, which was 60.9% (see Table 1.13). Schoolchildren in urban areas had a MAF of 100.0%, higher than those in rural areas with 96.6%. This, in part, was because in the urban area they gave more mealtimes at school. Between municipalities, Jinotega reached 99.0% and Pantasma 95.3%. According to sex, 97.5% of the girls had MAF compared to 96.8% of the boys. On average 95.6% of schoolchildren ate the three main meals: breakfast, lunch and dinner. Only 36.6% had an afternoon snack (see Table 1.10). A statistically significant difference was found in the project group and control group at lunchtime. 99.3% of the students in the control schools showed MAF (Table 1.13). The MAF of the control group and the project group did not show significant differences. Girls were found to have the highest MAD value at 64.7%, 1 pp more than boys. The highest percentage was found in the urban area at 72.5%, showing statistical significance. Similar tendencies Graph 3: Project Schools’ Frequency and Minimum Diet, March to May 2020 97.2 64.2 2.8 35.8 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Minimum Frequency Minimum Diet Percentage Acceptable Not acceptable 26 were found among the municipalities, with Jinotega at 64.1% and Pantasma at 64.2%. For the 10 to 11-year-old age group, 69.8% of students had a MAD, 13 pp higher that the other age groups, which were 56.8% and 58%. This showed a statistical difference between children in the 10 to 11-year-old age group and those older than 11-year-old age group. For the fourth grade, 58.6% of students had a MAD and the rest of the grades showed similar results at65.2% and 68.7% respectively. Statistically significant differences were found between the third to fifth and third to sixth grades (see Table 1.12). The target is for 90.0% of school-aged children to receive a MAD and the current indicator stands at 64.2%. Through MAS, an improvement of 25.8 pp must be made. However, the variables that determine the level of this indicator are based on how children eat in their homes, where PCI is unlikely to have any influence. And if the ADD does not improve, there is a risk that the MAD target will not be met. LRP 1.4.3 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance. PCI’s target goal is 216. Of the 170 producers in the intervention group, 17 (or 10%) were small producers, with 12 being over 30 years of age (2 women and ten men), and five were men under 30. Non-small farmers included 153 or 90% of the sample, including 147 over the age of 30 (26 women and 121 men), and six were male under 30. All 170 producers interviewed were applying at least one food production improvement practice in their farms, representing almost 79% of the LOP target; thus, this report recommends changing this indicator's definition to include at least two improvement practices. Besides this change, other elements will not allow comparing this result during the final evaluation, including the fact that the project will train producers to participate in the project and measure their knowledge during field visits. In contrast, this baseline evaluation measured a randomly selected sample of potential suppliers. The types of agricultural practices or technologies (see table 2.18) that respondent producers are applying include: 1. Pest management, including using chemical pesticides with 98%, pest counting with 22%, and biological controls with 15%. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups. 2. Soil Conservation, including not practicing agricultural burning with 79%, planting live barriers with 48%, crop rotation with 38%, and using dead barriers with 22.35%. These practices were more frequently used by non-small farmers. 27 3. Adaptation to climate change, including adequate disposal of containers with 55%, reforestation with 49%, rainwater harvesting with 38%, and the use of drought resistant crop varieties with 28%. Reforestation is most prevalent among non-small farmers as they typically own their farms. 4. Storage. Under this category, 79% of producers are not conducting any practice because most are growing vegetables, which are sold immediately after harvesting. Only 5% of producers have an appropriate area in their farms to store their products, 3% use practices to control temperature, humidity and lighting, and 2% adopt food safety services outside the warehouse. 5. Product transportation, including cleaning the recipients where products are transported with 23% and cleaning the vehicles with 4%. 3.1.3. Organizational Capacity of School Food Committees (SFC) and PTAs for School Food Procurement, Control, and Management This indicator was evaluated based on the use of the PINE-MINED School Feeding Committee Operation Guide to manage school feeding. Fifty-seven percent of the project’s PTAs fulfilled all of the responsibilities entrusted to them with regards to school feeding and none of the control’s PTAs fulfilled all of them (see Table 4.1). The functions with less participation were knowledge of school feeding committee (SFC) regulations, participation in preparing the school committee activity report, promotion of community participation in School Meal activities, and supervision of food reception and withdrawal. The PTAs focus on the operational side of the School Meal rather than strategic aspects such as planning, food reception, registration, departure control, monitoring, and quality control. It is recommended that PCI direct its actions towards strengthening strategic capacities that allow for greater community participation, accountability, sustainability, and capacity for appropriate food preparation. In terms of food storage, 67.0% of project schools and 70.0% of the control group met the storage conditions and standards set out by the project. The criteria least complied with were protecting food from insects and rodents using products authorized by the Ministry of Health (MINSA), ensuring that food is not on the floor, and providing a warehouse or storage containers exclusively for food storage (see Table 4.2). The schools have the capacity to store the current School Meal products but lack facilities and infrastructure for fresh produce that will complement the School Meal. Optimal conditions for food preparation. The project schools that had a kitchen met 57.0% of the optimal conditions for food preparation but had limitations in hygiene, food handling, proper waste management, and water availability (see Table 4.3). Some of the practices that require strengthening 28 are MINSA certification for food handlers, investment in protective equipment for food handlers, and water storage containers for hand washing and cleaning work areas and kitchen utensils. Sixty-six percent of the project schools and 14.0% of the control schools had a kitchen, the main obstacle to monitoring hygienic food preparation. It is recommended that PCI define a strategy to ensure the necessary facilities required for safe food handling, especially as vegetables and dairy produce will be part of the SM. 3.1.4. Internal and External Factors that May Influence the Project’s Results The pandemic in the is an external factor that could have an effect on the continuity or the scope of the project. This is a factor beyond the control of the project but is present during implementation. COVID-19 can impact the household economy, intensifying food insecurity, the involvement of PTAs in schools, the resilience of food prices, and public sector technical support services to the private sector. Nicaragua’s GDP will contract by 4.3%, according to the World Bank17, and will have an effect on social investment and consequently on the SM. This context will increase levels of extreme poverty in rural areas, impacting ADD and MAD. The productive sector is expected to have less investment, impacting productivity and food prices. Climate change is an external factor that directly affects productivity, profitability, and production volumes in the agricultural sector, the main effect being on food availability and price fluctuations. Also, Nicaragua’s sociopolitical instability, which started in April 2018, the upcoming presidential elections in 2021, and insecurity in rural areas are beyond the project’s control and could have a strong effect on performance and results. All external factors can affect indicators related to food procurement, production, sales volumes, application of practices for cost-effectiveness of delivery, and nutrition. PCI’s main strengths in facing the current context lie in the organization’s experience in school feeding projects worldwide, the synergy that was observed between PCI’s technicians and the schools (directors, coordinators, teachers, SFC, and PTA) and the producers, and the team’s technical capacity, which is hexpected to mitigate the current situation. It is important that the project develops a risk mitigation plan that takes into account the aforementioned aspects. 17 (Forbes Centroamérica, 2020) https://forbescentroamerica.com/2020/04/13/nicaragua-y-el-salvador-tendran-la￾mayor-caida-del-pib-en-centroamerica-por-covid-19-banco-mundial 29 3.1.5. The Project’s Sustainability The project’s sustainability is based on four pillars and six critical assumptions. The pillars are: (a) capacity, (b) motivation, (c) linkage, and (d) resources. A market formed by PTAs, the public sector, and food providers is anticipated to be developed where parents will continue to purchase produce long after USDA’s intervention. The project’s critical assumptions are: (a) USDA funding will continue during the project, (b) natural or economic disasters will not significantly undermine the results, (c) government policies remain favorable, (d) agricultural production and market systems do not suffer significant crashes, (e) stakeholders continue to support the program, and (d) the political situation does not deteriorate significantly. The project will have control over capacity building, linkage, and resources for food acquisition. PINE’s motivation to adopt the procurement model and expand investment is beyond the control of the project because of the way the state purchases food, the current procurement system, and the limited economic capacity to duplicate the investment in the Schoo Meal. On the other hand, the current school feeding model has relegated the PTAs to food preparation tasks, occasional and voluntary food complement contributions, and not to actions where they participate in food selection, acquisition, administration, and preparation of the foods to be eaten in the schools. The project made critical assumptions that have now changed, including: (a) there is a pandemic that is deteriorating the country’s economic conditions, (b) the government of Nicaragua’s policies do not favor the project’s proposed model because the government doesn’t permit the partitipation of PTA in purchase processes and food delivery, and (c) the country’s political situation has deteriorated. The change in situation will limit public investment in the medium term and eventually the possibilities for expanding the School Meal and transferring the additional cost to PTAs will not be possible due to the level of poverty and food insecurity experienced by these families. However, many fruits that currently rot in the backyard could be a substantial addition to the schoolchildren’s diet. The change of context, in the short term, limits the project’s sustainability. However, as a pilot project, it could build its sustainability in knowledge management, capacity building of PTAs, and linkages with local governments, while conditions arise in terms of public policy and the availability of resources for scalability. To support sustainability efforts, the project should provide evidence of the effects achieved at the level of schools, producers, and process innovation developed during its implementation, and 30 disseminate results among key stakeholders. It is necessary to invest in case studies, best practice docuemnts, systematization of results, policy briefs and standardized local procurement processes in order to share the model’s results with public policy makers. The PTAs’ capacity can be strengthened through exchanges and learning paths that will contribute to improved PTA performance. Capacity building for PTAs through a curriculum aimed at improving skills in the area of school feeding programs, management, and food and nutrition education is likely to result in greater participation, ownership, and empowerment in all processes from reception, management, and preparation of food. Similarly, encouraging PTAs to integrate existing seasonal fruits grown at home to supplement the food could improve the project’s impact. Engaging local governments from the start of operations means that the project would have far￾reaching possibilities. The municipalities could potentially support school feeding programs in their area. The municipalities’ participation in the project’s implementation would show the feasibility of decentralizing school feeding programs to the local level and would be a very important contribution of the project. The project should develop a sustainability strategy with regards to the abovementioned aspects and include it in the project’s actions. It is important to establish achievable global outcome indicators for the project that go beyond those already established for the school feeding program, in order to show the intervention’s added value. The outcome indicator could be agricultural productivity, producer’s income, prevalence of overweight and obesity, school retention, and cognitive functions 3.1.6. Elements for the Final Evaluation The evaluation methodology should allow for the observed changes to be attributed to the project. The project baseline has shown that there are no significant differences between the control and project population at the school, student, and producer level. The quasi-experimental model used in the final evaluation should use the difference-in-differences analysis method so that the differences between the attended and control population display the effects attributed to the project. For the impact variables that are influenced by gender, age, schooling, access to services, and investment, it 31 is necessary to use the propensity score matching18 technique to eliminate any effects from the covariates. The evaluation should use a random selection for the 60 schools, the schools’ students, and producers in order to reduce experimental error and results scaling. Prior to the assessment, it is important to ensure that all actors are available in order to use the R sampling package with 5.0% error and 95.0% confidence so that all actors involved in the evaluation have the same probability of being selected. Similarly, data collection techniques should be mixed so both quantitative and qualitative data can be used for the final evaluation. 3.2. Market Study 3.2.1. Supply and Demand Analysis Value-Added Analysis Aggregate Supply This analysis is based on information collected on national production indicators from the production plans for 2017 to 2019.19 It was determined that the purchase volumes required by PCI would not compromise produce availability nationally for the products being studied. When comparing national production in 2017 to 2019, growth was observed for the period, where potatos, milk, and cabbage recorded the highest growth rates of between 28.0% and 70.0%. The remaining produce—eggs, tomatos, beans, and carrots—grew between 4.0% and 13.0%. Cabbage and carrots were the only items that recorded imports in the last two years, representing 3.0% and 15.0% of domestic production, respectively. Imports were approved for the months of July and September, coinciding with the national sowing and harvesting dates to ensure supply and avoid speculation. In the case of beans, Nicaragua exported an average of 34.0% of national production in the 2017 to 2019 period. Milk was another export item; since exports were reported in monetary values (dollars), 18 Rosenbaum, Paul R.; Rubin, (1983). https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareamiento_por_puntaje_de_propensi%C3%B3n#cite_note-3. Saavedra, D. (2019). Técnica aplicada para aislar los efectos de la productividad en café entre contrafactual y productor beneficiario. https://www.academia.edu/38583234/Propensity_Score_Matching_tool_to_improve_impact_evaluation_in_Agriculture 19 (Production, consumption and trade plan for 2016-2017, 2016). https://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/wp￾estaticos/2016/05/PLAN-PRODUCCION-CONSUMO-COMERCIO-2016-2017.pdf 32 it was not possible to compare them in terms of volume. For both items, exports did not compromise domestic availability. Aggregate Demand Aggregate demand for tomatoes was the only product with a decreasing variation at 34.5% between 2017 and 2019. Potatoes and cabbages showed an average growth of 30.0% and eggs and beans at a lesser rate of 12.0% each. National production of the eight products in the period analyzed showed growth, generating surpluses that allowed the aggregate demand to be satisfied. Purchases by PCI would represent 0.2% of production and 0.3% of national demand and are unlikely to cause market distortions.  Local Level Analysis of Jinotega Jinotega generates 11.0% of national production for the eight food groups and 40.0% for vegetables (see Table 2.1.1). Average production for the items in the study has been higher than demand (see Table 2.13 and 2.14). Production surpluses have increased by an average of 25.0% (see Table 2.14). PCI’s purchases represent an average of 0.6% of production and 3.0% of demand in the department of Jinotega in 2019. Therefore, they would not have a significant negative impact on local market dynamics in terms of price determination and product availability (see Table 2.15). For the cooperatives studied, PCI’s purchases would have a positive impact, providing them with a market opportunity to harness their members’ production capacity with a guaranteed buyer. This would increase income for their producers, either through produce diversification or obtaining better prices for high quality products.  Price Analysis of Selected Products This analysis is based on the compilation of a series of consumer prices from 2015 to 2019, sourced from popular markets in Managua and is available from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Figure 4: Price Behavior of Vegetables and Tubers for the Period 2015 to 2019 (amounts in US Dollars per MT) 33 Vegetables and tubers: The average consumer price per MT, according to the data series analyzed, was $803.0 for tomatoes, $341.5 for cabbages, $890.6 for potatoes, and $805.0 for carrots. The prices presented fluctuated due to lack of planning and/or staggered production that are used to avoid market saturation or produce shortage, which effects price. The prices rose in the middle of the year due to lower production and at end of the year due to higher demand because of end￾of-year activities. Beans: The average consumer price for beans was $1,118.0 per MT for the period analyzed. In the analyzed period, it was stable with an interannual variation of 1.0% due to appropriate climate conditions and a growing demand for the item, both nationally and for exportations. The product’s highest price was between the months of May and June, coinciding with the period of relative scarcity. Milk: The average consumer price was $912.0 per MT for the period analyzed. The price was relatively stable with average interannual variations of -2.0%. The lower prices were between August and October with average variations of -1.0% due to favorable climate conditions for production. - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 860 880 900 920 940 960 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Tomato Cabbage Carrot Potato Figure 5: Price Behavior of Beans for the Period 2015 to 2019 (amounts in US Dollars per MT) Price Behavior of Beans for the Period 2015 to 2019 (amounts in US Dollars per MT) Figure 6: Price Behavior for Milk for the Period 2015 to 2019 (amounts in US Dollars per MT) 34 Eggs: The average consumer price was $2,558.7 per MT for the period analyzed and displayed stable behavior. The price was highest in the months of November and December due to higher consumption because of end-of￾year activities. 3.2.2. Characteristics of Suppliers Selected by PCI 3.2.2.1. Suppliers’ Current Situation: Vegetable and Tubers, Eggs and Dairy, and Basic Grains The market study showed that from the ten food suppliers preselected by PCI, only six were selling the required products, while the other four’s main business activity was financial services. None of the six active suppliers sold potatoes and beans, even though they had a critical mass of producers to supply them; they lacked buyers to encourage the commercialization of these products.  Production Vegetables: The preselected cooperatives have implemented a staggered production system and have a production base that allows them to respond to PCI’s demand. According to data collected in the survey, producers were able to produce 11,968.0 MT, of which 6,701.0 MT were cabbages, 1,835.7 MT were tomatoes, 360.6 were MT carrots, and 3,071.0 MT were potatoes. The vegetable production of the control group was 5,015.0 MT. According to the volume produced by the project group, the biggest cabbage production came from the following cooperatives: COOSEMPODA with 67.0%, COOSMPROJIN 23.0%, Tomatoya 10.0%, and Sacacli 1.0%. For tomatoes, Sacacli produced 92.0%, COOSMPROJIN 6.0%, and Tomatoya and COOSEMPODA the rest. For carrots, Tomatoya produced 57.0%, COOSMPROJIN 23.0%, COOSEMPODA 18.0%, and Sacacli 3.0%. For potatoes, COOSEMPODA produced 98.0% and COOSMPROJIN 2.0%. 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Figure 7: Price Behavior of Eggs for the Period 2015 to 2019 (amounts in US Dollars per MT) 35 Beans: According to the results of the producer survey, production in 2019 for the project group was 359.0 MT and for the control group 261.0 MT. From the volume produced by the project group, 48.0% came from producers belonging to the SACACLI Cooperative, 14.0% from COOSMPROJIN, 11.0% from ECOPRASA, 8.0% from ESJUSA, 7.0% from ECOFODESA, 6.0% from EMAJUSA, 4.0% from COOSEMPODA, and 2.0% from Tomatoya. From the total sample of producers surveyed, the productive management practices were: 51.0% used irrigation, 48.0% did not burn, 39.0% managed containers properly, 8.0% had a good agricultural practices certificate, and 1.7% used boxes to handle products (Table 2.16). Milk and cream: GRINSA, a dairy produce processing business, was not included in this section, as it collected raw materials and processed them. The business did not have any plan to vertically integrate the process from the source. Eggs: Klifford, a small production company, ensures egg production by maintaining an inventory of laying hens imported from Costa Rica or Miami. They purchase hens every four months in order to have batches of different ages that allow for year-round staggered production. The company is under the supervision of the Institute of Agricultural Protection and Health (IPSA) for the detection of salmonella, tracheitis larynx, and avian influenza, a requirement for their operating permit, which is renewed every year.  Storage Vegetables and tubers: Produce is harvested in tandem by the cooperative’s technical staff and the producer, where preselection is done according to the quality standards requested by the clients. The produce is packed in boxes and transported in closed trucks owned by the cooperatives. Prior to produce reception, the vehicle and facilities are sanitized. Beans: At the time of the study none of the businesses stored beans. Producers store beans individually to sell. Milk and cream: GRINSA collects raw material (fresh milk) from producers in Jinotega and cooperatives in Boaco and Matiguás. In Jinotega, the producers are certified for brucellosis-free herds and are provided with cooling tanks, which turn them into small-scale collection centers. The cooperatives in Boaco and Matiguás are in the process of being certified as brucellosis-free farms. 36 GRINSA's competitors are LALA and Centrolca. LALA has the greatest capacity nationally for collecting and processing milk and milk products, and it has a network of exclusive distributors who are responsible for placing producers among retailers. Raw material is collected from dairy cooperatives throughout the country by quota. CENTROLAC is a smaller-scale company and has an operating system similar to LALA using a collection system. They allocate milk collection quotas without competition between them.  Processing Vegetables: The Cooperatives’ vegetable processing consists of washing, grading, and packing produce according to each client’s quality standards (size, weight, taste, color, and texture). Tomatoya is the only cooperative that has a manual for processing produce, which is being reviewed by IPSA for approval. The cooperatives have workplace safety practices, such as requiring processing personnel to wear boots, masks, mouth covers, as well as biannual medical examinations for staff. For producers, processing is minimal and consists only of sorting and cleaning produce. Beans: Seventy-six percent of producers indicated that they only cleaned beans, 6.0% reported cleaning and drying them, and 18.0% cleaned, dried and bagged them. The businesses evaluated were not selling this item. Milk and cream: GRINSA use industrialized processes. Once the raw material is received, it is transported by pipes to pasteurization tanks and vats depending on which process line is required: packaged milk, cocoa, cheese, and cream. The milk line has its own filling machine that allows 40 one-liter bags to be filled per minute. Each process line has its own work plan and assigned staff responsible for it. During processing operational sanitation practices are observed, which are included in their standardization and sanitation operational plans. Likewise, they comply with the norms and standards in the purchase of raw materials required by NTON 03034-11 (Food Technical Committee, 2011). Eggs: Klifford’s product processing consists of sorting, cleaning, and packaging. It has 5 three-story production lines, each with a water system that enters through pipes connected to a tank, and the birds are fed from a conveyer belt. The eggs are transported by conveyer belt to the collection point, where the staff manually clean and select the eggs according to their size and possible shell anomalies. Once selected, they are placed in 30-unit boxes. 37  Warehousing Vegetables: In this group, there is no storage because they are distributed on the same day. The Tomatoya Cooperative has a cold room with a capacity of 14.5 MT and is used occasionally when they have surplus produce. Beans: Seventy percent of producers do not store this item because the produce is sold on the farm after the harvest. The other 30.0% store them mainly for personal use either in metal silos, bags, orplastic barrels. Milk and cream: GRINSA has 6 cold rooms with a total storage capacity of 68.0 MT. The stored volumes are adjusted according to demand so inventory does not build up. The produce is first prestored in a cold room where it awaits microbiological coliform analysis by the laboratory. For example, for milk it would be milk viscosity and pH for cream, and then it is transferred to other cold rooms where it will be stored until it is shipped to the customer. Eggs: Even though Klifford distribute their produce daily, they have a policy of not storing produce for more than two days. They have the capacity to store 2,400 boxes.  Sales Total sales for 2019 by the producers were $5.2 million, 69.0% of which came from the project group and 31.0% from the control group. For the project group’s sales, 44.0% came from potatoes, 27.0% from cabbages, 20.0% from tomatoes, 7.0% from beans, and 2.0% from carrots (see Table 2.17). Vegetables: Total sales for the project group of producers were $3.3 million, from which potatoes formed 47.0%, cabbages 30.0%, tomatoes 21.0%, and carrots 2.0%. Forty-one percent of the producers sold at the local market in Jinotega, 32.0% sold to wholesalers, 18.0% sold to cooperatives, and the remaining 9.0% sold to national markets and supermarkets (see Table 2.17). Cooperatives: Sales from the cooperatives in 2019 totaled $1.9 million. Cabbage, carrots, and tomatoes represented 42.0% of total sales (see table 2.6). The cooperatives conformed to the quality standards of buyers, who focused on compliance with physical standards (texture, color, weight, and size). According to the cooperatives, microbiological parameters and pesticide residue tests were carried out by the buyers because the price paid did not allow them to cover the cost of the service. 38 Vegetable cooperatives sold cabbages, tomatoes, and carrots to Walmart, La Colonia (national supermarket), Subway, and certain restaurants in Managua (Pizza Hut, El Eskimo Restaurant, and Comedor Santa Lucia). They did not sell beans and potatoes because of the lack of formal buyers, which discouraged them from producing and storing them. However, producers sold them independently. Beans: According to the producer survey, total sales in 2019 were $443,482.2, of which $255,815.8 came from the project group and $187,666.5 from the control group. Fifty percent of the producers sold to the local market, 41.0% to wholesalers in Jinotega and Estelí, 6.0% indicated that they sold to cooperatives, and 3.0% did not sell. Milk and Cream: GRINSA sold its produce to Walmart, Pricesmart, La Colonia, AM/PM, and Super Express for a total of 26.0% of sales; 19.0% to Cargill, and 55.0% to mainstream market wholesalers. The produce was transported in four-ton trucks refrigerated at 2 degrees, where the temperature was monitored by sensors so that the cold chain was not broken. These vehicles were also subject to standardization and sanitation operational cleaning practices. Pasteurized milk was packaged in 450 ml bags with a shelf life of 15 days, and cream was packaged in 454-gram bags with a shelf life of 60 days in optimal conditions. They are able to adjust packaging size according to the client’s demands. Eggs: Klifford’s sales were 35.0% to small and medium grocery stores, 20.0% to resellers, and 45.0% on consignment. The company met the average weight standard of 54 grams required by customers, selling 92.0% of its production to this standard. Transportation to sale points was done using the company’s vehicles.  Cost Analysis for Transport, Processing, and Storage At the producer level, the means of transport used when delivering outside the farm gates were 8 to 10-ton trucks at an approximate cost of $150.0 per delivery. For cooperatives. the price was $235.0, which included transportation from the farm to the collection center and from the collection center to Managua. 39 Vegetables: According to the information provided by the cooperatives, the average processing costs were $12.5 per MT. They did not record storage costs because the produce was harvested then sold. Eggs: The average processing costs were $1,300.0 per MT and were mostly concentrated in bird feeding. GRINSA provided no processing costs. The average storage costs for milk reported by GRINSA were $176.0 per MT of milk and $550.0 per MT of cream. 3.2.3. Ability to Comply with PCI’s Requirements The companies that have as a business line commercialization (6 of 10) are able to meet the volumes, quality standards, legal aspects, and financial administrative capacity required to tender bids and to establish commercial relations with PCI. The cooperatives showed a similar level of development in their functional areas: organizational structure, governance, and technical services. The areas with potential for improvement were strategic orientation, administrative management, and marketing (see Graph 2.8 and 2.9).  Legal Issues According to the information collected, it was determined that 40.0% of the suppliers operated commercially as cooperatives, 50.0% as public limited companies, and 10.0% as natural persons. One hundred percent had legal status, held a unique registry taxpayer’s number (RUC), and were up to date with their tax obligations (see Table 2.8). Ninety percent of the businesses complied with their employers, social, and occupational obligations.  Financial Administration To evaluate these capacities, 11 practices were considered, five from the administrative area and six from the financial. Both aimed at providing information for strategic decision-making by the businesses’ management bodies. Analyzing by area, suppliers had paid relatively more attention to implementing financial practices than administrative practices. On average, the businesses had implemented 64.0% of the administrative practices and 87.0% of the financial practices (Table 2.7). The ten businesses applied practices in both areas. When analyzing the implementation percentage in relation to the total number of practices, only GRINSA implemented 100.0% of the practices 40 evaluated. Sacaclí, Tomatoya, COOSEMPODA, and ESJUSA cooperatives implemented 91.0% (10 practices), ECOFODESA 73.0% (8 practices), EMAJUSA and ECOPROSA 70.0% (7 practices), COOSMPROJIN 55.0% (6 practices), and Klifford 36.0% (4 practices). The practices used by the businesses are presented in Tables 2.9 and 2.10. None of the individual producers that constituted the Cooperatives implemented administrative or financial practices.  Quality Standards Tomato, carrot, cabbage, and potato suppliers met the quality standards: produce characteristics, ripeness, size, and absence of pests. As far as microbiological parameters and maximum pesticide residue limits were concerned, they were met as long as the client’s order continued; the client had to carry out the corresponding tests. From the interviews and surveys, 24 practices were identified (15 for quality and nine for safety) that were implemented by all suppliers to guarantee physical standards. The dairy produce supplier mets the quality standards required by PCI; the company has a hazard analysis and critical control points plan that allows it to guarantee produce safety and its implementation is permanently verified by IPSA. Additionally, its installed capacity allows it to comply with the standards related to presentation, chemical characteristics, and microbiological parameters (it has a laboratory and qualified personnel). The egg supplier is able to meet the standards required by PCI. The company is able to provide eggs with the characteristics, size, and packaging required. However, it does not perform sample testing for salmonella, but there are sanitary practices (waste disposal and cleaning of production lines, food belts, and floors) supervised by IPSA.  Production Volume Individual producers and cooperatives were consulted about their ability to expand production volumes for a new buyer. Forty-nine percent of producers expressed that they were able to do so, 66.0% of those were bean producers, 16.0% cabbage, 8.0% potato, 6.0% tomato, and 3.0% carrot. Although vegetable suppliers do not currently market the full range of produce required by PCI, they have the critical mass of producers to meet demand, and their staggered planting system would allow them to meet PCI requirements. However, it is recommended to distribute purchases between suppliers and promote alliances among them, taking advantage of the organizational platform recently created by COOSMPROJIN, COOSEMPODA, and SACACLI to minimize delivery risks. Dairy and egg suppliers are able to provide the volumes required by PCI. 41  Estimates for PCI’s Purchases Six preliminary bids from suppliers were presented for the produce required by PCI. Businesses from Santa María de Pantasma did not provide information, since they did not sell any of the products required by PCI. For vegetables and tubers, four businesses submitted a preliminary price proposal, two of which offered the range of items required by PCI (COOSEMPODA and COOSMPROJIN). For tomatoes, SACACLI presented the lowest price, COOSEMPODA for cabbages, Tomatoya for carrots, and COOSEMPODA for potatoes (see Table 2.3). Vegetable prices were compared with the Producer Society Cooperative La Trinidad. They quoted tomatoes in a price range of $453.0 to $647.0 per MT in the cooperative’s processing plant and gave an estimate of $400.0 for the cost of transportation. In the case of national supermarkets, final consumer prices were $687.0 per MT for cabbages, $2,266.0 per MT for potatoes, $1,078.0 per MT for carrots, and $1,518.0 per MT for tomatoes. Prices for tomatoes and carrots were more competitive at the comparison points for in-plant pick up. The proposed price should include transportation to schools, which would increase over longer distances and worse road conditions. Additionally, as market price changes, so will the quoted prices. Beans: Two bean-producing cooperatives submitted proposals, and the lowest price was from COOSEMPODA at $1,289.0 per MT. Local prices were compared with the price of imports made by PCI in 2018, which was lower at $1,205.5 per MT delivered to PCI’s warehouse in Jinotega. The import price included tax exemptions, in order to make a fair comparison the exemption amount was added. This brought the cost up to $1,660.0 per MT, 23.0% higher than the highest bid presented by one of the cooperatives, and it did not include the cost of transportation to the schools. In order to have an additional point of comparison, bean prices were compared with Producer Society Cooperative La Trinidad, by asking for a quote by telephone. Producer Society Cooperative La Trinidad offered a price of $1,617.0 per MT for in-plant pick up, with an additional transportation cost of US440.0 per trip, equivalent to $44.0 per MT. 42 Eggs: Klifford submitted a proposal for US 2,390.5 per MT of eggs. A comparison point for Kilfford was the national supermarkets, where a consumer price of US$2,588.0 per MT was offered. This point of comparison was included in order to be consistent with meeting the quality standards required by PCI and was also helpful due to the absence of other suppliers in the area with an adequate scale of production. Milk and Cream: GRINSA’s proposal for pasteurized milk was $750.6 per MT and cream at $2,187.1 per MT, according to PCI’s quality criteria. When interviewed, the supplier expressed the possibility of supplying schools with display fridges to ensure the required temperature for these products, however, since both products require cold handling, PCI needs to assess issues of safety, electricity, and appliance capacity in the schools. Comparison points for GRINSA were the national supermarkets, where the price per MT of milk was $794.0 and the price of cream was $2,267.0 per MT. In both cases, these prices were higher than those offered by GRINSA by 6.0% and 4.0%, respectively, which included delivery to the schools in the price. Another comparison point was LALA in Sébaco. Their distribution prices were $676.0 per MT for milk and $2,200.0 per MT for cream. These prices did not include the profit margin of wholesale and retail distributors (10.0%). Negotiating with LALA would be difficult because they do not distribute milk to schools, making the prices offered by GRINSA more feasible.  Seasonal Analysis Vegetables and Tubers: Production was continuous for this group, with higher volumes in the last quarter due to the increase in demand, typical of the end-of-year period. On a quarterly basis, the average crop output volume was 23.0% and 31.0% in the last quarter. Table 2: Percent of Output per Month for 2019 Crop Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tomato 5% 7% 9% 10% 7% 6% 5% 11% 7% 8% 12% 13% Cabbage 3% 6% 13% 10% 5% 3% 5% 16% 7% 4% 7% 21% Carrot 9% 9% 4% 9% 4% 9% 9% 9% 4% 4% 13% 17% Potato 5% 1% 12% 13% 4% 2% 7% 17% 5% 2% 8% 24% Bean 3% 9% 18% 1% 0% 0% 2% 30% 9% 0% 6% 22% Source: Elaborated based on information from producers' survey 43 Beans: The harvest period was consistent with the national production cycle, registering 57.0% of the harvest period between November and March (postrera seedtime, July to November, and apante seedtime, November to January) and 39.0% between August and September (first seedtime). Eggs, milk and cream: Production was continuous. 3.2.4. Alternative Suppliers and Service Providers Identifying alternative suppliers focused on produce that was currently not being marketed by the preselected businesses i.e. potatoes and beans. Potatoes: Potato Producers Society Cooperative, Limited Liability (COOPPANOR, R.L.), Matagalpa. Telephone: 8547-3437 Beans: Credit and Marketing Company Father Miguel Ángel Vásquez (ECOMAVSA). Phone 8269-8995. Society of Producers and Retailers, Limited Liability (SOPROCOM). Phone 8644-8552, bean and potato supplier. Center of Producer Society Cooperatives Eco Vegetables of Nicaragua, Limited Liability (CECOOPSEMEIN, R.L.), Sébaco Km 99. E-mail: Macorreocp475960@gmail.com. Phone 8647- 1464 Señor de Esquipulas Cooperative, Chagüite Grande 1. Telephone 8360-0686 Producer Society Cooperative La Trinidad, Limited Liability (COOSEMTRI, R.L). Phone: 8661- 5905 3.2.5. Risks and Impacts on the Product Value Chain The main risk identified by producers was climate change, which affects not only produce availability and therefore supply. Poor rains/droughts lead to decreased supply and therefore decrease supply of the produce. Variable weather may also lead to pest outbreaks that affect supply. One of the economic risks identified was price instability and the informal market. Lack of production planning means that the market becomes saturated at certain times and this means the price is lowered, and at other times produce becomes scarce. 44 4. Conclusions and Recommendations 4.1 Conclusions a. The highest level obtained for school feeding indicators included the percent of students who said they like their school meals (94.6%), and the percent of students who received a Minimum Acceptable Diet (64.2%), mostly in urban areas. The lowest result found for school feeding indicators was the percent of schools serving and Adequate Diversified Diet with 21.4%, focalized primarily in rural areas of the municipality of Pantasma. b. Of PCI’s established nutritional targets, two are likely to be achieved by the end of the project (ADD and SM acceptance). The MAD target will be difficult to acheive because it measured food consumed inside and outside of the school, and it is outside of the project’s scope to impact food consumption in the home. Also, the socio-economic situation is unlikely to improve in the next few months due to the current economic and health crisis, therefore MAF is likely to decrease. c. The PTAs are focused on the operational actions of the School Meal and less on strategic actions, such as planning and follow-up in the preparation of menus, participation in produce procurement, evaluations, and seeking support from other actors. d. The schools have the capacity to store the current products for the School Meal but lack the facilities and infrastructure for the storage of fresh produce that will be provided by PCI. Sixty-six percent of the project schools and 14% of the control schools had a school kitchen, which was the main limitation for monitoring hygienic food preparation. e. National production of the items under study satisfies the demand, ensuring supply at national and local levels. PCI’s purchases are 0.3% for national demand and 3.0% for Jinotega, which would not distort market supply. f. PCI purchases, due to their size, will not exert pressure on prices or relative scarcity in the markets, so they will not generate negative impacts on the dynamics of local markets, nor on its actors (wholesalers, retailers, consumers, and service providers). g. PCI procures food commodities from cooperatives and therefore more smallholder farmers (members) are integrated into viable value chains that offers market opportunities for their produce, enhances incomes from the premium prices offered for higher quality produce and promotes diversification of livelihoods. h. Vegetable and tuber cooperatives use staggered production with irrigation, allowing for sustainable production and ensuring that it can meet the demand from PCI. Eggs, milk, and 45 cream are produced all year round. Beans are produced from November to March, coinciding with postrera and apante seedtime, which is 70.0% of national production and can be stored for times when there is no production. i. The companies that have as a business line commercialization (6 of 10) can meet the volumes, quality standards, legal aspects, and financial administrative capacity required to tender bids and to establish commercial relations with PCI. Bidders should be encouraged to form alliances to enable them to reduce their transaction costs including transport and aggregation. j. The cooperatives don’t have limits in terms of transportation services that meet the safety criteria, and among them they share this service for product distribution. They also provide all other production support services, such as financing, technical assistance, inputs and marketing. Local suppliers have a comparative advantage because of their proximity to the schools. k. Of the suppliers studied, 60% implemented practices that minimized risks of losses in quality and safety. They also implemented administrative and financial practices that allowed management to monitor and make necessary adjustments in operational areas to ensure the best product delivery, meeting customer standards. 4.2 Recomendations a. Food group 8 measured in ADD and MAD is provided both by the oil given by the project and oil consumed at home. Cream would exceed recommended fat consumption for the students, therefore PCI should consider substituting them with seasonal fruits typically found in the municipalities, such as mango (which is produced during the months of March and April), or papaya (which is harvested all the year), both foods that are rich in vitamin A (Group 5). Oranges and bananas are harvested from May to October and watermelon is harvested from January to February; both are part of the group of other fruits and vegetables (Group 6). These foods are absent in the School Meal and incorporating them would provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients.20 Fruits would provide more variety to the School Meal; they could be eaten whole, in salads, in juice, as dessert and/or dried. b. It is important that the project establishes an advocacy and nutritional education strategy aimed at parents to motivate them to contribute fruits to the School Meal, according to interviews conducted with school children, they expressed that fruit was available in their yards at home. It is widely acknowledged that due to lack of knowledge about fruits’ 20 Phytonutrients have, among others, antioxidant properties. These bioactive chemical compounds are found in fresh and natural foods, such as fruits, vegetables, cereals, and tubers. 46 nutritional value, how to prepare them, and the importance of these foods in their children’s diet, they are not included in the School Meal. Fruits are healthy foods that can help prevent malnutrition and other associated health issues related to an inbalanced diet (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, etc). c. The ADD indicator needs to ensure that the correct information is in the PINE logbook. It is suggested that the checklist developed in the framework of this consultancy be used to monitor that the notebook is filled out correctly. It is also recommended that monthly menu templates with standardized recipes be established. d. PCI should focus its actions to improve PTAs' knowledge and practice of safe food handling. At the same time, investing in cold chain equipment and infrastructure in schools to cook food would be beneficial. e. It is recommended that PCI pre-qualifies some vendors with the capacity to respond to the surge in demand to speed up the procurement process. f. To reduce the impact of the risks of climate variability, consideration should be given to strengthening producers’ capacities to adapt to climate variability, pest management, and the cooperatives’ social capital to take better advantage of market opportunities. g. It is recommended that actions be directed to strengthening organizational capacities and enterprise management for suppliers through trainings and accompaniment, which allow the following: elaboration and updating operations and functions, strategic and business plans, trainings in marketing and commercializing agricultural products, elaboration and analysis of product price strutures, calculation of sale prices, and analysis of financial statements. h. The project complies with national and donor policies and contributes to reducing food insecurity especially among children of school age. The project can focus on improving food quality; promoting local purchases; capacity building for the businesses, producers, and PTAs; and knowledge management. The public policy framework is a barrier to sustainability and the scalability of the project, due to centralized food procurement by the government, the limited role of PTAs, and the procurement system that limits the participation of producers. It is advised that a sustainability strategy is developed, which incorporates capacity building, documentation and dissemination of project successes and process, and local government participation. 47 Annexes Bibliografía Asamblea Nacional de Nicaragua. (2009). Ley de soberanía y seguridad alimentaria y nutricional. Ley N°. 693, aprobada el 18 de Junio del 2009. (L. G. 2009, Ed.) Managua. From http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/normaweb.nsf/($All)/B58490A0C8DAB2AD062576570 06A573D?OpenDocument Comité Técnico de Alimentos. (2011). Norma Técnica Obligatoria Nicaragüense. Leche pasteurizada. NTON 03034-11. From http://www.minsa.gob.ni/index.php/repository/Descargas-MINSA/Direcci%C3%B3n￾General-de-Regulaci%C3%B3n-Sanitaria/Regulaci%C3%B3n-de-Alimentos/Productos￾L%C3%A1cteos/NORMA-T%C3%89CNICA-OBLIGATORIA-NICARAGUENSE-- LECHE-PASTEURIZADA Di Rienzo, J. A., Casanoves, F., Balzarini, M. G., González, L., & Tablada M., C. W. (n.d.). InfoStat, versión 2018. Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Centro de Transferencia InoStat (FCA). From http://www.infostat.com.ar FAO. (2013). Guía para medir la diversidad alimentaria a nivel individual y del hogar. From http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1983s.pdf Gobierno de la República de Nicaragua, Secretaría de la Presidencia. (2017). Ejes del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Humano 2018-2021. From https://www.el19digital.com/app/webroot/tinymce/source/2018/00- Enero/Del22al28Enero/Viernes26Enero/EJES%20DEL%20PROGRAMA%20NACIONAL %20DE%20DESARROLLO%20HUMANO.pdf Ilabaca Ugarte, C., Gottret, M. V., & Junkin, R. (2010). Autoevaluación facilitada para la gestión de empresas asociativas rurales. CATIE. From http://www.renida.net.ni/renida/funica/REC10-II25.pdf INIDE; MAGFOR. (2012). Informe final. IV censo nacional agropecuario. Managua. From https://www.inide.gob.ni/Cenagro/INFIVCENAGRO/IVCENAGROINFORME/assets/com mon/downloads/Informe%20Final%20IV%20CENAGRO.pdf MINED. (n.d.). Plan de educación 2017-2021. From https://www.unicef.org/nicaragua/informes/plan-de-educaci%C3%B3n-2017-2021 Naciones Unidas. (n.d.). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Retrieved 2020 from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible Nicaragua y El Salvador tendrán la mayor caída del PIB en Centroamérica por COVID-19: Banco Mundial. (2020, abril 13). 1. Retrieved mayo, 2020 from https://forbescentroamerica.com/2020/04/13/nicaragua-y-el-salvador-tendran-la-mayor￾caida-del-pib-en-centroamerica-por-covid-19-banco-mundial/ PCI, Nicaragua. (s.f.). Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables (MAS) 2019-2022. Plan de producción, consumo y comercio, ciclo 2016-2017. (2016). From https://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/wp-estaticos/2016/05/PLAN-PRODUCCION￾CONSUMO-COMERCIO-2016-2017.pdf 48 PMA. (2017). Nutrir el futuro. Programa de alimentación escolar sensible a la nutrición en América Latina y el Caribe. Un estudio de 16 países. From https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP￾0000071367/download/?_ga=2.159092089.2107430812.1589835642- 1975066880.1587696123 PMA. (n.d.). Informe del proceso de aprendizaje P4P. 2011. PMA. (n.d.). Plan estratégico para Nicaragua 2019-2023. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983, Abril 1). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 Saavedra Montano, D. (2019). Propensity Score Matching. Tool to improve impact evaluation in Agriculture. From https://www.academia.edu/38583234/Propensity_Score_Matching_tool_to_improve_impac t_evaluation_in_Agriculture Swindale, Anne; Paula Bilinsky. FANTA. (2006). Puntaje de Diversidad Dietética en el Hogar (HDDS) para la medición del acceso a los alimentos en el hogar: Guía de Indicadores. Washington, D.C. From https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HDDS_v2_Spanish_2006_0.pdf USAID. (2016). U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy FY 2017-2021. From https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1867/USG-Global-Food-Security￾Strategy-2016.pdf USDA. (n.d.). Local and Regional food aid procurement pilot project. Independent evaluation report 2012. 49 Annex 1: Current status of baseline indicators for the school meal component of the MAS project Table 1.1. Results of baseline indicators in intervention schools, March to May 2020 Indicator Result LRP 1.3. Percent of schools serving school meals with acceptable dietary diversity Adequate/High: 21.4 % in schools Proyect target: 90% By municipality: Jinotega: 0 % Santa María de Pantasma: 42.9% By location: Rural: 23.1% Urban: 0% Percentage of schoolchildren that consume an acceptable dietary diversity Adequate/High: 62.9 % in schools By municipality: Jinotega: 60.6 % Santa María de Pantasma: 65.3% By location: Rural: 62.7% Urban: 63.8% By age group: 8-9 years: 54.5% 10 to 11 years: 68.8% Older than 11 years old: 56.8% By school grade in primary school: 3rd/4th grade: 53.6% 5th grade: 64.4%, 6th grade: 67.9% By sex: Girls: 62.2% Boys: 63.7% LRP 1.3.1. Percentage of students who report liking school meals Acceptance: 94.6 % of students Proyect target: 90% By municipality: Jinotega: 94.4 % Santa María de Pantasma: 94.8% By location: Urban: 97.1% Rural: 94.1% By age group: 8 to 9 years: 95.5% 10 to 11 years: 96.7% Older than 11 years old: 88.6% By school grade in primary school: 3rd/4th grade: 92.3% 5th grade: 96.2% 6th grade: 93.9% By sex: Girls: 95% Boys: 94.2% LRP 1.3.3. Percentage of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet Minimum acceptable diet: 64.2 % of students Target: 90% By location: Urban: 72.5% Rural: 62.4% By municipality: Jinotega: 64.1 % Santa María de Pantasma: 64.2% By age group: 8 to 9 years: 56.8% 10 to 11 years: 69.8% Older than 11 years old 58% By school grade in primary school: 3rd/4th grade: 58.6% 5th grade: 65.2% 6th grade: 68.7% By sex: Girls: 64.7% Boys: 63.7% Purpose of study: Organizational capability of SFCs and PTAs for school food acquisition, control and management Schools with a kitchen: Schools without a kitchen:  Have all the facilities 30%.  Have some of the facilities 60%  Don’t have the facilities 10%.  Have all the facilities 20%.  Have some of the facilities 80%. Source: - School Food Consumption Checklist for principals/coordinators from the PINE-MINED notebook; - Food Consumption Frequency Survey and 5-point Hedonic Facial Scale applied to students in project schools; - Guided Questionnaire and Observation List applied to school organizations (SFC and PTA) 50 Table 1.2. Acceptable Dietary Diversity in Intervention Schools by Municipality and Location, March to May 2020 Description Dietary Diversity P￾Adequate/High Not valor adequate/medium Not adequate/low No. % No. % No. % Municipality: Jinotega 0 0 0 0 7 100 0.1478 Santa María de Pantasma 3 42.9 1 14.3 3 42.9 Location: Urban 0 0 0 0 1 100 0.9864 Rural 3 23.1 1 7.7 9 69.2 Status: Intervention 3 21.4 1 7.1 10 71.4 0.6514 Control group 1 16.7 0 0 5 83.3 Source: Prepared from results from the Food Consumption Frequency Survey and the Checklist for principals/coordinators from the PINE-MINED notebook for intervention schools. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 Table 1.3. Frequency of high consumption of food groups in project schools, March to May 2020 Food consumption High frequency 6-7 days n=20 No. % Vegetables 9 64.3 Fruits 1 7.1 Proteins 3 21.4 Source: Prepared from results from the Food Consumption Frequency Survey and theChecklist for principals/coordinators from the PINE-MINED notebook for intervention schools. 51 Table 1.4. Schoolchildren with Acceptable Dietary Diversity in the intervention group by municipality, location, age group, grade, and sex, March to May 2020 Description Acceptable Dietary Diversity Total P￾valor Adequate/High Not adequate/medium Not adequate/low No. % No. % No. % Municipality Jinotega 120 60.6 8 4 70 35.4 198 0.2253 Santa María de Pantasma 126 65.3 3 1.6 64 33.2 193 Location* Urban 44 63.8 6 8.7 19 27.5 69 0.0011 Rural 202 62.7 5 1.6 115 35.7 322 Age group* 8- 9 years old 48 54.5 2 2.3 38 43.2 88 0.7006 10 to 11 years old 148 68.6 6 2.8 61 28.4 215 0.0474 Older than 11 years old 50 56.8 3 3.4 35 39.8 88 0.0322 Primary school grade* 3rd/4th grade 72 56.3 4 3.1 52 40.6 128 0.0909 5th grade 85 64.4 4 3.0 43 2.3 132 0.1455 6th grade 89 67.9 3 2.3 39 29.8 131 0.4478 Sex Girls 125 62.2 7 3.5 69 34.3 201 0.4353 Boys 121 63.7 4 2.1 65 34.2 190 Source: Elaborated from the results from the food consumption frequency of schoolchildren survey in the intervention schools. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 Table 1.5. Dietary diversity of schoolchildren according to status March-May 2020 Food Diversity Intervention group Control group Total P-valor No. % No. % Adequate/High 246 62.9 179 64.6 425 Not adequate/medium 0.602 11 2.8 9 3.2 20 Not adequate/low 134 34.3 89 32.1 223 Total 391 100.0 277 100.0 668 Source: Elaborated from the results from the food consumption frequency of schoolchildren survey in the intervention and control group schools. Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 52 Table 1.6. Acceptance of the intervention group school meals by municipality, location, age group, grade and sex, March to May 2020 Description School Meal Acceptance Rejection P-valor No. Percentage No. Percentage Municipality Jinotega 187 94.4 11 5.6 0.4157 Santa María de Pantasma 183 94.8 10 5.2 Location Urban 67 97.1 2 2.9 0.4589 Rural 303 94.1 19 5.9 Age group* 8- 9 years old 84 95.5 4 4.5 0.0849 10 to 11 years old 208 96.7 7 3.3 0.4128 Older than 11 years old* 78 88.6 10 11.4 0.0169 Primary school grade* 3rd/4th grade* 120 93.8 8 6.3 <0.0001 5th grade* 127 96.2 5 3.8 <0.0079 6th grade* 123 93.9 8 6.1 <0.0001 Sex Girls 191 95 10 5 0.1505 Boys 179 94.2 11 5.8 Source: Elaborated from the results from the 5-point face hedonic scale applied to school children in intervetion schools. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 Table 1.7. Acceptance of school meals by schoolchildren by status, March to May 2020 SM Acceptance Intervention group Control group Total P-valor No. % No. % Acceptance 370 94.6 256 92.4 626 0.2599 Rejection 21 5.4 21 7.6 42 Total 391 100.0 277 100.0 668 Source: Elaborated from the results from the 5-point face hedonic scale applied to school children in intervetion and control group schools. 53 Table 1.8. Minimum acceptable frequency in intervetion schools’ groups according to municipality, location, age group, grade, and sex, March to May 2020 Description Minimum Frequency Total Acceptable No P-valor t Acceptablee No. % No. % No. Municipality* Jinotega 196 99 2 1 198 <0.0001 Santa María de Pantasma 184 95.3 9 4.7 193 Location* Urban 69 100 0 0 69 0.0045 Rural 311 96.6 11 3.4 322 Age group* 8- 9 years old 88 100 0 0 88 0.0247 10 to 11 years old 209 97.2 6 2.8 215 0.0045 Older than 11 years old 83 94.3 5 5.7 88 0.2631 Primary school grade* 3rd/4th grade 126 98.4 2 1.6 128 0.1578 5th grade 127 96.2 5 3.8 132 0.014 6th grade 127 96.9 4 3.1 131 0.025 Sex* Girls 196 97.5 5 2.5 196 0.0458 Boys 184 96.8 6 3.2 184 Source: Elaborated from the results of the food consumption frequency survey applied to school children in intervention schools. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 Table 1.9. Mealtimes eaten by schoolchildren according to status, March to May 2020 Mealtime Intervention group Control group P-valor Number Percentage Number Percentage Breakfast 365 93.4 259 93.5 0.9637 Morning snack 291 74.4 212 76.5 0.5713 Lunch* 374 95.7 273 98.6 0.0318 Afternoon snack 143 36.6 120 43.3 0.0833 Dinner 382 97.7 270 97.5 0.6835 Source: Elaborated from the results of the food consumption frequency survey applied to schoolchildren in intervention and control groups. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 54 Table 1.10. Minimum acceptable frequency for schoolchildren by status, March to May 2020 Minimum Frequency Intervention group Control Group Total P-valor No. % No. % Acceptable 380 97.2 275 99.3 655 0.0533 Not Acceptable 11 2.8 2 0.7 13 Total 391 100.0 277 100.0 668 Source: Elaborated from the food consumption frequency survey results applied to schoolchildren in control and intervention groups. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 Table 1.11. Minimum acceptable diet in schoolchildren in intervention schools by municipality, location, age group, grade, and sex, March to May 2020 Description Minimum Diet Acceptable Not Acceptable Total P-valor No. % No. % Municipality* Jinotega 127 64.1 71 35.9 198 0.0716 Santa María de Pantasma 124 64.2 69 35.8 193 Location* Urban 50 72.5 19 27.5 69 <0.0001 Rural 201 62.4 121 37.6 322 Age group* 8- 9 years old 50 56.8 38 43.2 88 0.6543 10 to 11 years old 150 69.8 65 30.2 215 0.0685 Older than 11 years old 51 58 37 42 88 0.0386 Primary school grade* 3rd/4th grade 75 58.6 53 41.4 128 0.0834 5th grade 86 65.2 46 34.8 132 0.036 6th grade 90 68.7 41 31.3 131 0.0203 Sex* Girls 130 64.7 71 35.3 201 0.2812 Boys 121 63.7 69 36.3 190 Source: Elaborated from the food consumption frequency survey results applied to schoolchildren in intervention schools. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 55 Table 1.12. Minimum Acceptable Diet in schoolchildren by status, March to May 2020 Minimum Diet Intervention Group Control Group Total P-valor No. % No. % Acceptable 251 64.2 187 67.5 438 0.3751 Not Acceptable 140 35.8 90 32.5 230 Total 391 100.0 277 100.0 668 Source: Elaborated from the food consumption frequency survey results applied to schoolchildren in control and intervention schools. * Significant statistical difference with p<0.05 56 Annex 2: Current status of baseline indicators and market research Table 2.1. Transport costs by product. Figures in US Dollars Description of Items 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL Vegetables y Tubers Cost per trip 294.12 302.68 311.50 Amount of deliveries 24 36 27 Total Cost 7,058.8 10,896.6 8,410.5 26,366.0 Milk and cream Cost per trip 54.00 55.57 57.19 Amount of deliveries 24 36 27 Total Cost 1,296.0 2,000.6 1,544.2 4,840.8 Eggs Cost per trip 89.90 92.52 95.21 Amount of deliveries 24 36 27 Total Cost 2,157.6 3,330.7 2,570.8 8,059.0 Beans Cost per trip 470.00 483.69 497.78 Amount of deliveries 3 3 3 Total Cost 1,410.0 1,451.1 1,493.3 4,354.4 TOTAL 11,922.4 17,679.0 14,018.8 43,620.2 Notes: Movement of vegetables and tubers is assumed to be done together. Table 2.2. Average cost per metric on-site according to product 2020 2021 2022 Price/MT MT Value Price/MT MT Value Price/MT MT Value Tomatoes 1,496.4 28.8 43,095.5 1,540.0 44.5 68,528.1 1,584.8 34.4 54,469.9 Cabbages 369.7 24.0 8,873.9 380.5 37.1 14,109.6 391.6 43.0 16,827.1 Carrots 1,067.6 57.6 61,496.5 1,098.7 89.0 97,777.2 1,130.7 34.4 38,863.7 Potatoes 1,294.1 86.4 111,811.8 1,331.8 133.5 177,783.4 1,370.6 68.8 94,228.8 Beans 1,235.3 30.0 37,058.8 1,271.3 46.4 58,923.5 1,308.3 35.8 46,850.3 Egg 2,138.9 63.6 136,033.3 2,201.2 98.3 216,288.6 2,265.3 75.9 171,958.8 Milk 711.8 115.2 81,995.3 732.5 178.0 130,369.6 753.8 137.5 103,644.2 Cream 2,135.3 12.0 25,623.5 2,197.5 9.3 20,370.7 2,261.5 7.2 16,192.3 TOTAL 417.6 505,988.7 635.9 784,150.6 436.8 543,035.0 TOTAL 1,833,174.4 FSource: Pre-quotes provided by evaluated suppliers. 57 Table 2.3. Sales price per MT from site and in school according to supplier (amount in US Dollars) Supplier From site School Klifford Egg 2,138.9 2,390.5 GRINSA Milk 711.8 750.6 Cream 2,135.3 2,187.1 COOSMPROJIN Tomato 1,617.6 2,264.7 Cabbage 369.7 554.6 Carrot 1,164.7 1,617.6 Potato 1,294.1 1,941.2 COOSEMPODA Tomato 1,470.6 1,524.7 Cabbage 369.7 385.2 Carrot 970.6 1,024.7 Potato 1,294.1 1,348.2 Bean 1,235.3 1,289.4 Tomatoya Tomato 1,617.65 Cabbage 462.18 Carrot 776.47 SACACLI Tomato 1,400.88 Bean 1,310.29 Source: Based on pre-quotes provided by suppliers evaluated. Note: The cooperatives Tomatoya and Sacacli only provided quotes for produce delivered to schools. Table 2.4. Practices implemented by businesses in the delivery process, March to May 2020 Business/practice Use of plastic crates to transport product from the farm to the collection center Use of plastic boxes for product delivery Implements control and registration of delivery and are counted to pay producers Production scheduling synchronized with customer delivery COOSEMPODA X X X X COOSMPROJIN X X X X Tomatoya X X X X SACACLIN X X X X GRINSA X X X X Klifford X X X X Total 6 6 6 6 Porcentaje 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% Source: Data collected in interviews with suppliers evaluated. Note: The percentage was calculated based on ten businesses. 58 Table 2.5. Compliance with practices which affecting the cost-effectiveness of delivery by business, March to May 2020 Area Description of practice Business COOSEMPODA COOSMPROJIN Tomatoya SACACLI Practices to ensure product supply and meet customer delivery schedules Staggered production planning/scheduling of harvest according to the volumes required by the customer X X X X Maximizes compliance with quality standards in the field Training producers in quality standards X X X X Implementation of technology and control chart of items prohibited in GAP X X X X Technical assistance in the cultural process X X X X Accompaniment during harvest X X X X Pre-selection of produce in the field X X X X Transport produce in boxes from the field to the farm X X X X Minimizes the risk of quality loss during transportation Transports produce in boxes X X X X Consider maximum amounts per box to avoid physical damage due to friction X X X X Maximizes quality compliance and reduce likelihood of mechanical damage at reception and processing Produce selection on-site to identify damaged or infested produce to be discarded X X X X Processed produce placed in boxes and on chutes in the output area X X X X Consider maximum amounts per box to avoid physical damage due to friction X X X X Minimizes the risk of rejection due to damage Use of closed trucks X X X X Use of boxes to avoid physical damage due to friction X X X X Maximum amount per box X X X X Guarantee product safety during transport Transport in closed vehicle X X X X Cleaning transport before collecting produce X X X X Guarantee product safety in reception and assembly process of produce Use of chlorinated water for washing produce X X X Apply bactericides X X X X 59 Cleaning of areas before reception and processing of produce X X Cleaning of areas after the reception and processing of produce X X X X Reception and processing staff are trained in personal hygiene standards X X X X Use of equipment (nets, boots, aprons, gloves, boots, apron, mask) X X X X Average rejection by the customer due to physical damage detected at the delivery point 6% 5% 4% 0% Source: Interviews with suppliers evaluated. Table 2.6. Volume sold, prices and revenues reported in 2019 by suppliers evaluated Business/Producer MT Price US Dollars Revenue US Dollars COOSMPROJIN Cabbage 289.7 380.0 110,086.0 COOSEMPODA Cabbage 238.0 510.0 121,380.0 TOMATOYA Cabbage 164.0 390.0 63,960.0 Tomato 68.0 1,860.0 126,480.0 Carrot 340.0 730.0 248,200.0 SACACLI Tomato 99.0 1,384.0 137,016.0 GRINSA Milk 16.7 797.0 13,315.4 Cream 10.0 2,523.8 25,111.5 Klifford Egg 528.7 2,029.4 1,072,986.0 Total 1,754.09 1,918,535.0 Source: Interviews with cooperatives and busineeses evaluated. 60 Table 2.7. Financial management practices implemented by suppliers evaluated for the period March to May 2020 Supplies Administrative Financial Total % in relation to the total number of practices % in relation to the total of administrative practices % in relation to the total of financial practices COOSEMPODA 5 6 11 100% 100% 100% COOSMPROJIN 1 5 6 55% 20% 83% Tomatoya 4 6 10 91% 80% 100% SACACLI 4 6 10 91% 80% 100% GRINSA 5 6 11 100% 100% 100% Klifford 0 4 4 36% 0% 67% EMAJUSA 3 4 7 64% 60% 67% ECOFODESA 3 5 8 73% 60% 83% ECOPRASA 3 4 7 64% 60% 67% ESJUSA 4 6 10 91% 80% 100% Average 3 5 8 77% 64% 87% Source: Based on ADA results Table 2.8. Legal practices implemented by suppliers evaluated, March to May 2020 Description of practice implemented COOSEMPODA COOSMPROJIN Tomatoya SACACLI GRINSA Klifford EMAJUSA ECOFODESA ECOPRASA ESJUSA Has legal status and is legally constituted X X X X X X X X X X Up to date with all legal, tax and financial commitments X X X X X X X X X X Up to date with occupational safety commitments and social benefits X X X X X X X X X X Has regulations and statutes X X X X X X X X X X The statutes and regulations include elements and mechanisms for organizational management transparency X X X X X X X X X X Source: Based on ADA results 61 Table 2.9. Administrative practices implemented by suppliers evaluated, March to May 2020 Description of practice implemented COOSEMPODA COOSMPROJI N Tomatoya SACACLI GRINSA Klifford EMAJUSA ECOFODESA ECOPRASA ESJUSA A function manual exists and is implemented. It includes descriptions of roles and responsibilities for personnel in different areas and contains controls to verify their implementation X X X X X - X X X X An operations manual exists, is implemented and contains verification controls X - X X X - X X A strategic plan exists and is implemented X - X X X - X - X X A business plan exists and is implemented X - X - X - - - - - Annual operational plans are prepared with their respective budgets X - - X X X X X X Source: Based on ADA results Table 2.10. Financial practices implemented by suppliers evaluated, March to May 2020 Description of practice implemented COOSEMP ODA COOSMPR OJIN Tomatoya SACACLI GRINSA Klifford EMAJUSA ECOFODES A ECOPRASA ESJUSA Have a formal and updated accounting information system X X X X X X - X X X An accounting procedure manual exists and is implemented, which includes a clear description of the accounting system, how to use it, and controls for processing the information X X X X X - X X - X Prepare financial statements and reports on a monthly basis and submit them to management for analysis X X X X X X X X X X Perform financial and accounting audits at least once a year - - X X X - - - - X The management bodies meet monthly to review financial statements and operational performance X X X X X X X X X X Eensures that production meets its markets' requirements and plans the production process to meet its commercial contracts X X X X X X X X X X 62 Table 2.11. Importance of Jinotega's production by product (in thousands of MT) Product National average production Jinotega’s average production % of Jinotega’s production with relation to natioanl production Tomato 75.99 12.16 16.0% Potato 56 26.32 47.0% Cabbahe 63.16 33.48 53.0% Carrot 16.92 13.53 80.0% Milk 1,220.05 61 5.0% Egg 47.3 4.73 10.0% Bean 189.39 32.2 17.0% Average in MT 1,668.81 183.42 11.0% Source: Data of the production plan consumption trade 2017-2019 and IV CENAGRO 2011. Table 2.12. Jinotega production by product, 2017-2019. Figures in thousands of Tons Source: Based on Jinotega's participation in production according to IV CENAGRO 2011. Table 2.13. Jinotega's demand by product, 2017-2019. Figures in thousands of Tons Product 2017 2018 2019 Average Variation over period Tomato 3.46 2.26 2.28 2.67 -34.3% Potato 2.58 3.04 3.48 3.03 34.8% Cabbahe 3.70 4.87 4.75 4.44 28.3% Carrot 1.13 1.20 1.22 1.18 8.5% Milk 9.15 12.28 18.69 13.37 104.2% Egg 3.05 3.33 3.47 3.28 13.9% Bean 7.56 8.53 8.54 8.21 13.0% Source: Based on the population of Jinotega and the apparent consumption per capita. Product 2017 2018 2019 Average Variation over period Tomato 11.91 11.48 13.09 12.16 9.9% Potato 18.8 28.12 32.05 26.32 70.5% Cabbahe 28.22 36.07 36.14 33.48 28.1% Carrot 14.41 11.22 14.97 13.53 3.9% Milk 50.05 65.06 67.91 61 35.7% Egg 4.4 4.8 4.99 4.73 13.4% Bean 30.91 32.45 33.23 32.2 7.5% 63 Table 2.14. Jinotega production surpluses according to product, 2017-2019 Figures in thousands of tons Product 2017 2018 2019 Average Variation over period Tomato 8.5 9.2 10.8 9.5 27.9% Potato 16.2 25.1 28.6 23.3 76.1% Cabbahe 24.5 31.2 31.4 29.0 28.0% Carrot 13.3 10.0 13.8 12.4 3.5% Milk 40.9 52.8 49.2 47.6 20.3% Egg 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 12.6% Bean 23.4 23.9 24.7 24.0 5.7% Average 21.0 24.9% Source: Based on the difference between supply and demand Table 2.15. Importance of PCI's purchases for production and demand in Jinotega for 2019. Figures in thousands of tons Item Tomato Potato Cabbage Carrot Milk Egg Bean Production 13.09 32.05 36.14 14.97 67.91 4.99 33.23 PCI’s demand 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.18 Percentage 0.35% 0.12% 0.25% 0.92% 0.07% 2.09% 0.55% Average 0.62% Demand 2.28 3.48 4.75 1.22 18.69 3.47 8.54 PCI’s demand 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.18 Percentage 2.0% 1.1% 1.9% 11.3% 0.3% 3.0% 2.2% Average 3.1% Source: Data obtained from PCI's demand and Jinotega's production. 64 Table 2.16. Producer survey results, March to May 2020 Variable Category Intervention group Control group Total surveyed 170 103 Academic level Primary 57% 63% Literate 17% 17% Secundary 12% 11% Technical 1% 1% University 8% 4% Other 5% 4% Áverage are of foarm Hectars 9 7 Land ownership Owner 86% 89% Rented 11% 8% Borrowed 3% 3% Land use Permanent 11% 11% Anbual 40% 32% Pasture 35% 44% Forestry 10% 12% Other 4% 1% Main rotation of the productive unit Basic grains 45% 46% Vegetables 39% 37% Livestock 5% 6% Coffee 11% 7% Other 1% 5% Producer/crop quantity Bean 56% 57% Tomato 9% 9% Cabbage 22% 20% Carrot 4% 1% Potato 9% 13% Production system Traditional (agrochemicals) 88% 92% Organic 1% 0% Mixed 11% 8% Production volume MT Bean 359.1 261 Tomato 6,701.0 2,323.0 Cabbage 1,835.7 1862.9 Carrot 360.6 59.0 Potato 3,071.0 770.7 Yields in MT per hectare Bean 1.0 1.1 Cabbage 34.1 31.7 Tomato* 56.5 71.8 Carrot 30.8 21.0 Potato 16.8 14.8 65 Variable Category Intervention group Control group Uso de riego 51.0% 46.0% Use of irrigation Bean ($/MT) 431.21 397.95 Cabbage ($/MT) 3,169.11 3,351.84 Tomato ($/MT) 10,349.06 12,815.87 Carrot ($/MT) 2,850.68 4,223.23 Potato ($/MT) 5,223.22 4,964.93 Cost of transport Jinotega￾Managua Overall Cost $ (8- 10 MT) 143.00 192.00 Buyers Traders 32% 35% Cooperatives 18% 10% Local market 41% 50% Others 9% 5% Average sales prices Bean ($/MT) 712.4 718.9 Cabbage ($/MT) 146.9 132.7 Tomato ($/MT) 390.7 369.4 Carrot ($/MT)* 210.7 266.2 Potato ($/MT) 512.7 573 Transport used when selling off￾site Pick up 29% 14% Truck 29% 72% Other 42% 14% Conditions under which transported Boxes, sacks 9% 5.8% Product delivery records Yes 3.5% 5.8% Availability to store beans Yes 29% 32% No 71% 68% Availability to store potatoes Yes 14% 6% No 86% 94% Willingness to deliver product to schools Yes 99% 98% No 1% 2% Capacidad para ofrecer más productos Yes 49% 48% No 51% 52% Location of suppliers product Jinotega and Pantasma 30% 31% Cooperatives 68% 63% Other departaments 2% 6% Financing Yes 88% 75% No 12% 25% Source of financing Cooperative 90% 89% Microfinance 1% 2% Bank 1% 1% 66 Variable Category Intervention group Control group Other 8% 8% Use of finaning Supplies 93% 83% Equipment 4% 4% Machinery 1% 3% Other 2% 10% Received training Yes 46% 37% No 54% 63% Topics of trainings received Agronomic management 45% 50% Processing 15% 13% Accounting 3% 5% Marketing 9% 3% Climate change 18% 13% GAP certificate 8% 0% Most implemented practices No burn 48% 49% Container handling 39% 40% Reforestation 34% 26% Water harvesting 27% 34% Meet storage practices Productos don’t touch the ground 82% 80% Insects not present 95% 100% Rodents not present 87% 96% Noty dirty 79% 88% No excrement 100% 100% Dented dilos 51% 20% Problemas which affect production Adverse climate 38% 37% Pests and diseases 26% 24% High supply cost 29% 31% Lack of labor 2% 2% Lack of technical assistance 5% 6% Sales problems Low prices 58% 52% Unstable market 45% 41% No fixed price 5% 6% Competition from other producers 6% 3% Production 5% 3% RUC number 0% 1% 67 Variable Category Intervention group Control group Legal and commercial requirements Registered at the DGI 0% 1% Invoices 0% 1% Source: Data obtained from producer surveys *Statistical difference significant with p<0.05 Table 2.17. Sales value for producers 2019 Status Product Production MT Average sale price $/MT Total Sales $ Intervetion group Bean 359.1 712.4 255,815.8 Potato 3,071.3 512.7 1,574,629.6 Cabbage 6,701.0 146.9 984,301.0 Tomato 1,835.7 390.7 717,198.8 Carrot 360.6 210.7 75,988.5 Total intervetion group 12,327.7 3,607,933.6 Control group Bean 261.0 718.9 187,666.4 Potato 770.7 573.0 441,602.1 Cabbage 2,323.0 132.7 308,164.7 Tomato 1,862.9 369.4 688,171.3 Carrot 59.0 266.2 15,695.7 Total Control group 5,276.6 1,641,300.3 Source: Data obtained from producer surveys 68 Table 2.18. Practices adopted by producers Practices implemented by producers Intervention Control Total % of adoption Intervention Control Pest Management 1. Chemical control 166 102 268 98% 99% 2. Biological control 25 10 35 15% 10% 3. Pest and disease count 37 26 63 22% 25% 4. Yellow traps 23 17 40 14% 17% 5. Drill Traps 9 4 13 5% 4% 6. Protected agriculture 12 12 24 7% 12% Total of sample producers 170 103 Soil Conservation 1.No burn 134 86 220 79% 83% 2. Live fencing 81 41 122 48% 40% 3. Windbreakers 10 3 13 6% 3% 4. Crop rotation 64 47 111 38% 46% 5. Cultivation of crops on contour lines 3 3 6 2% 3% 6. Ditches 4 4 8 2% 4% 7. Zero Tillage 20 23 43 12% 22% 8. Containment dikes 5 3 8 3% 3% 9. Dead Barriers 38 22 60 22% 21% Total of sample producers 170 103 Climate change adaption 1.Water harvesting 65 46 111 38% 45% 2. Container handling 94 55 149 55% 53% 3.Reforestation 83 36 119 49% 35% 4. Drought tolerant varieties 47 26 73 28% 25% Total de muestra de productores 170 103 Storage 1. Temperature, humidity and light control 5 2 7 3% 2% 2. Proper area location 26 14 40 15% 14% 3. Toilet facilities outside the warehouse area 4 0 4 2% 0% 4. None 134 84 218 79% 82% Total of sample producers 170 103 Transport 1.Vehicle cleaning 6 4 10 4% 4% 2. Cleaning of product containers 39 19 58 23% 18% 3.Other practices 1 0 1 1% 0% Total of sample producers 170 103 Source: Producer survey 69 Table 2.19. Value classification and product sales 2019 Level 1: Product type Volume produced MT Total, Sales U$ Intervetion Control Total Intervetion Control Total Beans MT 359.11 261.04 620.15 255,815.79 187,666.45 443,482.23 Vegetables MT 10,096.60 4,245.74 14,342.34 2,584,698.35 1,012,145.83 3,596,844.18 Tubers MT 3,071.28 770.65 3,841.93 1,574,629.56 441,602.11 2,016,231.66 Eggs 528.70 528.70 1,072,986.00 1,072,986.00 Milk and cream 26.70 26.70 38,426.90 38,426.90 Total 14,082.39 5,277.43 19,359.82 5,526,556.60 1,641,414.38 7,167,970.98 Source: Producer survery and interviews with businesses Level 2: Type of producer/business Intervention Control Totals Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Sales U$ Total MT Total sales U$ Small producer 2,838.46 733,357.71 2,430.68 766,986.79 5,269.13 1,500,344.51 Medium producer 9,489.83 2,874,663.98 2,846.76 874,427.59 12,336.59 3,749,091.57 Small business 1,754.09 1,918,535.00 Total 14,082.38 5,526,556.70 5,277.43 1,641,414.38 17,605.72 5,249,436.08 Level 3: Age Intervention Control Totals Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Young person 3,400.05 965,761.20 464.89 115,592.32 3,864.94 1,081,353.52 Adult 10,682.32 4,560,795.49 4,812.54 1,525,822.06 13,740.78 4,168,082.56 Total 14,082.38 5,526,556.70 5,277.43 1,641,414.38 17,605.72 5,249,436.08 Source: Producer survery and interviews with businesses Level 3: Sex Intervention Control Totals Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Male 13,306.87 5,275,925.40 4,774.62 1,469,662.26 16,327.40 4,827,052.66 Female 775.51 250,631.30 502.81 171,752.12 1,278.32 422,383.42 Total 14,082.38 5,526,556.70 5,277.43 1,641,414.38 17,605.72 5,249,436.08 Source: Producer survery and interviews with businesses 70 Level 3: Business Intervention Control Totals Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Volume MT Sales U$ Volume MT Cooperativa Sacacli RL 2,033.85 932,114.09 2,506.38 881,041.31 4,441.23 1,676,139.41 Cooperativa Tomatoya 1,448.62 587,543.10 71.40 10,481.74 948.01 159,384.84 COOSEMPODA 7,812.48 2,354,640.54 2,338.14 645,527.79 9,912.63 2,878,788.33 COOSMPROJIN R.L 2,114.06 456,801.89 268.35 62,912.36 2,092.71 409,628.25 ECOFODESA 26.44 18,838.02 43.95 6,070.10 70.40 24,908.12 ECOPRASA 40.82 29,080.99 17.55 12,619.79 58.38 41,700.79 EMAJUSA 20.41 14,540.50 3.67 2,641.35 24.09 17,181.85 ESJUSA 30.30 21,584.56 27.99 20,119.93 58.29 41,704.49 Klifford 528.70 1,072,986.00 GRINSA 26.70 38,426.90 Total 14,082.39 5,526,556.60 5,277.43 1,641,414.38 17,605.72 5,249,436.08 Source: Producer survery and interviews with businesses Table 2.20 - 2019 Detailed Sales Volumes and Values Products Value of annual sales (USD) of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance -LRP 7 Volume (MT) of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance - LRP 8 Eggs (Total value) $1,072,986.00 528.7 Eggs (Producer - smallholder) $0.00 0 Eggs (Producer - non-smallholder) $0.00 0 Eggs (Firm - small or medium enterprise) $1,072,986.00 528.7 Eggs (Producer - smallholder, female) $0.00 0 Eggs (Producer - non-smallholder, female) $0.00 0 Eggs (Firm -small or medium enterprise, female) $0.00 0 Eggs (Producer - smallholder, male) $0.00 0 Eggs (Producer - non-smallholder, male) $0.00 0 Eggs (Firm -small or medium enterprise, male) $1,072,986.00 528.7 Eggs (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed sex) $0.00 0 Eggs (Producer - smallholder, 15-29) $0.00 0 Eggs (Producer - smallholder, 30+) $0.00 0 Eggs (Produer - non-smallholder, 15-29) $0.00 0 Eggs (Produer - non-smallholder, 30+) $0.00 0 Eggs (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed age) $1,072,986.00 528.7 71 Horticulture (Total value) $2,584,698.34 10,096.60 Horticulture (Producer - smallholder) $221,057.72 855.60 Horticulture (Producer - non-smallholder) $1,556,518.63 8,042.30 Horticulture (Firm - small or medium enterprise) $807,122.00 1,198.70 Horticulture (Producer - smallholder, female) $25,142.72 132.51 Horticulture (Producer - non-smallholder, female) $26,108.40 367.88 Horticulture (Firm -small or medium enterprise, female) $0.00 0 Horticulture (Producer - smallholder, male) $195,914.99 723.09 Horticulture (Producer - non-smallholder, male) $1,530,410.23 7,674.42 Horticulture (Firm -small or medium enterprise, male) $807,122.00 1,198.70 Horticulture (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed sex) $0.00 0.00 Horticulture (Producer - smallholder, 15-29) $69,233.39 213.19 Horticulture (Producer - smallholder, 30+) $151,824.33 642.41 Horticulture (Produer - non-smallholder, 15-29) $59,822.60 464.10 Horticulture (Produer - non-smallholder, 30+) $1,496,696.03 7,578.20 Horticulture (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed age) $807,122.00 1,198.70 Tubers (Total value) $1,574,629.56 3071.28 Tubers (Producer - smallholder) $455,591.37 1,763.37 Tubers (Producer - non-smallholder) $1,119,038.19 1,307.91 Tubers (Firm - small or medium enterprise) $0.00 0 Tubers (Producer - smallholder, female) $0.00 0 Tubers (Producer - non-smallholder, female) $75,291.91 88.00 Tubers (Firm -small or medium enterprise, female) $0.00 0 Tubers (Producer - smallholder, male) $455,591.37 1,763.37 Tubers (Producer - non-smallholder, male) $1,043,746.28 1,219.91 Tubers (Firm -small or medium enterprise, male) $0.00 0 Tubers (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed sex) $0.00 0 Tubers (Producer - smallholder, 15-29) $161,644.63 363 Tubers (Producer - smallholder, 30+) $343,946.74 1,400.37 Tubers (Produer - non-smallholder, 15-29) $42,720.45 172 Tubers (Produer - non-smallholder, 30+) $1,076,317.74 1,135.91 Tubers (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed age) $0.00 0 Beans (Total value) $255,815.79 359.11 Beans (Producer - smallholder) $56,708.62 219.49 Beans (Producer - non-smallholder) $199,107.17 139.62 Beans (Firm - small or medium enterprise) $0.00 0 Beans (Producer - smallholder, female) $8,115.30 23.8 Beans (Producer - non-smallholder, female) $28,966.72 66.8 72 Beans (Firm -small or medium enterprise, female) $0.00 0 Beans (Producer - smallholder, male) $48,593.32 195.69 Beans (Producer - non-smallholder, male) $170,140.45 72.82 Beans (Firm -small or medium enterprise, male) $0.00 0 Beans (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed sex) $0.00 0 Beans (Producer - smallholder, 15-29) $3,358.74 13.00 Beans (Producer - smallholder, 30+) $53,349.88 206.49 Beans (Produer - non-smallholder, 15-29) $73,561.57 66.8 Beans (Produer - non-smallholder, 30+) $125,545.60 72.82 Beans (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed age) $0.00 0 Milk (Total value) $38,426.90 26.7 Milk (Producer - smallholder) $0.00 0 Milk (Producer - non-smallholder) $0.00 0 Milk (Firm - small or medium enterprise) $38,426.90 26.7 Milk (Producer - smallholder, female) $0.00 0 Milk (Producer - non-smallholder, female) $0.00 0 Milk (Firm -small or medium enterprise, female) $0.00 0 Milk (Producer - smallholder, male) $0.00 0 Milk (Producer - non-smallholder, male) $0.00 0 Milk (Firm -small or medium enterprise, male) $38,426.90 26.7 Milk (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed sex) $0.00 0 Milk (Producer - smallholder, 15-29) $0.00 0 Milk (Producer - smallholder, 30+) $0.00 0 Milk (Produer - non-smallholder, 15-29) $0.00 0 Milk (Produer - non-smallholder, 30+) $0.00 0 Milk (Firm -small or medium enterprise, mixed age) $38,426.90 26.7 73 Gráfico 2.1. Administrative and Financial Capacity Area Scoring of Four Cooperatives 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Strategic Orientation Business Management Technical Services Organizational Structure Governance Financial Services COOSEMPODA COSMPROJIN R.L TOMATOYA SACACLI 74 Gráfico 2.2. Capacity Scoring of Functional Areas for Two Private Businesses 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Strategic Orientation Business Management Technical Services Organizational Structure 75 Mapa 1. Distribution of producers surveyed with project and control group of the municipalities of Jinotega and Santa María de Pantasma, , March to May 2020 Fuente: Elaboración propia a partir de información georeferenciada. 76 Annex 3 Anexo No. 3.1. Sampling Table Municipio Community School Name Control/ Intervention Girls Sampled Boys Sampled Total general Jinotega Colinas Bastilla Intervention 6 15 21 Lipululo Lipululo Intervention 13 12 25 Mancotal Abajo San Miguel Intervention 8 8 16 Pelón Pelón Intervention 9 8 17 Sisle 2 Juan Pablo Segundo Intervention 6 9 15 Tomatoya Amanda López Pineda Intervention 5 13 18 Villa Norte Rubén Darío Intervention 41 28 69 Yankee 1 Rubén Dario Yankee 1 Intervention 11 6 17 19 de julio Simón Bolívar Intervention 40 30 70 Bo. Jinotega Gabriela Mistral Intervention 75 48 123 Paso Real 1 Elias Blandón Machado Intervention 4 6 10 Robles Pedro Lisimaco Intervention 21 18 39 Santa Maria de Pantasma Aserrio Jose Cesareo Blandón Intervention 8 3 11 Cedros Cedros Central Intervention 10 9 19 Cenizabu Cenizabú Intervention 12 12 24 Cruces 2 Jose Benito Arauz Intervention 13 11 24 Praderas Ninfa Segura Castillo Intervention 48 44 92 Sacramento Sacramento Intervention 7 6 13 Tigre Ángeles Intervention 4 6 10 Anizales 2 Anizales 2 Control 6 6 12 Chile Chile Control 6 4 10 Cruce 1 Rubén Darío Control 6 7 13 Total 359 309 668 77 Anexo No. 3.2. Cooperatives and Producers Included in the Evaluation Cooperativas y empresas Products Municipality Number of Members Members participating in MAS Study Sample Control Sample Frame Contro l Sample COOSEMPODA Hortalizas Jinotega 95 27 22 68 17 COOSMPROJIN Hortalizas Jinotega 73 35 29 38 10 Tomatoya Hortalizas Jinotega 33 22 18 11 3 Sacacli Hortalizas Hortalizas 219 60 49 159 40 Subtotal Hortalizas 420 144 118 276 70 ECOPRASA Frijol Pantasma 53 44 12 9 5 EMAJUSA Frijol Pantasma 37 24 6 13 7 ECOFODESA Frijol Pantasma 58 52 14 6 3 ESJUSA Frijol Pantasma 108 73 19 25 14 Subtotal 256 193 51 53 30 Total 676 337 169 329 100 Anexo 3.2.1. Cooperative Focus Group Participants Organizaciones Men Women Total COOMSEPODA 5 5 COOSMPROJIN 4 2 6 Tomatoya 9 9 SACACLI 6 1 7 ECOPRASA 8 1 9 ESJUSA 5 1 6 ECOFODESA 4 2 6 EMAJUSA 5 5 GRINSA 2 2 Klifford (avícola) 1 1 Total 49 7 56 78 Anexo 3.2.2. PTA Members No. School Name Control/ Intervention Males Females Total 1 José Cesareo Blandón Proyecto 1 5 6 2 Chile Control 2 10 12 3 Anizales 2 Control 6 4 10 4 Rubén Darío, Villa Norte Intervention 0 2 2 5 Ninfa Segura Castillo Intervention 2 10 12 6 Rubén Darío, Cruces 1 Control 1 2 3 7 Cenizabu Intervention 1 4 5 8 Bastilla Intervention 3 6 9 9 Pedro Lisímaco Control 3 5 8 10 Elías Blandón Machado Control 5 9 14 11 Simón Bolívar Control 1 6 7 12 Juan Pablo Segundo Intervention 1 11 12 13 Amanda López Pineda Intervention 1 6 7 14 Gabriela Mistral Control 0 5 5 Total 27 85 112 Source: Obtained from the list of participants who were applied the guided questionnaire (parents of the CAE y PTA). Anexo 3.2.3. PTA Focus Group Participants No. Escuela Control/ Intervention Males Females Total 1 Pelón/Lipululo Intervention 2 9 11 2 Cedro Central y Cruces Intervention 8 6 14 3 Mancotal/San Miguel Intervention 0 12 12 4 Sacramento/Los Ángeles Intervention 9 3 12 Total 19 30 49 Fuente: Elaborado a partir de los resultados de la guía de grupo focal aplicado a miembros del CAE y PTA. 79 Anexo No. 3.3. Data Collection Instruments Anexo No. 3.3.1. Supplier and Producer Focs Group Guide Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Sesión con grupo focal Principales proveedores de productos, prestadores de servicios y comerciantes de Jinotega y Pantasma Marzo a mayo 2020 I. Metodología del grupo focal Este instrumento será aplicado a proveedores sujetos de estudio (8 cooperativas 2 empresas), principales proveedores potenciales, prestadores de servicio (transporte, almacenaje), comerciantes mayoristas y se realizarán dos eventos, uno en Jinotega y otro en Pantasma. Se considera realizar las sesiones posteriormente a la sistematización de la información recolectada las cooperativas, empresas y productores, ya que son la base para la identificación de los principales actores que podrían estar involucrados directa o indirectamente, en caso que el proyecto decida realizar la compra de los productos sujetos de estudio. Con el listado de principales actores de cada eslabón de la cadena, se coordina con el personal de campo de PCI y se filtrará esta lista, aprovechando el conocimiento que tiene este funcionario de zona, así mismo, será a través de él que se realizará la convocatoria. El objetivo de del grupo focal es conocer de los proveedores, prestadores de servicios y comerciantes los efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos que causaría un incremento en la demanda de tomate, repollo, zanahoria, papa, frijol rojo, huevos, leche pasterizada, crema, por la aparición de un nuevo comprador en la zona. Se conformarán grupos de trabajo, los cuales estarán integrado por los representantes de cada eslabón de la cadena, (proveedores, proveedores potenciales, prestadores de servicios, comerciantes), cada grupo discutirá de manera independiente las preguntas que serán presentadas al resto de grupos. Adicionalmente, se abrirá un panel de discusión donde cada participante tendrá la oportunidad de exteriorizar su opinión. Para evitar que los grupos se diluyan en la discusión interna, el tema principal será abordado a través de las siguientes preguntas: • ¿Qué efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos tendría si el nuevo comprador me solicitará el servicio que ofrece? (vender el producto, transportarlo, etc) • ¿Qué efectos positivos o negativos y riesgostendría si este nuevo comprador me exige estándares de calidad en la prestación de mi servicio? • ¿Qué efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos tendría sobre la comunidad si le prestara el servicio? El facilitador durante el proceso de discusión de los grupos estará visitándolos para aclarar cualquier duda, así mismo, durante las exposiciones podrá intervenir para solicitar aclaración o profundización en aquellos aspectos que son de interés para el tema abordado, durante el panel abierto servirá como moderador y al mismo tiempo irá realizando anotaciones. 80 El tiempo efectivo estimado para realizar la sesión será 2 horas con treinta minutos, tiempo total estimado 3 horas considerando tiempos de inducción al tema y otros. El facilitador será responsable de recolectar las hojas que utilizaron los grupos en las exposiciones; las cuales serán sistematizadas en conjunto con las anotaciones y el resultado final de la sesión será un listado de factores de riesgo y efectos positivos o negativos percibidos en caso de que el proyecto decida adquirir los productos en la zona.  Actividades preliminares a) Llenado de la lista de participantes a. Inducción al tema Buenos días o Buenas tardes, mi nombre es ___________________, somos parte de un equipo de trabajo que apoya a PCI en realizar una investigación del mercado de productos frescos y granos en los municipios de Jinotega y Pantasma, con el objetivo de aportarles información para complementar la merienda escolar con alimentos frescos, sanos y limpios. En días pasados (indicar la fecha de levantamiento de entrevistas a cooperativa y empresas) estuvimos con algunos de ustedes, queremos agradecerles por la información que nos han brindado y expresarles que esta reunión es complementaria, así mismo a los nuevos participantes agradecerles por el tiempo y aporte que nos brindarán. El día de hoy, nos hemos reunido con el propósito de conocer su opinión sobre los efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos que causaría un incremento en la demanda de tomate, repollo, zanahoria, papa, frijol rojo, huevos, leche empacada y crema empacada por la aparición de un nuevo comprador en la zona de Jinotega y Pantasma, en este caso PCI. b. Solicitar permiso para grabar. Fecha:_____/_____/______ Hora de inicio__________ Departamento/Región: Jinotega  Pantasma  Lugar donde ser realizar sesi[on______________________________ Facilitador________________________________________________________________________________________ Apoyo Logistico____________________________________________________________________________________ Nombre Organización que representa Teléfono Correo Electrónico Firma Hora de finalización ___________ Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Hoja de Asistencia Sesión grupo Focal 81 c. Aclarar que si alguno desea salirse de la sesión puede hacerlo. d. Solicitarles silenciar los teléfonos y salirse del sitio de la reunión para responder cuando lo deseen. II. Desarrollo de la sesión a) Presentar y dar la bienvenida b) Solicitar presentación de los asistentes, nombre y a quien representan c) Explicar las reglas, procedimientos a seguir y duración de la sesión d) Conformar los grupos de trabajo y nombrar representante del grupo e) Entrega del material a utilizar en el trabajo en grupo f) Lecturas a las preguntas que deberán dar respuesta al tema, explicaremos que los mismos están visibles en pizarra o pared (según sea el caso)  ¿Qué efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos tendría si el nuevo comprador me solicitará el servicio que ofrece? (vender el producto, transportarlo, etc.)  ¿Qué efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos tendría si este nuevo comprador me exige estándares de calidad en la prestación de mi servicio?  ¿Qué efectos positivos o negativos y riesgos tendría sobre la comunidad si le prestará el servicio? g) Iniciar trabajo en grupo. Tiempo estimado 1 hora h) Presentación de resultado del trabajo de cada grupo. Tiempo estimado 1hora i) Inicio panel abierto de discusión. Tiempo estimado 30 minutos III. Finalización de la sesión a) Palabras de agradecimiento por la participación de todas las personas b) Conclusión de la actividad, haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados. c) Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir. 82 Anexo No. 3.3.2. Supplier Interview Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Entrevista con proveedores de alimentos Metodología Objetivo de la entrevista Identificar las capacidades de los proveedores preseleccionados (8 cooperativas y 2 empresas) para cumplir con los estándares legales, de calidad, volumen de producción, áreas de mejoras técnicas y administrativas. Este objetivo será abordado en dos fases: Primera Fase: Capacidad que tienen para garantizar la entrega de volúmenes de producto que cumplan con estándares de calidad exigidos por el cliente (comprador) y las normativas legales nacionales. En este sentido, dicha capacidad estará determinada por el conjunto de prácticas o procedimiento implementadas para garantizar el abastecimiento producto y el conjunto de prácticas y procedimientos que garantice la calidad en las diferentes etapas (acopio, procesamiento y entra del producto). En conjunto establecería un parámetro para determinar la rentabilidad de la entra de producto en la medida que se acopio procesa y entrega las cantidades demandas acorde a los estándares exigidos por el cliente. Bajo este contexto, en esta prima fase la información recolecta además permitirá dar salida a los siguientes indicadores y dar respuesta a algunos propósitos establecidos a nivel de organizaciones y empresas: Indicadores LRP 1.1. Costo de transporte, almacenamiento y manipulación según tipo de productos LRP 1.1.1 Costo de adquisición según tipo de producto LRP 1.1.2 Porcentaje de productores que han adoptado prácticas y procesos para mejorar la rentabilidad de la entrega. LRP 1.3.2.1 Valor de las ventas anuales según tipo de producto LRP 1.3.2.1 Volumen (TM) de productos vendidos según tipo de producto Propósitos • Identificar los factores de riesgos (ambientales, climáticos, económicos y sociales) que afecten la cadena productiva y comercialización de los productos a adquirir en este proyecto • Identificar otros productores potenciales quien pueden ser capacitados para vender productos a las escuelas • Determinar la disponibilidad de servicios y actores agropecuarios como transportistas y almacenamiento Segunda Fase: Capacidad administrativa de las organizaciones y empresas será concebida como la capacidad de gestión y administración de los recursos para alcanzar objetivos en el tiempo; en este sentido, dicha capacidad se determinará a través de la valoración del nivel en que se encuentran sus principales áreas funcionales participativa (orientación estratégica, gestión gerencial, servicios técnicos, servicios financieros, funcionalidad de estructura organizacional y gobernanza), en donde la valoración es concebido como un proceso participativo entre el consultor y representantes de los órganos de dirección y administrativos de las cooperativas y empresas a una serie de preguntas. El análisis conjunto (dos fases) permitirá alcanzar el objetivo propuesto. Es importante destacar que en la primera fase el sujeto de estudio los sujetos de investigación son el gerente y equipo técnico en la medida que lo requiera el primero y en la segunda fase el sujeto de estudio son los 83 órganos de dirección, en este sentido, el proceso metodológico ha considerado realizar ambos entrevista en una vista, la entrevista a realizar en la primera fase se hará en horas de la mañana la entrevista de la segunda fase se hará en la tarde (acápite 1.3). Tipo de instrumentos a utilizar en la recolección de información En ambas fases se considera utilizar entrevistas, sin embargo, cada entrevista presenta diferencias de fondo. Primera fase: Se ha considerado utilizar una entrevista semiestructurada, a través de este instrumento se tiene más libertad de desarrollar a partir de las respuestas otros temas no previstos en la entrevista, además dan la oportunidad al entrevistado de expresar sus ideas y obtener una información más completa y precisa. Segunda fase: Se ha considerado utilizar el instrumento ADA es una entrevista tipo estructurada con una serie de preguntas para cada una de las áreas funcionales de la organización o empresas y cuyas respuestas serán un valor de uno a cinco, puntaje que será asignado de manera consensuada en entre los representantes de órganos de dirección. Estos tipos de entrevistas requieren un entrevistador con experiencia, puesto que deberá tener conocimientos de los temas abordados y así poder moderar al entrevistado cuando se aleja de la pregunta base. Coordinación general El equipo consultor coordinará con personal de PCI para establecer las fechas en que se realizará la entrevista y será este último el responsable de garantizará la convocatoria, proporcionar una idea del proyecto MAS para ubicar al entrevistado y garantizar la información que previamente las organizaciones tienen que tener al momento de ser entrevistados requerida. Ubicación: Ambas entrevistas serán realizadas en las instalaciones de la organización, en algún lugar que proporcione un ambiente cómodo y libre de interrupciones para facilitar la concentración del entrevistado. Persona entrevistada En la entrevista a proveedores de alimentos se entrevistará al gerente o administrador de organización bajo el supuesto que este uncionario maneja la información relevante para dar respuesta a las interrogantes, sin embargo, no se excluye que pueda hacerse acompañar del personal clave (responsable de acopio, recepción y procesamiento y ventas) con el fin de poder complementar las respuestas, es importante destacar que el total de encuestados no debe ser mayor a cinco. Hora propuesta La primera entrevista será realizada en horas de la mañana y tendrá una duración aproximada de 3 horas; por lo cual se exigirá puntualidad y buen manejo del tiempo del entrevistador. El entrevistador estará 30 minutos antes de iniciar; a fin de garantizar las condiciones del local. Requerimiento de información Para el buen desarrollo de la entrevista en la primera fase se ha contemplado solicitar a la organización información preparada para que la tengan en el momento de la entrevista a fin de poder maximizar el tiempo. Estos requerimientos de información se harán llegar a través del personal de PCI. Información requerida  Total, de socios, listado  Total, de socios activos,  Listado de socios proveedores y cantidad entregadas a la organización. 84  Volúmenes mensuales de acopio según producto por proveedor.  Precio promedio por unidad de medida (kilogramo) según producto pagado a cada proveedor en el último año.  Volúmenes mensuales vendidos según producto a cada cliente. último año  Precio de venta promedio por kilogramo de producto según cliente en el último año  Costo promedio de transporte de la finca al centro de procesamiento según tipo de producto para el último año. Por kilogramo  Costo promedio de procesamiento por kilogramo según producto en el último año.  Volumen mensual de procesamiento según producto para el último año  Capacidad máxima de procesamiento del equipo y maquinaria existente.  Costo promedio de almacenaje según producto en el último año. Por kilogramo  Volumen mensual de procesamiento según producto para el último año  Capacidad máxima de procesamiento según tipo de producto del equipo y maquinaria existente. En kilogramo  Estándares de calidad exigidos por el comprador en el último  Porcentaje promedio de devoluciones de producto  Estado de resultado de resultado último año Instrumento metodológico Estructura de la entrevista La entrevista será estructurada en cinco áreas operativas que permitirán visualizar el proceso desde el acopio en finca hasta que el producto llega al cliente dichas áreas serán las siguientes: (i) Recepción de producto en portón finca y traslado al centro de acopio (ii) Recepción en planta (iii) Procesamiento de los productos (iv) Almacenaje (v) Venta del producto procesado Desarrollo de la entrevista Primer paso: Presentación del entrevistador en caso de que sean más de una persona solicitara también presentación, a continuación, solicitara que se apaguen los celulares a fin de minimizar la interrupción de la entrevista. Segundo paso: Se comunicará cual es el objetivo de la encuesta su estructura entregándole a los presentes una copia del cuestionario. Tercer paso: El encuestador dará lectura a las preguntas correspondiente a cada área procurando que el entrevistado la ha comprendido, posteriormente el entrevistado dará la respuesta. Cuarto paso: El entrevistador realizará anotaciones de los puntos torales proporcionados en cada respuesta, realizando un resumen por área el cual será leído al finalizar el cuestionario para garantizar que no ha faltado nada, Quinto paso: Lectura de resumen información toral por área para consensuar anotaciones Sexto paso: Cierre de encuentro. Una vez finalizada la entrevista, el encuestador solicitará al gerente o administrador la información previamente requerida. 85 Procesamiento y análisis de la información Por las características del instrumento el procesamiento de la información el instrumento base será los resúmenes realizados donde se establece las respuestas proporcionadas por cada organización., las respuestas por área proporcionados por cada organización serán tabulados de manera intendente en una hoja Excel. Posteriormente se elaborará un cuadro de condensación, el cual proporcionará las capacidades que tiene en las áreas funcionales: Acopio de producto, procesamiento y almacenamiento de producto y venta. Para cumplir con los volúmenes y estándares de calidad requeridos por el proyecto. La valoración de cada criterio se realizará a través de una escala de 0 a 5. Área funcional Criterios de valoración Valoración de los Criterios Acopio Cantidad de proveedores Para este criterio se considerará como parámetro el porcentaje de socios que son proveedores. Capacidad que tiene para garantizar el abastecimiento y estándares de calidad por parte de sus proveedores La cantidad de los instrumentos o practicas utilizados que permitan minimizar el riego de no entrega Capacidad para garantizar la inocuidad del producto y minimizar riegos en el traslado al centro de procesamiento Comparación con las prácticas y procesos que aplican y las establecidas en las normativas, BPA y otras. Procesamiento y almacenamieto Implementación de prácticas y protocolos garanticen estándares y minimización de pérdidas. Comparación con las prácticas y procesos que aplican y las establecidas en las normativas, BPM y otras Capacidad instalada de procesamiento y almacenaje (capacidad ociosa actual) Cálculo de nivel de subutilización de capacidad instalada Ventas Capacidad de entrega bajo cumpliendo estándares de calidad e inocuidad. Porcentaje de devoluciones Prácticas para minimizar riesgos de perdida en producto Disponibilidad de medios propios de transporte y precio Comparación Se ha considerado que los costos de transporte, procesamiento y almacenaje son componentes del precio de venta puesto en planta o punto de entrega (escuelas), por tal razón se calculará la importancia relativa de éstos en la estructura de precios de venta por producto y a partir de este porcentaje se estimará cual podría ser el impacto en términos de valor absoluto sobre estas variables un aumento repentino en la demanda (incremento en ventas) y a su vez sobre el precio final. Es importante mencionar que estas variables (transporte, procesamiento, almacenaje) responden inversamente al nivel de capacidad ociosa, por tanto, al aumentar su utilización los costos fijos promedios disminuyen y por ende se generaría un impacto sobre el precio de venta, permitiendo estimar cual podría ser el impacto sobre el precio de venta puesto en punto (escuelas), ante una posible compra por parte de PCI. Una vez realizado el análisis individual de cada organización, se realizará un comparativo entre las diez organizaciones y otra clasificación estableciendo los niveles A, B, C; donde A se considerará las organizaciones con mayor capacidad de cumplimento de los requisitos establecidos en el propósito 4 que es el objetivo propuesto del instrumento aplicado. 86 Adicionalmente, se solicitará una cotización de entrega de producto a las escuelas, para tales efectos la cotización se hará por ruta lógica de entregará a las escuelas el propósito de esto es tener un parámetro base en caso de que el proyecto pueda hacer negocio con la organización. Preguntas de la entrevista a cooperativas y empresas Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Guia de preguntas para acopio y traslado a centro de procesamiento PREGUNTA ABASTECIMIENTO GENERAL DE PRODUCTO 1.1 ¿Qué prácticas o procesos implementan o a implementado ustedes para que sus proveedores garanticen los volúmenes de producto requeridos? 1.2 ¿Cuáles han sido los principales problemas que han manifestado sus proveedores cuando han incumplido con los volúmenes de producto planifica ¿como lo ha solicitado? 1.3 ¿ A nivel interno cuales han sido los principales problemas para abastecerse de productos? 1.4 ¿Qué otras organizaciones o empresa de la zona compite en el acopio de productos? son? Quienes son ESTANDAR DE CALIDAD DEL PRODUCTO EN PROCESO PRODUCTIVO Y ENTREGA PORTON FINCA 1.5 ¿Qué prácticas o procesos implementan o ha implementado ustedes para que sus proveedores garanticen a nivel productivo que el producto sea entregado de acuerdo a los estándares de calidad e inocuidad requerido por el cliente? Como se asegura que las cumplan. 1.6 ¿Para establecer las prácticas o procesos productivos que debe implementar sus proveedores a nivel productivo consideraron además de los estándares de calidad del cliente las regulaciones técnicas nacionales para la producción de los productos acopiados? 1.7 ¿Cuáles han sido los principales problemas que han manifestado los proveedores para cumplir con los estándares productivo requerido? ¿cómo lo solucionado? TRANSPORTE DE LA FINCA AL CENTRO DE ACOPIO 1.8 ¿Qué prácticas o procesos implementan o ha implementado para garantizar que el producto entregado por el proveedor no sufra daños o perdida calidad en el transporte al centro de acopio? 1.10 ¿En casos de tener problemas con el transporte en esta etapa existen en la zona proveedores de este servicio? ¿Cuáles son los más importantes? 1.11 ¿Cuál es el costo promedio por kilogramo en transporte según producto en el último año de operación? 1.12 ¿Cuál es el precio promedio por kilogramo pagado al proveedor según el producto en el último año de operación? ¿Ese precio le proporciona algu ventaja en relación a la competencia? Porque y g Guía de preguntas para recepción y procesamiento PREGUNTA RECEPCION DE PRODUCTO 2.1 ¿Qué controles o prácticas realiza para controlar la entrada de producto a planta? Considera que son los más adecuados 2.2 ¿Qué procedimientos o prácticas implementa o ha implementado para que el personal realice la clasificación de producto acorde a los estándares de calidad solicitados por el comprador? PROCESAMIENTO 3.1 ¿Según producto que tipo de procesamiento realiza? 3.2 ¿Qué equipo o maquinaria utiliza para realizar el procesamiento? 3.3 ¿Cuál es la capacidad máxima de procesamiento según producto? 3.4 ¿Cuánto de esa capacidad instalada está aprovechando? porcentaje 3.5 ¿Qué controles o prácticas realiza para garantizar que el producto siga cumpliendo con los estándares establecidos en la etapa de recepción y en el procesamiento se reduzca el daño manual o mecánico? (perdida de producto en proceso)? 3.6 ¿Cuál es el costo promedio por kilogramo por procesamiento según tipo de producto que ha tendió en el l último año? 3.7 ¿El personal de recepción y procesamiento cuenta con las capacidades para realizar eficaz y eficientemente estas actividades? ¿Quién ha capacitado y en qué temas? 87 y g Guia de preguntas para Almacenamiento PREGUNTA ALMACENAMIENTO 4.1 ¿Según producto que tipo de almacenamiento realiza? 4.2 ¿Cuál es la capacidad máxima de almacenamiento según producto 4.3 ¿Cuánto de esa capacidad instalada está aprovechando? Porcentaje 4.4 ¿Qué controles o prácticas realiza para garantizar que el producto ya procesado siga cumpliendo con los estándares establecidos en la etapa de recepción y el procesamiento? 4.5 ¿Cuál es el costo promedio por kilogramo de almacenamiento según tipo de producto que ha tenido en el último año? 4.6 ¿El personal encargado de almacenamiento cuenta con las capacidades para realizar eficaz y eficientemente estas actividades? ¿Quién ha capacitado y en qué temas? 4.7 ¿En el caso que tuviera problemas de almacenaje ¿existen en la zona suficientes proveedores de este servicio? ¿ha tenido que utilizar estos servicios en algún momento, cuánto fue el costo? ¿Quiénes son los proveedores más importantes de este servicio? Guia de preguntas para Ventas PREGUNTA COMERCIALIZACIÓN 5.1 ¿A quién vende actualmente los productos acopiados y procesados? 5.2 ¿Cuáles son las cantidades vendidas por producto de acuerdo al comprador en el último año? 5.3 ¿Cuál es el precio promedio por kilogramo vendido según producto en el último año 5.4 ¿Cuáles son los estándares que exige el comprador según producto? 5.5 ¿En caso que la organización asuma el transporte al punto de entrega establecido por el comprador ¿Qué prácticas o acciones realiza para garantizar los estandandares establecidos por el comprador? 5.6 ¿Qué tan frecuente el comprador ha rechazado el producto entregado que porcentaje? ¿Por qué ha sido el rechazo? 5.7 ¿Cuál es el costo promedio por kilogramo en transporte en esta etapa según tipo de producto para el último año? 5.8 ¿En caso de tener problemas con el transporte, existen suficientes oferentes en la zona que puedan prestarle el servicio? Mencione los más importantes 5.9 ¿Qué otra organización o empresa de la zona compiten con su organización como oferentes de productos? 5.10 ¿De acuerdo a las características de sus socios y/o proveedores que capacidad tendría la organización para incrementar la oferta de producto o diversificar la oferta para atender un nuevo cliente? ¿Cuánto más podrían incrementar la oferta por producto? 5.11 ¿Cuáles podrían ser los principales problemas que enfrentaría la organización para incrementar la oferta de los productos? Internos y externos 88 Anexo No. 1.3.3. Interview of Agri-business on management capacity, financial and administrative management Metodología En la entrevista de capacidades gerenciales se entrevistará a los miembros de los órganos de dirección, (consejo Administrativo) y representante de consejo de vigilancia, (el total de encuestados no debe ser mayor a 7) en caso de las empresas esta se continuará con el administrador o gerente. Estructura de la entrevista La entrevista será ha sido estructurada en seis áreas funcionales las cuales se han dividido en subáreas, a continuación, se hace el detalle Orientación estrategia:  Competencias de gestión empresarial de los órganos de dirección  Instrumentos de planificación  Alianzas comerciales. Gestión empresarial:  Gestión financiera contable  Gestión administrativa  Gestión comercial Servicios técnicos:  Acceso y cobertura  Alianzas para la innovación en la prestación de servicios Estructura organizativa:  Estado legal y normas  Organigrama y funcionalidad Gobernanza:  Competencias organizativas  Pertenencia y compromiso  Prácticas organizativas Servicios financieros (las preguntas en esta área serán pertinentes a las organizaciones que proporción crédito)  Planificación para la prestación del servicio  Alianzas para el acceso a financiamiento  Gestión de los servicios financieros  Acceso y cobertura Desarrollo de la entrevista Primer paso: Presentación del entrevistador y de los entrevistados a continuación, solicitara que se apaguen los celulares a fin de minimizar la interrupción de la entrevista. Segundo paso: Se informará cual es el objetivo de la encuesta, estructura de esta, entregándole a los presentes una copia del cuestionario y explicar el procediendo, en este sentido, se les informara que para cada pregunta tendrán unos momentos para discutir entre ellos y en conjunto asignarán una puntuación de 1 a 5 a cada pregunta. El encuestador explicará el proceso de razonamiento que deberá seguir para dar respuesta a las preguntas a través de un ejemplo: 89 Ejemplo No 1 ¿En la organización se practican auditorías financieras y contables al menos una vez al año? En este caso, las únicas alternativas de respuestas son NO HAGO entonces tendrá que darse una puntuación de 1, SI LA HAGO, entonces tendrá que darse una puntuación de 5. Ejemplo No 2 ¿La organización cuenta con un plan estratégico actualizado, alineada a lo establecido en la misión y visión el cual está siendo implementado? En este caso se presenta varias alternativas de respuesta: • No cuento con plan estratégico la puntuación deberá ser 1 • Cuenta con el plan estratégico, pero no está actualizado la puntuación deberá ser 2 • Cuenta con el plan estratégico actualizado, pero no está alineado a la misión y visión de la organización la puntuación deberá ser 3 • Cuenta con el plan estratégico actualizado, alineado a la misión y visión de la organización la puntuación deberá ser 4 • Cuenta con el plan estratégico actualizado, alineado a la misión y visión de la organización y está siendo implementado la puntuación deberá ser 5 Adicionalmente se le comunicará que una de esas copias deberá ser llenada con lapicero para ser entregada con elsello de la organización en cada página y rubricada por el presidente o miembro de mayor jerarquía del órgano de dirección a fin de tener una evidencia física. Tercer paso: El encuestador dará lectura a las preguntas correspondiente a cada área procurando que el entrevistado la ha comprendido, dando un margen de tiempo para que el grupo genere una discusión para asignarse la puntuación. Durante el espacio de discusión, el encuestador deberá estar atento por si los participantes comienzan a desviar el tema de la pregunta, así mismo, recolectar información complementaria relevante que está vinculada indirectamente y amerita ser considerada como elemento para ampliar la investigación. Cuarto paso: Cierre de encuentro Una vez finalizada la entrevista, el encuestador solicitara copia del cuestionario sellado y rubricado. Procesamiento y análisis de la información La puntuación sobre la puntuación será sistematizada en hoja excel propia del instrumento ADA y a través de la cual se generará una salida de puntuación por subárea, por área y finalmente una puntuación promedio de la organización. La información procesada de cada organización será utilizada para elaborar un cuadro comparativo entre las cooperativas y empresas para identificar cuál de ellas se encuentra más consolidada. 90 Preguntas para el cumplimiento de la metodología ORIENTACIÓN ESTRATÉGICA 1 2 3 4 5 Competencias de gestión empresarial de los órganos de dirección 1.1 Los directivos y las personas responsables de la administración cuentas con las capacidades para evaluar, monitorear y tomar las medidas correctivas para el buen funcionamiento de la organización. 1.2 Los directivos y las personas responsables solicitan periódicamente reportes e informes financieros contables y están capacitados para interpretarlos 1.3 Los directivos y las personas responsables utilizan esos reportes e informes para la toma de decisiones 1.4 Los directivos evalúan periódicamente las situaciones que se presentan en las diferentes áreas operativas (acopio, procesamiento y ventas) para realizar los ajustes pertinentes 1.5 Los directivos y las personas encargadas del trabajo técnico y gerencial en la organización dan seguimiento y ajustan mensualmente el plan operativo anual de la organización Planificación estratégica 1.6 La organización cuenta con un plan estratégico actualizado, alineado a lo establecido en la misión y visión el cual está siendo implementando 1.7 Los directivos y las personas encargadas de las actividades productivas, de mercado y administrativas implementan el plan de negocio, Alianzas Comerciales 1.8 La organización desarrolla alianzas estables para acceder a mercados y servicios que responden a sus necesidades 1.9 Las alianzas establecidas por la organización, le permiten acceder a recursos frescos para desarrollar sus actividades. Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Guia de preguntas GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL 1 2 3 4 5 Gestión Financiera y Contable 2.1 La organización cuenta con un sistema de información financiera y contable formal y actualizado. 2.2 Existen y es implementado manual de procedimientos contables actualizado, que incluyen la descripción clara el sistema contable, manejo de registros y controles de la elaboración de información 2.3 En la organización se practican auditorías financieras y contables al menos una vez al año. 2.4 La información financiera y contable es utilizada para toma de decisiones de la organización Gestión Administrativa 2.5 La organización cuenta con un área administrativa adecuada acorde al volumen de sus operaciones, y por tanto que puede ser remunerada con los ingresos de la organización. 2.6 El personal administrativo y operativo cuenta con las competencias para realizar sus funciones. 2.7 Se elaboran y analizan mensualmente informes o balances y son entregados a los órganos de dirección 2.8 Existen y está siendo implementado manual de funciones actualizado, que incluyen la descripción de funciones y responsabilidades que tiene el personal en las diferentes áreas y contenga los controles de para verificar la implementación 2.9 Existen y está implementado manual de operaciones actualizado, que incluyen la descripción clara de los procesos que tiene que realizar en las diferente actividades (acopio, procesamiento etc) y cuenta con los controles de verificación Gestión Comercial 2.10 El personal de comercialización, cuenta con conocimiento en mercadeo para realizar la actividad de manera efectiva. 2.11 La organización cuenta con relaciones estables, formaless, con los compradores en los mercados donde comercializa sus productos. 2.12 La organización asegura que la producción de sus socias y socias cumple con los requerimientos de sus mercados, y planifica los procesos de producción, acopio y agregación de valor para cumplir en tiempo y forma con sus contratos comerciales. 2.13 La organización destina recursos para la innovación y desarrollo de nuevos productos y servicios, de acuerdo a la demanda del mercado. y g Guia de preguntas 91 SERVICIOS TECNICOS 1 2 3 4 5 Acceso y Cobertura 3.1 Todos los socios reciben servicios técnicos de su organización,, según sus necesidades y en forma t 3.2 Las condiciones de oferta de los servicios técnicos permiten el acceso a los jóvenes y mujeres (socios-as o hijos-as de socios). 3.3 Los servicios prestados por la organización son competitivos en comparación con el mercado, en términos de costo y son proporcionados en tiempo oportuno Alianzas para la innovación en la prestación de servicios 3.4 La organización ha establecido alianzas estables con proveedores públicos de servicios técnicos, lo cual permite ampliar la cobertura de estos. 3.5 La organización ha establecido alianzas con proveedores, públicos y/o privados, que contribuyen a innovar y mejorar la prestación de servicios técnicos. 3.6 Las personas asociadas reciben capacitación para desarrollar sus competencias a fin de aumentar su capacidad de resiliencia ante el cambio climático. Guia de preguntas ESTRUCTURA ORGANIZATIVA 1 2 3 4 5 Estado Legal y normas 4.1 La organización cuenta con personería jurídica y está legalmente constituida 4.2 La organización está al día con todos sus compromisos legales, tributarios, financieros, de seguridad ocupacional y sus prestaciones sociales. 4.3 La organización cuenta con estatutos y reglamentos actualizados. 4.4 Los estatutos y los reglamentos de la organización incluyen elementos y mecanismos específicos sobre la transparencia en la gestión de la organización Organigrama y Funciones 4.5 La organización tiene un organigrama actualizado y cuenta con los órganos directivos y operativos completos y son funcionales 4.6 La estructura organizativa está acorde al volumen de las operaciones de la organización Guia de preguntas GOBERNABILIDAD 1 2 3 4 5 Competencias Organizativas 5.1 La organización cuenta con un plan de fortalecimiento de competencias organizativas para la participación y el liderazgo, al cual tienen acceso en igualdad de condiciones socios y socias. 5.2 La organización destina un presupuesto de sus utilidades para la formación de sus socios y socias para las competencias organizativas. 5.3 Los socios y socias jóvenes cuentan con las competencias organizativas para garantizar el relevo en los cargos de dirección de la organización. Pertenencia y Compromiso 5.4 Los socios y socias se identifican y participan activamente en las reuniones, asambleas, capacitaciones y otras actividades convocadas por la organización. 5.5 Los socios y socias cumplen con las metas de entrega de producto y de pago de créditos con su organización. Prácticas Organizativas 5.6 Existe una rotación sana de líderes y directivos, en el cual tienen la posibilidad de participar todos los socios y las socias. 5.7 La organización implementa espacios para la evaluación y la rendición de cuentas, donde los socios y las socias acceden a información sobre la gestión financiera, productiva y comercial de su organización. 5.8 En la organización existen mecanismos específicos para solucionar los conflictos de interés originados por situaciones donde los socios y las socias ofrecen servicios o productos que compiten o afectan la realización de negocios de la organización. y g Guia de preguntas 92 SERVICIOS FINANCIEROS 1 2 3 4 5 Planificación para la prestación de servicios financieros 6.1 La organización planifica sus requerimientos financieros de forma oportuna, para responder a sus socios, socias y clientes. 6.2 La organización asegura la existencia de fondos razonablemente suficientes para prestar los servicios financieros en los momentos en que las socias, los socios y clientes los requieren 6.3 La organización estima, registra y analiza los costos de prestación de los servicios financieros, y toma acciones para mejorar su gestión. Alianzas para el acceso al financiamiento 6.4 La organización establece alianzas estables con instituciones financieras para ampliar la cobertura de los servicios a socios, socias y clientes. 6.5 La organización establece alianzas estables con compradores para garantizar el acceso a recursos financieros para sus socios, socias y clientes. Gestión de los servicios financieros 6.6 La organización cuenta con políticas y procedimientos para la prestación de servicios financieros con equidad, transparencia y calidad. 6.7 Los directivos y el personal (si lo tiene), de la organización aplican las políticas y procedimientos para la prestación de los servicios financieros con equidad, transparencia y calidad. 6.8 Los socios, las socias y clientes cumplen con los compromisos financieros adquiridos con su Acceso y Cobertura 6.9 Los socios, las socias y clientes tienen acceso a los servicios financieros que ofrece, o canaliza, la organización, cuando los necesitan. 6.10 Las condiciones de oferta de los servicios financieros facilitan el acceso de las mujeres socias y l 6.11 Los montos y plazos de los créditos que ofrece la organización para inversión están acordes con las necesidades de las personas asociadas. 6.12 Las tasas de interés y comisiones de los servicios financieros ofrecidos o canalizados por la organización son competitivos frente a los otros proveedores de servicios financieros Guia de preguntas 93 Anexo No. 3.3.2. Producer Focus Group Guide Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Entrevista grupal a productores (socios de Cooperativas y Empresas) Tema de discusión: El mercado de vegetales y frijoles en Jinotega y Pantasma. Marzo 2020 I. Datos generales Facilitadores: Fecha: Hora inicio: ___________ Hora final: ___________ Departamento: Municipio: Comunidad: Nombre del lugar donde se realiza el Grupo Focal: Participantes: Nombre y apellido Organización a la que pertenece Productor de: (Marque con una X) Frijoles Papa Repollo Tomate Zanahoria II. Introducción Buenos días o Buenas Tardes, mi nombre es ___________________, somos parte de un equipo de trabajo que apoya a PCI en realizar una investigación del mercado de productos frescos y granos en los municipios de Jinotega y Pantasma, con el objetivo de aportarles información para complementar la merienda escolar con alimentos frescos, sanos y limpios. En días pasados (indicar la fecha de levantamiento de encuesta a productores) estuvimos con ustedes en sus unidades de producción, queremos agradecerles por la información que nos han brindado y expresarles que esta reunión es complementaria a las entrevistas que muy amablemente nos dieron en sus fincas. El objetivo de la reunión es ampliar los puntos abordados en la encuesta, identificando posibles acciones que les permita superar gradualmente los desafíos/limitantes planteados en los segmentos de: producción, procesamiento, almacenamiento, comercialización y transporte de la producción. Sus ideas, conocimiento y experiencias serán de mucha utilidad para este estudio. Su participación es voluntaria y lo que aquí se exprese será utilizado exclusivamente para facilitar las decisiones a PCI sobre el complemento de la merienda escolar con productos frescos. ¿Nos gustaría conocer si están de acuerdo con participar en esta entrevista de grupo? Nuevamente les agradecemos sus aportes. 94 III. Metodología y actividades iniciales a) Presentarse y dar la bienvenida b) Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista c) Solicitar permiso para grabar d) Aclarar que si alguno desea salirse de la sesión, puede hacerlo e) Solicitarles silenciar los teléfonos y salirse del sitio de la reunión para responder cuando lo deseen f) Realizar dinámica para la presentación con los participantes g) Presentaremos los temas a abordar en la sesión y explicaremos que los mismos están visibles en pizarra o pared (según sea el caso), sin embargo, también se irán exponiendo en el desarrollo de la plática Temas: Tema 1. Producción y cosecha Tema 2. Procesamiento Tema 3 Transporte y Comercio Temas 4. Riesgos y recomendaciones IV. Desarrollo Tema 1. Producción y Cosecha 1. La encuesta nos ha dado como referencia los niveles de productividad de los rubros, quisiéramos saber en una lluvia de idea los factores más importantes que les está afectando la productividad en cada uno de los rubros. 2. Pudiéramos identificar cuáles son los factores más importantes en una escala de 1 a 5, siendo 1=menos importante, 3=Medianamente importante y 5= más importante. 3. ¿Hemos identificado que existen meses donde se baja la producción de hortalizas, que podemos hacer para garantizar la producción en todo el año? 4. La encuesta nos dice que estas actividades son las que tienen mayor costo de producción. ¿Qué acciones identifican para reducirlos sin afectar los rendimientos de los cultivos? 5. ¿Con los volúmenes de producción actual, Ustedes satisfacen la demanda de sus compradores? En el caso que no la suplen, explicar por qué. 6. Qué aspectos positivos o negativos pudieran visualizar, con una mayor demanda de producción de los rubros (papa, tomate, repollo, zanahoria, frijoles). Si mencionan dificultades, indagar sobre soluciones desde la capacidad de los productores 7. ¿Qué niveles de pérdidas tienen en la fase de producción, y en post cosecha, a que se deben? ¿Cuáles de estos aspectos pudieran controlar? ¿con cuáles acciones? 8. Qué porcentaje de rechazo de producto han experimentado con las cooperativas y empresas, cuáles han sido las causas y las medidas que se podrían realizar para reducir el rechazo. Tema 2. Procesamiento 9. ¿Sobre los resultados de las encuestas, se identifican actividades con mayores costos, qué acciones se podrían desarrollar para reducir los costos de procesamiento? 10. ¿Qué porcentaje de pérdidas tienen en esta etapa? ¿Cómo creen que se pueden reducir? Tema 3. Transporte y Comercio 11. ¿Cuáles son los factores que inciden en el costo del transporte, qué acciones se pueden realizar para reducir el costo? 12. ¿Cómo valoran los servicios de transporte disponibles en la zona para comercializar sus productos? ¿Qué actividades realizan para encontrar precios justos/competitivos en el transporte? 95 13. ¿Cuáles son los factores que inciden en las pérdidas durante el transporte y que acciones deberíamos realizar? 14. Nos podrían compartir cuáles son los requisitos de calidad que les solicita sus compradores. 15. ¿En qué fecha se vende a mejor y menor precio y por qué? 16. ¿Qué prácticas han venido realizando para mejorar las entregas, desarrollan un plan de entrega con las cooperativas o empresas? 17. ¿De acuerdo a los resultados de la encuesta, se compartirá la frecuencia de los que llevan registros de entrega y se consultará que acciones debemos desarrollar para un mejor seguimiento a las entregas? 18. ¿Cuáles requisitos administrativos y financieros cumplen para poder vender sus productos? Tema 4. Riesgos y recomendaciones 19. Que riesgos identifican Ustedes que puedan limitar la producción y el comercio de sus productos, en los siguientes aspectos: a) En lo climático. (Ejemplos para el facilitador: Exposición al CC de los cultivos, sequía, inundación, temperatura alta, deslizamiento y otras). ¿Cuál es la afectación en los cultivos? ¿Qué acciones debemos realizar para mitigar y adaptarnos a la mayor exposición existente? b) En lo social. (Ejemplos para el facilitador: Escasez de mano de obra por migración puede provocar trabajo infantil). ¿Qué acciones debemos tomar? c) En lo ambiental. (Ejemplos para el facilitador: con el aumento de la producción se integrarán a la producción áreas de reservas naturales, se aumentará el uso de plaguicidas, se integrarán áreas de vocación forestal). ¿Qué acciones debemos tomar? d) En lo económico. Precios de los insumos, falta de financiamiento, etc. ¿Qué acciones debemos tomar? 20. ¿Alguna recomendación adicional del grupo que aporte a mejorar las diferentes etapas del proceso productivo? Finalización de la actividad 1. Agradezca nuevamente la participación de todas las personas 2. Pregunte si hay algo más que deseen mencionar 3. Concluya la actividad haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados 4. Revise la lista de asistencia para verificar que todas las personas están anotadas 5. Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir ¡Muchas gracias por su participación! 96 Anexo No. 3.3.5. Producer Survey PCI Nicaragua - Proyecto: Mayor acceso a alimentos saludables (MAS) 2019 - 2022 Encuesta a Productores (as)/ Estudio de Mercado/ marzo 2020 I. IDENTIFICACION DEL CUESTIONARIO Código del Productor Coordenadas X Y: 3. Nombre del productor o razón social: 4. Sexo 1. Hombre 2. Mujer Edad Nivel académico 1. Letrado, 2. primaria, 3. secundaria, 4. universitario 5. Dirección exacta del productor Departamento Municipio Telefono Mz. Mz. Mz. Mz. Mz. Mz. 8. Indique que tipo de cultivos produce? 1. arroz, 2. frijoles, 3. sorgo, 4. maíz, 5, zanahoria, 6. papa, 7. tomate, 8. chiltoma, 9. lechuga, 10. café, 11. cacao, 12. otros especificar 9. Esta registrada su unidad productiva en alguna institución oficial? 1. Alcaldía, 2. Ministerio Agropecuario, 3. Ministerio Fomento Industria y Comercio, DGI, 4. Otros Especificar 10. Está actualizado su registro 1. Si 0 No 11. Cuenta con facturas 1. Comerciales, 2, Membretadas, 0 No tiene 1. Usa agroquímicos. 2. Orgáni 3. Mixta 14. Mencione prácticas que realiza en su sistema productivo? Se citan algunos ejemplos. Manejo de plagas Almacenamiento Comercializacion Control químico Control temperatura, humedad, luz Limpieza vehículo Control biologico Ubicación adecuada area Limpieza recipientes Monitoreo cultivo rvicios sanitario fuera del área almac Otras prácticas 15. Fuentes de abastecimiento de agua para el riego: 1. Río 2. Lago/Laguna 3. Quebrada 4. Reservorio 5. Pozo 6. Ojo de agua o manantial 1. Sí 0. No Mz. Frijol ( ), Tomate ( ), Repollo ( ), Zanahoria ( ), Papa ( ) 1. Productor 2. Cónyuge 3. Gerente 4. Administrador 5. Hijo mayor de 16 años 6. Familiar 7. Mandador 8. Trabajador 13. Cuenta con algun tipo de certificación? Mencionela e indique la institución que la otorgó 16. Utiliza riego en el cultivo 17. Indicar el área regada por producto III. CARACTERISTICAS GENERALES DE LA UNIDAD DE PRODUCCION 6. Total área de Finca/Unidad de Producción Area dedicada a cultivos permanentes Area dedicada a cultivos anuales 12. El manejo de su plantación o producción 7. Giro principal de la unidad de producción Area en pastos Area en forestal Otras No quema Obras de cosecha de agua Manejo adecuado de envases Reforestación Semillas resistente a sequía Conservación de suelo Adapatación al Cambio climático 1. Granos básicos 2. Hortalizas 3. Ganadería 4. Café 5.Otros especificar Total Manzanas II. IDENTIFICACION DEL PRODUCTOR Y DE LA UNIDAD DE PRODUCCION 2. Cargo del informante 1. Nombres y apellidos del informante Cercas vivas Cortinas Rotación de cultivos 97 1. microaspersión 2. aspersión 3.goteo 4. gravedad 5. Especifique otros. IV. INFORMACION DE PRODUCCION AGRICOLA 19. Producción - último año Descripción Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria Papa (qq) (qq) (unidades) (qq) qq Areas de siembra Rendimientos por Mz. Volumenes producidos (último ciclo/ mayo 2019- abril 2020) Cantidad destinada a venta Cantidad destinada a auto-consumo períodos de cosecha primer ciclo (meses) Fecha de cosecha segundo ciclo (meses) Período de cosecha de tercer ciclo (meses) Períodos de poca producción (meses) Períodos de mayor producción meses (meses) V. COSTOS 20. Lleva registros de sus costos de producción, procesamiento, comercialización? 1. Si, 0 No Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria papa (Costo/Mz.) Los costos refieren a los costos operativos anuales. No incluyen costo de tierra. 22. Quién/es son sus proveedores de insumos para la produccion. Liste Nombre insumos Proveedores Ubicación Proveedores 23. Considera que existen suficientes proveedores de insumos en la zona 1. Si 0. No 1. Si 0. No Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria papa 1. secado 2. limpiado o lavado 3. empaque, 4. Indicar cuál 26. Quién le provee los servicios y productos para procesamiento ? Nombre insumos Proveedores Ubicación Proveedores 1. cajillas, 2. sacos 3. Bolsas 4. pichingas, 5. Otras especificar. Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria papa (qq) (Unidades) (qq) (qq) 28. Menciones tipos (infraestructura/equipo) de almacenamiento utilizados en su unidad productiva Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria papa 1. Bodega con piso y techada 2. Piso/tarima de concreto 3. Silos metálicos 4. Barriles plásticos 5. Red Frío 5. Especificar lo observado en la unidad productiva 29. El almacenamiento¿le permite las condiciones de calidad del producto 1. Si, 0 No 30. Quién le provee los servicios y productos para almacenamiento ? Iinsumos/Servicios Proveedores Ubicación Proveedores Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria papa (Costo/qq.) (Costo/qq.) (Costo/qq.) (Costo/qq.) (Costo/qq.) 18. Indicar tipo de riego: Costo de almacenamiento. 31. Costos de almacenamiento 21. Costos de producción 27. Indique costos de procesamiento 25. Si la respuesta anterior es 1. que tipo de valor agregado realiza por prod Costos de procesamiento/manipulación 24. Realiza algún tipo de procesamiento 98 VI COMERCIALIZACION 32. Completar tabla de comercialización según productos destinados a venta Variables/Productos Frijoles Tomate Repollo Zanahoria Papa A quien vende Volumen vendido Donde entrega Precio de Venta Como vende sus Pdtos Como es la Demanda Condiciones calidad Como vende: 1. Tengo contratos antes de la cosecha, 2. Tengo acuerdos informales para los productos, 3. Vendo despues de cosecha Como es la demanda: 1. Alta, 2. Media, 3. Baja, 888 No Se Condiciones de calidad: 1. Tamaño, 2. color, 3. sabor, 4.empaquetado, 5 Limpieza, 6 Frescura 33. Tienen capacidad para ofrecer mayores volumenes de producto al mercado? 1. Si 0. No 34. Hasta cuánto podria aumentar su produccion por producto Indique % 35. Qué requiere usted para lograr ese aumento? 1. tecnología 2. compradores 3. riego 4. tierra, 5. acceso a crédito 6.otros especificar 36. Cuánto costaría la entrega del producto que cosecha puesto en la escuela más cercana? (Presentar el dato por quintal o unidades en el caso de repollo) 37. En que condiciones lo podría entregar: Frijoles Repollo Papa Zanahoria Tomate Ejemplos. Lavado, Limpiado, clasificado, especificar. 38. Si un comprador le solicitara más productos y Usted solo pudiera aseguarle una parte, que acciones recomendaría ? Opciones: 1. Estaría dispuesto a comercializar con otros, 2. No haría nada, 3. Otras opciones especificar 1. Positivo 0. Negativo 40. En cualquiera de las respuestas, explique porque? Transporte 41. Cuándo vende del porton fincan hacia afuera. Qué medio de transporte utiliza? 1. camioneta 2. camión 3. bestia 4. otros especificar 999. No aplica (entrega a cooperativa), salta al siguiente tema 42. En qué condiciones se hace el transporte de los productos 1. Granel, 2. Cajillas, 3. Sacos, 4. Otros especificar 1. Propio, 2. Alquilado, 3. Combinado 44. Si es alquilado, indique quién le presta el servicio? 45. Existe suficiente cantidad de oferentes de servicio en la zona? 1. Entre 1-3; 2. 4-6; 3. De 6 a más 46. Frecuencia de transportación en el departamento 47. Qué Volumenes transporta por viaje C$/Viaje C$/Viaje 39. Si los productos que Ud comercializa ahora, tuvieran mayor demanda en el mercado, que consecuencias le traería ?. 50. Cuál es el porcentaje de perdida por transporte? 43. Propiedad del medio de transporte 1. semanal 2.quincenal. 3. mensual. 4. Otros especificar. 48. Costo por viaje transportado cuando el transporte es propio 49. Costo por viaje transportado cuando es alquilado 99 1. Si 0. No VII ORGANIZACIÓN Y ASISTENCIA TECNICA 1. Si 0. No 53. En que temas 55. Qué prácticas ha adoptado a partir de estas capacitaciones VIII. FINANCIAMIENTO 1. Si 0. No 1. compra de insumos agrícolas, 2. compra de equipos, 3. compra de maquinaria, 4. compra de medios de transporte, 5 otros especificar IX. Desafíos y Recomendaciones Producción Post-cosecha Comercialización 60. Que requeriría Usted para mitigar o resolver la problemática anterior X. Inspección a bodegas de almacenamiento de productos 61. Los productos están en contacto con el suelo 1. Si, 0 No 62. Hay piso/paletas debajo de los productos 1. Si, 0 No 63. Se observan las siguientes incidencias en las bodega 1. Pulgas, 2. roedores, 3. Suciedad-polvo, 4. Excrementos, 5. Especificar otros 64.Material de construccion de bodega 1. madera, 2. Concreto, 3. Plástico, 4. Especificar otros 59.Enumere tres pincipales problemas que enfrenta en: 1. Microfinanciera, 2. Banco, 3. Cooperativa, 4. Programa de Gobierno. 5 Prestamista, 6. Agroservicios 7. Comerciantes 8. Otro especific 58. Para que utilizó el financiamiento? 1. Institucion de Gobierno. 2. Cooperativas 3. Institución Privada. 4. ONG, 5. Otros 56. Ha recibido financiamiento en los últimos dos años 57. Si la respuesta es 1. Quien la ha brindado financiamiento: 52. Ha recibido capacitación en el último año (2019) 54. De quien recibe la capacitación y /o asistencia técnica 51. Lleva registros de entrega de los productos 100 Anexo No. 3.3.3. School Children and PTA Instruments Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega. Marzo 2020 Lista de verificación sobre consumo de alimentos en las escuelas Proyecto MAS El objetivo de la actividad es conocer el tipo y frecuencia con que se consumieron los alimentos de la merienda que les ofrece la escuela anotados en el cuaderno de control y seguimiento de alimentación escolar u otro sustituto. Encuestador: Fecha de la encuesta: I. Datos Generales 1.1. Departamento: 1.2. Municipio: 1.3. Comunidad: 1.4. Nombre de la escuela: 1.5. Nombre del director: 1.6. Nombre de la Persona que acompaña el recorrido: 1.7. Cargo en la organización Escolar: Marque con una “X” los documentos revisados: Control y seguimiento del Componente de alimentación escolar (Cuaderno PINE MINED) Cuaderno de aportes del complemento de la merienda escolar. En caso de no estar disponible alguno de los medios de verificación, señale las razones: ________________________________________________________________ Solicite al director de la escuela o persona designada, el cuaderno de Control y seguimiento del Componente de alimentación escolar (Cuaderno PINE-MINED) y el cuaderno de aportes del complemento de la merienda escolar. II. Frecuencia de consumo de alimentos de la merienda escolar En base al acápite 6 del cuaderno de Control y seguimiento del Componente de alimentación escolar (Cuaderno PINE-MINED) Control diario de consumo, revise los alimentos consumidos durante los 7 días, complete la información con la registrada en el acápite 5, Rol de cocina del mes considerando la columna Complemento para la merienda. De no encontrar la información requerida en estos dos cuadernos, consulte al docente si anotan los aportes que complementan la merienda en otro cuaderno y solicítelo. 101 Es importante que coteje que las fechas que revisa coincidan en ambos acápites. En el caso del arroz, la harina y el cereal (todos pertenecen al grupo 1). Una vez termine la revisión, marque según su observación cuántos días consumieron cada grupo de alimento en la merienda escolar en el período indicado. Grupos de alimentos Días de la semana 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No (0) Datos faltantes (888) 1. Proteínas de origen animal Leche, queso, cuajada, yogurt, leche agria, carne de res, pollo, cerdo, hígado, corazón, pescado, huevo. 2. Frutas Naranja, limones, mandarinas, banano, sandía, papaya, melón, melocoton, mango maduro, jocote, guayaba. 3. Verduras Pipián, chayote, frijol en vaina, tomate, chiltoma, cebolla, repollo, lechuga, pepino, hojas verdes, zanahoria, ayote 102 Consentimiento informado Estimado Señor (a) Padre o Madre de familia o responsable del estudiante: PCI está realizando un estudio que permitirá identificar cómo mejorar las actividades que desarrolla el proyecto en las escuelas. Para ello, se necesita su permiso para platicar con su hijo o hija sobre la alimentación o merienda que reciben en la escuela. Si Usted autoriza que platiquemos con su hija o hijo, favor escriba su nombre y firma en esta hoja. ________________________________ ________________________ Nombres y apellidos Firma Fecha: _______________________ 103 Anexo No. 3.3.4. Minimum Acceptable Frequency Instrument Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega. Marzo 2020 Encuesta Frecuencia de consumo de alimentos En escolares de cuarto a sexto grado de primaria Presentación ante los estudiantes: Una presentación a cargo del equipo de personal de PCI, Nicaragua. Seguidamente el encuestador. Buenos días apreciados alumnos. Mi nombre es ________________ y en nombre de PCI estamos realizando un estudio en las escuelas del municipio de Jinotega y Pantasma. Su centro de estudio es uno de los escogidos, la maestra/o nos ha permitido trabajar con ustedes al igual que hemos solicitado autorización a sus padres para la aplicación de una encuesta sobre el consumo de los alimentos que ustedes comen. El objetivo de la encuesta es conocer los tiempos de comida que ustedes hacen en todo el día y el tipo de alimentación que consumieron en la merienda servida en la escuela y en las comidas de su casa, en los últimos siete días. El llenado será fácil, vamos a utilizar un celular para que ustedes marquen la respuesta sobre la pregunta que le haremos, no es un examen, no tiene notas. Agradecemos su disposición a participar y aprovechamos para decirles que es importante todo lo que nos digan. Encuestador: Fecha de la encuesta: I. Datos Generales 1.1. Departamento: 1.2. Municipio: 1.3. Comunidad: 1.4. Nombre de la escuela: 1.5. Nombre completo del alumno: 1.6. Edad (años): 1.7. Grado: 4to grado 5to grado 6to grado 1.8. Sexo : Niña Niño 104 II. Frecuencia mínima de alimentación (Tiempos de comida que consumió el escolar en casa y en la escuela) ¿Cuántos tiempos de comida haces en el día? Marque con una X cada tiempo de comida que el niño o niña hace en el día. Tiempos de comida al día Desayuno Merienda mañana Almuerzo Merienda tarde Cena III. Frecuencia de consumo de alimentos de la merienda escolar ¿Observe los siguientes alimentos y marque cuántos días lo comió? en los últimos 7 días. Ejemplo si consumió arroz 4 días a la semana, deberá marcar la opción 4-5 días. ¿De estos alimentos cuantos días comieron en la última semana? Marque con una x. Grupos de alimentos Frecuencia de consumo 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No (0) 1. Granos, cereales, raíces y tubérculos 2. Legumbres y nueces 3. Productos lácteos 105 4. Alimentos origen animal (Carne, Pollo, Hígado, Pescado) 5. Alimentos enriquecidos con vitamina a 6. Otras frutas y verduras 7. Huevo 8. Comida cocinada con aceite o grasa 106 Anexo No. 3.3.5. 5-Point Facial Hedonic Scale Instrument Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega. Marzo 2020 Ficha: Escala Hedónica Facial de 5 puntos En escolares de cuarto a sexto grado de primaria, ambos sexos. Presentación: El encuestador procede a mostrar el instrumento, auxiliándose de un póster ilustrativo y explica a los escolares que se usará una Tablet para completar las preguntas mostradas y que se les llamará uno a uno. El objetivo es conocer la aceptación de los alimentos que consumieron en la merienda escolar que les ofrece su escuela y cuál es el alimento o bebida que más les gusta o no les gusta; e indagar sobre si gustan o no otro tipo de alimentos. Encuestador: Fecha de la encuesta: I. Datos Generales 1.1. Departamento: 1.2. Municipio: 1.3. Comunidad: 1.4. Nombre de la escuela: 1.5. Nombre completo del alumno: 1.6. Edad (años): 1.7. Grado: 4to grado 5to grado 6to grado 1.8. Sexo: Niña Niño 107 II. Aceptación de la alimentación escolar, mediante escala hedónica facial de 5 puntos 2.1. Marque la carita que indique la aceptación de la comida que te ofrece la escuela que va con la siguiente escala como se muestra, entre no me gusta nada (1); no me gusta (2); me da igual (3); me gusta (4) y me gusta mucho (5). III. Alimentos que gustan o no gustan 3.1. ¿De lo que te han dado de comer o beber en la escuela, cuál es el alimento que más te gusta? 3.2. ¿De lo que te han dado de comer o beber en la escuela, cuál es el que menos te gusta? 3.3. ¿Cuáles de los siguientes alimentos, te gustan o no? Marque con 1 si te gusta, 0 si no te gusta y 777 si no sabes. Código grupo alimento Tipo de alimento Preferencia Si = 1 No = 0 No sé = 777 1 Papa 2 Frijol 3 Leche pasteurizada 5 Zanahoria 6 Tomate 6 Repollo 7 Huevo 8 Crema dulce Cierre de la encuesta Agradecer a las niñas y niños por su participación y al personal de la escuela. Mencionar lo importante que es esta información y que será utilizada por PCI Nicaragua. 108 Anexo No. 3.3.6. School Meal Management and Preparation Observation Checklist Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega. Marzo 2020 Lista de Observación sobre las condiciones óptimas para el manejo y preparación de alimentos en las escuelas El objetivo de su aplicación es medir los conocimientos y capacidades de las organizaciones escolares (CAE Y PTA) para el manejo y preparación de los alimentos comprendidos en la merienda escolar. Encuestador: Fecha de la encuesta: I. Datos Generales 1.1. Departamento: 1.2. Municipio: 1.3. Comunidad: 1.4. Nombre de la escuela: 1.5. Nombre del director: 1.6. Nombre de la Persona que acompaña el recorrido: 1.7. Cargo en la organización Escolar: II. Lista de observación sobre condiciones óptimas para el manejo y preparación de alimentos en las escuelas. Aspectos por considerar Codificación: Si=1 No=0 Omitir= 999 A Almacenamiento de alimentos 1. El centro escolar cuenta con una bodega exclusiva o baúles para el almacenamiento de alimentos. 2. La bodega o baúl metálico para el almacenamiento de alimentos se encuentra dentro del área de infraestructura en el centro escolar. 3. La bodega para almacenamiento alimentos o baúl metálico está seca, cerrada y alejada de basureros y aguas estancadas. 4. La bodega para almacenamiento de alimentos o baúl metálico se limpia diariamente 5. En la bodega de almacenamiento de alimentos o baúl metálico se encuentran insumos de limpieza (detergente, cloro, ambientador, lampazo, escoba) 6. Alimentos están sobre polines, tablas o mesas. (Separados del piso). 7. Los granos básicos y los alimentos en polvo están guardados en sus empaques originales o en frascos de vidrio o plásticos bien cerrados y rotulados. 109 8. Las frutas y verduras están almacenadas en un lugar fresco, limpio y obscuro para evitar su pronta maduración. 9. Los alimentos se colocan por orden de llegada, siguiendo el criterio primero en entrar, primero en salir, tomando en cuenta la fecha de vencimiento 10. Protegida contra insectos y roedores utilizando productos registrados y autorizados por el MINSA. B Higiene: Área de preparación de alimentos 11. Existe en el centro escolar un espacio exclusivo para la preparación de alimentos. 12. Solo el personal autorizado ingresa al área de preparación de alimentos. 13. En el área de preparación de alimentos: el piso, las paredes y techo están limpios para evitar presencia de roedores, insectos y otro tipo de animales (de corral y domésticos). 14. Las mesas donde se preparan los alimentos se lavan antes y después de la preparación con agua y jabón. 15. Las diferentes superficies en la cocina o el área donde se preparan los alimentos están limpias 16. Existe en el área de preparación de alimentos un sistema de desagüe para las aguas negras 17. Los alrededores del área de preparación de alimentos se encuentran limpios De los manipuladores de alimentos 18. Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos cuentan con un certificado de salud otorgado por el MINSA 19. Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos cuentan con un proceso de capacitación con temas específico como higiene personal e higiene en la preparación de los alimentos 20. Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos conocen y demuestran la técnica correcta de lavado de manos. 21. Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos hacen uso de equipo de protección (gorro, malla, boquilla, delantal, zapato cerrado) 22. Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos manejan las manos limpias uñas cortas y sin pintar. 23. Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos no tienen heridas, ni infecciones en la piel, brazos, boca y uñas. 24. Los alimentos preparados son protegidos de la contaminación antes de servirse (están tapados). De los escolares al consumir los alimentos 25. Los escolares practican una buena técnica de lavado de manos antes de consumir los alimentos. 26. Disponen de agua potable para el lavado de manos 27. Disponen de jabón para el lavado de manos 110 28. Los utensilios en que sirven la comida a los escolares están limpios (platos, vasos, tazas, cucharas) 29. El lugar donde comen los escolares está limpio C Disponibilidad de agua 30. Existe en el centro escolar disposición de agua potable. 31. De no tener disponibilidad de agua potable se utiliza agua tratada para el consumo humano. (Pozo con tratamiento, clorado dentro de la escuela) 32. Existe en el área de preparación de alimentos disposición de agua potable 33. El recipiente donde se almacena el agua para la preparación de alimentos está debidamente tapado. 34. El recipiente donde se almacena el agua para el lavado de manos, lavado de áreas de trabajo y lavado de utensilios de cocina está debidamente tapado. 35. Los recipientes donde se almacena el agua se lavan a diario 36. El agua que se almacena para la preparación de alimentos, lavado de manos, lavado de áreas de trabajo y lavado de utensilios de cocina se cambia a diario 37. Los recipientes donde se almacena el agua para para el lavado de manos, lavado de áreas de trabajo y lavado de utensilios de cocina están en un lugar protegido ubicado donde no se contamine D Manejo de desechos (basura) Desechos Sólidos. 38. Existen en el centro escolar recipientes para el manejo de desechos (basura). 39. Existe en el área de preparación de alimentos recipientes cerrados para la acumulación de residuos provistos de tapas, con una bolsa para facilitar su limpieza e higiene. 40. En el área de preparación de alimentos se separa los desechos orgánicos (cascaras, desechos de comidas) y los inorgánicos (papel, plásticos) Desechos Líquidos. 41. En el área de preparación de alimentos existe disposición final de los desechos líquidos conectada a la red de alcantarillado sanitario existente o tratamiento de las aguas mediante fosas sépticas o estanque de captación de aguas servidas. 42. Existen charcas o aguas grises a menos de 5 metros del espacio asignado para el almacenamiento y preparación de alimentos E Servicios higienicos 43. El centro escolar cuenta con servicios higiénicos en buen estado (limpios por dentro y fuera, con ventilación, con tapa o separados para niños y niñas o ambos 44. Los servicios higiénicos del centro escolar se encuentran a un mínimo de 3 metros retirados del lugar donde se almacenan y preparan los alimentos F Disponibilidad de equipos e instrumentos para la preparación de alimentos 111 45. Existen en este centro escolar utensilios para la preparación de alimentos 46. Los utensilios de cocinar son propiedad del centro escolar 47. Los utensilios de cocinar son los adecuados y suficientes para la preparación de los alimentos 48. Los equipos y utensilios están limpios e higienizados A cada ítem de los 48 verificables, se les asignará un punto. Los resultados del instrumento serán analizados de acuerdo con las siguientes categorías: • De 48 a 33 = Condiciones óptimas • De 32 a 17= Existen algunas condiciones • De 16 a 0 = No hay condiciones. 112 Anexo No. 3.3.7. PTA Survey Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Cuestionario guiado por facilitador dirigido al Comité de Alimentación Escolar (CAE - PTA) Marzo 2020 Facilitadoras: Fecha: I. Datos Generales Departamento: Municipio: Comunidad: Nombre de la escuela: Objetivo  Determinar las capacidades actuales y potenciales de la organización escolar para apoyar/participar en el proceso de recibir otros alimentos para la merienda y la preparación higiénica de productos de la alimentación escolar. Buenos días, tardes Somos ______________________. Estamos realizando este encuentro para tener su opinión para mejorar las actividades que promueve PCI en la merienda de la escuela. Para esto usted puede participar respondiendo a las preguntas que abajo se mencionan, son fáciles y todas las respuestas serán importantes. Si tiene dudas puede preguntar, el llenado durará aproximadamente 20 minutos. Después, tendremos un conversatorio para ampliar sus ideas, intercambiar experiencias y aportar recomendaciones para fortalecer el trabajo de este grupo y el del PCI, lo que tomará aproximadamente 2 horas. 113 Cuestionario guiado dirigido al Comité de alimentación escolar a cargo de un facilitador Estamos interesados en aplicar el siguiente cuestionario para apoyar el fortalecimiento de las actividades de PCI en la merienda escolar. Será de mucha ayuda para este proceso si pueden dedicar 20 minutos en llenar esta encuesta. Por favor indique a qué grupo de la comunidad representa (Marque en el cuadro a su derecha, según corresponda) Líder comunitario Docente Líder religioso Padre de familia Otro, especifique Áreas 1. ¿Cuenta su comité con una normativa para su funcionamiento? Si= 1 No= 0 Organización 2. ¿Le explicaron a usted cuáles son sus tareas en el comité de alimentación escolar? Si= 1 No= 0 3. ¿Qué actividades realiza usted en el comité escolar? marque sí o no en la siguiente lista: A. Avisa a las madres y padres de familia cuando reciben los alimentos para la merienda. Si= 1 No= 0 B. Supervisa la recepción y el retiro de los alimentos del punto de entrega. Si= 1 No= 0 C. Almacena los alimentos que reciben. Si= 1 No= 0 D. Hace los roles de cocina para preparar la Merienda Escolar. Si= 1 No= 0 E. Revisa que la Merienda Escolar se prepare según el rol de cocina y las normas de higiene. Si= 1 No= 0 F. Supervisa como se sirve la Merienda Escolar y el momento en que comen los niños. Si= 1 No= 0 G. Comparte con las madres, padres de familia y la comunidad los beneficios de la Merienda Escolar. Si= 1 No= 0 H. Promueve la participación de la comunidad en las actividades de la merienda escolar Si= 1 No= 0 I. Participa en la elaboración del informe de actividades del comité escolar, después de cada distribución. Si= 1 No= 0 4. ¿Cuánto tiempo tiene de pertenecer al comité escolar? 5. ¿Cada cuánto tiempo se reúnen como comité escolar? 6. ¿En qué registran los acuerdos de sus reuniones? Libro de actas Cuaderno de notas Ninguno En los siguientes aspectos usted va a valorar las condiciones higiénicas en la preparación de la merienda, calificando: 1, No hay condiciones 2, Existen algunas condiciones 3, Condiciones óptimas 114 7. Condiciones en preparación higiénica de la merienda escolar Lea las siguientes oraciones y marque con un círculo el número que usted considera es el adecuado. Solo marque un número Capacidades/ Higiene A. Usted cree que la escuela tiene condiciones de higiene en el lugar donde se preparan los alimentos 1 2 3 B. Usted cree que la escuela tiene utensilios adecuados para cocinar los alimentos 1 2 3 C. Usted cree que la escuela tiene utensilios adecuados para servir los alimentos 1 2 3 D. Usted cree que la escuela tiene condiciones de higiene en el lugar donde comen los niños 1 2 3 E. Usted cree que la escuela tiene utensilios suficientes para disposición de basura. 1 2 3 8. Si tuviera que recibir alimentos (tomate, zanahoria, papa, repollo, leche, crema, huevos) para complementar la merienda escolar, valore las capacidades de su organización, teniendo en cuenta: - 1, cuando no hay capacidad - 2, cuando hay algunas capacidades - 3, cuando están todas las capacidades Lea las siguientes oraciones y marque con un círculo el número que usted considera es el adecuado. Solo marque un número. A. Usted puede identificar si el alimento se encuentra en buen estado (huevos quebrados, vegetales golpeados, podridos, con mal olor) 1 2 3 B. En la escuela hay capacidad para el almacenamiento de estos alimentos 1 2 3 C. En la escuela se pueden preparar comidas con estos alimentos para mejorar nutricionalmente la merienda escolar 1 2 3 D. Ustedes pueden planificar las necesidades de alimentos para complementar la merienda con productos frescos 1 2 3 9. ¿Cuál es el aporte que Uds. dan en este momento a la merienda? Efectivo Mano de Obra Tiempo Comida Sostenibilidad/ Escenario para recibir alimentos 10. ¿Si más adelante esta organización tuviera que recibir alimentos frescos como (tomate, zanahoria, papa, repollo, leche, crema, huevos) para mejorar la merienda, estaría de acuerdo en hacer algún tipo de aporte? Si= 1 No= 0 No sé = 777 11. Si usted dice que si, en los cuadritos de la derecha escriba una X el aporte que pudiera dar Efectivo Mano de obra Tiempo Comida 12. Marque con una X los alimentos que recomienda para mejorar la merienda 115 Frijol Tomate Repollo Zanahoria Papa Leche Crema Huevos 116 Anexo No. 3.3.8. PTA Focus Group Discussion Guide Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Marzo 2020 Guía para Grupo focal dirigido a miembros de la organización escolar (CAE - PTA) Facilitadoras: Fecha: Hora inicio: ___________ Hora final: ___________ I. Datos Generales Departamento: Municipio: Comunidad: Nombre de la escuela donde se realiza el Grupo focal: Número de Participantes: _______________ (Detalle en lista anexa) II. Objetivo - Determinar las capacidades actuales y potenciales de la organización escolar para apoyar/participar en el proceso de recibir otros alimentos para la merienda y la preparación higiénica de productos de la alimentación escolar. Buenos días, tardes Somos ______________________. Nos encontramos en esta escuela realizando esta reunión que nos ayude a tener insumos para mejorar la implementación de las iniciativas que promueve PCI en la escuela. Esta reunión tendrá una duración de dos horas, de los cuales, tendremos un conversatorio para ampliar sus valoraciones, intercambiar experiencias y aportar recomendaciones para fortalecer el trabajo de este grupo y el del PCI. Posterior al llenado del cuestionario, se agradece a los participantes por sus respuestas y se inicia el conversatorio, dando a conocer los puntos a tratar en el grupo focal: 1. Funcionamiento y Capacidades del comité 2. Capacitación 3. Diseminación del trabajo del comité 4. Percepciones de mejora de la merienda Se aclara al grupo, que No existen respuestas buenas ni malas, solamente queremos conocer su opinión, conocimientos y experiencias. Sus respuestas nos ayudarán a entender más sobre el manejo de los alimentos en la escuela y las posibilidades de otros alimentos que actualmente no tiene para que la merienda sea más nutritiva y aceptada por los niños y niñas. 117 Les solicitamos la participación de todos, indicándoles que pueden levantar la mano para darles la palabra. Se les recuerda que cada opinión es muy importante y que anotaremos en papelógrafo lo expresado con un resumen al final y nos dirán si lo que hemos escrito está de acuerdo a lo conversado o no. Antes de iniciar nos acercaremos y anotaremos sus nombres y otros datos (Tiempo de participación, edad y nivel académico). (No olvidar anotar el sexo). III. Desarrollo de puntos a tratar 1. Funcionamiento y Capacidades del Comité (CAE y PTA). En este tema, quisiéramos que nos compartan: ¿Qué les motivó o les impulsó a integrarse al comité (CAE y/o PTA)? ¿Por qué se integraron al comité (CAE y/o PTA)? ¿Cómo se sienten realizando este trabajo en el comité de la escuela? ¿Por qué? ¿Cómo motivaría a otro padre para que se integrará al comité de la escuela? ¿Cómo explicaría a otro padre las actividades que realiza el comité de la escuela? ¿Cómo funciona actualmente el grupo y cuáles son sus limitantes/dificultades (hacer énfasis en las reuniones, si llevan agenda, si toman acuerdos, planes de acción comunitaria, cumplimiento de los roles en la preparación de alimentos u otro tipo de barreras.)? ¿Cómo participan las mujeres y los hombres en las tareas del grupo en la escuela? 2. Capacitación ¿Han recibido capacitación? ¿Cuántas el año pasado? ¿En qué temas? (Si no mencionan temas relacionadas a las prácticas de preparación de la merienda, hacer la pregunta sobre esos temas. “¿Y les han capacitado sobre la preparación de la merienda de los niños y niñas?” ¿Quién les ha capacitado? (PCI, MINSA, MINED, Alcaldía, otros) ¿Ha tenido oportunidad de aprender algo nuevo? ¿Qué utilidad ha tenido esas capacitaciones en sus formas de preparar la comida en la escuela o en sus casas, qué cambios tuvieron después de capacitarse? Para mejorar sus conocimientos en el manejo de los alimentos en la escuela, ¿qué temas necesitarían incluir a las capacitaciones? 3. Diseminación del trabajo del Comité ¿Actualmente dan a conocer a otros padres de familia y miembros de la comunidad el trabajo que ustedes hacen en el manejo de los alimentos para servir una buena merienda? ¿Qué debe mejorarse cuando dan cuenta de las actividades que se realizan en apoyo a la alimentación escolar? ¿A quién debemos incluir para informar sobre las actividades que ustedes hacen en la escuela? 4. Percepciones de mejora de la merienda ¿Existen otras organizaciones, personas, cooperativas o empresas en la comunidad con quien deberían coordinar para desarrollar sus funciones? si dicen que no, indagar ¿por qué? o las dificultades. Si tuvieran que recibir alimentos frescos para mejorar el valor nutritivo de la merienda escolar:  ¿Cuáles alimentos agregaría?  ¿Cuáles serían los aportes de los padres de familia (mano de obra, especie, recursos en efectivo, tiempo, otros)?  ¿Qué necesitaría para recibir, almacenar, incluir en la merienda?  ¿Qué necesitaría para llevar el control de entrada y salida de los alimentos? 118 Finalización de la actividad • Lea el resumen de la conversación escrito en los papelógrafos y espere su aprobación, de lo contrario corrija inmediatamente. • Pregunte si hay algo más que deseen mencionar. • Agradezca nuevamente la participación de todas las personas. • Concluya la actividad haciendo ver lo importante que fueron los aportes brindados. • Revise la lista de asistencia para verificar que todas las personas están anotadas. • Ofrezca un refrigerio para compartir. 119 Anexo No. 3.3.9. PINE-MINED Interview Form Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Guía para entrevistas a personal PINE MINED departamental y municipal Marzo 2020. Facilitador(a): Fecha: Hora inicio: ___________ Hora final: ___________ I. Datos Generales Lugar: Participantes: Nombre y apellido Cargo Tiempo de laborar en PINE￾MINED II. Introducción Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________, soy parte del equipo de investigación que está realizando la Evaluación y estudio de mercado del proyecto acceso a mercado saludable a ser ejecutado por PCI en el departamento de Jinotega, municipio de Pantasma y Jinotega. Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una Entrevista cuyos objetivos son: • Conocer la operación y perspectiva del PINE en la región y en particular la zona de influencia del MAS • Compartir información sobre los objetivos, alcances, poblacion meta del MAS e identificar el nivel de conocimiento del MAS en la estructura pública • Conocer las consideraciones estratégicas y operacionales del MAS desde la perspectiva del PINE • Capturar información sobre los factores externos que pueden facilitar o limitar el éxito del MAS • Lecciones aprendidas en la ejecución del PINE, recomendaciones y sugerencias para la buena ejecución del MAS y la sostenibilidad del proyecto más allá de la inversión del MAS • Identificar acciones complementarias que contribuyan a mejorar el desempeño de la alimentación escolar Sus ideas, puntos de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de mucha utilidad en esta evaluación final y también para considerarlas en la nueva fase del proyecto. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y lo que aquí se exprese será confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la evaluación. ¿Están de acuerdo en participar en esta entrevistada de grupo? Muchas gracias. 120 III.Metodología y actividades iniciales • Presentarse y dar la bienvenida agradeciendo la presencia de los/as participantes y presentar los objetivos de la entrevista • Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista que incluyen: o La participación es de forma totalmente voluntaria con una participación amplia que permita tener la oportunidad de poner sus puntos de vista sobre los temas a discutir. Es importante aclarar que ninguno de los presentes está obligada a responder las preguntas que no estan en su alcance responder. Si alguien quiere salirse de la reunión puede hacerlo en cualquier momento. o El facilitador tomará nota de los aspectos importantes obviando la fuente específica del proveedor de la información. Por otro lado, en algún momento se harán conclusiones y recomendaciones que quedarán en las notas del facilitador. o Se garantiza que la información será resguardada y utilizada única y exclusivamente para fines de esta evaluación. • El facilitador estará identificado de tal manera de generar una relación horizontal durante la entrevista. • Al inicio de la entrevista para romper el hielo se comentarán temas relacionados a al clima, la vegetación, el paisaje de tal manera que permita crear un ambiente favorable entre el facilitador y el entrevistado. • Se explicará la metodología a seguir durante el proceso de la entrevista la cual consistirá en abordar los temas relacionados a los objetivos y preguntas para el desarrollo de los temas. Los temas a abordar serán: o Accionar del PINE en la zona de influencia del MAS o Proyecto MAS y recomendaciones para su funcionamiento IV.Accionar del PINE en la zona de influencia del MAS • ¿Cuáles son los objetivos y alcance del PINE en la zona? • Población meta, cobertura de atención y acciones principales en la zona • Acciones del PINE para el cumplimiento de los objetivos o Acciones que realizan para alcanzar los objetivos o ¿Qué inversión ha hecho el PINE en las escuelas para garantizar la alimentación escolar? o ¿Cómo se organizan para operar el PINE? • Roles de los actores interesados en la alimentación escolar o Institucional, rol del PINE, compromisos de los profesores y demás miembros institucionales en la escuela o Roles de la organización de padres, nivel de participación, factores positivos y negativos para su integración o Otros actores públicos participantes (Alcaldías, Sector Público Agropecuario y otros) o Actores privados que apoyan la alimentación escolar, que aportes hacen, como lo hacen o Donantes o proyectos existentes en la zona que realizan apoyo a la alimentación (acciones que realizan y ubicación), cómo se articulan con el PINE. • Seguimiento y evaluación o ¿Existen indicadores para medir el desempeño del PINE? ¿Cuáles son? o ¿Han realizado una evaluación del PINE en la zona? o Cómo se integra los resultados de otros proyectos dentro del informe del PINE • Sostenibilidad de la alimentación escolar o ¿Cómo se visibiliza la participación económica de los padres en el proceso de alimentación escolar? o Disponen de los resultados de la experiencia piloto de compras de agricultura familiar con las Alcaldías o ¿Han sistematizado la experiencia de la alimentación escolar en la zona que nos puede dar aprendizajes? • Principales limitantes encontradas o ¿Qué limitantes han encontrado con la implementación del PINE? 121 V. El proyecto MAS y recomendaciones para su funcionamiento • Objetivos • Alcances • Población meta del proyecto • Estrategia del Proyecto y actividades más importante • Finalidad de las acciones Preguntas claves para alcanzar los objetivos esperados • ¿Qué grado de conocimiento había tenido sobre el proyecto? • ¿Han participado en reuniones o actividades donde se comparta información del proyecto? • ¿Participaron o fueron consultados en procesos de formulación inicial del proyecto? • ¿El proyecto es relevante hacia la política pública nacional y sectorial? • ¿Es congruente el accionar del proyecto y los objetivos del PINE? ¿Aporta el proyecto a los cambios que se quieren lograr? • ¿Existe coordinación a nivel de campo entre el PINE y el proyecto, que espacios existen y la recurrencia de las reuniones de coordinación? • ¿Qué aprendizajes les interesaría conocer sobre la base de la experiencia del MAS en un futuro que podría ser implementado por PINE? • Factores externos que han afectado al PINE y que pueden afectar al proyecto • Factores internos que han afectado al PINE y que pueden afectar al proyecto • Lecciones aprendidas en la implementación del PINE que pueden ser retomadas por el proyecto • El proyecto invertirá en las escuelas equipos, esto incrementará los costos de la energía, podrán las escuelas sufragar ese costo adicional para el funcionamiento y mantenimiento de los equipos • ¿Qué acciones complementarias no existentes con el PINE se debería de promover en el marco del proyecto para mejorar su integración dentro de la política pública? 122 Anexo No. 3.3.10. World Food Program Interview Guide Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Guía para Entrevistas a Personal PMA del C4P Facilitador(a): Fecha: Hora inicio: ___________ Hora final: ___________ I. Datos Generales Lugar: Participantes: Nombre y apellido Cargo Tiempo de laborar en PMA￾MINED II. Introducción Hola, mi nombre es _________________________________, soy parte del equipo de investigación que está realizando la Evaluación y estudio de mercado del proyecto acceso a mercado saludable a ser ejecutado por PCI en el departamento de Jinotega, municipio de Pantasma y Jinotega. Hoy estamos aquí para realizar una Entrevista cuyos objetivos son: • Conocer la operación y perspectiva del PMA en lo que respecta al proyecto compras para para el progreso. • Identificar aprendizajes, lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones para la implementación del MAS. Sus ideas, puntos de vista, conocimiento o experiencia que nos pueda compartir, serán de mucha utilidad en esta evaluación final y también para considerarlas en la nueva fase del proyecto. Su participación es completamente voluntaria y lo que aquí se exprese será confidencial, y se utilizará exclusivamente para efectos de la evaluación. ¿Están de acuerdo en participar en esta entrevistada de grupo? Muchas gracias. III.Metodología y actividades iniciales • Presentarse y dar la bienvenida agradeciendo la presencia de los/as participantes y presentar los objetivos de la entrevista • Explicar las reglas y procedimientos a seguir durante la entrevista que incluyen: o La participación es de forma totalmente voluntaria con una participación amplia que permita tener la oportunidad de poner sus puntos de vista sobre los temas a discutir. Es importante aclarar que ninguno de los presentes está obligada a responder las preguntas que no estan en su alcance responder. Si alguien quiere salirse de la reunión puede hacerlo en cualquier momento. 123 o El facilitador tomará nota de los aspectos importantes obviando la fuente específica del proveedor de la información. Por otro lado, en algún momento se harán conclusiones y recomendaciones que quedarán en las notas del facilitador. o Se garantiza que la información será resguardada y utilizada única y exclusivamente para fines de esta evaluación. • El facilitador estará identificado de tal manera de generar una relación horizontal durante la entrevista. • Se explicará la metodología a seguir durante el proceso de la entrevista la cual consistirá en abordar los temas relacionados a los objetivos y preguntas para el desarrollo de los temas. Los temas a abordar serán: o El proyecto MAS o Accionar del C4P y los aprendizajes IV.El proyecto MAS • Objetivos • Alcances • Población meta del proyecto • Estrategia del Proyecto y actividades más importante • Finalidad de las acciones V. Accionar del C4P • Desde cuándo inicia C4P y cuáles son los objetivos y alcances • Población meta, cobertura de atención y alcances • Alimentos que compran y la calidad • Principales acciones de C4P • Actores interesados en la alimentación escolar que se articulan a C4P • Proceso de compra con los proveedores o ¿Como es el proceso de la compra a proveedores? o Barreras encontradas, Control de calidad del producto adquirido o Lecciones aprendidas que nos pueden servir en la implementación de MAS o Comparación de costos importando o adquiriendo en el país o Incentivos y acciones del PMA a los productores u oferentes • Proceso de recepción de alimentos o Aprendizajes o Barreras o Recomendaciones y lecciones aprendidas • Proceso de distribución o Aprendizajes o Barreras o Recomendaciones y lecciones aprendidas • Seguimiento y evaluación o ¿Existen indicadores para medir el desempeño del C4P? ¿Cuáles son? o ¿Han realizado alguna evaluación y sistematización de C4P? • Sostenibilidad de C4P para la alimentación escolar o ¿Cómo se visibiliza la participación económica de los padres en el proceso de alimentación escolar? o ¿Cómo visibilizan la sostenibilidad del modelo C4P? • Logros alcanzados • Principales limitantes encontradas o ¿Qué limitantes han encontrado con la implementación del C4P? 124 Anexo No. 3.3.14. Theory of Change and Results Framework Workshop Guide Proyecto Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables – MAS. Jinotega 2019-2022 Evaluación Inicial y Estudio de Mercado en Jinotega Guía de temas para el taller teoria de cambio y marco de resultados Facilitador(a): Danilo Saavedra Fecha:7 de mayo 2020 Hora inicio: ___________ Hora final: ___________ I. Datos Generales Lugar: Oficinas de PCI Inicio: 9:00 am Participantes: Nombre y apellido Cargo II. Introducción La teoría de cambio de un proyecto es la hipótesis y es la ruta por el cual la intervención pretende lograr el cambio esperado. La construcción se basa en la cadena causal del problema u oportunidad abordada, del contexto y los supuestos. III. Metodología El proceso metodológico para analizar la teoría de cambio y el marco de resultados esta basado en la cadena causal del problema o la oportunidad que el proyecto está dirigiendo sus esfuerzos. Una vez derivada las causas y subcausas se contrastarán con los resultados previstos en el proyecto, de tal manera de ver el nivel de congruencia, los riesgos y posibles medidas de mitigación que el proyecto debe tener en cuenta durante su ejecución. IV.Contexto del proyecto • Contexto actual V. Construcción de la cadena causal del proyecto • ¿El problema u oportunidad que el Proyecto pretende resolver? o ¿El problema principal? o ¿Las causas principales del problema? o ¿Las causas que el proyecto aborda? o ¿Existen subcausas de las causas principales? o ¿Actores interesados? • Pertinencia del problema a resolver o Pertinencia a las prioridades a los Objetivos de desarrollo 125 o Pertinencia a las políticas del USDA o Pertinencia a las políticas nacionales VI.Viabilidad de la teoría de cambio • Cambio esperado del proyecto o ¿Cuál es el cambio final esperado por el proyecto? • El cambio esperado vs el problema principal del proyecto o ¿Es consistente el cambio esperado y la problemática a resolver? o ¿Los supuestos de la ruta de cambio? • Ajuste al cambio esperado en el contexto del proyecto o Que ajustes deben realizarse para la coherencia del cambio • La ruta de cambio vs la cadena causal o ¿Es coherente la ruta de cambio con las causas principales del problema? o ¿Hay causas no abordadas que son riesgos para el alcance del cambio esperado? • Ajustes a la teoría de cambio o Que ajustes debe tener la teoría cambio en el contexto actual o Indicadores de efectos superiores que evidencien el cambio • Riesgos para alcanzar los cambios esperados VII. Marco de resultados • Consistencia del marco de resultados del proyecto con la teoría de cambio • Propuesta de ajustes. VIII. Sostenibilidad • Elementos de sostenibilidad de los productos costo actual vs costos agregados por la diversidad de alimentos (recursos, vinculación, capacidad y motivación) • Estrategia de sostenibilidad y participación de los Gobiernos Locales • Posibilidad de escalamiento de los resultados 126 Annex 4: Organizational Capacity of the School Feeding Commissions and PTA for the Procurement, Control and Management of School Meals Table 4.1. Score Achieved by School Description Organization Escuelas con proyecto Bastilla 8 Rubén Darío, Villa Norte 10 José Cesáreo Blandón 9 Ninfa Segura Castillo 11 Amanda López Pineda 11 Cenizabu 11 Juan Pablo Segundo 11 Grupo control Simón Bolívar 10 Chile 9 Rubén Darío 10 Elías Blandón Machado 6 Anizales 2 8 Pedro Lisímaco 7 Gabriela Mistral 10 Fuente: Datos facilitado por PCI, Nicaragua 127 Table 4.2. Observation Checklist of Optimal Conditions for the Management and Preparation of School Meals in the Cafeteria Área Intervention Control Almacenamiento de alimentos El centro escolar cuenta con una bodega exclusiva o baúles para el almacenamiento de alimentos. 53.3 85.7 La bodega o baúl metálico para el almacenamiento de alimentos se encuentra dentro del área de infraestructura en el centro escolar. 73.3 85.7 La bodega para almacenamiento alimentos o baúl metálico está seca, cerrada y alejada de basureros y aguas estancadas. 86.7 100.0 La bodega para almacenamiento de alimentos o baúl metálico se limpia diariamente 73.3 85.7 En la bodega de almacenamiento de alimentos o baúl metálico se encuentran insumos de limpieza (detergente, cloro, ambientador, lampazo, escoba) 100.0 85.7 Alimentos están sobre polines, tablas o mesas (separados del piso). 26.7 0.0 Los granos básicos y los alimentos en polvo están guardados en sus empaques originales o en frascos de vidrio o plásticos bien cerrados y rotulados. 100.0 100.0 Protegida contra insectos y roedores utilizando productos registrados y autorizados por el MINSA. 20.0 14.3 Promedio 66.7 69.6 Higiene de los escolares al consumir los alimentos Los escolares practican una buena técnica de lavado de manos antes de consumir los alimentos. 40.0 57.1 Disponen de agua potable para el lavado de manos 40.0 42.9 Disponen de jabón para el lavado de manos 40.0 57.1 Los utensilios en que sirven la comida a los escolares están limpios (platos, vasos, tazas, cucharas) 40.0 57.1 El lugar donde comen los escolares está limpio 40.0 42.9 Promedio 40.0 51.4 Disponibilidad de agua Existe en el centro escolar disposición de agua potable. 73.3 85.7 De no tener disponibilidad de agua potable se utiliza agua tratada para el consumo humano. (Pozo con tratamiento, clorado dentro de la escuela) 33.3 0.0 Los recipientes donde se almacena el agua se lavan a diario 33.3 0.0 Promedio 46.7 28.6 Manejo de desechos (basura) Existen en el centro escolar recipientes para el manejo de desechos (basura). 40.0 71.4 Existen charcas o aguas grises a menos de 5 metros del espacio asignado para el almacenamiento y preparación de alimentos 20.0 28.6 Promedio 30.0 50.0 Servicios higiénicos El centro escolar cuenta con servicios higiénicos en buen estado (limpios por dentro y fuera, con ventilación, con tapa o separados para niños y niñas o ambos 66.7 71.4 Los servicios higiénicos del centro escolar se encuentran a un mínimo de 3 metros retirados del lugar donde se almacenan y preparan los alimentos 86.7 85.7 Promedio 76.7 78.6 Fuente: Coordinadores de las Organizaciones escolares CAE y PTA de las escuelas con proyecto y grupo control 128 Table 4.3. Optimal Conditions for the Management and Preparation of School Meals, by Condition Área Con proyecto Grupo control Almacenamiento de alimentos 66.7 69.6 Higiene de los escolares al consumir los alimentos 40.0 51.4 Disponibilidad de agua 46.7 28.6 Manejo de desechos (basura) 30.0 50.0 Servicios higiénicos 76.7 78.6 Fuente: Resultado del análisis de la lista de observación aplicada a coordinadores de los CAE y PTA de las escuelas con proyecto y grupo control. Table 4.4. Observation Checklist for Otpimal conditions for the Management and Preparation of School Meals in Schools with Kitchens Área Intervention Control Higiene Área de preparación de alimentos Existe en el centro escolar un espacio exclusivo para la preparación de alimentos. 100 100 Solo el personal autorizado ingresa al área de preparación de alimentos. 80 0 En el área de preparación de alimentos: el piso, las paredes y techo están limpios para evitar presencia de roedores, insectos y otro tipo de animales (de corral y domésticos). 70 100 Las mesas donde se preparan los alimentos se lavan antes y después de la preparación con agua y jabón. 70 100 Las diferentes superficies en la cocina o el área donde se preparan los alimentos están limpias 80 100 Existe en el área de preparación de alimentos un sistema de desagüe para las aguas negras 70 100 Los alrededores del área de preparación de alimentos se encuentran limpios 100 100 Promedio 81.4 85.7 De los manipuladores de alimentos Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos cuentan con un certificado de salud otorgado por el MINSA 10 0 Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos cuentan con un proceso de capacitación con temas específico como higiene personal e higiene en la preparación de los alimentos 80 100 Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos conocen y demuestran la técnica correcta de lavado de manos. 50 100 Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos hacen uso de equipo de protección (gorro, malla, boquilla, delantal, zapato cerrado) 40 0 Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos manejan las manos limpias uñas cortas y sin pintar. 90 100 Las personas encargadas de la preparación de alimentos no tienen heridas, ni infecciones en la piel, brazos, boca y uñas. 40 100 Los alimentos preparados son protegidos de la contaminación antes de servirse (están tapados). 70 100 129 Área Intervention Control Promedio 54.3 71.4 Disponibilidad de agua Existe en el área de preparación de alimentos disposición de agua potable 60 100 El recipiente donde se almacena el agua para la preparación de alimentos está debidamente tapado. 40 100 El recipiente donde se almacena el agua para el lavado de manos, lavado de áreas de trabajo y lavado de utensilios de cocina está debidamente tapado. 30 100 El agua que se almacena para la preparación de alimentos, lavado de manos, lavado de áreas de trabajo y lavado de utensilios de cocina se cambia a diario 40 100 Los recipientes donde se almacena el agua para para el lavado de manos, lavado de áreas de trabajo y lavado de utensilios de cocina están en un lugar protegido ubicado donde no se contamine 30 100 Promedio 40.0 100.0 Manejo de desechos (basura) Existe en el área de preparación de alimentos recipientes cerrados para la acumulación de residuos provistos de tapas, con una bolsa para facilitar su limpieza e higiene. 30 0 En el área de preparación de alimentos se separa los desechos orgánicos (cascaras, desechos de comidas) y los inorgánicos (papel, plásticos) 20 100 En el área de preparación de alimentos existe disposición final de los desechos líquidos conectada a la red de alcantarillado sanitario existente o tratamiento de las aguas mediante fosas sépticas o estanque de captación de aguas servidas. 40 100 Promedio 30.0 66.7 Disponibilidad de equipos y utensilios para la preparación/servida de alimentos Existen en este centro escolar utensilios para la preparación/servida de alimentos 90 100 Los utensilios de cocinar/servir son propiedad del centro escolar 80 100 Los utensilios de cocinar/servir son los adecuados y suficientes para la preparación de los alimentos 60 0 Los equipos y utensilios para la preparación/servida de alimentos están limpios e higienizados 90 100 Promedio 80.0 75.0 Fuente: Resultado del análisis de la lista de observación aplicada a coordinadores de los CAE y PTA de las escuelas con proyecto y grupo control. 130 Anexo 5. Consultancy Terms of Reference Terms of Reference (TOR) Proyecto de Adquisiciones Locales Regionales (LRP) - USDA Regional Local Procurement Project (LRP) Better Access to Healthy Foods (MAS) Consulting services for baseline study And Market Study Request for Proposals (RFP) Consulting Services for a Baseline Evaluation and Market Study in Jinotega, Nicaragua 131 Date of issue of the RFP: Closing date of the RFP: Delivery Address: PCI Nicaragua Office Leonel Arguello MD, Epidemiologist Country director PCI Nicaragua email: larguello@pciglobal.org Edificio El Carmen, frente al canal 13 de TV Bolonia, Managua, Nicaragua Glossary CAE School Feeding Committee FFE Food For Educaion GAEC Community School Support Group LRP Local Regional Procurement MAS Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables MESA II Mejor Educación y Salud fase II 132 MGD McGovern-Dole MINED Ministry of Education PCI Project Concern International PINE School Nutrition Program PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PTA Parent-Teacher Association RFP Request for Proposals SO Strategic Objective TOR Terms of Reference USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 133 I. INTRODUCTION Nicaragua is expected to experience its third consecutive year of economic contraction with an estimated -1.1% in 2020, on top of the -3.8% and -5.9% contraction experienced in 2018 and 2019 respectively, while open unemployment is expected to go from the 5.5% recorded in 2018 to an approximately 7.4% by the end 2020, and a 10% ($202) reduction in the GDP per capita from $2,031 in 2018 to an estimated $1,829 in 2020. As a result, poverty in Nicaragua is expected rise from 20.1% of the population in 2017, to 31.9% by the end of this year (2020). Which means that more than 2 million Nicaraguan will be living in poverty, with less than $1.80 dollars per day. The north-central region of Nicaragua, where the Department of Jinotega is located, is one of the most productive regions of the country for basic grains and vegetables, supplying the rest of the country; however, paradoxically, this is also one of the regions in the country with the highest levels of food insecurity. Fortunately, Jinotega has a number of strengths including: i) several agroecological and climatic zones (predominantly humid and semi-humid), ii) groups of producers organized in cooperatives and agricultural enterprises, iii) stable local markets, supply chains and sub-chains which provide a favorable scenario for the development of a program to procure locally grown food that is fresher, closer and more nutritious. In summary, while there are social and climatic threats to nutritional food security in Jinotega, there are also enormous opportunities to harness and maximize the potential of existing local production and market assets to improve and maintain school feeding in targeted schools. A particular strength of the municipalities of Jinotega and Pantasma, is the work currently being carried out by PCI under its USDA-funded MESA II (Mejor Educación y Salud or Improved Education and Health) project, which targets all schools in these municipalities, with activities that include: i) organizing and strengthening the capacities of local PTAs (Parents and Teachers Associations), ii) supply a daily school meal to every student, iii) hygiene and health promotion, and iv) Literacy promotion. Thes activities provide a key platform for adopting a community managed process for the procurement of high-quality locally grown food for the schools. PCI is initiating a new 3-year, USDA-Funded LRP project titled MAS (Mayor Acceso a Alimentos Saludables or Greater Access to Healthy foods) which will target 60 schools21 in the municipalities of Jinotega and Pantasma, and will reach approximately 10,609 primary students, and more than 700 other beneficiaries (including individual farmers as well as members of agricultural cooperatives and enterprises, school parents and teachers, with activities related to food production, business management, school meal preparation and food procurement. The criteria for selecting schools were: 1) currently participating in project MESA II; 2) easy geographic access; 3) willingness by PTA members to engage in procurement processes; 4) sufficient critical mass of students (at least 70 students); 5) parents regularly supplement and prepare school meals; 6) Conditions for storing fresh food (available space); 7) A high (A) or medium (B) score in MESA’s sustainability readiness assessment. Project MAS activities will contribute to achieving the strategic objective of 22 Improved effectiveness of food assistance, through local and regional procurement. This SO will be achieved through the following intermediate results: 21 See Annex III List of selected schools 22 See Annex IV. Project MAS Results Framework 134 LRP 1.1 Improved Cost-Effectiveness of Food Assistance LRP 1.2 Improved timeliness of Food Assistance LRP 1.3 Improved Utilization of Nutritious and Culturally Acceptable Food that Meet Quality Standards Key results include: Increased leverage of private sector services, and Improved capacity of relevant organizations at the local level. MAS will address 5 activity areas in order to achieve the achieve the aforementioned results: 1. Purchase commodities from local food suppliers. 2. Strengthen the technical expertise of local suppliers 3. Promote Linkages between Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) and Local Food Producers and Suppliers 4. Training: Strengthen Capacities of Local Farmers/Suppliers 5. Training: Supplier Organizations’ Financial and Administrative Capacity MAS’ Theory of Sustainable Change is based on the following premise: IF a cost-effective market is built to supply schools with locally available nutritionally dense fresh products, and IF local producers have increased access to markets, and IF school capacity to procure, manage and prepare fresh foods is improved, and IF key stakeholders from the public and private sector are involved in implementation, THEN the supply and access of culturally acceptable and quality food will be improved, the utilization of nutritious meals will be enhanced, and schools will be equipped with the skills needed for a transition away from USDA-provided commodities, towards a sustainable and locally-owned school feeding program. Overall, MAS’ contributions to the wellbeing, educational status and ultimate development of Nicaragua will follow two interrelated pathways: 1) an educational pathway whereby school meals will contribute to educational outcomes such as attendance and performance, and 2) a market pathway whereby local producers benefit from local investment, production, procurement and profit which can be reinvested in both the educational pathway as well as catalyze additional economic stimulation along the market pathway. PCI will hire an external consultant to design and implement the Baseline Evaluation for Project MAS, addressing two objectives: determine the baseline values for key project indictors, and ii. conduct a market study for food products that will be included in local procurement for school feeding. The baseline evaluation will identify initial values for key project indicators, as well as provide a qualitative assessment of the different stakeholders in the target areas who may contribute to the success of project strategies. In addition, the consulting team will carry out a market study to initial supply chain information for select locally produced food products in the Jinotega market which will be used for school feeding under MAS. II. PURPOSE OF STUDIES For the baseline: 1. Establish baseline values for key project indicators to validate project strategies and projected targets. 135 2. Determine the level of capacity of school and community organizations (CAE and GAEC) in targeted schools to manage local procurement processes for school feeding, including storage, quality inspection, bookkeeping, and hygiene practices for the preparation of fresh food. 3. Prospectively identify internal and external factors that can facilitate or limit the success of the project, including elements against which to measure project impact at the end of project implementation. 4. Provide recommendations focused on improving the strategies to be implemented in order to strengthen the performance of the different stakeholders and key elements for sustainability of project benefits by the end of project implementation. 5. Make recommendations for the program performance and quality monitoring approach and for a quasi-experimental methodology for the final evaluation For the market study: 1. Determine if local and regional procurement is feasible for the required quantities and whether it could result in any significant negative impacts on the local market and local stakeholders (wholesalers; retailers, producers, transporters, laborers and communities) 2. Provide data on prices, variety and temporary availability of fresh and local products 3. Identify the risk factors (environmental, climatic, economic and social) that affect the production and marketing chain of the products to be acquired under this project 4. Identify the capabilities of the shortlisted suppliers (8 cooperatives and 2 companies) to comply with legal requirements, quality standards, production volume, and areas for technical and administrative improvement. 5. Identify other potential producers who can be trained to sell products to schools 6. Determine the availability of agricultural services and providers such as transporters and storage III. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY MAS’ baseline evaluation approach will include a performance evaluation methodology to determine the project context and initial values for key indicators. In the final evaluation, a quasi-experimental methodology with control groups will be used, which is why this initial evaluation is expected to provide prospectively the key elements against which to measure impact. The consulting team is expected to provide a detailed methodology to achieve the purpose of the evaluation, which facilitates impact measurement, considering the project’s Evaluation Plan approved by USDA. Data collected will baseline against which to measure a final evaluation with a control group of schools that did not participate in the intervention, to compare with beneficiary schools. The design must include a mixed methods approach (i.e. focus groups, in-depth interviews and observation) to determine the context in participating schools, producers and agricultural market systems to guide and adjust MAS project strategies. Quantitative data collected through representative surveys will provide or confirm the reference values for all required project indicators (see Required Indicators section below). Qualitative methods will include a wider selection of stakeholders and will provide additional information to understand the context in which the program operates, cross-reference data and findings, strengthen confidence and validity levels. The baseline study should propose criteria for comparison between participating and control schools, including links with the different local stakeholders that will participate in the MAS project. The consulting team will identify a well-defined control group of school, with key matching characteristics, which will be used to measure impact in the final evaluation. The counterfactual data 136 of these schools will allow the final evaluation to measure how the degree to which progress can be attributed to the project. Quantitative and qualitative data for the market study will be collected for a sample of schools, suppliers, potential producers and other local actors in the local agricultural market system. This study does not have specific indicators; therefore, the consulting team will collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data to respond to the purposes mentioned in this document. Key evaluation questions: Relevance o Identify potential problems or challenges for project beneficiaries to make progress in achieving results. o Determine how well aligned the project's interventions are with the policies and priorities of other actors. o Determine how realistic, appropriate and practical the results framework is, and identify whether modifications to the design, structure, logic or management of the project are required to facilitate the scope of the desired results and impacts. Performance o Determine baseline values for required project indicators o Assess how realistic and appropriate the goals of the indicators are o Assess the knowledge and skills of beneficiaries to refine capacity-building activities. o Identify opportunities and threats to project implementation. Sustainability o How much should local actors (private sector, community entities/associations, government agencies, etc.) be involved and committed to ensuring sustainability? o What specific institutional capacity needs (e.g. GoG, municipal, community and school actors) should the project address to promote greater participation and accountability? Key market study questions: • Are food supplies currently meeting or exceeding demand? • Are there issues with competition at various levels of the market system? • What are possible negative impacts on stakeholders (traders, wholesalers, transporters, retailers, local producers, wage laborers, vulnerable non-beneficiaries) caused by MAS purchases? • ¿Are there seasonal availability issues with targeted commodities and if so, are nutritionally similar alternatives available? • What are the seasonal variation dates/availability trends of targeted commodities? (create a supporting graphic) • What is the historical price data for targeted commodities over the past 3-5 years? (create a supporting graphic) Sampling Strategy The consultant is expected to design and verify the sampling strategy in consultation with PCI. As an impact assessment, the assessment needs to collect intervention area data plus a control area. The consultant should consider using strategies such as cluster sampling at the school level to minimize the costand logistical complexity of the sample. The sample size for the baseline of students, parents and producers/suppliers in reference to quantitative indicators should allow statistically significant 137 changes (at a 95% confidence level, with 5% confidence interval) to be detected over the life of the project. The final sample size should consider cost and complexity, as well as statistical significance. A list of schools by location with the number of students is included in Annex III of this document. Schools and producers included in the baseline sample would be used for market research. Required Indicators The consultant will be responsible for collecting and reporting data on the following required project indicators as part of the baseline study. The proposed evaluation design should provide a methodology for data collection and analysis to report on these indicators at the time of the baseline and end line of the project. Baseline values will be reported using experimental group data. However, to demonstrate the impact the results will be compared between the control group. The following table lists the indicators required for the baseline and its data sources. The consultant will develop the quantitative tools for baseline and market research in collaboration with PCI at the start of the evaluation. Result Indicator Source LRP 1.1 Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity) Producers LRP 1.1.1 Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source country) Market Study LRP 1.1.2 Percent of producers who have adopted practices and process to improve the cost-effectiveness of delivery23 Producers LRP 1.3 Percentage of schools which serve school meals with adequate dietary diversity, as a result of USDA assistance Schools - Teachers LRP 1.3.1 Percent of students who report that they like school meals, using the 5-point facial hedonic scale, by sex. Schools - Pupils LRP 1.3.2.1 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance Producers LRP 1.3.2.1 Volume (MT) of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance Producers LRP 1.3.2.4 Percent of suppliers who apply improved financial and administrative practices Producers LRP 1.3.3 Percent of school-age children receiving a minimum acceptable diet Schools - Pupils 23 While actual indicator values will be collected during the project from actual school purchases, a baseline value of the cost of relevant products will be established during this study based on current market prices from vendors and producers. The market study will also be used to establish standardized units of measurement for each product. 138 Qualitative data collection requirements: Additional qualitative data will be collected from key stakeholder groups to triangulate and contextualize quantitative findings and help answer key baseline questions listed above. Tabal 4 lists the groups of beneficiaries to be interviewed and/or involved during the baseline study. Data Collection Groups Quantitative Qualitative Schools X Parents X X Suppliers X X Producers X X Other market actors X School Organizations: CAE, GAEC X X Departmental and municipal PINE￾MINED staff X PCI Staff X IV. KEY TASKS OF CONSULTANCY 4.1 Review project documentation and meet with project staff. o Understand the design and contextual framework of the project. o Understand the full context of project activities, beneficiary types, expected results, and monitoring and evaluation strategies. 4.2 Design and develop a Start Report that addresses baseline questions descritas above and conforms to a quasi-experimental evaluation design that can be applied in the final assessment. The Start Report should include at least: o A qualitative-quantitative study design (framework, methodology, etc.) stick to the guidelines set out below o Sampling strategy o Data collection plan to report on all required indicators and disaggregations. o Identify the data collection tools available or necessary to collect all required data o A quality control plan o An analysis plan detailing the methodologies to analyze the data, present and visualize the results and perform tests with statistical significance o An updated timeline to complete the consulting o Roles and responsibilities of the consulting team 4.3 Develop ingesced data collection tools and protocols for the baseline with PCI staff o Review and refine tools and protocols as appropriate. o Using mobile devices to collect data o Hire and train enumerators, team leaders/supervisors. o Test all instruments in the field. 4.4 Perform data collection. o Manage and secure all datasets o Clean up data o Ensure data quality through an established data quality control protocol. 139 o Deliver to PCI all completed, clean and translated datasets (including interview transcripts and focus groups) 4.5 Perform baseline data analysis. o The consultant will be responsible for consolidating the quantitative and qualitative results of the analyses into a full final report 4.6 Prepare the full baseline study report o Follow PCI guidelines and report guides o Provide PCI and the relevant actors with sufficient time for review and feedback of draft reports o Incorporate comments from PCI and other actors and present the final report 5 Provide a summary presentation o Make a presentation of key findings for project staff and other stakeholders in Guatemala V. FINAL DELIVERABLES The Consultant or Consultant must deliver the following products: 1. An inception report that includes an evaluation design in light with section 4.2 of the TOR, a workplan with timelines, key milestones, and team roles and responsibilities 2. A PCI-approved final report outline 3. First draft baseline and market study reports, in Spanish. Reports must follow PCI’s “Writing and Formatting Guide for Evaluation Reports”, and requirements established in PCI’s “Evaluation Report Assessment Tool” 4. Final drafts of the baseline and market study reports in Spanish and English 5. A presentation of key findings of evaluation and market study for key players (PCI Nicaragua, PCI International Bureau, Donor) 6. Complete and clean sets of all quantitative data(datasets) following PCI quantitative data standards 7. A data dictionary/codebook for quantitative datasets using a PCI-provided format 8. Product of statistical analysis of quantitative results in MS Word. 9. Complete transcripts of all qualitative data collected in Spanish. Analysis of content or other analytical products of qualitative data, including identified key topics and the frequencies of such topics VI. RESPONSIBILITIES Consultant's Responsibilities • Submit technical and financial proposal with a clear statement of the methodologies proposed. • Direct consultations with all evaluator informants. • Hire, train, and monitor enumerators for the collection of quantitative data. • Apply data collection, entry, and analysis of quantitative survey data. • Carry out qualitative data collection with experienced qualitative process facilitators • Review of relevant documents and literature. • Analyze qualitative and quantitative data. • Provide products according to pre-agreedevaluationschedule. • Develop survey tools on mobile data collection platform (if feasible) 140 PCI Responsibilities • Ensuring the involvement of the government and other relevant actors • Facilitate consultations with relevant actors • Ensuring contact in the areas of the study • Review the draft report and provide feedback to the consultant • Approve all final products • Disburse payment for services in accordance with the provisions of the contract. • Participate in training for quantitative data collection enumerators • Train the consultant in the use of mobile data collection platform, and/or survey tools on mobile data collection platform (if not the consultant) VII. ESTIMATED TIMELINE The consultancy is expected to begin the third week of January 2019 and conclude by June 15, 2019, with an estimated level of effort (LOE) of 60 days to execute the responsibilities of the consultancy, distributed as follows: Activity Expected time Desktop review of the project documentation. February 2020 Create an implementation work plan, finalize the technical design (sampling strategy, analysis plan, data collection tools), send the startup report February 2020 Train the data collection team and finalize logistics March 2020 Data collection March 2020 Data analysis, review and preparation of the first draft report April 2020 Incorporate PCI feedback and final report May 2020 Present all final products June 2020 VIII. COORDINATION The technical management of the evaluation report review process will be coordinated by the team of Nuestra Cosecha de PCI Guatemala, composed of the Program Director, the Project Coordinator and the technical officer of M&E, in close collaboration with the MERL Technical Advisor of the international PCI office and the implementing partners (Save the Children and CRS). The main point of contact will be the M&E technical officer of Our Harvest. IX. QUALIFICATIONS The consultant team must meat the following criteria for the baseline study: • Academic training in social sciences / health or related field with 15 years experience; minimum degree of mastery • Extensive experience in leading project evaluations using a variety of methods of collecting qualitative and quantitative data, and analysis and sampling methods for quasi￾experimental design • Experience in leading assessments in the areas of international development/public health, and agriculture; it is highly preferred to have experience in evaluating school feeding programs. • Experience in evaluating U.S. government-funded projects is highly preferred. • Knowledge of Nicaragua’s policies and laws around school feeding 141 • Demonstrable ability to deliver high-quality results within the proposed timeframe • Verbal and written english proficiency is preferred • Professional experience leading evaluations in the areas of project care. The consultant team must meet the following criteria for the market study: • Extensive experience at the national level in Nicaragua with market studies and value chain analysis • Demonstrated academic and practical knowledge of agricultural market systems, value chains, agricultural technology, and climate-smart agriculture • Verifiable experience in similar studies • Familiarity with market study methods promoted by international donors, including: Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA), Market Information for Food Insecurity Analysis (MIFIRA), the World Food Program Trader Survey, and the MARKit Price Monitoring, Analysis and Response Kit. X. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION 1. Elaboration of a technical proposal The Technical Proposal shall be presented in the format provided in Annex I and shall describe the approach and plans for carrying out the work described in these TdRs. The technical proposal should be limited to ten (10) pages and should contain the following: A. Technical proposal cover sheet (not counted against the 10-page limit) B. A minimum of two references from organizations with which you have previously performed evaluation consulting work or a list of three references with contact information (doesnot count against the 10-page limit) C. A description of the applicant's direct and relevant prior experience, including a summary of previous assessments D. Description of the methodology E. Explain how the design of the assessment addresses research questions. • Sampling strategy • Approach to primary data collection • Data analysis plan. F. Timeline of the activity G. Include a schedule of activities and the level of effort required for each activity. H. Team composition and roles, including: • List of key team members and key qualifications • Team key team members resume (not counted within the 10-page limit) I. An example of evaluation reports developed by the applicant (not counted within the 10- page limit) 2. Preparation of the financial proposal The Financial Proposal shall be presented in the format provided in Annex II and shall establish a breakdown of the consulting price in accordance with the table provided. Applicants are solely responsible for covering their own costs in the development of applications. 142 143 Annex III. List of selected schools for project MAS Jinotega Community Name of School Pelón Pelón Lipululo Lipululo Naranjo Naranjo Robles Pedro Lisímaco Vilchez Tejera Tejera Datanli Ruben Baltodano Caserio Dorado Dorado Barrio Linda Vista Andrés Castro Barrio Llano de la Cruz Alfredo Alegría Barrio Ernesto Rosales Metodista Barrio Sandino Patricio Centeno San Isidro INACS Villa Valencia Ruben Dario Mancotal José Dolores Estrada Yankee 1 Rubén Darío Yanque 2 San Jose Mancotal Abajo San Miguel Mancotal La Porra Divino Nino Jesús de Praga Pueblo Nuevo José Dolores Estrada San Esteban 1 San Esteban 1 Colinas Bastilla San Esteban 2 Jigüina Tomatoya Amanda López Pineda Carril Carril 144 Chaguite Grande 1 Chagüite Grande 1 Cureñas Inmaculada Concepción de María Sisle 2 Juan Pablo Segundo Mojon Mojón San Antonio de Sisle San Antonio de Sisle El Limón Divino Maestro Sasle Sasle Sisle Divino Niño Pantasma Community Name of School Cruces 2 Jose Benito Aráuz Loma Alta Arriba Cristóbal Vanegas Gaitán Chaguitones Chaguitones Cedros Centrales Cedros Central Piragua Piragua Breyera 1 Breyera 1 Guásimo Est. Cora Juan Castilblanco Venado 1 Alfredo Alegría Quebrada El Hule 1 Quebrada El Hule 1 Recuerdo 1 Recuerdo 1 Cuatro Esquinas Cuatro Esquinas Cenizabu Cenizabu Corozal Corozal Sacramento Sacramento 145 Soledad San Cristobal Aserrío José Cesareo Blandón H. Tigre Ángeles Limones 1 Miguel Larreynaga Penquilla Penquilla Charcón 1 Pedro Joaquin Chamorro Limones 2 Limones 2 Tamalaque Tamalaque Wale 1 Gabriela Mistral Malecón Luis Alfonso Velasquez Praderas Ninfa Segura Castilllo Loma Alta Abajo Rafaela Herrera Linda Vista 1 Linda vista 1 Pacayal Pacayal 146 Project MAS Results Framework 147