CACAO DRYING TABLES, ACUL DU NORD, HAITI HAITI FEED THE FUTURE NORTH (FTFN)/APPUI A LA VALORISATION DU POTENTIEL AGRICOLE DU NORD POUR LA SECURITE ECONOMIQUE ET ENVIRONNEMENTALE (AVANSE) ACTIVITY FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) JANUARY 2020 This publication was prepared independently by Social Impact, Inc. at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | ii HAITI FEED THE FUTURE NORTH (FTFN)/ APPUI A LA VALORISATION DU POTENTIEL AGRICOLE DU NORD POUR LA SECURITE ECONOMIQUE ET ENVIRONNEMENTALE (AVANSE) ACTIVITY FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Date: January 2020 Submitted To: USAID/Haiti Evaluation Mechanism Number: AID-521-C-17-00002 Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services for USAID/Haiti This publication was prepared independently by Social Impact, Inc. at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. Contact: Jennifer Mandel, Chief of Party 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22201, USA DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. iii | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ABSTRACT The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti requested an independent final evaluation of the Feed the Future North (FTFN) activity, also known as Appui à la Valorisation du potentiel Agricole du Nord pour la Sécurité Economique et Environnementale (AVANSE). DAI Global, LLC (DAI) implemented AVANSE, valued at USD 87.8 million, from 2013 to 2019. To increase agricultural incomes, AVANSE promoted approaches and technologies to increase farmers’ capacity and performance, build input systems through agricultural input shops and private agro-businesses, and strengthen relations in three value chains (cacao, rice, banana/plantain). Farmers appreciated AVANSE’s impact on increased income and yields. Many will continue applying these technologies, while some would appreciate ongoing training and support. Most farmers noted water shortage as a barrier to continued use of these approaches and technologies. Based on increased yields, and the existence of underserved and new areas, scaling up potential exists for AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies. Private enterprises are potential partners for continuing to promote these approaches/technologies. However, access to water and finance are necessary to both continued use and sustainably scaling up AVANSE impact. Storeowners felt that AVANSE capacity building support helped them function more professionally and agricultural input subsidies helped to increase their incomes. They will continue selling inputs and farmers will both buy inputs and produce their own seeds/seedlings. Value chain actors described the market partnerships AVANSE promoted as beneficial. Private enterprises benefited from access to increased quantity and quality products. Farmers benefited from access to secure markets and embedded support services. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT III ACRONYMS V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII INTRODUCTION 1 EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK 4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 5 PHASE III: DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 7 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID 30 ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 32 ANNEX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED 40 ANNEX C: PROFILES OF THE EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS 42 ANNEX D. EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX SUMMARY 46 ANNEX E: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED 50 ANNEX F: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF INTERVIEWS 52 ANNEX G: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS 53 ANNEX H: MAIN TECHNOLOGIES PROMOTED BY AVANSE 82 ANNEX I: LIST OF MAIN APPROACHES PROMOTED BY AVANSE 83 ANNEX J: MAIN INPUTS AND EQUIPMENT USED BY CROP 85 ANNEX K: NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS 86 TABLES TABLE 1: RESPONDENT GROUPS AND VALUE CHAINS 7 v | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AVANSE Appui à la Valorisation du potentiel Agricole du Nord pour la Sécurité Economique et Environnementale BAC Communal Agricultural Offices (Bureau Agricole de la Commune) BAP BIA Best Agricultural Practices Boutiques d’Intrants Agricoles (Input stores) CBO Community Based Organization CLES Collective Against Social Exclusion (Collectif de Lutte contre l’Exclusion Sociale) CNSA Conseil National de Sécurité Alimentaire COMAG Commerce Agricole S.A. COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative DAI Development Alternatives Inc. DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DEED Développement Economique pour un Environnement Durable ESS Evaluation and Survey Services ET Evaluation Team EQ Evaluation Question EQUI® Evaluation Quality, Use, and Impact® FCR Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations FECANO Federation of Cacao Cooperatives of the North (Fédération des Coopératives Cacaoyères du Nord FFS Farmer Field School FGD Focus Group Discussion FTF Feed the Future FTFN Feed the Future North GOH Government of Haiti GUC Grant Under Contracts HAP Hillside Agriculture Program IDB Inter-American Development Bank IFAD International Funds for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interview LOE Level of Effort LOP Life of Project M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MARNDR Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development (Ministère de l'Agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural) MFI Micro-Finance Institution MSU Michigan State University MT Metric Tons NRM Natural Resources Management OIG Office of Inspector General PE Performance Evaluation USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | vi PIF Intensive Production via Fragmentation (Production intensive par fragmentation) PISA Produit des Iles S.A. PO Producer Organization PTTA Program for Technology Transfer to Small Farmers QA Quality Assurance SI Social Impact, Inc. SIBA SIMA System of Incentives through Purchase Vouchers (Système d’incitation via les bons d’achat) Agriculture Market Information System (Systeme d'Information sur les Marches Agricoles) SRA Système de Riziculture Amélioré SRI Intensive Rice-growing System (Système rizicole intensif) SOW Scope of Work TA Technical Assistance U-FE Utilization-Focused Evaluation USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar USG United States Government vii | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti requested that Social Impact’s (SI) Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) project design and conduct an independent final performance evaluation of the Feed the Future North (FTFN) activity, also known in French as Appui à la Valorisation du potentiel Agricole du Nord pour la Sécurité Economique et Environnementale (AVANSE). USAID/Haiti developed the FTFN/AVANSE activity after the January 2010 Haiti earthquake to improve incomes in Haiti’s northern corridor. DAI Global, LLC (DAI) implemented this activity, valued at USD 87.8 million, from 2013 to 2019. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of this evaluation report is to inform USAID’s possible future agriculture programming in Haiti. The primary audience includes USAID/Haiti, DAI Global, and Government of Haiti (GOH) institutions, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development (Ministère de l'Agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural [MARNDR]) and the Communal Agricultural Offices (Bureau Agricole de la Commune [BAC]). This final evaluation seeks to answer the following evaluation questions (EQs): • To what extent and in what ways will AVANSE’s approaches and technologies used in the rice, plantain, and cacao value chains continue to be used at the end of the activity, and why? • To what extent and in what ways has AVANSE strengthened inputs systems in the activity area? • To what extent and in what ways could approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE be scaled up? • To what extent have AVANSE activities created partnerships that could, over the long term, guarantee farmers’ access to markets and private sector led provision of services? ACTIVITY BACKGROUND AVANSE began on April 1, 2013, and continued through December 31, 2019.1 In line with GOH and United States Government post-earthquake strategies, AVANSE’s goal was to increase agricultural incomes in the northern corridor.2 The activity incorporated priorities set under Feed the Future to combat hunger and food insecurity by boosting agricultural productivity and increasing market opportunities for smallholder farmers. The activity’s design specifically targeted the banana/plantain, cacao, and rice value chains. Subsequent to an audit by USAID’s Office of the Inspector General, USAID/Haiti significantly revised the activity’s focus in 2015. As part of these revisions, USAID/Haiti established the following goals and objectives for the activity: to increase agricultural incomes for at least 28,000 rural households, and double the export volume that AVANSE-supported cacao farmers produce. AVANSE expected to achieve these goals through three Intermediate Results (IRs): • IR 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased • IR 2: Watershed Stability Above Selected Plain Improved • IR 3: Agricultural Markets Strengthened 1 AVANSE has requested a cost-free extension to March 31, 2020. It plans to use extension to complete remaining activities interrupted by political unrest that occurred in 2019 in Haiti. 2 The northern corridor consists of the following departments: North and Northeast. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | viii EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team (ET) conducted this qualitative evaluation across three departments (West, North, and Northeast) from September 2019 to January 2020 in four phases: desk review; fieldwork; data analysis; and, reporting. The first phase generated preliminary findings and highlighted information gaps to inform the evaluation methodology design and subsequent fieldwork. The fieldwork phase objective was to collect primary data to answer the evaluation questions. During the data analysis phase, the ET aggregated interview data for content analysis triangulation and cross-comparison to provide evidence for the findings and subsequent conclusions. The ET conducted fieldwork in Northern Haiti in November 2019. They employed two data collection methods: Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). The team completed a total of 80 interviews, of which 51 were KIIs and 29 were FGDs. The sample included 392 respondents, of which 144 were women (37 percent) and 248 (63 percent) were men. The ET conducted all interviews in-person. The ET developed mitigation strategies to overcome potential response, selection, and gender bias risks in data collection and analysis. To avoid potential bias and strengthen cross-cutting analysis of evaluation findings, the team asked similar questions to all informant groups and triangulated responses. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ 1 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS WILL AVANSE’S APPROACHES AND TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE RICE, PLANTAIN, AND CACAO VALUE CHAINS CONTINUE TO BE USED AT THE END OF THE ACTIVITY, AND WHY? The ET found that farmers acquired capacity to continue using approaches and technologies AVANSE promoted through: (i) increased technical skills (mainly through Farmer Field Schools); (ii) subsidized inputs use; and, (iii) ease of applying and adapting technologies to their situation. AVANSE promoted a total of 32 technologies to increase cacao, rice, and banana value chain production. These included Système de Riziculture Intensive (SRI), Production Intensive par Fragmentation (PIF), nurseries and demonstration plots to promote Best Agricultural Practices (BAP). The activity also promoted a total of ten approaches through which to disseminate knowledge, including Farmer Field Schools (FFS), Lead Farmers, farmer-to-farmer exchange visits, and increasing input access through a system of declining subsidies. Many farmers will continue to use AVANSE promoted technologies, particularly those relatively easy to use. However, farmers using more complicated rice value chain technologies may require additional support. According to farmers in all three value chains, the primary motivation for continuing AVANSE promoted technology use is observed increases income and yields, as well as cost efficiency. These positive results also had a demonstration effect for non￾beneficiaries, some of whom adopted AVANSE techniques without support from the activity. The evaluation found four main obstacles to continued use of AVANSE’s promoted approaches and technologies: drought; political unrest; the quality, quantity and timeliness of input availability; and, the lack of GOH capacity to continue to support activities begun under the activity. ix | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV EQ 2 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS HAS AVANSE STRENGTHENED INPUTS SYSTEMS IN THE ACTIVITY AREA? A key component of the activity’s approach to increasing input access was building input systems’ actors capacity. The activity used a market-based approach to strengthen both the supply and demand sides of the input value chain. To increase agricultural input access, AVANSE implemented a system of subsidized vouchers that could be redeemed at local agricultural input stores. Farmers used subsidies to purchase inputs such as fertilizer, equipment such as motor pumps, and services such as plowing. Shop owners indicated they will continue to sell inputs. Farmers reported their intent to continue buying them, though in smaller quantities and less frequently in the absence of subsidies. The activity also provided eight agricultural input stores technical and financial assistance to make physical improvements in their shops, and improve their management and accounting. AVANSE worked directly with farmers to increase their capacity to produce and sell inputs through seedling nurseries. Farmers, particularly women, appreciated that these nurseries provided them ongoing access to healthier inputs. AVANSE promoted partnerships among input stores to form a buyers’ network to purchase from wholesalers in bulk, reducing their costs and improving input access. By distributing vouchers for subsidized inputs through local Microfinance Institutions (MFIs), AVANSE also encouraged farmers to build relationships with financial services providers. Building relationships within value chains encouraged private enterprises to provide farmers with embedded support services such as inputs, credit, and technical assistance. According to input shop owners, the voucher system increased the number of clients and improved their business turnover. MFIs also noted an increase in the number of clients visiting their branches due to the voucher program. While farmers may not purchase the same quantities of inputs without subsidies, their increased input use during the activity produced a positive demonstration effect. Farmers stated that lack of access to water was a major constraint to their input use. Farmers of all three crops also mentioned lack of access to finance as a constraint to using inputs. Finally, the GOH’s distribution of free tools, seeds, and fertilizer created potential competition with AVANSE’s market-based approach to supporting input systems. EQ 3 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS COULD APPROACHES AND TECHNOLOGIES PROMOTED BY AVANSE BE SCALED UP? Most stakeholders believed that farm product demand is greater than supply, and others indicated the existence of underserved and new areas that increase potential for scaling production. Beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries both noted a demonstration effect of improved yields and higher income that encouraged their adoption and use of technologies AVANSE promoted. However, farmers described important constraints a future activity must address to increase their use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies, primarily access to water and training. In addition, ease of use (and potential for scaling up use) of technologies varies by value chain. Some technologies (particularly the rice value chain) are more complicated and demanding. Farmers expressed the need for additional support to continue their use. They also cited other technologies, such as shade control for cacao trees, as much simpler to use and, thus, easier to scale. Many of the activity promoted approaches and technologies were popular with farmers, namely pruning, shade control, seedling production, PIF, and SRI. Some private enterprises are offering embedded support services to farmers using these same technologies. While it is likely that they USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | x will continue to do so without any outside support, private enterprises are focused on farmers with whom they already have buying relationships, and are not positioned to scale up these services on a sector wide basis. Farmers described the primary obstacles to scale as the lack of access to water, lack of labor for weeding and mechanized plowing services, and lack of access to finance. Farmers, GOH officials, and private enterprises all mentioned the ongoing socio-political unrest as a barrier to scaling up their activities. According to interviews with multiple respondents, although the GOH would like to support scale-up of AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies, it lacks the resources. Farmer of all three crops described the positive demonstration effects of applying AVANSE￾supported approaches and technologies, as well as unmet demand for agricultural products. These conditions establish a foundation for scale-up among both beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries. Farmers indicated several important preconditions that future activities will need to address to build the foundations for growth in the sector, access to water and finance. EQ 4 - TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE AVANSE ACTIVITIES CREATED PARTNERSHIPS THAT COULD, OVER THE LONG TERM, GUARANTEE FARMERS’ ACCESS TO MARKETS AND PRIVATE SECTOR LED PROVISION OF SERVICES? According to interviews with farmers, private enterprises and AVANSE staff, the activity successfully promoted relationships among value chain actors in the cacao and rice value chains. However, AVANSE staff stated that efforts to promote partnerships in the banana value chain were less successful for various internal and external reasons. Through partnerships established with private enterprises, producers said that they benefited from more diversified markets and increased prices, as well as embedded support private businesses provided, such as inputs, equipment, training and technical assistance, credit, and transport to market. Private enterprises stated that they benefited from the partnerships in terms of increased quantity, quality, and consistency of products sold to the business. Both farmers and private enterprises agreed that these relationships helped increase their profits, and that they are interested in continuing them. Some farmers said they formed marketing groups to further increase their bargaining power through bulk sales. Because of these direct relationships, farmers and private enterprises said they were also able to work together to upgrade to higher end production (particularly organic and Fair-Trade cacao). Most actors up and down the value chain intend to continue the relationships that AVANSE promoted. Continuation of these relationships implies that in selected value chains, farmers will have long-term access to markets and embedded support services. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID USAID should continue to support synergistic approaches to value chain strengthening. AVANSE’s successes were due, in large part, to its use of synergistic strategy to market building and value chain strengthening. Future activities should include the following components of this synergistic strategy: capacity building; input system strengthening; reinforcing value chain relations; and, private sector engagement. USAID should continue supporting capacity building activities for farmers. Farmers expressed their appreciation for the activity’s capacity building approaches and main technology packages (SRI, PIF, and BAP). USAID/Haiti should adapt these approaches and xi | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV technologies to new conditions, continue in current intervention communes, and expand to additional communes and farmers. USAID should continue supporting capacity building for private value chain actors to foster private sector engagement. Future activities should use capacity building support to private value chain actors to incentivize expansion to new and underserved areas, and partnering with more farmers, including providing extension services aiming at increasing agricultural production. USAID should support capacity building for GOH offices and CBOs. To ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture sector building activities, it is critical that USAID provide capacity building for GOH and CBOs, and support the coordination and ownership of government and civil society organizations in activity implementation. USAID should further strengthen the input systems using integrated, market-based approaches. To sustainably increase access to inputs, USAID should further strengthen input systems, focusing on improving market capacity to supply the right quality and quantity of inputs at the right time. This should include strengthening both the capacity and relationships among market actors, prioritizing improving market system efficiency and reaching new markets and farmers. Improving access to water should be a priority of future USAID agricultural programming. It is very likely that drought and flooding will be the new normal in Haiti. Future programming should include irrigation and watershed management components, and work with a range of government, private sector and community actors to increase access to water and improve water resource management. USAID should continue to reinforce value chain relations. Future activities should build relations among value chain actors through intra-value chain partnerships, embedded support services, and improved market access. Upgrading to new products and higher end markets (such as Fair-Trade and organic) will require increased capacity and ongoing engagement of farmers, private agro-enterprises, and investors. Future USAID projects should implement more responsive and flexible approaches. USAID/Haiti’s activity planning should include periodic assessment of the context, conditions, and lessons learned to adaptively manage new barriers and take advantage of new opportunities. In addition, given the instability of the current situation in Haiti, future programming requires flexibility in planning and implementation to overcome new constraints that arise during activity implementation. Access to finance is integral to building sustainable agricultural value chains and attract new investors. To reduce subsidy dependency, promote modern farming, and increase long-term financial autonomy, USAID/Haiti should consider access to finance as an integral component of agricultural sector building. USAID should promote broad market-based approaches, such as loan guarantees, equity investment, public-private partnerships, foreign direct investment, leasing, joint-ventures, intra-value chain financial services, and village savings and loan associations. 1 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV INTRODUCTION GENERAL OVERVIEW The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Haiti requested that Social Impact’s (SI) Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) project design and conduct an independent final Performance Evaluation (PE) of the Feed the Future North (FTFN) activity, also known in French as Appui à la Valorisation du potentiel Agricole du Nord pour la Sécurité Economique et Environnementale (AVANSE). DAI Global, LLC (DAI) implemented this activity, valued at USD 87.8 million, in Haiti from 2013 to 2019 (see Annex A for the evaluation Statement of Work).3 Prior to conducting the fieldwork for this evaluation, the Evaluation Team (ET) conducted a document review to generate initial findings (see Annex B for list of documents the ET consulted, and Annex C for the ET members’ profiles). The ET presented these findings in an inception and design report that USAID/Haiti approve, and based on which they prepared an evaluation design. USAID/Haiti approved the design prior to the fieldwork start (see summary of evaluation design in the Evaluation Design Matrix found in Annex D). Upon completing the fieldwork, the ET triangulated data from the document review with the primary data, crosschecked results, and applied qualitative analytic methods to develop evidence-based findings. The ET presented the findings from this analysis, along with their conclusions and recommendations, to USAID/Haiti in an out-briefing. This final evaluation report represents the culmination of the ET’s research and analysis process, and incorporates feedback the Mission provided during the out-briefing. ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 3 Throughout the report, “AVANSE” is referred to as “the activity.” ACTIVITY OVERVIEW Name: Feed the Future North (FTFN) Project Program Objective: Increase agricultural incomes for 28,000 households in Northern Corridor and double export volume of cacao produced by supported farmers Period of Performance: April 2013 – December 2019 Total Funding Amount: USD 87.8 million Main Implementing Partner: DAI Global Key Partner: Government of Haiti (namely, Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development) Geographic Presence: North and Northeast departments, Haiti USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 2 Although less than half of the country's agricultural supplies are produced locally, Haiti’s agricultural sector has very high production potential.4 In addition, Haiti has potential to upgrade to higher-end crops, such as coffee, cacao, mango, organic rice, and essential oils (vetiver).5 In 2017, banana, plantain, and rice were among the top ten Haitian agricultural products, with production of 259 million Metric Ton (MT), 243 million MT, and 179 million MT, respectively.6 For the same year, rice was Haiti’s 11th most exported product, with USD 6.4 million in sales. However, Haiti’s agriculture sector has faced many challenges, including environmental degradation, limited access to capital, weak public or private agricultural extension services, and poor access to markets. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), “agricultural productivity is severely constrained by a number of factors. Small farmers generally lack access to appropriate technology and key production factors, especially irrigation water. Post-harvest losses are considerable, often the result of a lack of storage and processing facilities. In addition, the condition of road infrastructure is poor, and small farmers and poor rural households have extremely limited access to credit for productive activities.”7 These impediments have limited farmers’ potential to increase crop productivity and sales of food and cash crops.8 As noted in the AVANSE activity description, “following the January 2010 earthquake, the importance of jumpstarting agricultural productivity has been echoed strongly by Government of Haiti (GOH), the United States Government (USG), and throughout the international community.”9 As a result, USAID/Haiti developed the AVANSE activity to improve farmers’ incomes in Haiti’s northern corridor, one of three regions targeted for concentrated U.S. Government support.10 The USD 87.8 million AVANSE activity began on April 1, 2013, and continued through December 31, 2019.11 In line with GOH and USG post-earthquake strategies, the AVANSE activity goal was to increase agricultural incomes in Haiti’s northern corridor. Reflecting lessons learned from similar past initiatives, USAID/Haiti designed AVANSE to work in entire watersheds and their associated plains in the northern region.12 According to the original activity description, AVANSE aimed to increase agricultural incomes for at least 63,500 rural households, with the goal of doubling agricultural income for 43,500 households.13 The activity’s design targeted the banana/plantain, beans, cacao, corn, and rice value chains with four Intermediate Results (IRs): IR 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased; IR 2: Watershed Stability above Selected Plains Improved; IR 3: Agricultural Markets Strengthened; and IR 4: Capacity of Local Organizations Strengthened (Cross-Cutting). 4 Center for the Facilitation of Investments, Agricultural Sector Fact Sheet, http://opendata.investhaiti.ht/fxmmuxd/agricultural-sector. 5 Ibid. 6 Most recent data available from http://opendata.investhaiti.ht/fxmmuxd/secteur-agricole. 7 IFAD, Country Assistance Strategy 2019, https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/country/id/haiti. 8 USAID/Haiti, AVANSE Scope of Work, September 2013. 9 Ibid. 10 USAID, “Post-Earthquake USG Haiti Strategy - Toward Renewal and Economic Opportunity,” January 3, 2011. 11 AVANSE has requested a cost-free extension to March 31, 2020. It has planned to take advantage of this extension to complete remaining activities paused by political unrest occurred in 2019 in Haiti. 12 USAID/Haiti, AVANSE Scope of Work, September 2013. 13 Ibid. 3 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Initially, AVANSE integrated two U.S. Government programs: Feed the Future (FTF), which the Obama Administration launched in 2009 as the President’s Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative following riots related to escalating food prices in several countries, including Haiti. This initiative addresses global hunger and food security challenges around the world. By supporting country-driven approaches, FTF seeks to address the root causes of hunger and poverty and find long-term solutions to under-nutrition and chronic food shortages by helping countries transform their own agricultural sectors to sustainably grow enough food to feed their population. USAID Forward, also known as “Local Solutions,” was the Agency’s ambitious reform initiative to build local organizations’ capacity to directly implement USAID-funded activities.14 In line with this initiative, USAID initially anticipated that AVANSE would create a pool of local organizations that would meet USAID’s eligibility criteria for direct funding by the activity’s third year. Subsequently, these organizations would become the primary implementers of future USAID agriculture activities in the northern corridor. Originally, activities under IRs 1, 2, and 3 included research and technical assistance partners, such as Michigan State University (MSU), Tufts University, the University of Nebraska, Zamorano University, and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Along with Haitian institutions, these partners sought to identify and test new approaches and technologies in selected watersheds to improve productivity and natural resource management (NRM). The activity also included private sector companies in the marketing of selected value chain products. The primary implementation tools for IR4 and USAID Forward were sub-contracts and grants under contracts (GUCs) to Haitian organizations. Sub-awards served the dual purpose of activity implementation and preparing local firms to become eligible for direct USAID funding, while DAI/AVANSE served as a management unit overseeing sub-awardees. This implementation strategy proved more challenging than anticipated, and elicited insufficient participation from local organizations. USAID’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) performance audit noted this lack of progress in strengthening local organizational capacity, and USAID ultimately dropped this component of the activity.15 Significant problems related to contract management undercut the first years of activity implementation. As a result, USAID reduced the scope of the initial activity contract in 2015. For example, the activity originally aimed to increase average agricultural income for beneficiary households by 88 percent. USAID reduced this target to 65 percent.16 USAID dropped bean and corn value chains from the list of target crops, and also dropped most agro-forestry activities, some market strengthening activities, all local organization strengthening activities, and all road and hillside stabilization activities (access to irrigation activities continued).17 In September of 2015, USAID modified the activity results framework to the following IRs:18 • IR 1: Agricultural Productivity Increased o 1.1: Knowledge and Availability of Improved Technologies and Systems Increased o 1.2: Strengthened Extension of Agricultural Technologies and Nutrition Information o 1.3: Access to Inputs Increased  1.4: Irrigation Systems Rehabilitated/Constructed 14 USAID, “USAID FORWARD”, 2017. 15 USAID/Office of the Inspector General, Audit Of USAID/Haiti’s Feed The Future North Project, October 2015. 16 “AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY19”, DAI for USAID, July, 2019. 17 USAID/Haiti, AVANSE Modified Scope of Work, September 2015. 18 Ibid. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 4 o 1.4.1: Management Capacity of User Associations Increased • IR 2: Watershed Stability Above Selected Plain Improved o 2.1: Critical Slopes Stabilized Through Farmer-Level Investment • IR 3: Agricultural Markets Strengthened o 3.1: Improved Access to Storage and Processing Facilities o 3.2: Improved Market Information Systems o 3.3: Relationships in Targeted Value Chains Strengthened. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS The activity’s current overall approach is based on three development hypotheses:19 IR 1 Hypothesis: Increased agricultural production and productivity will increase the quantity and diversity of available foods, contributing directly to higher nutrition outcomes. It will also boost incomes through sales and farm jobs, enabling households to increase consumption of nutritious foods and reducing income poverty. IR 2 Hypothesis: Stabilizing hillsides will both protect crops grown on the plains and boost production of mango, cashew, avocado, cacao, and other crops. This will increase incomes and, therefore, enable households to increase consumption of nutritious foods and reduce income poverty. Mango production spillovers to local consumption will also increase nutrition outcomes directly. IR 3 Hypothesis: Strengthening agricultural markets will create additional sales channels for farmers and agribusinesses and create new off-farm jobs along the agricultural value chain. This will increase incomes and, therefore, enable households to increase consumption of nutritious foods and reduce income poverty. EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE The purpose of this final evaluation of the AVANSE activity is to inform possible future USAID agriculture programming in Haiti. Primary stakeholders include USAID/Haiti, DAI Global, and GOH’s institutions, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development (Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et du Développement Rural [MARNDR]), including the central office and Communal Agricultural Offices (Bureau Agricole de la Commune [BAC]) located in the north and northeast departments. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This final evaluation sought to answer the following Evaluation Questions (EQs):20 To what extent and in what ways will AVANSE’s approaches and technologies used in the rice, plantain, and cacao value chains continue to be used at the end of the activity, and why? The evaluation should highlight constraints and facilitators to continued use of new approaches and technologies. 19 DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, January 9, 2016. 20 Comments in italics added by USAID for clarification of EQs 5 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV To what extent and in what ways has AVANSE strengthened inputs systems in the project area? The evaluation should consider all types of inputs, including, but not limited to, seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides in its analysis. To what extent and in what ways could approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE be scaled up? Among other possible constraints and facilitators, the evaluation should consider the enabling environment in its analysis. To what extent have AVANSE activities created partnerships that could, over the long term, guarantee farmers’ access to markets and private sector-led provision? The evaluation should consider partnerships and access to market through a sustainability lens. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY GENERAL APPROACH The ET conducted this qualitative evaluation from September 2019 to January 2020 in four phases: desk review; fieldwork; data analysis; and, reporting. PHASE I: DESK REVIEW The first evaluation phase was reviewing the following documents: the AVANSE contract and modifications, quarterly and annual reports, annual work plans, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans, and related background materials. To better understand some performance indicators AVANSE reported, the ET consulted the reports and data other key actors published (See Annex B for a full list of sources). The purpose of this first phase was to generate preliminary findings and highlight gaps in information to inform the evaluation methodology design and subsequent fieldwork. PHASE II: FIELD WORK The ET carried out the fieldwork phase of the evaluation from November 6th to 23rd, 2019, with the objective of collecting primary data to fill the gaps identified during the desk review. DATA COLLECTION METHODS The ET employed two data collection methods: Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). The ET completed a total of 80 in-person interviews, including 51 KIIs and 29 FGDs. A total of 392 respondents participated, of which 144 were women (37 percent) and 248 (63 percent) were men. The ET determined the total KII and FGD numbers based on time and resource constraints, as well as the prevailing security situation. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS The ET conducted KIIs to better understand AVANSE stakeholder experiences, including successes and challenges, and their intentions to continue interventions initiated through the activity. The ET used these interviews to gather background information on the adoption of approaches and technologies, strengthening of input systems, potential for scale-up and value chain relationships. Over the course of fieldwork, the ET conducted a total of 51 KIIs with a purposively selected sample of 52 individual stakeholders in 18 communes four departments. Of this total, local research firm, SIKSE, conducted eight KIIs, and the ET conducted the remainder. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 6 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS The ET conducted FGDs to obtain beneficiary insights into their experiences with AVANSE activities, particularly their influence on the farming systems, as well as stakeholders’ intentions to continue activities in the future. The ET used this information to fill data gaps identified during the document review. SIKSE conducted 29 FGDs with a total of 336 beneficiary producers, marketing groups, and non￾beneficiaries. The ET determined this number to be proportionally stratified by crop based on total beneficiary numbers, as of the latest AVANSE reporting period. The ET further disaggregated FGD participants across intervention sites in the North and Northeast Departments. FGDs included 17 with cacao farmer groups, six with banana farmer groups, and marketing groups, and six with rice farmer groups. The ET conducted FGDs in the two departments of the Northern Haiti (22 in the North Department, seven in Northeast). FGDs covered a total of 18 communes (see Annex E for full list of interviews by location). RESPONDENT SELECTION The ET identified respondents using a purposeful selection technique (see list of persons consulted in Annex F). The ET coordinated closely with USAID and AVANSE staff on the final respondent selection, based on the likelihood that selected individuals possessed information or experiences relevant to the EQs and data gaps. The ET supplemented purposeful selection with snowball sampling to identify additional key informants and fill gaps in the initial list of key stakeholders. The ET consulted AVANSE staff to identify individuals and beneficiary groups within the list of stakeholders who had a good understanding of the activity, and belonged to selected respondent groups. In addition, the ET modified the respondent list in response to logistical and security considerations. For example, the ET dropped one commune (Borgne) from the list for security reasons, as the road was blocked by protesters. For FGDs with beneficiary producers, the ET selected farmers by primary crop (cacao, rice, bananas) and type of assistance (FFS, Système d’incitation via les bons d’achats [SIBA] vouchers, Lead Farmers) based on total reported beneficiary numbers as of latest AVANSE reporting. FGDs also included beneficiary marketing groups (cacao and rice) and non-beneficiaries (cacao, rice and bananas). The ET interviewed two women’s farmer groups (cacao and banana) to gather gender specific insights. To determine specific participants in each FGD, the ET selected eight to twelve beneficiary households based on primary crop and commune using beneficiary lists AVANSE provided. The ET sought to include both men and women from farmer specific groups. Although more men than women participated in KIIs (63 percent men and 37 percent women), the proportion was a fair reflection of the roles played by men and women in the activity.21 The ET identified a total of ten respondent groups based on analysis of key activity stakeholders. They interviewed most respondent groups in Northern Haiti, with the remainder interviewed in Port au Prince. All interviews were in-person. For some respondent groups, the ET conducted multiple interviews, particularly with implementing partners and GOH. For example, the ET 21 According to AVANSE reporting from Q3 2019 (DAI, AVANSE IPTT report, November 2019), women made up 24 percent (1,347 women) of farmers applying improved technologies or management practices, and 33 percent (972 women) of farmers who have received agricultural sector productivity or food security training. 7 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV interviewed 11 AVANSE staff and six GOH officials (see data collection protocols in Annex G). The following table details respondent groups and value chains of farmers the ET interviewed. TABLE 1: RESPONDENT GROUPS AND VALUE CHAINS RESPONDENT GROUPS RESPONDENTS NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Beneficiary Producers Cacao, rice and bananas – including women’s groups 25 Implementing Partners AVANSE, AGRIDEV 13 Input Suppliers BIA, plowing service owners 9 Beneficiary Marketing Groups Cacao and rice – including women’s groups 6 GOH Central level, department level, commune level 6 Private Enterprises AgroTech, CLES, UPBH, NOVELLA, PISA, FECANO 6 Non-Beneficiaries Cacao, rice and bananas 5 International Organizations USAID, World Bank, Interamerican Development Bank 4 Financial Institutions Unibank, Le Levier credit union, Fonkoze 4 Civil Society Organizations Université Henry Christophe de Limonade, Université Chretien du Nord 2 Total Interviews 80 VALUE CHAINS DEPARTMENTS NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Cacao North, Northeast 25 Bananas North, Northeast, Northwest 16 Rice North, Northeast 12 Farmers in Selected Value Chains 53 PHASE III: DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING DATA ANALYSIS The ET’s approach to analysis involved data triangulation to crosscheck results, as well as the following qualitative methods, to provide evidence for the evaluation’s findings and subsequent conclusions. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS For qualitative data collected during fieldwork, the ET’s analytic methods included: Content Analysis: Content analysis entailed the ET’s intensive review and systematic coding of KII and FGD notes to identify and highlight key themes and their frequencies. The ET then summarized these standardized data to better understand the outcomes of specific interventions and experiences. Triangulation: Triangulation enabled the ET to cross-verify and cross-validate findings that emerged from the content analysis, and to identify trends among findings to draw conclusions. The ET also utilized methodological triangulation by asking the same or similar questions across KIIs and FGDs. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 8 Gender Analysis: The ET’s analysis include gender-based findings and conclusions. The team worked across all EQs to capture and compare the responses of women beneficiaries with those of men. Additionally, the ET organized interviews specifically for women beneficiaries and analyzed for effects on both male and female participants to show any major differences. DATA PROCESSES At the outset of fieldwork, the ET staff trained and supported the local research firm, SIKSE, in the use of the data collection tools. Throughout fieldwork, the ET and local research firm maintained daily contact, both in-person and remotely. The ET used these internal debriefs to discuss progress, make any necessary adjustments to the evaluation schedule, and develop probing questions in response to emerging findings. All team members took detailed notes of KIIs and FGDs, and subsequently cleaned and shared electronic summaries continuously throughout fieldwork. The ET conducted frequent spot checks, and began identifying emerging patterns for analysis during coding. To facilitate data analysis, the ET aggregated and analyzed interview notes in a comprehensive, cohesive, and consistent manner using Excel-based tally sheets.22 The ET developed a tally sheet matrix, which listed key themes that emerged from each KII and FGD. The ET used the tally sheet to examine trends across themes by stakeholder group, value chain, geographic area, gender, etc. This enabled the ET to identify trends within and across respondent groups and geographies. The ET also triangulated primary interview data with secondary data from AVANSE reports and published literature, to identify trends, and gain insights into lessons learned. Following data analysis, the Team Leader transferred findings, conclusions, and recommendations (FCR) in an Excel-based matrix that categorizes analysis by EQ. This matrix: (i) ensured that the ET prepares a systematic and thorough response to each EQ; (ii) verified that the analysis accounts for gender and social dimensions; (iii) identified any gaps where additional clarification or analysis may be necessary; and, (iv) served as the basis for developing the evaluation report. DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION The report offers evidence-based recommendations for USAID’s consideration when designing future agriculture interventions in Haiti and other similar countries. In addition, in keeping with SI’s commitment to Utilization-Focused Evaluations (U-FE), ESS presents recommendations in a manner that identifies the issue, action, responsibility, and timeline for implementation. To promote utilization across USAID and the broader development community, ESS will collaborate with USAID to disseminate findings, present and discuss the results to the Mission, and will post the Final Evaluation Report on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). POTENTIAL BIASES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES Potential bias associated with the methodology for this final evaluation include: Response Bias: Response bias is the risk that key informants may be motivated to provide responses they consider socially desirable or influential in obtaining donor support. The ET mitigated this bias by posing questions that sought to uncover causal chains, as opposed to asking participants to simply describe outcomes, as well as by probing for both successes and challenges. 22 King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, “Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research”, Princeton University Press, Princeton University Press, 2016. 9 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Selection Bias: Selection bias is an inherent risk when implementing partners facilitate contact with beneficiaries and stakeholders. To mitigate the risk of implementers directing the ET toward only the most active, satisfied, or “successful” stakeholders, the ET identified respondents independently from contact lists provided by AVANSE staff. The ET made the final selection with the objective of reaching a broad range of respondents in different geographies and value chains. Gender Bias: Gender bias is a risk because most individuals have a subconscious sense of appropriate roles and behavior for women and men. The ET reviewed gender-sensitive approaches during the inception period using USAID’s “Gender 101” training, discussing possible gender preconceptions and reviewing how to minimize these preconceptions during data collection and analysis. To mitigate potential bias and encourage open discussion, the ET met with women-only farmer groups in all three value chains, as well as female input suppliers and businesswomen. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section synthesizes the evaluation’s main findings and conclusions by EQ. EQ 1 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS WILL AVANSE’S APPROACHES AND TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE RICE, PLANTAIN, AND CACAO VALUE CHAINS CONTINUE TO BE USED AT THE END OF THE ACTIVITY, AND WHY? In answering this question, the ET first analyzed the data for an indication of the ability of producers to continue using AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies. It also assessed the motivation of beneficiary and non-beneficiary producers to use AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies, as well as the factors that limit their adoption. Based on the different stakeholders’ responses across the various value chains, and triangulating their specific outlooks, the ET identified findings about the reasons, extent, and ways stakeholders will continue to use AVANSE’s approaches and technologies at the end of the activity. FINDINGS AVANSE support increased the ability of farmers to apply approaches and technologies. AVANSE used a synergistic combination of approaches and technologies to increase farmers’ capacity (see Annex H and Annex I for a full list of approaches and technologies AVANSE promoted). According to AVANSE’s monitoring and evaluation plan for FY19, the activity introduced 32 new technologies or agricultural practices for farmers in the Northern Corridor in the cacao, rice and plantain value chains.23 Based on interviews with farmers, the most popular technology packages were SRI for rice, PIF for plantain, and Best Agriculture Practice (BAP) for cacao. “We will continue using all the approaches and technologies learned because we have enough knowledge that allow us to perform better and we spend almost nothing to implement them.” 23 DAI, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY 2019, November 2018. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 10 Farmer, Limonade AVANSE disseminated these technologies to farmers in the three value chains through a range of different approaches, including FFS, Lead Farmers, farmer-to-farmer exchanges, and demonstration plots, marketing, and access to inputs.24 Farmers cited technical assistance from AVANSE staff and Lead Farmers as the most popular capacity building approaches. Interviews with farmers and AVANSE staff indicated that training and technical assistance helped farmers increase their capacity to apply the promoted technologies. For example, most of the cacao producers reported that AVANSE taught them how to improve cacao production with techniques such as pruning, maintaining planting distance, setting up a nursery, drying on tarpaulins, etc. Although most farmers said they would be able to continue to use AVANSE technologies without support from the activity, many also said they wanted additional training. “AVANSE provided us repeated training sessions on plantain/banana production. It helped us to establish sucker production center using the PIF method for the production and selling of suckers. As a result, we have better quality of suckers.” Woman banana farmer, Quartier Morin Most of the GOH staff the ET consulted recognized that AVANSE built farmers’ capacity to improve cacao production. Although they saw AVANSE as the continuity of former USAID activity Développement Economique pour un Environnement Durable (DEED), they believed that AVANSE worked more deeply than DEED to increase the quantity and quality of cacao production. Women farmers’ groups with whom the ET met separately25 expressed a feeling of empowerment from their increased capacity to use technologies. For example, in the cacao value chain, they received training to improve pod yields and quality. In the banana value chain, women were strongly represented in PIF banana nurseries, many of which were women-owned and managed. Women were also particularly active in marketing crops. In counterpoint, stakeholders were not fully satisfied with the training delivery and management. According to beneficiary farmers interviewed in Bas Limbe and Plaine du Nord, the training sessions AVANSE delivered were poorly assimilated, either because the trainers lacked patience, or the participants lacked attention. FGD participants in Plaine du Nord said that the training did not provide all the skills necessary to use the technologies. One private sector partner in Cap-Haitian felt that the farmers needed to master the knowledge they had already acquired through refresher courses. Another private sector partner in Fort-Liberté offered that AVANSE should have developed standalone training modules and transmitted the know-how generated during the activity to local community-based organizations (CBOs). “AVANSE has changed our concept of the role of women. With the work we do in the PIF center, we have another conception of the role of women in the agricultural sector. “ Women banana farmers in Quartier Morin 24 SIMA (Système d’information sur les marchés agricoles) was also used to provide market information to farmers. 25 Field interviews included a total of 144 women, including two women-only farmers’ groups, and one women-only marketing group with a total of 41 members. 11 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Use of subsidized inputs helped farmers to master technology use. Reactions among respondents were generally positive in describing AVANSE’s SIBA system, which offered decreasing subsidies for inputs to farmers to use newly promoted technologies (fertilizer and plowing services for rice and banana).26 During field visits, both AVANSE’s staff and beneficiaries indicated that the inputs and equipment AVANSE provided enhanced the value of training and technical assistance (TA). Farmers from the three value chains recognized that they had to use inputs and equipment to practice what they learned during FFS (see Annex J for the list of inputs used by crop). The ease of applying technologies favored their adoption. Of the more than 30 technologies AVANSE promoted, some were very simple (such as shade management for cacao), while others were more technically demanding (such as SRI). Farmers listed the following technologies as easily adopted: pruning (cacao); shade control (cacao); seedling production (cacao); and, PIF (bananas). Farmers reported no major difficulties regarding adoption of simpler technologies, such as BAP for cacao.27 Cacao farmers explained that AVANSE technologies were easy to use, and that they would be able to apply them without need for further support. Rice farmers affirmed that SRI required a high level of investment, technical capacity, equipment, and time. AVANSE reporting confirms “while SRI has many benefits, it requires greater mastery over water levels in fields and has higher labor requirements”.28 AVANSE staff and private enterprises reported that to address the difficulties in applying the SRI, some farmers adapted the SRI technology package and used Système de Riziculture Amélioré (SRA), a modified SRI. Consequently, many rice farmers expressed the need for continued training and support in using SRI. According to an international organization the ET interviewed, “AVANSE made too rapid a leap” by introducing complex technological packages in the northern region during a drought period (and without irrigation). MARNDR field staff explained that the introduction of the technologies was too rapid. MARNDR found that before farmers were ready for the introduction of new technologies, they required knowledge and behavior change, as well as access to water. Likewise, one private sector partner believed that the SRI should have been adapted to local conditions before its dissemination. Beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers’ motivation to use AVANSE promoted approaches and technologies. The evaluation found three primary motivating factors in farmers’ use of AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies: (i) positive outcomes in terms of income and yields; (ii) ease of use; and, (iii) cost-effectiveness in terms of reduced need for inputs. Farmer beneficiaries from the three value chains said that the application of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies helped increase yields, production and income. Farmers from all three value chains described improved results as the main value added, and the most important incentive for using AVANSE technologies. Male and female farmers all described positive outcomes. 26 DAI AVANSE Agribusiness Development Report 2017 27 One example of a very simple cacao technique is to increase production of low hanging pods by not tying animals to the cacao trees. 28 DAI, AVANSE Program Year 2 Annual Progress Report, October 2014. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 12 Similarly, non-beneficiary farmers noted the demonstration effect of increased yields and income among beneficiaries; some of these farmers were sufficiently convinced to adopt AVANSE technologies even without support from the activity. In Baron, non-beneficiary focus group participants said, "We found that the project beneficiaries performed better than us. Their fields were better maintained than ours. It is normal that their profit is higher because the yields are greater.” Private companies also recognized that AVANSE technologies helped to increase yields and income. Companies in the cacao value chain explained that, in addition to increased production, improvements in product quality contributed to the rise in prices paid to farmers. “This year my company paid about 2.3 millions of gourdes to one rice farmers and another 1.2 Millions of gourdes to another one. They told me that they never earned these amounts before.” Private enterprise, Northern Haiti GOH officials likewise recognized that AVANSE was able to increase cacao and rice productivity. They particularly stated that USAID had a clear impact in the cacao value chain due to its continuous intervention in this value chain over the last two decades through different activities, including DEED and Hillside Agriculture Program (HAP). One international organization agreed that the activity contributed to increased productivity and income. However, it mentioned that it attained better results for cacao and rice than for bananas. During the activity, AVANSE collected baseline and follow-up data regarding crop yields.29 Unfortunately, USAID informed the ET that the data quality made the specific figures unreliable. Thus, though ET did not include the specific crop measures, it notes that the overall findings of this study suggested that crop yields increased,30 which aligns with the ET’s overall finding from the qualitative data. AVANSE staff confirmed that the farmers who applied the approaches and technologies increased yields and incomes, especially in the cacao and rice value chains. However, because of the drought severity throughout the activity cycle, they cautioned that only farmers who had access to irrigation water (rice plantations located in irrigated plains and banana plantations irrigated with water pumps) were able to achieve improved results. AVANSE staff further stated that banana farmers suffered greatly from the drought, but, in general, cacao farmers performed relatively better despite the lack of rain. “Productivity has increased. When AVANSE arrived, there were only 9.5 tons/hectare of traditional banana plantations. But currently, there are 17.5 tons/hectare for traditional bananas and 24 tons/hectare for PIF. All farmers who adopted the PIF no longer use traditional suckers. There is a strong demonstration effect inspires other farmers to use the PIF model.” Banana farmer, Limonade Constraints to future technology use. 29 DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY19, November 2019. 30 Ibid. 13 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Document review and stakeholder interviews indicate five main obstacles to continued use of AVANSE’s promoted approaches and technologies. These included market failures that discouraged some farmers from adopting technologies AVANSE promoted, thereby negatively affecting adoption rate. The first obstacle was the extended drought period, which particularly affected banana farmers using PIF and rice farmers using SRI. USAID reporting confirms that drought negatively affected agricultural productivity in the activity’s implementation zones, and lack of irrigation exacerbated its effects.31 The Conseil National de Sécurité Alimentaire (CNSA) reported that rainfall in 2018 was the lowest in decades in the Northeast Department.32 The same report indicates that drought affected the North Department as well, but to a lesser extent. The graph below compares rainfall for 2017 with that of 2018 in the Northeast Department. Source: CNSA- OSANE-Vol #1, Oct-Dec 2018, January, 2019. A broad range of stakeholders, including farmers, AVANSE staff, international donors, private enterprises, and GOH officials, described the negative impacts of drought on the agricultural sector. According to farmers, most of the first banana plantings AVANSE promoted failed due to a combined effect of flooding and extended drought. Farmers and implementing partners explained that in non-irrigated areas, drought caused delays or outright impossibility of rice plantings, as well as death of some newly established cacao plantations. An AVANSE staff member said, “AVANSE was conceived as a rain-fed agriculture project and was greatly affected by drought.” The same staff members stated that in the activity’s closing months, AVANSE piloted selling subsidized irrigation pumps, cleaning wells, and repairing irrigation canals. These efforts yielded positive results in terms of crops’ productivity, particularly for banana producers. Most of the farmers and GOH officials the ET interviewed stressed that the activity did not prioritize access to irrigation water early on, which resulted in lost crops, and limited the application of technologies (SRI and PIF, in particular). The second limiting factor was political unrest. AVANSE reported that political unrest in the country in 2019 disrupted implementation of many activities. Most stakeholders (AVANSE, GOH, farmers, private companies, and civil society organizations) confirmed that political unrest paralyzed agricultural activities in the northern region during 2019. 31 USAID/Office of the Inspector General, Audit Of USAID/Haiti’s Feed The Future North Project, October 2015. 32 Observatoire de sécurité alimentaire du Nord’est (OSANE)-Vol #1, Oct-Dec, 2018. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 14 A third constraint was the poor quantity and timeliness of inputs. Farmers reported that AVANSE’s promoted input systems often failed to provide inputs in quantity, particularly when most needed. Input suppliers stated that these problems were common throughout the market, and that they were not at fault, though they stated that farmers often unfairly blamed them. Farmers (particularly rice farmers) explained that problems with the availability of inputs discouraged their use of AVANSE technologies. The fourth constraint was inadequate access to support services (plowing, financial, and transport). Farmers (men and women) and one private company cited that the lack of plowing services and financial services limited adoption of the promoted technologies. Rice and cacao farmers, as well as all four of the private companies’ partners, considered inadequate transportation from farm to market as an obstacle. “What really bothered the farmers was the delay in providing plowing services, which provoked delay in planting. Haitian farmers follow the moon to harvest. When they miss a lunar phase, they feel obliged to wait for another one.” Implementing partner, Cap-Haitian The last limiting factor was inadequate GOH interest and capacity to support the use of the promoted approaches and technologies. According to GOH staff members, the government was not sufficiently involved in the planning and implementation of AVANSE activities at the beginning, and lacks the capacity to support them in the future. However, they recognized that AVANSE’s relationship with the Ministry had improved toward the end of the activity, especially given their collaboration to improve access to irrigation by distributing water pumps and cleaning wells. CONCLUSIONS The findings above indicate that many farmers are likely to continue using approaches and technologies AVANSE promoted in the rice, plantain/bananas, and cacao value chains. However, in some cases, farmers may not apply them in the ways AVANSE advocated. Most of the current adopters have the capacity to continue using AVANSE-promoted technologies and adapt them to their own conditions. However, some farmers will require additional technical support (particularly in applying SRI). Farmers are motivated by increased yields and improved income, as well as the cost￾effectiveness of applying most of the approaches and technologies. Both men and women farmers described these improved results. Non-beneficiaries expressed interest in adopting them due to the demonstration effect of observed increased yields and income. As a result, the number of farmers applying the approaches and technologies is likely to increase over time. However, the ease of use of the individual technologies AVANSE promoted influences their continued application; simple technologies are easier to replicate and scale up, while more complex technologies require additional support. AVANSE’s positive results were, in part, the consequence of synergies generated through linking capacity building (training provided in the FFS and TA AVANSE staff and farmer leads delivered), access to inputs and strengthened value chain relations. These synergies are likely to continue; since many farmers have improved their ability to implement the promoted technologies, they have access to inputs through the improved input systems, and some of them can produce their own seeds and seedlings. The partnerships AVANSE promoted between private companies and farmers, which are key for value chain development, favor continuous transfer of the AVANSE-promoted approaches 15 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV and technologies. These partnerships are mutually beneficial to the extent that private companies want to buy more and better-quality products from farmers, and farmers appreciate the extra income from selling to private companies. Embedded intra-value chain support services help both partners to achieve their objectives and make more money. Finally, exogenous factors will continue to negatively affect the extent and ways that stakeholders will continue to use AVANSE’s approaches and technologies: drought; political instability; poor timing and availability of inputs; lack of access to support services (plowing, financial, and transport); and, limited support from GOH. These exogenous factors have discouraged farmers from applying AVANSE’s technologies, particularly because they undermine the profitability of their crops. Lack of GOH involvement and capacity have the same effect, by limiting the opportunity to integrate them in the GOH’s strategy, and scale and monitor them. EQ 2 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS HAS AVANSE STRENGTHENED INPUTS SYSTEMS IN THE ACTIVITY AREA? To answer this question, the ET analyzed how AVANSE supported the development of agricultural input systems in the northern region, and the difference that this support made to actors in the market. In addition, the ET analyzed the limits to strengthening input systems, with a particular focus on how these limits will influence stakeholders’ use of inputs in the future. FINDINGS Ways that AVANSE strengthened inputs systems AVANSE reported that it used a market-based approach to strengthen input systems, including capacity building, market relations building, and declining subsidies. AVANSE worked with actors up and down the input value chain, simultaneously stimulating supply among input providers and demand among input consumers. Actors included farmers, input stores (BIAs), financial institutions, and private enterprises (agro-processors and exporters of agricultural products). According to AVANSE staff, one of the primary mechanisms used for strengthening the input systems was subsidized provision of inputs. AVANSE established the Système d’Incitation via les Bons d’Achat (SIBA) to provide vouchers to farmers, allowing them to purchase inputs directly from private suppliers without direct AVANSE intervention. AVANSE distributed vouchers through local Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) (including both non-regulated MFIs and credit unions). Farmers paid for vouchers at an MFI, and were then able to choose when and where to purchase their inputs from activity partner BIA. AVANSE reported that the subsidy on inputs declined on an annual basis, from 75 percent to zero.33 Farmers confirmed this information during fieldwork. Several farmers complained that MFIs sometimes did not have vouchers available, or that BIAs could not provide the quantity of inputs they needed. “First of all, AVANSE had worked with me to arrange storage space so that my shop complies with environmental standards for agricultural inputs. AVANSE helped me transform my hardware into a modern boutique.” BIA owner, Northern Haiti Capacity Building for Agricultural Input Stores 33 Inputs and equipment were provided for all three crops. They included: pruning shears, electric saws, scale, tables, tarpaulins, wheelbarrows, pickaxes, rakes, plowing services, fertilizer, marker rollers, threshing machines, and sprinkling equipment. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 16 According to AVANSE staff, the activity provided technical and financial assistance to eight agricultural input stores to increase their capacity to provide inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, agriculture tools, seeds, etc.), and to manage pesticides and fertilizers and ensure compliance with USAID environmental standards. This included physical improvements, such as metal shelves, water retention basins, improved ventilation, and training in good storage practices. In addition, the activity provided supplemental training in inventory control, financial management, and accounting.34 BIA store owners expressed particular appreciation for AVANSE support in improving their capacity to store fertilizers and insecticides, and, more generally, for helping their shops appear and function more professionally. Improved business relations among farmers, BIA, wholesalers, and financial institutions According to BIA owners, the SIBA voucher system increased their number of clients and turnover. BIA owners also explained that they were able to offer clients a better customer experience through improvements in their shops. MFIs also described an increase in the number of clients visiting their branches and opening accounts (which was a requirement to receive SIBA vouchers through credit unions). “The project resulted in an increase in the number of clients who visited the branch per month, and an increase in the number of cooperative members and branch members.” Credit union SIBA partner, Northern Haiti According to financial institutions, the SIBA system created new relationships between MFIs and farmers. Because the SIBA system provided vouchers through MFIs and credit unions, farmers were required to open an account to purchase vouchers at credit unions.35 AVANSE reporting estimates that 30 percent of these farmers remained the MFIs’ clients.36 However, although MFIs expressed interest in maintaining these farmers as clients, farmers explained that they were not interested in MFI loans because the terms were not appropriate for their businesses (interest rates for agricultural loans were too high, and reimbursement was not based on the cycle of their activities). To ensure an adequate supply of improved seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides, AVANSE promoted partnerships between BIA and wholesalers. AVANSE describes an initiative by input stores to form a buyers’ network to purchase from wholesalers in bulk, reducing their costs and improving access to inputs.37 This was, in part, a response to multiple farmers’ complaints regarding unavailable or late inputs. BIA owners countered that this late delivery was not their fault, as wholesalers did not distribute inputs to them on time. Increased demand for (and use of) inputs through declining subsidies, training and technical assistance on improved agricultural techniques Through the SIBA system, AVANSE subsidized the purchase of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, services such as plowing, and equipment such as water pumps. According to AVANSE staff, subsidies declined by 25 percent per annum, from 75 percent in 2014 to zero in 2017.38 34 DAI, AVANSE Third Annual Report and Quarterly Report, July-September 2015, (October 2015). 35 They were not required to open an account at Fonkoze. 36 DAI, AVANSE Annual Report, FY 2018, November 2018. 37 Ibid. 38 Per correspondence with AVANSE staff 10 December 2019. 17 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV The biggest opportunity for us has been the increase in our turnover and customer base. BIA owner, Northern Haiti Farmers frequently described subsidies for inputs as the activity’s major strength, and their most frequent recommendation for future assistance was financial support to be able to purchase inputs and equipment. It is important to note that while subsidies increased demand for inputs, one of the key advantages of AVANSE technologies farmers cited is that they enabled them to use inputs more efficiently (thus, buying fewer inputs). This was particularly true for rice farmers, who appreciated the cost-effectiveness of SRI techniques in reducing the need for fertilizers. AVANSE did not collect data on the impact of decreasing subsidies on the volume of input sales, so it is not possible to determine the direct impact of subsidies. Even with these data, the impact of exogenous variables, such as the ongoing drought, would make it difficult to directly link changes in subsidies to changes in sales. Farmers confirmed they are likely to buy fewer inputs, but it is difficult to estimate what this will mean in concrete terms. Increased local production of quality inputs through nurseries (particularly for bananas and cacao) In response to numerous complaints from farmers, AVANSE modified its approach to sourcing inputs, and began to promote local production of banana seedlings through PIF nurseries. According to AVANSE management, it supported a total of 18 PIF nurseries, 13 of which were women owned. According to banana farmers in Quartier Morin, these nurseries allowed farmers better control of seedling quality, promoted local production capacity, and generated income from the sale of seedlings. “The AVANSE project allowed us to have our own nurseries parallel to our husbands. The project allowed us to be more independent. We also now have more income.” Women banana farmers group, Northern Haiti Strengthened capacity of private and agro-processors companies and relations between producers and private companies AVANSE promoted increased access to inputs through embedded intra-value chain support from private and agro-processors companies to farmers (particularly in cacao). According to interviews with private and agro-processor companies in Cap-Haitian, they provided cacao farmers with inputs, harvesting equipment, and credit, as well as transportation to the factory. It is likely that agro-businesses will continue to offer these services, as managers described having multi-year contracts with producers. Another element of this strategy was to offer grants to private companies for purchasing equipment and improving their drying and processing capability. Extent to which AVANSE Strengthened Inputs Systems According to both farmers and input shop owners, subsidies through SIBA increased the availability of agricultural inputs. Many farmers cited improved access to inputs through SIBA as a contributing factor to their increased use of inputs. Farmers often mentioned subsidies for inputs as a major activity strength. According to AVANSE reporting, more than 39,600 farmers had access to improved agricultural inputs due to activity intervention. Recently published research indicates the total number of USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 18 farm households dependent on agriculture in northern Haiti is 145,000, indicating the activity reached around a quarter of farm households in the region.39 On the supply side, input suppliers increased their client base and sales due to AVANSE assistance. Many input suppliers said that support they received from AVANSE helped them to maintain an adequate stock and variety of inputs. Both farmers and BIA owners stated that they benefited from increased income; BIA owners made more money through the sale of inputs, and farmers made more money through increased production, and improved yields in applying the inputs in their fields. Rice and cacao farmers both regarded the provision of subsidized inputs as the activity’s greatest strength. Farmers of all three crops agreed that the main value added of improved access to inputs was increased yields and revenues. Farmers most frequently cited increased income as the greatest benefit of using AVANSE technologies. “Yes, the subsidies have increased yield and income because they reduced production costs and bananas are more attractive with the addition of fertilizers.” Banana farmer, Ferrier In reaction to significant problems with banana seedlings from Arcahaie, which AVANSE distributed, but then died, AVANSE began promoting production of seedlings in nurseries for local use. Many banana farmers mentioned production of PIF seedlings in nurseries as a facilitator of input use. Locally owned and managed nurseries also allowed farmers to control the production conditions and seedling quality. In addition, farmers described being able to establish PIF centers with AVANSE’s support to produce and sell PIF seedlings, in essence, creating nursery micro-enterprises. As an added benefit of this approach, according to AVANSE management, women owned and operated the majority of PIF nurseries. Limits to AVANSE Efforts to Strengthen Inputs Systems The drought had a far-reaching impact on farmers of all three crops, all of whom reported that lack of access to water and ongoing drought were constraints to input use. Banana and cacao farmers mentioned drought as the main constraint to their use of inputs. Rice farmers also mentioned it as a constraint, but their main complaint was poor access to inputs (see below). “One of the biggest constraints is climate change. Planters depend on rainwater. With prolonged droughts, all farmers will face problems.” Implementing partner, Cap Haitian Considering the increasing need for irrigation famers described, AVANSE staff admitted that the activity’s lack of focus on water was a missed opportunity. The original activity objectives included a strong emphasis on access to irrigation water improvements. However, until recently, the activity made little progress on improving access to irrigation. As the activity entered its final phase, AVANSE ramped up its efforts to improve access to water.40 39 Molnar, Joseph J, et al, “Agricultural Development in Northern Haiti: Mechanisms and Means for Moving Key Crops Forward in a Changing Climate,” Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, December 2015. 40 In the last two years, AVANSE began distribution of motorized pumps through equipment subsidies. In addition, AVANSE has made recent progress in repairing and reinforcing irrigation canals. 19 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Farmers generally appreciated increased access to inputs. However, many farmers expressed disappointment at delays in providing inputs, and unavailability of the proper variety, quality and amount of inputs. They stated these problems were a constraint to their use of inputs. Farmers in each of the three value chains expressed this feeling. In particular, rice growers expressed frustration with late or unavailable inputs, as they required inputs at specific times to apply the SRI technology. This frustration led to lack of confidence, and sometimes anger, with BIA shops. Input suppliers understood that farmers were sometimes unhappy with the quality, quantity, timing, and availability of inputs (and blamed them), but denied that these issues were their fault. Partial subsidies for inputs AVANSE offered declined by 25 percent a year from 2014 through 2017. By the end of the activity, farmers were paying the full cost of inputs, but complained that they lacked access to finance to be able to buy them. Farmers of all three crops mentioned lack of financial means as a constraint to using inputs. All three farmer groups said that use of inputs increased their yields and income, and all three mentioned they would continue to buy inputs. However, they also said they would buy fewer inputs less frequently due to a lack of financial means. In the past, the MARNDR distributed tools, seeds, and fertilizer for free through local associations. According to GOH staff in Cap-Haitian, the MARNDR has not been able to distribute free fertilizer from government funds for the last several years. However, other donors, such as the World Bank (through the Technology Transfer to Small Farmers Program - PTTA) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (through the Agricultural and Agroforestry Technological Program - PITAG), have continued to provide the government with funds to subsidize distribution of agricultural inputs.41 Although farmers were quick to point out issues with the unpredictable availability of free inputs from the GOH, they were frustrated that some farmers received inputs for free, while others needed to pay. AVANSE staff cited the government’s creation of tension between farmers by distributing free inputs as a major problem that required resolution at a departmental level. Despite their interest in receiving free inputs from the government, none of the farmers stated that GOH subsidy programs prevented them from buying inputs from BIA. CONCLUSIONS From interviews with a range of supply and demand side actors, it is evident that AVANSE’s approach of providing subsidies, capacity building, training and technical assistance, and building value chain relationships, had a synergistic effect on strengthening input systems in the northern region. The ET assessed the extent to which AVANSE strengthened these systems in several ways. The increased availability and affordability of inputs helped BIA to increase their income through sales, and farmers to increase their income and yields from improved production. BIA’s increased capacity helped them to better manage their businesses. Strengthening relations among BIA helped them to improve their bargaining power in purchasing inputs from wholesalers. In addition, AVANSE’s promotion of local nurseries created an opportunity for farmers to improve both access to seedlings for their own use and income from the sale of seedlings. Relationships between farmers and MFIs that AVANSE built through the SIBA system represents an opportunity for MFIs to increase their client base, and for farmers to access 41 According to GOH respondents, the government tried to reduce subsidies to 90 percent, but received significant pushback from farmers and delayed the decision. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 20 financial services (such as loans). However, it is uncertain that these relationships will increase lending to farmers under the current terms offered by MFIs. Strengthening relationships between input systems actors (BIA and farmers, BIA and wholesalers, farmers and MFIs, farmers, and processors) may continue to have sustainable impact on improving the input systems. While the amount of inputs that farmers purchase after the activity will likely decline, there remains a clear intention among farmers to continue to purchase them, which has positive implications for continued relations between farmers and BIA. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that the buyers group BIA formed to negotiate better prices with wholesalers will continue. Relations between farmers and private agro-businesses will continue, as many private enterprises described having multi-year contracts with producers. AVANSE’s strategy of strengthening inputs systems through capacity building and declining subsidies to agricultural input shops had several advantages. By building capacity on the supply side and supporting demand indirectly through subsidies, the activity was able to strengthen input markets as a whole. BIA intend to continue selling inputs, which means AVANSE’s capacity building efforts will continue to benefit the sector. Finally, building farmers’ capacity to produce their own seedlings is a sustainable approach to ensuring access to quality seedlings, empowering farmers, and creating income opportunities from the sale of seedlings to neighbors. While subsidies facilitated input use during the life of the activity, lack of access to finance will have a potentially negative impact on long-term access. The ET’s findings demonstrate that, overall, farmers will continue to purchase inputs, but without access to finance, they will buy smaller quantities with less frequency. MFIs have expressed interest in having more clients, but it is unclear that the terms and conditions they offer, particularly with respect to interest rate, will be attractive to farmers. Although AVANSE made some progress in improving input systems, farmers were clearly unhappy with the quality, quantity, and timeliness of input delivery. Multiple factors contributed to problems with input supply, some which were beyond BIA’s control. There remains opportunity for future programming to improve the capacity of, and confidence in, input supply systems. EQ 3 - TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAYS COULD APPROACHES AND TECHNOLOGIES PROMOTED BY AVANSE BE SCALED UP? To answer this question, the ET assessed demand for approaches and technologies, underserved needs and areas, preconditions and potential obstacles to significantly expand their use. The ET also evaluated the capacity of market actors to scale up the use of approaches and technologies. FINDINGS Demand for inputs and technologies increases potential for scaling-up A positive indicator of the potential for scaling up AVANSE approaches and technologies was stakeholders’ widely held belief that improved access to inputs and use of AVANSE’s promoted technologies increases yields and income. Many farmers said they would continue to buy inputs and use AVANSE approaches and technologies. Farmers made clear that they view both training and inputs as necessary, indicating an unmet need for AVANSE technologies and approaches that could drive scale. In addition, private and agro-processor companies expressed interest in increasing production capacity, which will increase their need for farmers’ crops, and could fuel scale-up. In addition, non-beneficiaries who have observed the results of AVANSE approaches and technologies expressed interest in participating in a similar activity in the future, becoming potential new adopters of AVANSE approaches and technologies. 21 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV “We believe that demand for inputs will increase because we will be planting more cacao trees than before, as we are starting to get better results with the application of the new techniques.” Cacao farmers Bas Limbe Underserved areas that are potentially suitable for scaling up Many stakeholders (GOH, private companies, farmers, AVANSE staff) mentioned areas where farmers are growing rice, cacao, and bananas that were not covered by the activity, for example, Saint-Raphael, an irrigated rice production area in North Department. GOH officials mentioned that there are more than 300 ha of potentially exploitable land in Plaine du Nord that farmers could use to grow cacao and rice. According to MARNDR officials, PIF technologies would be a good fit for the following areas: Quartier Morin; Limonade; Bas-Limbé; Limbé; Milot; and, Grand Rivière du Nord. They also indicated that agricultural land is available in LaSwis, Grison Garde, and Mathonne (northern plain), areas with high potential for rice production that AVANSE did not cover. Furthermore, Dubre and Chalopin appear to be suitable for scaling-up because of the increased availability of water due to AVANSE’s current work on the two irrigation systems. Some technologies will be easier to scale than others because of technical, labor and resource requirements The ease of stakeholders’ adoption of the different technologies AVANSE promoted varied significantly, which will impact their potential for scale. Some of these technologies were as simple as pruning diseased leaves. Farmers stated they liked these simple technologies, and will continue to use them. Farmers stated others, like SRI, were complicated and demanded more time, resources, and technical knowledge. Many rice farmers mentioned lack of access to manpower for weeding and tractors for plowing as major constraints to scaling their use of SRI. Beneficiaries recommended scaling the following technologies and approaches When the ET asked which AVANSE-promoted approaches and techniques should be scaled up, farmers primarily mentioned irrigation (which AVANSE only promoted as an approach at the end of the activity). Of the approaches AVANSE promoted, farmers mentioned the following as having potential for scale-up: FFS; Lead Farmers; exchange visits; demonstration plots; and, input subsidies. Cacao farmers were particularly appreciative of AVANSE techniques, and recommended scaling up the following: pruning; shade control; and, seedling production. Banana farmers also mentioned PIF, and rice farmers mentioned SRI. In addition to the specific technologies they mentioned, many farmers described the general need for regular follow-up, better delivery, and management of training. “I should receive continuous training every three or six months on good farming practices.” Lead Farmer, bananas, Ferrier Conditions required for scaling technologies When the ET asked about the conditions required for scale-up, farmers described a range of additional types of support they would need to increase their use of technologies. Foremost among these was access to training, with many farmers citing it as the most important condition USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 22 for scale-up. Farmers mentioned access to training much more frequently than access to water. Other preconditions to scaling up that farmers mentioned included access to inputs and equipment. While some technologies AVANSE promoted required more technical capacity and training than others (for example, SRI), it is interesting to note that farmers of all three crops listed access to training as the most important condition for scaling technologies. This indicates that even where technologies are simpler to apply, farmers felt the need for continued training and support to master the techniques. From a social standpoint, stakeholders mentioned that dialogue and active participation of beneficiaries in activity planning and implementation are critical for scaling up. They explained that the activity did little in this regard. Demonstration effect of improved yields and higher income encourages additional adoption and use of technologies FGDs with non-beneficiary farmers indicated that they were aware of and impressed by the increased yields and income that beneficiary producers demonstrated in using AVANSE technologies. In fact, some non-beneficiaries mentioned copying these technologies even without support from AVANSE. This awareness among some non-beneficiaries regarding the value of AVANSE approaches and technologies creates an opportunity to leverage demonstration effects to attract additional farmers to adopt technologies in the future. Interestingly, many beneficiary farmers stated that non-beneficiaries who observed results of these techniques would be interested in learning them. “We think that all the AVANSE project approaches and technologies were good, and we would like to be integrated in such a project in the future. That is why we are here at this meeting.” Non-beneficiary cacao farmer in Bahon Private enterprises offer intra-VA support for technologies for partner farmers Intra-value chain relationships offer a potentially sustainable mechanism for promoting farmer’s use of technologies and ensuring private sector provision of inputs and support services. However, potential for scaling up this type of embedded support services is specific to certain crops. Because private enterprises limited the provision of these services to farmers who sell products to them, these services are unlikely to have a sector-wide impact on scaling up. According to private enterprise managers, the types of support private agro-companies offered are aligned with the technologies AVANSE promoted. For example, cacao processors described offering inputs, equipment, credit, and technical assistance on planting and drying techniques. Interviews with both farmers and private enterprises described the mutual benefits of these embedded support services as increased production and income. Lack of access to water and support services such as labor, plowing services, and finance are barriers to scale To gather a holistic perspective of the potential for scaling up, the ET asked respondents about the obstacles to and conditions for scaling up. They described conditions as prerequisites that must be in place before scale-up can occur. Among farmers, the primary obstacles to scaling were lack of access to water, followed by lack of labor for weeding and mechanized plowing services. Rice farmers practicing SRI, in particular, 23 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV expressed the pronounced challenge of accessing timely weeding and plowing services, as SRI requires a demanding schedule of intervention to produce full results. Farmers will remain reluctant to attempting to scale production until access to these necessary support services improves. Respondents’ second-most frequently mentioned constraint to scale (following lack of access to water) was lack of access to finance. GOH data confirms that only one percent of farmers surveyed in Northern Haiti were able to obtain a loan.42 Subsidies through the SIBA system helped to alleviate the lack of financial resources farmers described, as well as the increase in income. Without access to subsidies or loans, most farmers stated that they do not have the ability to purchase the same amount of inputs from their own resources. Exogenous factors such as drought and socio-political unrest negatively impact potential for scaling up Exogenous factors may have a significant impact on the ability to scale technologies. As with other questions regarding barriers to growth in the sector, all the farmer groups mentioned drought and lack of access to water as their primary constraint to scaling up. Likewise, farmers, GOH officials, and private enterprises all mentioned the ongoing socio￾political unrest as a barrier to scaling up their activities. Road closures inhibited farmers’ ability to bring their crops to market, and private enterprises to deliver processed products to their clients. “The political situation in the country has had a negative impact on all agricultural activities.” International Organization, Port au Prince The GOH does not have resources or capacity to support scaling up According to GOH representatives in Northeast Haiti, the MARNDR should continue to follow up on AVANSE activities, but lacks resources. AVANSE did not invest significant resources toward building GOH’s local capacity to take over after the activity closed. Near the end of the activity, GOH officials said that AVANSE made more effort to engage with the government. GOH officials working with the Agriculture Market Information System (Systeme d'information sur les Marches Agricoles [SIMA]) in Port au Prince explained that after the activity, ends they will lack the means to manage the system and fix technical problems when the system is blocked. “The ministry should follow up, but may not be able to due to a lack of resources.” MARNDR Official, Cap Haitien Other international donors have active projects in Northern Haiti, but are using different approaches The World Bank and IDB are currently supporting the MARNDR’s work in the northern region. However, neither are promoting a value chain approach similar to USAID. The World Bank is supporting only cacao marketing by assisting cacao cooperatives. The IDB is working through the MARNDR to provide grants for an agro-forestry assistance package to individual farmers. It 42 Recensement Général de l’Agriculture, Enquête exploitation, Résultats provisoires du Nord, May, 2012. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 24 is unclear whether either donor is willing to coordinate approaches with USAID in designing and implementing future activities. CONCLUSIONS Extent to which approaches and technologies could be scaled up The findings above indicate a demand for scaling-up the approaches and technologies AVANSE promoted among farmers in new areas, and, to a lesser extent, in current underserved areas. The potential for scale is not the same among all technologies. Farmers described some technologies as much easier to use, and the potential for scaling these technologies is greatest. Most complicated and demanding technologies (such as SRI) will require input of additional technical support to scale. Ways in which approaches and technologies could be scaled up There appears to be a consensus among farmers that several of the approaches and technologies AVANSE promoted were valuable and worth scaling up. Farmers believed that the technologies the activity promoted will help them increase their income and yields, and that there is sufficient demand for their crops to merit scaling production. In addition, there appears to be potential for expanding use of technologies among non-beneficiaries who have observed positive results from beneficiary farmers. Future efforts to scale technologies will also require USAID engagement with the GOH, other donors, and the private sector. The GOH has limited capacity and resources to support scaling up, so future activities will require some form of capacity building for the government if GOH is to play a greater role in the sector’s growth. At the same time, USAID coordination with GOH and other donors will be vital to ensure that activities are complementary and not duplicative. The private sector can be a key partner in scaling the technologies, particularly where they have a vested business interests in farmers adopting technologies to improve the quantity and quality of production. However, private sector actors made clear that they are only interested in specific crops and the farmers who produce them, not in scaling technologies on a sectoral level. Constraints to scaling up Farmers have described the preconditions and constraints that activities must address prior to scaling the use of technologies, notably access to water. In addition, farmers described lack of access to finance, labor or plowing services, and transport as constraints to applying technologies. Successful scale-up will also require broad consensus across stakeholders to create synergies, ownership and ensure sustainability. Better coordination with the GOH and other donors will be necessary to ensure complementarity and generate the synergy required to achieve greater scale and sustainability. EQ 4: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS AVANSE CREATED PARTNERSHIPS THAT COULD, OVER THE LONG TERM, GUARANTEE ACCESS TO MARKETS AND PRIVATE SECTOR LED PROVISION OF SERVICES? To answer this question, the ET examined the outcomes of AVANSE's efforts to promote partnerships from the point of view of actors at different levels in the cacao, rice, and banana value chains. The ET examined the benefits of such partnerships to different actors to determine their likely interest in continuing the partnerships. The ET also sought to understand the potential these relationships have for ensuring long term access to markets and private sector￾led provision of services. In addition, the ET analyzed the constraints key actors mentioned to understand how they can impact the sustainability of partnerships. 25 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV FINDINGS The AVANSE activity facilitated the establishment of partnerships through capacity building. According to private business partners and activity implementers, AVANSE identified businesses that were interested in building partnerships with farmers, then, after long negotiations, developed specific and formal agreements with them. Such partnerships covered all three value chains AVANSE supported (rice, cacao, plantain/banana). In the cacao sector, AVANSE staff listed their main partners as Novela, Produits des Iles S.A. (PISA), Federation of Cacao Cooperatives of the North (FECANO) and AgroTech. According to Novela representatives, AVANSE supported them in qualifying for organic certification and building a market for fermented cacao. At the same time, AVANSE staff said they promoted marketing groups of approximately 25 farmers each to supply cacao to Novela. AVANSE staff explained that these marketing groups increased the farmers’ bargaining power, and sometimes resulted in getting better prices for their crop. Most of the members of these marketing groups were women. Novela also supported farmers’ efforts to set up a cacao cooperative with AVANSE marketing groups as registered delegates. According to a member of AVANSE staff and PISA representatives, AVANSE established a partnership to increase PISA’s fermented cacao production capacity, and to build a modern cacao processing facility. AVANSE’s partnership agreement with FECANO included support for building drying racks, a fermentation unit, and building the capacity of seven cacao farmer cooperatives. FECANO managers described working closely with affiliated cooperatives that buy and resell cacao as key components of their business strategy. AgroTech management described receiving a grant for equipment from AVANSE to increase production capacity and quality. AVANSE staff members reported that CLES was AVANSE’s main partner in the rice value chain. CLES staff described receiving in-kind support consisting of rice threshing and processing equipment to increase their operational capacity. They further stated that this translated into increased demand for paddy rice. AVANSE also promoted partnerships in the banana sector with UPBH to support the creation of an innovative banana farm (ploughing, irrigation system, pump for watering, packaging center) through a tripartite agreement (Bonnefil family, the farmers and Dominican Republic-based Bananiel). According to UPBH representatives, Bananiel purchases the bananas and exports to Germany. Implementing partner staff reported that AVANSE was less effective in establishing partnerships in certain value chains. AVANSE tried to establish a partnership in the plantain value chain with Ayabumbe, a local company specialized in the manufacture and sale of plantain chips. Ayabumbe wanted to buy one shipment of plantains every week, but the partnership ended prematurely because low production in the region could not meet their needs. “One producer reported selling over 2,300,000 gourdes of rice and another one 1,254,000 gourdes, something they could never do before.” Rice processor, Fort-Liberté. All four partners that received AVANSE’s grants invested their own capital. Additionally, they are planning to invest more capital to upgrade their capacity and acquire bigger market share. AVANSE established relations with SIMA, in partnership with the MARNDR, to develop an agricultural information system for Northern Haiti. According to GOH officials, SIMA’s objective was to provide farmers with real-time data on the price of agricultural products by SMS or USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 26 mobile phone. They targeted farmers in all three value chains (cacao, rice, plantain/banana) in a dozen markets located in the North and Northeast departments. According to the information AVANSE reported, SIMA reached 33,384 farmers with information relating to agricultural markets and prices (the LoP target was 30,000).43 Farmers, particularly women, described SIMA as offering access to useful commodity price data, which helped them to negotiate better prices. Through partnerships established with private enterprises, producers benefited from more stable markets and increased prices. According to cacao farmers, their relationship with private agro-processors meant they both sold more products and received better prices for them. In the cacao value chain, farmers have the possibility to sell their products to three different companies, increasing their bargaining power. However, some farmers stated that AVANSE should have done more to promote competition (thereby creating opportunities for farmers to sell their products for higher prices, increasing their income). According to cacao farmers, in addition to paying higher prices for better quality products, some private agro-businesses paid an extra rebate to farmers. For example, one processor set aside five gourdes for each pound of cacao farmers purchased, which they paid back at the end of the year. Farmers described the value of having a stable market for their products, and were enthusiastic about receiving better prices and an additional rebate. Farmers noted an additional benefit of selling directly to stable, long-term buyers as no longer having to sell their products to middlemen brokers. For example, in the case of cacao, producers used to sell to “voltigeurs”44 speculators and “madan saras” travelling merchants. Implementing partner staff described a similar situation in the rice value chain, with many farmers selling to CLES instead of “madan saras.” Through partnerships established with private enterprises, producers received inputs, training, extension services, and other advantages. Private companies operating in the cacao and rice value chains indicated that they provided support to farmers to increase the supply of quality agricultural products. They indicated that the extension services they provided to farmers were complementary to AVANSE support.45 For example, these companies are providing technical assistance and other support to farmers to achieve Fair Trade and organic certification.46 “With the AVANSE trainings we have improved the way we harvest cacao and we now produce better quality beans.” Cacao producer, Plaisance In the cacao value chain, Novela reported giving farmers’ inputs, such as tarpaulins, twine, plastic bags, pruning shears, and drying tables. Novela also facilitated transporting cacao from the farmers to their factory, according to beneficiary marketing groups. PISA reported offering cash advances (loans, in essence) to producers during growing seasons that producers repaid through 43 DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY19, November 2019 44 Expression referring to a type of trader who buys in large quantities from producers (Translator’s note) 45 The private company that is currently providing extension service is planning to do that through fair trade agreement with farmers. 46 Two private companies operating in the cacao value chain and one in the banana value chain are waiting for Fair Trade certification. In this endeavor, each company is partnering with local farmer organizations. 27 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV crop sales. PISA also described offering free seedlings to its farmer partners with a view to building customer loyalty. GOH representatives described a package of technical support CLES offered to its rice producers in the form of fertilizers, seeds, ploughing, training, and technical support. According to CLES staff, they provided beneficiary farmers with seedlings from a nursery CLES set up with agronomists’ support, enabling farmers to increase their rice harvests from two to three per year. Private companies received support from AVANSE to improve their processing capacity, and as a result purchased more primary products. According to AVANSE staff, capacity building grants to private companies also increased demand for agricultural produce. Private enterprises in the rice and cacao value chains explained that their improved capacity resulted in an increase in their demand for primary agricultural commodities and more purchases from beneficiary farmers. Business leaders acknowledged that, with AVANSE assistance, they both improved their operational capacity and their relationships with farmers. “AVANSE really strengthened our business. Our products are now sold in Haiti but also indirectly to the Haitian diaspora in the United States.” Private Enterprise, Les Perches Through partnerships with farmers, private companies said they benefited higher quality products. Some companies received support from AVANSE to upgrade their production through the organic and Fair-Trade certification process. They described certification as an involved process that requires the participation of both processors and farmers, and will benefit both. Cacao farmers corroborated that they received support from these private companies to obtain certification. “For the moment, no agricultural credit. We have concerns about the risks and vulnerabilities of the agricultural sector. Many people work but earn little or nothing. Therefore, it is difficult to establish an agricultural credit system.” Financial institution official, Cap-Haitien Private enterprise staff stated they are providing technical support to make farmers aware of the need for quality products. Farmers clearly understand the difference in price between products of different quality, particularly cacao. For example, once a company becomes Fair-Trade compliant, producers will receive the Fair-Trade minimum price and Fair-Trade premium, creating an incentive for farmers to ensure higher quality production and continue partnering with the private company. Implementing partners report that AVANSE worked with the Christian University of Northern Haiti to set up a cacao reference center that offers extension services on product quality, and assists with improving processing, managing certification, and drafting contracts with foreign buyers. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 28 Certain constraints may limit the sustainability of partnership agreements. Lack of Transportation According to numerous farmers, transportation difficulties inhibited their ability to produce and to market their crops. In particular, they mentioned difficulties in transporting seedlings, the inputs needed for PIF production, and primary products to markets. Banana production areas, especially in the Maribahoux plain, are isolated places, and not connected to public transportation, making it extremely difficult to move from one point to another. According to Lead Farmers and beneficiary producers, “madan sara” come at harvest time with rented vehicles, and buy at low prices. Although these prices are not necessarily good for producers, they are able to sell all their products at once, and make a lot of money in one sale. The same challenges exist in remote cacao-producing areas where farmers must use motorcycles, with all the risk this entails, to bring all the cacao to the processor. As a result, farmers said that some products arrive in a deteriorated state, and the prices they receive are reduced. Some agro￾businesses understand this constraint and cover part of the transport costs for farmer partners in certain areas. Lack of Access to Credit Most farmers see access to agricultural credit as a barrier to the establishment and sustainability of partnerships. AVANSE did not provide access to funding. Most of the commercial banks and credit unions in the region do not offer financial services for agriculture, according to implementing partners and financial institutions. Some of these financial institutions offer financial services to farmers, but, according to farmers, such services are not always adapted to agricultural activities, and the interest rates are too high for farmers. Some farmers opened individual accounts in partner financial institutions to receive SIBA vouchers, but none mentioned being able to get a loan. Low production Implementing partners and beneficiary producers reported that low production, especially in the case of plantain, limited the sustainability of partnerships. For example, the activity established contacts with Ayabumbe to buy plantain by the pound at prices beneficial to farmers. However, according to activity field agents and implementing partners, after only two shipments of plantains in less than two months, AVANSE discontinued the partnership due to insufficient production, as there were not enough plantains in the area for Ayabumbe. While the situation in the rice value chain is somewhat different, according to implementing partner staff, low production still weakens the potential for partnerships between Haitian producers and processors. Producers sold rice from the northern region largely to Dominicans, who support farmers in the production process through the provision of various services, such as ploughing, and, at harvest time, they buy a good part of the production. This trend is now beginning to change, with CLES selling rice to donors to provide to schools. Yet for many rice processors, high demand and low production due to recurrent drought threatens partnerships with farmers. CONCLUSIONS A notable success of AVANSE’s strategy for building partnerships was working with actors at different levels of the value chain to reinforce mutually beneficial relationships. Capacity building support for producers and processors strengthened both supply and demand response. For example, subsidies, technical assistance, and training complemented partnership building by increasing the capacity of farmers to produce quality crops. In addition, grants to private agro￾businesses to improve their processing capacity also increased demand for crops from partner 29 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV farmers. As a result, processors benefited from increased capacity and access to more and better produce, while farmers benefited from increased production, better prices, and more stable markets. Another important benefit of the strengthened partnerships between farmers and private agro￾businesses is the provision of embedded intra-value chain support services. These services created another win-win situation, with farmers receiving needed support, and agro-businesses receiving more and better-quality produce. Private companies will continue supporting farmers with embedded services, such as inputs, credit, weeding, training, and TA, to secure higher quality and quantity of crops. In addition, strengthened value chain relationships are necessary to upgrade higher-end production and receive organic and Fair-Trade certification. However, because these relationships are specific to certain value chains and to the partners concerned, they do not offer a solution to promoting increased incomes on a sector-wide level. Most of these partnerships between farmers and private companies are working well, and are likely to continue because both parties are making more money as a result. Private partners who received AVANSE’s grants were also required to invest their own capital, which created another incentive to continue partnering with farmers to make their investment profitable. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 30 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID USAID should continue to support synergistic approaches to value chain strengthening. AVANSE activity success was, in large, part due to its use of a synergistic strategy to market building and value chain strengthening. Future programming should take note of the successful elements that comprised this strategy. More than any of the individual approaches and technologies that made up AVANSE’s strategy, a key activity strength was the value added from combining multiple supply and demand side activities with a range of actors up and down value chains. The ET recommends the following components of this synergistic strategy be included in future programming: capacity building; input system strengthening; reinforcing value chain relations; and, private sector engagement. USAID should continue supporting capacity building activities for farmers. In multiple interviews, farmers expressed their appreciation for the activity’s capacity building approaches: FFS; Lead Farmers; exchange visits; and, demonstration plots. They also appreciated the main technology packages promoted: SRI; PIF; and, BAP. USAID should adapt these approaches and technologies to new conditions, continue in current intervention communes, and expand to additional communes and farmers. USAID should continue supporting capacity building for private value chain actors to foster private sector engagement. Capacity building of private enterprises helped to improve supply side responses, promote private sector-led extension services, and strengthen the market for agricultural products. This approach could play a role in sustainably increasing the scale of technology use. USAID should use future capacity building support to private value chain actors to incentivize expanding to new and underserved areas, and partnering with more farmers, including providing extension services and helping increase production. USAID should support capacity building for GOH offices and CBOs. To ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture sector building activities, it is critical that USAID provide capacity building for GOH and CBOs, and increase coordination and ownership of government and civil society organizations in activity implementation. Coordination with the GOH will be necessary to avoid implementation of conflicting approaches in the same market (for example, distribution of free inputs versus private sector sale of inputs). USAID should further strengthen the input systems using integrated, market-based approaches. To sustainably increase access to inputs, USAID should further strengthen the input systems, focusing on improving market capacity to supply the right quality and quantity of inputs at the right time. This should include strengthening both the capacity and relationships among market actors, with priority on improving the efficiency of market systems and reaching new markets and farmers. For all technologies, USAID should ensure it provides an integrated, crop-specific package of support including training, TA, inputs, and value chain strengthening, which will increase the chance of sustainably increasing scale. Improving access to water should be a priority of future USAID agricultural programming. It is very likely that drought and flooding will be the new normal in Haiti. USAID’s future programming should include irrigation and watershed management components, and work with 31 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV a range of government, private sector and community actors to increase access to water and improve the management of water resources. USAID should continue to reinforce value chain relations. Future activities should build relations among value chain actors through intra-value chain partnerships, embedded support services, and improved access to markets. Upgrading to new products and higher-end markets (such as Fair-Trade and organic) will require increased capacity and ongoing engagement of farmers, private agro-enterprises, and investors. Future USAID activities should implement more responsive and flexible approaches. Activity planning should include USAID’s periodic assessment of the context, conditions, and lessons learned to adaptively manage new barriers and take advantage of new opportunities. In addition, given the instability of the current situation in Haiti, future programming requires flexibility in planning and implementation to overcome new constraints that arise during activity implementation. Access to finance is integral to building sustainable agricultural value chains and attract new investors. To reduce dependency on subsidies, promote modern farming, and increase long-term financial autonomy, USAID should consider access to finance an integral component of agricultural sector building. Future activities may require incentives such as loan guarantees to encourage MFIs to lend to small farmers for the purchase of inputs, and private companies for capital expenditure. USAID should promote broad market-based approaches, such as loan guarantees, equity investment, public private partnerships, foreign direct investment, leasing, joint-ventures, intra-value chain financial services, and village savings and loan associations. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 32 ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK Performance Evaluation of Feed the Future North or AVANSE Activity I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of the evaluation is to inform USAID/Haiti’s and the Agency’s possible future similar agriculture programming in Haiti. Lessons learned and recommendations provided through the final report at the end of the evaluation process should guide future programming in the areas of agriculture. The primary stakeholders for this evaluation include: USAID/Haiti, DAI Global, and Government of Haiti (GOH) institutions: Ministry of Agriculture, including the central office and the communal agricultural offices (BAC in French). II. SUMMARY INFORMATION Strategy/Project/Activity Name Feed the Future North; AVANSE Implementer Development Alternative Global, LLC Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-521-C-13-00006 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity(TEC) $87.8 million (original contract) Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity 6 years Active Geographic Regions North and North-East of Haiti. Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO2: Economic and Food security Advanced USAID Office Economic Growth and Agricultural Development III. BACKGROUND The agriculture sector in Haiti faces many challenges that include decreasing investments in agricultural research and extension, insufficient public policies, a lack of enforceable property rights, scarcity of credit, uncontrolled urbanization, the decreasing size of Haitian farms, recurrent weather related chocks and poor or non-existent rural infrastructure, all of which have constrained the efficient use of agricultural production areas. The importance of jumpstarting agricultural productivity immediately has been echoed strongly by the Government of Haiti (GOH), the U.S. Government (USG), and throughout the international community. USAID/Haiti developed the Feed the Future North (FTFN) Project47 to address some of these challenges in Haiti’s northern corridor, one of three regions targeted for U.S. Government support since the January 2010 earthquake. The project aims to increase agricultural incomes for at least 28,000 rural households and double the export volume of cacao produced by supported farmers. These goals are to be achieved through three Intermediate Results (IRs): IR1: Agricultural productivity increased through improved farming techniques and management practices, increased access to agricultural inputs, and irrigation. 47 The FTFN Project is also known as AVANSE, an abbreviation for the activity title in French Appui à la Valorisation du Potentiel Agricole du Nord, à la Sécurité Économique et Environnementale. 33 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV IR2: Watershed stability above selected plains improved through agroforestry based systems. IR3: Agricultural markets strengthened through stronger business partnerships among the value chains’ stakeholders, reliable and timely information, increased access to investment and working capital, and expansion of activities that add value agricultural commodities. The $87.8 million FTFN project, which began on April 1, 2013 and is envisioned to continue until December 31, 2019, incorporates priorities set under Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s interagency initiative to combat hunger and food insecurity worldwide by boosting agricultural productivity and increasing market opportunities for smallholder farmers. According to the2018 annual report, the AVANSE project is making significant progress towards increasing rural agricultural incomes, despite repeated setbacks generated by flooding and recurrent droughts. In FY18, AVANSE supported farmers increased their incomes by 104%, compared to the 2013 baseline. Almost 30,000 farmers have applied new technologies in the rice, cacao and plantain value chains since the project started in 2013. Through September 2018, Hillside agroforestry systems were established on 2,736 of hillside plots. The project has increases market opportunities through grants and private sector engagement. III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. To what extent and in what ways will AVANSE’s approaches and technologies used in the rice, plantain, and cacao value chains continue to be used at the end of the project, and why? The evaluation should highlight constraints and facilitators to continued use of new approaches and technologies. 2. To what extent and in what ways has AVANSE strengthened inputs systems in the project area? The evaluation should consider all types of inputs, including, but not limited to, seeds, fertilizers and pesticides in its analysis. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 34 3. To what extent and in what ways could approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE be scaled up? Among other possible constraints and facilitators, the evaluation should consider the enabling environment in its analysis. 4. To what extent have AVANSE activities created partnerships that could, over the long term, guarantee farmers’ access to markets and private sector led provision? The evaluation should consider partnerships and access to market through a sustainability lens. IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The methodological approach shall be qualitative in nature. Among suggested data collection methods include: 1. Review of literature and analysis of relevant documents; 2. In-depth interviews with key informants; and 3. Focus group discussions (FGD); As part of the evaluation design document, SI shall propose for USAID’s review, a detailed methodological approach to be used to address evaluation questions. This methodology will specify the research design, as well as methods and procedures for sampling, data collection and data analysis. Efforts should be made to use multiple data collection methods and data sources, complementing literature review, interviews, and discussions to allow for triangulation of data and cross-validation of results. The evaluation matrix below provides a summary of the suggested data collection methods by evaluation questions. Questions Data Sources (*) Methods Data Analysis To what extent and in what ways will AVANSE’s approaches and technologies used in the rice, plantain, and cacao value chains continue to be used at the end of the project, and why? Documents including performance monitoring data, expert knowledge, beneficiaries, Project staff, Farmers, CBOs KIIs FGDs TBD To what extent and in what ways has AVANSE strengthened inputs systems in the project area? Documents including performance monitoring data, expert knowledge, beneficiaries, Project staff, Farmers, CBOs KIIs FGDs TBD To what extent and in what ways could approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE be scaled up? Documents including performance monitoring data, expert knowledge, beneficiaries, Project staff, Farmers, CBOs KIIs FGDs TBD To what extent have AVANSE activities created partnerships that could, over the long term, guarantee farmers’ access to markets and private sector led provision? Documents including performance monitoring data, expert knowledge, beneficiaries, Project staff, Farmers, CBOs KIIs FGDs TBD VI. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Evaluation Work plan: Upon receipt of this Activity Request, Social Impact (SI) shall submit within two weeks a draft work plan to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The work plan will include: (1) the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; (2) a list of the members of the evaluation team, delineated by roles and responsibilities with their level of effort; (3) the identification of other 35 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV required personnel and relevant local subcontractors, their Level Of Effort (LOE), roles and responsibilities and qualifications; and (4) the deliverable schedule. 2. Inception report: Within two weeks of approval of the work plan, the evaluation team should submit an inception report using the inception report template developed by Social Impact and USAID. 3. Evaluation Design: Within three weeks of approval of the work plan, SI must submit to Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft data collection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited; (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan. USAID/Haiti will take up to 10 business days to review and consolidate comments through the COR. Once the evaluation team receives the consolidated comments on the initial evaluation design and work plan, they are expected to return with a revised evaluation design and work plan within 5 business days. 4. In-briefing: Prior undertaking field work, the evaluation team will have an in-briefing with the USAID/Governance Team and the Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) COR to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to clarify any questions or logistic needs. 5. Evaluation Briefing/Presentation: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final presentation in person to discuss the summary of findings and recommendations to USAID within 20 business days after the conclusion of fieldwork. 6. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, the Governance Office will have 10 working business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the ESS COR will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then be asked to submit revised final draft report 5 business days hence, and again the Governance Office will review and send comments on this final draft report within 5 business days of its submission. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 36 7. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than 15 business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from the Governance Office. The evaluation team leader will then submit the final report to the COR. All project data and records (FGD and KII summary reports) shall be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized, and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. VII. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The Evaluation Team shall be comprised of three Key Personnel positions: (i) a Team Leader, and (ii) an Assistant Team Leader. SI is strongly encouraged to sub-partner with a local Haitian firm for data collection purposes. The selected Haitian firm should demonstrate proven capacity in collecting qualitative data in the agriculture field. This approach is encouraged to build the local firm capacity and will also provide a Haitian perspective for the data collection and analysis. The Team Leader (TL) is ultimately responsible for the overall management of the evaluation team, coordinating the implementation of the evaluation, assigning evaluation responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the final evaluation report in conformity with this Statement of Work. The TL must be an experienced evaluation expert, with a documented track record of 10 years of experience in the field of evaluation. S/he should have a strong background in the agriculture and environmental field. S/he should be fluent in French and English. S/he should have at least a master’s Degree in Agriculture economics, Public Administration or a related field. The Assistant Team Leader (ATL) helps the TL in the overall management of the evaluation team and the final products, in conformity with this Statement of Work. The ATL should be familiar with the Agriculture sector. S/he must possess excellent writing and interpersonal skills and must be familiar with USAID programs, objectives, and reporting requirements. S/he should have experience in designing and implementing evaluations in the agriculture sector and in conducting FGDs. Fluency in French is required. English and Haitian Creole are highly desirable, as is significant prior work experience in Haiti. A Bachelor's degree in Political Science, Public Administration, or a related field is required to ensure that all areas of technical expertise required for the evaluation are effectively covered. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. VIII. EVALUATION SCHEDULE AND LEVEL OF EFFORT 37 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Timing (Anticipated Weeks or Duration) Scheduled Activities 4 Weeks Preparation of the work plan and evaluation design 3 Weeks USAID review of the work plan and evaluation design and in-briefing 4 Weeks Data collection 2 Weeks Data analysis and Evaluation Briefing 2 Weeks Draft Report writing 3 Weeks USAID review of Draft Report 1 Week Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report Task LOE for Team Lead (TL) LOE for Assistant Team Lead (ATL) Total LOE in days Document review/desk review/work planning and evaluation design drafting 20 20 40 In-brief, evaluation design finalizatio 1 1 2 Data collection 15 15 30 Data analysis 10 10 20 Out-Brief 1 1 2 Draft report 10 10 20 Final report 5 5 10 Totals 62 62 124 IX. FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 38 purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: ● The Evaluation SOW; ● Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; ● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; ● All sources of information, properly identified and listed; and ● Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of. ● Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. ● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of the evaluation’s conclusion. X. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report.48 48 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 39 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well￾organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. ● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. ● The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. ● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. ● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. ● Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). ● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. ● Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. ● If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 40 ANNEX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ANNUAL REPORTS DAI, AVANSE Program Year I Annual Progress Report, October 2013. DAI, AVANSE Program Year 2 Annual Progress Report, October 2014. DAI, AVANSE Program Year 3 Annual Progress Report, October 2015. DAI, AVANSE Program Year 4 Annual Progress Report, October 2016. DAI, AVANSE Program Year 5 Annual Progress Report, October 2017. DAI, AVANSE Program Year 6 Annual Progress Report, October 2018. ANNUAL WORK PLANS DAI, AVANSE Annual Work Plan FY15, November 2014. DAI, AVANSE Annual Work Plan FY16, November 2017. DAI, AVANSE Annual Work Plan FY17, November 2016. DAI, AVANSE Annual Work Plan FY18, November 2017. DAI, AVANSE Annual Work Plan FY19, November 2018. MONITORING & EVALUATION PLANS DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY14, November 2014. DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY15, November 2015. DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY16, November 2016. DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY17, November 2017. DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY18, November 2018. DAI, AVANSE Indicator Performance Tracking Table FY19, November 2019. DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY14, November 2013. DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY15, November 2014. DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY16, November 2015. DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY17, November 2016. DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY18, November 2017. DAI, AVANSE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan FY19, November 2018. DAI, AVANSE Post-Harvest Survey Report, November 2019. 41 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION & MODIFICATIONS USAID/Haiti, AVANSE Scope of Work, September 2013. USAID/Haiti, AVANSE Modified Scope of Work, September 2015. USAID/Office of the Inspector General, Audit Of USAID/Haiti’s Feed The Future North Project, October 2015. USAID/Haiti, Midterm Performance Evaluation Report, Feed the Future North Project (AVANSE), February 2017. JOURNALS AND PUBLICATIONS Molnar, Joseph J., Senakpon Kokoye, Curtis Jolly, Dennis A. Shannon and Gobena Huluka. “Agricultural Development in Northern Haiti: Mechanisms and Means for Moving Key Crops Forward in a Changing Climate,” Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, December 2015, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 25-41. Anglade, Marc, Marc J. Cohen, and Tonny Joseph, “USAID’s AVANSE Project in Haiti: An Assessment of Its Conformity with Aid Effectiveness Principles,” Oxfam Research Backgrounder series (2018): https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research￾publications/usaids-avanseproject-in-haiti. Center for the Facilitation of Investments, Agricultural Sector Fact Sheet, http://opendata.investhaiti.ht/fxmmuxd/agricultural-sector. Government of Haiti, “Recensement Général de l’Agriculture, Enquête exploitation, Résultats provisoires du Nord,” May, 2012. IFAD, Country Assistance Strategy 2019, https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/country/id/haiti. King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, “Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research”, Princeton University Press, Princeton University Press, 2016. USAID/FFP, Food Assistance Fact Sheet, December 2019. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 42 ANNEX C: PROFILES OF THE EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Haiti ESS has assigned a three-person ET to the AVANSE Final PE that reflects a complementary mix of evaluation and subject matter skills and experience: Team Leader - John A. Berry Mr. Berry is an international evaluator with expertise in the agriculture sector. He has been engaged in international development for more than thirty years. As an experienced evaluation expert with a strong background in agriculture, he has designed and implemented evaluations and conducted KIIs and FGDs on three continents. Mr. Berry has implemented evaluations and assessments of dozens of USAID-funded projects and institutional partners. Mr. Berry has held positions with USAID’s Microenterprise Development Office, the United Nations, the Peace Corps and non-governmental organizations. He has managed long-term projects in Swaziland, Rwanda, Tunisia, and Niger and implemented short-term consultancies in more than forty countries across the globe. Mr. Berry speaks French, Spanish, and Zarma, and holds a Master’s Degree in Development Economics from Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies. He is as published author and has written numerous articles on microfinance. Assistant Team Leader – Jempsy Fils-Aimé Mr. Fils-Aimé has over 20 years of experience in the field of agribusiness development and program evaluation. Mr. Fils-Aimé has developed expertise in conducting evaluations that combine the strengths of different evaluation approaches and methods (quantitative and qualitative) to optimize usefulness and relevance. He recently served as the Deputy Team leader for the USAID Haiti Comprehensive Agriculture Sector Assessment. As Private Sector Development Specialist for the Multilateral Investment Funds of the IDB, he coordinated the design and led the supervision of agribusiness development projects related to coffee, cacao, mango, yam, plantain, that provided access to market to local and international markets to Haitian farmers and improved the capacity of Business Support Organizations. Mr. Fils-Aiméhas brought local knowledge and expertise to the team and complemented the Team Leader’s skills. Sector Specialist – Phanol Philippe Mr. Phanol brings more than 20 years of experience in designing, monitoring and evaluation programs in food security, governance, health, agriculture and economic growth. He has conducted numerous baseline and end-line evaluations, most recently including Performance Evaluation of Haiti Local Enterprise Value Chain Enhancement (LEVE) activity as Assistant Team Leader (ATL), Haiti Aid for Trade Assessment as ATL, USAID’s Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project (2016) as Team Leader (TL); the Response to War Violence Program in the Democratic Republic of Congo (2015) as ATL; Midterm Evaluation of USAID AVANSE as TL (2016) and USAID’s Improved Cooking Technology Program Evaluation (2015) as TL. Additionally, He has proven experience in designing evaluation tools such as questionnaires, surveys, focus group discussions, online and hardcopy survey applications, and other various data collection methods. He has longstanding experience in conducting evaluations using both quantitative and qualitative methods as well as planning and coordinating data collection since 1996. Mr. Phanol supported the design of methodologies, and data collection indicators along with the overall recruitment and coordination of enumerators in the field. In every case, he has surpassed client expectations and supported in the production of high-quality evaluation reports. 43 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Project Director and Project Manager The ET was supported by SI-HQ Senior Technical Specialist, Kari Nelson as Project Director, whose main role was applying SI’s Evaluation Quality, Use and Impact (EQUI®) process and ensuring quality throughout the evaluation process. Haiti ESS Senior Evaluation Specialist, Wesner Antoineserved as Project Manager, and ESS Technical, Administration, and Finance team members provided project assistance. Collectively, they have worked on many program evaluations, assessments, and capacity building activities. This management team ensured high￾quality and compliant deliverables throughout the process. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Team Leader led the ET in designing the evaluation, conducting data collection and analysis, and writing the evaluation report. The Team Leader used his evaluation expertise to ensure the evaluation objectives are met and that a high quality, useful report is produced. The Team Leader was responsible for delegating tasks to other team members and ensuring their inputs meet SI and USAID’s quality expectations. The Assistant Team Leader worked closely with the Team Leader, assisting with the design and implementation of the evaluation, and oversight of the local research firm. The Sector Specialist offered sectoral expertise and local knowledge and participated in field research. ESS strengthened the ET with three experienced note-takers to facilitate data collection. ESS FIELD OFFICE AND SI HEADQUARTER STAFF ESS field office and SI HQ staff members filled the Project Manager, Project Assistant, and Project Director roles. These staff used SI’s customized project management tools and quality assurance (QA) checklists to implement each phase of the evaluation, including launch and preparation, data collection, and analysis and reporting. The Project Director was responsible for providing high-level technical guidance and overseeing the ET. The Project Manager will manage tasks on a day-to-day basis, including arranging team check-ins, managing the budget, and conducting in-depth reviews of all deliverables. Both the Project Director and Project Manager worked closely with the Team Leader to respond to all USAID/Haiti requests. The Project Director and Project Manager also addressed any issues that arise with ET member performance. Finally, the ESS Finance and Administration and SI-HQ team managed all administrative tasks, onboarding, mobilization, and invoicing. Table 1: AVANSE Evaluation Team Roles and Responsibilities POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES JOHN BERRY Team Leader/ Evaluation Specialist ⋅ Lead the evaluation, including desk review, data collection and analysis, and report writing. ⋅ Manage the team, including delegating responsibilities, training and guiding team members, monitoring progress, and providing feedback on inputs. ⋅ Support training of the local research team and ensure the quality of their output. ⋅ Serve as the primary liaison with USAID, facilitate briefings, and lead presentations. USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 44 POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES JEMPSY FILS-AMIE Assistant Team Leader ⋅ Support the design of the evaluation and data collection instruments. ⋅ Participate in desk review, data collection, and analysis. ⋅ Training and primary oversight of the local research firm (translation for Team Leader). ⋅ Contribute to the production of high-quality deliverables. PHANOL PHILIPPE Sector Specialist ⋅ Leverage sectoral expertise in the design of the evaluation and data collection instruments. ⋅ Participate in desk review, data collection, and analysis. ⋅ Contribute to the production of high-quality deliverables. KARI NELSON Project Director ⋅ Provide technical consultation and QA to the ET. ⋅ Ensure USAID satisfaction via routine check-ins. Provide high-level guidance on methodology and major deliverables. ⋅ Implement SI’s EQUI® approach in close coordination with TL, conduct in-depth review of deliverables using QA checkpoints, and review Utilization-Focused Evaluation Checkpoints. ⋅ Offer high-level supervision of contract financial compliance. WESNER ANTOINE Project Manager ⋅ Promote client satisfaction throughout the evaluation. ⋅ Ensure fulfillment of SI’s EQUI® approach, on-schedule completion of deliverables, and compliance with SI procedures and USAID regulations. ⋅ Recruit and vet additional team members for evaluation, as required. ⋅ Onboard the team and train them on SI procedures and quality standards. ⋅ Facilitate pre-departure TPMs, check in regularly with ET, and manage personnel issues. ⋅ Manage the process of responding to USAID comments on the draft report, using comments matrices to ensure that all feedback is addressed. ⋅ Supervise Project Assistant. ⋅ Oversee evaluation budget, produce projection forecasts, and maintain tracking system for LOE expenditures. ⋅ Submit evaluation deliverables in compliance with USAID branding guidelines and SI EQUI® standards. ⋅ Approve invoices, ensure expenses are allowable and consistent with contract requirements. ⋅ Issue and ensure contractual adherence to partner subcontract. ⋅ Manage the budget by tracking LOE usage and other spending. 45 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES ALEXANDRA MCMULLIN Project Assistant ⋅ Organize the administrative and logistical procedures for rapid project start up, manage onboarding, mobilization, and deployment of the evaluation. ⋅ Mobilize travel arrangement, process invoices, expense reports, and other administrative documentation. ⋅ Provide knowledge management support through SI’s online SharePoint intranet system. ⋅ Copyedit and format deliverables. ⋅ Liaise with SI-HQ Accounting team to ensure timely submission of client invoices. ⋅ Onboard and orient consultants to SI standard operating procedures and security protocols. ⋅ Coordinate with local logistician to ensure smooth operations of ET USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 46 ANNEX D. EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX SUMMARY EQ DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES ILLUSTRATIVE SUB￾QUESTIONS ANALYSIS PLAN EQ1: To what extent and in what ways AVANSE’s approaches and technologies used in the rice, plantain, and cacao value chains continue to be used at the end of the activity, and why? The evaluation should highlight constraints and facilitators to continued use of new approaches and technologies Desk review KII FGD Desk Review Evaluation SOW AVANSE statement of work final/ modified statement of work Final audit report AVANSE Report Q2 2019 AVANSE Annual report 2018 AVANSE Annual report 2013 AVANSE Annual report 2014 AVANSE Annual report 2016 AVANSE Annual report 2017 AVANSE Agribusiness development report, March 2017 USAID Field Visit Reports, September 2018 and April 2019 Mid-term Evaluation report AVANSE Monitoring Plans USAID Evaluation Report Requirements USAID/HAITI gender assessment, volume 1 - gender assessment report 2016 USAID OIG Audit of Feed the Future North Project Fieldwork KII with USAID, AVANSE staff, implementing partners, World Bank, IDB, Government officials, Enterprises and universities partners Do farmers feel that the returns are worth the extra cost/work to apply AVANSE technologies? What should be changed and what should be kept in AVANSE approaches and technologies? What do farmers like about AVANSE technologies and approaches? What did they not like? What is the willingness and ability of government and private sector actors to continue offering training and extension services after the project? What are the endogenous and exogenous factors that will promote or inhibit the Qualitative Desk Review Qualitative Coding of KIIs and FGD notes 47 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV EQ DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES ILLUSTRATIVE SUB￾QUESTIONS ANALYSIS PLAN FGD with Farmers and CBOs DOS on FFS adoption of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies at the end of the project? EQ2: To what extent and in what ways has AVANSE strengthened the inputs systems in the activity area? The evaluation should consider all types of inputs, including, but not limited to, seeds, fertilizers and pesticides in its analysis Desk review KII FGD DO Desk Review Reports, Q2, 2019 Annual report 2018 Annual report 2013 Annual report 2014 Annual report 2016 Agribusiness development report, March 2017 Mid-term Evaluation report Activity Monitoring Plans USAID Evaluation Report Requirements USAID OIG Audit of Feed the Future North Project Fieldwork KII with USAID, AVANSE staff, implementing partners, financial institutions involved, Farmers, input wholesalers, Government officials FGD with Farmers, input stores owners, and CBOs DO on input stores, and wholesalers stores How were the inputs systems that existed prior to the project? How AVANSE￾supported access to input compared to other private sector and governmental actors? What have been the outcomes of the strengthening of input systems on farmers? What have been the outcomes for input suppliers themselves in terms of increased capacity, sales, and investment? How will their sales be affected by project closure? Qualitative Desk Review Qualitative Coding of KIIs and FGD notes Tabulation of DO of input stores and wholesalers’ stores EQ3: To what extent Desk review KII Desk Review Reports, Q2, 2019 What is the willingness of Qualitative Desk Review USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 48 EQ DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES ILLUSTRATIVE SUB￾QUESTIONS ANALYSIS PLAN and in what ways could approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE be scaled up? Among other possible constraints and facilitators, the evaluation should consider the enabling environment in its analysis. FGD DO Annual report 2018 Agribusiness development report, March 2017 Mid-term Evaluation report AVANSE Monitoring Plans USAID Evaluation Report Requirements Fieldwork KII with USAID, AVANSE staff, implementing partners, input wholesalers, CBOs, Government officials, private companies and universities FGD with Farmers, input stores owners, irrigation associations, marketing groups, and CBOs DO on input stores, private companies’ infrastructure (Plants, farms, warehouses). both demand and supply side actors to further invest in technologies and approaches promoted by AVANSE? Does demand exist for increased use of technologies? Also, are current project strategic partners and other stakeholders (Research institutions, private sectors actors, NGOs, development agencies, financial institutions, GoH institutions) interested in scaling AVANSE interventions? What are the conditions (demand and supply, investment, access to capital, profitability) that are required for scaling up? Qualitative Coding of KIIs and FGD notes Tabulation of DO of input stores, and private companies’ infrastructure (Plants, farms, warehouses). 49 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV EQ DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES ILLUSTRATIVE SUB￾QUESTIONS ANALYSIS PLAN EQ4: To what extent have AVANSE activities created partnerships that could, over the long term, guarantee farmers’ access to markets and private sector led provision? The evaluation should consider partnerships and access to market through a sustainability lens Desk review KII FGD DO Desk Review Reports, Q2, 2019 Annual report 2018 Annual report 2017 Annual report 2016 Annual report 2014 Agribusiness development report, March 2017 Mid-term Evaluation report USAID Field trip report September 2018 USAID Field trip report April 2019 USAID Evaluation Report Requirements USAID/HAITI gender assessment, volume 1 - gender assessment report 2016 USAID OIG Audit of Feed the Future North Fieldwork KII with USAID, AVANSE staff, implementing partners, private companies involved, input wholesalers, input stores owners, Government of Haiti officials, and universities partners FGD with farmers, irrigation associations, marketing groups, and CBOs DO on input stores, private companies’ infrastructure (factories, farms, warehouses). What are the perspectives of farmers on the partnerships created by the project? Do they feel these relationships are beneficial? If yes, How and Why? Are farmers and private entrepreneurs interested in continuing the partnership? What are the conditions (demand and supply, investment, and profitability) that would support or inhibit the sustainability of partnerships and access to markets created or supported by AVANSE after the end of project? Qualitative Desk Review Qualitative Coding of KIIs and FGD notes Tabulation of DO of input stores, irrigation infrastructure, and Private companies’ infrastructure (Plants, farms, warehouses). USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 50 ANNEX E: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED International Organizations ● James Edwin Woolley, USAID AVANSE/COR, male ● Sam Junior Cénor, USAID AVANSE M&E Officer, male ● Paolo Carmine De Salvo, IDB Agriculture sector specialist, male ● Christophe Grosjean, World Bank Agriculture specialist, male Government of Haiti ● Erick Accilus, Departmental Director Assistant. DDA North-East, male ● Pélicier Pierre, BAC Ouanaminthe, male ● Séraphin Ferdinand, Infrastructure manager. DDA North-East, male ● Jean-Marie Chéry, MARNDR/ Director of RESEPAG and PITAG Projects, male ● Alius Joseph, BAC Cap-Haitian, male ● Gasner Démosthène, Directeur du service national de semences du MARNDR, male ● Dorvil Frantz, Departmental Director, DDA North, male ● Pierre Marie Brutus, Departmental Director Assistant, male ● Ridler Filius, SIMA representative, male ● Millien Eliezer, SIMA representative, male AVANSE Technical Team ● Marcorel Saint-Elien, AVANSE Chief of Party (COP), male ● Jonathan Greenham, former COP, male ● Raoul Dominique, Head of cacao value chain, male ● Tardier Décius, Head of banana value chain, male ● Jean Buddy Lucien, head of rice value chain, male ● Fritz Gérald Adrien, Head of SIBA, male ● Jean Claude Pierre-Louis, Head of NRM, male ● Jean Osny Chery, Agribusiness Specialist-cacao, male ● Métellus Cléomin, Field agent - cacao value chain, male ● Nelson Pauléma, Field agent - banana value chain, male ● Ronald Joseph, Field agent – banana value chain, male ● Colas Jacques Phanord, WUA advisor, male ● Vilson Cadet, plowing system responsible for AVANSE, male Private Enterprises ● Junior Paul, Head of marketing department, AGRIDEV representative, male ● Zephyr Francoise, NOVELA Director, female ● Aline Etlicher, PISA Director, female ● Albert Pierre Paul, CLES Director, male ● Patrick Bonnefil, UPBH Director, male ● Guito Gilo, FECCANO Head of certification and commercialization, male ● Bruno Rodney, FECCANO Head of production, male ● Joseph Jean-Louis, FECCANO Director, male 51 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Input Suppliers ● Norvin Pierreluce, Plowing Businessman, Fort-Liberté. male ● Donald Joseph, Pump owner, Limonade, male ● Elan Moncher, Plowing Businessman, Limonade. Male ● Richardson Ménélas, Pump owner, Quartier-Morin, male ● Asnoud Joseph, Input shop owner, Ouanaminthe, male ● Doudy Pierre, Input shop owner, Ouanaminthe, male ● Telside Lamour, Input shop owner, Acul du Nord, male ● Jasmine Pierre, Input shop owner, Fort-Liberté, female Financial Institution ● Charles Clifford Lerebourg, Cap-Haitian UNIBANK Micro Credit National, male ● Kénol JOSEPH, Limonade Micro finance institution, male ● Prévoit Agnos, Ouanaminthe, Micro finance institution, male ● Frantz Colas, Cap-Haitian UNIBANK director, male Civil Societies ● Audalbert Bien-Aimé, Henry hristophe University of Limonade, male ● Robert Brunet, UCNH Limbé, male Beneficiary Producers (KII) ● Ricot Lamour, Dubré Lead farmer, male ● Kechnel Cénan, Ferrier Lead farmer, male ● Floréal Valmond, Grison Garde Lead farmer, male ● Yvon Prophète, Limonade Lead farmer, male ● Alphonse Alexandre, Ouanaminthe PIF owner, male ● Wilfrid Michel, Quartier Morin PIF owner, male USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 52 ANNEX F: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF INTERVIEWS NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS DEPARTMENTS 53 North 17 Northeast 1 Northwest 9 West 80 Total Interviews 4 Total Departments NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS COMMUNES 13 Cap Haitien 10 Limonade 9 Acul Du Nord 9 Port au Prince 6 Ferrier 6 Ouanaminthe 5 Fort Liberte 4 Plaine du Nord 3 Bas Limbe 3 Dubre 3 Quartier Morin 2 Bahon 2 Port Margot 1 Grande Riviere 1 Grison Garde 1 Limbe 1 Plaisance 1 Trou du Nord 80 Total Interviews 18 Total Communes 53 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX G: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS INFORMED CONSENT Consent Statement: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an organization called Social Impact, a company based in the United States. Our team is visiting people in Haiti to conduct a study about the AVANSE project, which was funded by USAID. We would like to conduct a brief discussion with you today to learn about your experience with the AVANSE project. Your responses, along with responses from other participants will be compiled into findings for a report for USAID. The report will be publicly available once it is complete, but it will not include your name or other identifying information. Readers will not be able to identify the specific individuals for any specific quotes or data. The notes from this discussion will be kept in a format that does not include any names or other identifying information. The notes will only be provided in this format to USAID at the end of the evaluation. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to participate if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you feel uncomfortable doing so. The objective of this research is to improve the performance of projects like AVANSE. The information may be used by other organizations as well. If you have questions/concerns about that, please let me know. The interview is expected to take about 90 minutes. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact Jennifer Mandel at jmandel@socialimpact.com. By saying “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this interview? You may answer yes or no. ◻ Yes, I will participate ◻ No, I will not participate INTERVIEW GUIDE – AVANSE STAFF AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS General 1. Organization Name: 2. Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): 3. Interviewer: 4. Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What approaches and technologies did AVANSE promote in the northern region with relation to the three target value chains? Why were they chosen? 2. How have the new approaches and technologies been promoted across the three value chains (cacao, rice, and banana/plantain)? 3. What do you think is the primary value added for farmers in these approaches and technologies? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 54 4. How did these approaches and technologies affect farmers’ productivity and income? 5. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 6. What were the costs and benefits (avantages économiques) of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 7. How did farmers receive these approaches and technologies? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 8. What were the hardest and easiest approaches and technologies for farmers to adopt? 9. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained use of approaches and technologies? 10. How could adoption have been improved/increased? Why? Scaling up??? 11. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the project? 12. To what extent do you think that other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 13. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 14. Could you explain the input system supported by AVANSE in the northern region? How does it work and who are the actors involved? 15. Why was this approach to input supply delivery chosen? 16. What has worked well regarding the development of the input system (strengths)? Why? 17. What challenges have been encountered with the development of the input system (weaknesses)? Why? 18. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained building input systems? 19. What were the main costs and benefits of strengthening input systems? 20. How would you compare the input systems supported by AVANSE to existing input systems supported by other actors (for example MARNDR)? 21. Were there differences in how well the input system supported by AVANSE performed by type of input (i.e. seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, plowing services)? 22. From your perspective, what effect (if any) have inputs provided through the system (seeds, fertilizer, etc.) had on the yields experienced by farmers? On income? Why? 23. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to have access to and afford inputs provided by input systems supported by AVANSE after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 24. Do you think input suppliers will continue to offer the same inputs after the project? Why or why not? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 25. Do you expect that your demand for inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 55 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 26. Which AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies would you recommend scaling up? Why? 27. Do you think that sufficient demand exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a) (If yes) What partners need to be engaged in scaling up the approaches and technologies? Why? 28. Do you think that sufficient capacity exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? b) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? 29. What do you think are the necessary conditions to scaling up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? How can these be addressed? 30. What internal and external factors would contribute to or constrained scaling up? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 31. Could you describe the partnerships with private sector companies that have been created through AVANSE? Who are the partners and what is the nature of the partnership? 32. What have been the challenges in creating and maintaining these partnerships? Why? 33. What plans exist for sustaining these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 34. What conditions are necessary to sustain these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 35. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the sustainability of these partnerships? 36. What are the private companies’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 37. What are the farmers’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 38. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to markets? 39. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to non￾project support services? 40. What are your recommendations for sustaining farmers’ access to markets and private sector-led service provision after the project ends? 41. Quelles sont vos recommandations pour préserver l’accès des agriculteurs aux marchés et aux services fournis par le secteur privé après la fin du projet? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 56 INTERVIEW GUIDE - DONOR STAFF Agency Name: Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What approaches and technologies did AVANSE promote in the northern region with relation to the three target value chains? Why were they chosen? 2. What do you think is the primary value added for farmers in these approaches and technologies? 3. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 4. What were the costs and benefits of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 5. How did these approaches and technologies affect farmers’ productivity and income? 6. How did farmers receive these approaches and technologies? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 7. What were the hardest and easiest approaches and technologies for farmers to adopt? 8. What internal and external factors have contributed to or constrained the adoption of new approaches and technologies? 9. In your experience, what are the priority issues promoting or inhibiting productivity of the banana/plantain, cacao, and rice value chains in Haiti? 10. How could adoption have been improved/increased? Why? 11. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the project? 12. To what extent do you think that your organization or other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 13. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 14. What strategies have been used recently to develop the input systems in Haiti? How do these strategies work and who is involved? 15. Why was this approach to input supply delivery chosen? 16. What has worked well regarding the development of the input systems (strengths)? Why? 17. What challenges have been encountered with the development of the input system (weakness)? Why? 18. What were the costs and benefits of the project’s efforts to build input systems? 19. (If respondent has sufficient knowledge of AVANSE input system strategy) To what extent do you think farmers will be able to afford the inputs provided by AVANSE’s (or other) supported input system after the project ends and subsidies are removed? 20. How are the input systems supported by AVANSE similar to or different than other existing input systems supported by other actors (for example MARNDR)? 21. Were there differences in how well the input system supported by AVANSE performed by type of input (i.e. seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, plowing services)? 57 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 22. From your perspective, what effect (if any) have inputs provided through the system (seeds, fertilizer, etc.) had on the yields experienced by farmers? On income? 23. To what extent do you think farmers will continue having access to and afford inputs provided by AVANSE’s supported input systems after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 24. Do you think input suppliers will continue to offer the same inputs after the project? Why or why not? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) (If medium or high level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE) 25. Do you expect that your demand for inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 26. Which AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies would you recommend scaling up? Why? 27. Do you think that sufficient demand exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a) (If yes) What partners need to be engaged in scaling up the approaches and technologies? Why? 28. Do you think that sufficient capacity exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? b) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? 29. What do you think are the necessary conditions to scaling up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? How can these be addressed? 30. What internal and external factors would contribute to or constrained scaling up? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and private sector-led services (EQ4) 31. Could you describe the partnerships with private sector companies that have been created through AVANSE? Who are the partners and what is the nature of the partnership? 32. What factors facilitated these partnerships? Why? 33. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining these partnerships? Why? 34. What conditions are necessary to sustain these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 35. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the sustainability of these partnerships? 36. What plans exist for sustaining these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 37. What are the private companies’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 38. What are the farmers’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 39. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to markets? 40. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to non￾project support services led by private companies? 41. What are your recommendations for sustaining farmers’ access to markets and private sector-led service provision after the project ends? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 58 INTERVIEW GUIDE - GOVERNMENT OF HAITI STAFF Agency Name: Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. Please describe the programs your agency is currently implementing / planning in relation to the rice, banana and cacao value chains. 2. What approaches and technologies has your agency utilized in relation to improving smallholder farming system performance and what were the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches? 3. What kind of collaboration have you had with AVANSE? 4. What do you think is the primary value added for farmers in using AVANSE approaches and technologies? 5. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 6. What were the costs and benefits of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 7. How did these approaches and technologies affect farmers’ productivity and income? 8. How did farmers receive these approaches and technologies? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 9. What were the hardest and easiest approaches and technologies for farmers to adopt? 10. What internal and external factors have contributed to or constrained the adoption of new approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? 11. In your experience, what are the priority issues promoting or inhibiting the productivity of the banana/plantain, cacao, and rice value chains in Haiti? 12. (If medium or high level of experience/knowledge of SRI / PIF / cacao best practices) How have SRI / PIF approaches performed in Haiti? Are these approaches appropriate for Haitian smallholders? Why / Why not? 13. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the project? 14. To what extent do you think that your organization of other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 15. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 16. What strategies does your agency have in place to develop the input systems in the northern region of Haiti? How do these strategies work and who is involved? 59 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 17. How are the input systems you support similar to or different than those supported by AVANSE? 18. What has worked well regarding supporting the input systems in the northern region by your organization and by AVANSE? What has not worked? Why? 19. What challenges have you and AVANSE encountered with the development of the input system? Why? 20. What do you feel were the costs and benefits of the project’s efforts to build input systems? 21. From your perspective, what effect (if any) have inputs provided through AVANSE had on the yields experienced by farmers? On income? 22. (If respondent has sufficient knowledge of AVANSE input system strategy) To what extent do you think farmers will be able to afford the inputs provided by AVANSE’s (or other) supported input system after the project ends and subsidies are removed? 23. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to have access to and afford inputs provided by AVANSE’s input system after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 24. Do you think input suppliers will continue to offer the same inputs after the project? Why or why not? 25. How could the AVANSE supported input system be integrated into activities implemented by your agency to develop input systems? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) (If medium or high level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE) 26. Do you expect that your demand for inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 27. Which AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies would you recommend scaling up? Why? 28. Do you think that sufficient demand exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a) (If yes) What partners need to be engaged in scaling up the approaches and technologies? Why? 29. Do you think that sufficient capacity exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? 30. What do you think are the necessary conditions to scaling up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? How can these be addressed? 31. What internal and external factors would contribute to or constrained scaling up? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 32. What private enterprises have been successful in linking famers to markets and services in the northern region of Haiti? Why? What, if any, benefits have there been? 33. What conditions are necessary to sustain these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 34. What factors facilitated success? Why? 35. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining these linkages? Why? 36. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the sustainability of these partnerships? 37. What are the private companies’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 60 38. What are the farmers’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 39. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to markets? 40. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to non￾project support services? 41. What are your recommendations for sustaining farmers’ access to markets and private sector-led service provision after the project ends? INTERVIEW GUIDE - PRIVATE ENTERPRISES Company Name: Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. Could you provide a short background on your company’s operations in the [VALUE CHAIN] sector? 2. How was your company initially engaged with AVANSE? How would you describe your company’s relationship with AVANSE? 3. What were the costs and benefits for your company in working with AVANSE? 4. What are the main challenges facing your company in the [VALUE CHAIN]? What are the main opportunities? 5. What are the main challenges facing smallholder [VALUE CHAIN] producers? What are the main opportunities? 6. What approaches and technologies have been effective in improving smallholder productivity / quality within the area where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 7. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the AVANSE project? 8. To what extent do you think that your company or other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 9. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 10. How does the input supply system function in the area where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 11. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this system? 12. Have AVANSE activities had a positive effect on the products you purchase and market? Any negative effects? 13. What would you recommend to further strengthen the input system in the area where you work? 61 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 14. Do you expect that your demand for your products will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 15. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained growth of your market? 16. What new technologies would be useful to smallholders in the areas where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 17. Do you think that the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Why? How? a) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? What role could your company play in scaling these up? 18. What might be the challenges to scaling-up these approaches and technologies? 19. To what extent do you think farmers will continue apply approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 20. Do you think input suppliers will continue to offer the same inputs after the project? Why or why not? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 21. How would you describe the status of partnerships established by your company through AVANSE? 22. What, if any, benefits have there been: a) For your company (probe around new market entry, new product development, etc.) b) For the farmers you procure from (probe around changes in income, new value￾added activities, etc.)? 23. What have been the challenges in creating and maintaining these partnerships? Why? 24. How could relations between companies like yours and small producers be improved? 25. What is the capacity and interest of your company to provide agriculture extension services to the farmers you work with? 26. What is the capacity and interest of your company to provide access to markets to the farmers you work with? 27. Do you work with/through farmer associations? a) (If yes) What is the capacity of your company to provide agriculture extension services to these associations? 28. Do you intend to continue with partnerships established by your company through AVANSE? Why or why not? INTERVIEW GUIDE - INPUT SUPPLY CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS Company Type (retail, wholesale, etc.): Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 62 Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 1. Could you provide a short background on your work with AVANSE? 2. Do you have an agreement with AVANSE to supply the project with any inputs? What types of inputs? 3. What are the main points of the agreement in terms of quantity, timing, and types of inputs? 4. What has worked well regarding your engagement with AVANSE? What has not worked? Why? 5. What were the costs and benefits for your company in working with AVANSE? 6. How has your business changed over the course of working with AVANSE? a) Have sales increased? i. (If yes) Which products? b) Have you had any challenges in meeting the increased demand? i. (If yes) What kind? c) Have your relationship with your suppliers changed as a result of AVANSE? How? ii. (If yes) Was this change positive? iii. (If yes) Will this positive change last in the future? d) Has AVANSE improved your ability to provide information to farmers (advise) on input use changed? iv. (If yes) How did it change? 7. What are the main challenges facing your business? What are the main opportunities? 8. How would you compare the input systems supported by AVANSE to existing input systems supported by other actors (for example MARNDR)? 9. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to purchase the inputs promoted by AVANSE after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 10. To what extent do you think your business will change after AVANSE activities end and subsidies are removed? 11. What additional support do you require to improve your business? 12. What would you recommend to strengthen the regional inputs systems in the short and medium term? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 13. Do you expect that your demand for your products will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 14. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the growth of your business? 15. What new technologies would be useful to smallholders in the areas where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 16. Do you think that the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Why? How? a) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? What role could your company play in scaling these up? 17. What might be the challenges to scaling-up these approaches and technologies? 63 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) (If medium or high level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE partnerships) 18. What kind of relationship do you have with AVANSE partners/beneficiaries? 19. Could you describe the nature of the partnership or relationship (if any) that you have built in conjunction with AVANSE? 20. To what extent do the relationship will remain after the project ends in terms of doing business together or supplying them with inputs? 21. Have the MARNDR been involved to facilitate any transaction between your company and AVANSE regarding the purchase of inputs? 22. What are the benefits to you of the partnerships you built in conjunction with AVANSE? 23. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining this partnership? Why? 24. What is your plan for continuing the partnerships started through AVANSE after the project ends? 25. Do you have any recommendations for improving the activities started by your company through AVANSE in the future? INTERVIEW GUIDE - FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Institution Type (MFI, bank, etc.): Level of experience/ knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. How would you describe your company’s relationship with AVANSE? 2. How long have you been participating in the voucher system with AVANSE? 3. Do you have a formal agreement with AVANSE and what are the main points of this agreement? 4. What were the costs and benefits for your company in working with AVANSE? 5. What are the main challenges facing your company in working with AVANSE? What are the main opportunities? 6. Have you confronted any difficulties with AVANSE regarding the voucher system? What types of difficulties? Were they resolved? 7. Any specific recommendations for the improvement and /or sustainability of the voucher system? 8. What challenges do rural Haitians face in access to finance in general and specifically finance for agriculture? 9. How many project beneficiaries were your clients prior to AVANSE? How many AVANSE beneficiaries became clients? 10. What financial products exist to meet individual farmers (smallholders and other farmers) finance needs (working capital, loan, equity investment, leasing, insurance, guarantee, etc..) in general and specifically for farmers producing? 11. What are the finance requirements of your institutions for smallholders in the northern region in general and specifically for farmers producing banana / plantain, cacao / rice)? 12. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of projects like AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 64 13. What financial services did your institution provide in the agricultural sector for access to inputs prior to AVANSE? 14. What role did your institution play in agricultural input supply prior to AVANSE? 15. How did your business change as a result of working with AVANSE? 16. What aspects of AVANSE have worked well so far for your institution and what has not worked well? Why? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 17. Do you expect that your demand for agricultural input finance will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 18. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained growth of your market? 19. Do you think that the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Why? How? a) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up as far as financing is concerned? What role could your institution play in financing the scaling them up? 20. What might be the financial or other challenges to scaling-up these approaches and technologies? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 21. Were you engaged in partnerships with any of the companies or farmers supported by AVANSE? If yes, what kind of partnerships? 22. Did you have agri-business company clients before AVANSE? Do you have agri-business company clients because of AVANSE? 23. Do you intend to continue relationships with AVANSE partners and beneficiaries after the project ends? Do you have any concerns at this level? 24. What are your recommendations to deepen the engagement of the financial sector with agricultural businesses in the future? 25. How could your institution contribute to that? INTERVIEW GUIDE - CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS /UNIVERSITIES Organization Type (university, etc.): Level of experience/ knowledge of AVANSE (low, med. high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What are the new approaches and technologies developed by AVANSE in which you have participated? 2. What do you think is the primary value added for farmers in these approaches and technologies? 3. How did these approaches and technologies affect farmers’ productivity and income? 4. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 65 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 5. What were the costs and benefits of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 6. How did farmers receive these approaches and technologies? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 7. How has AVANSE’s strategy differed from past similar efforts (project and programs) in the northern region? 8. To what extent have the approaches and technologies been adopted within the project area? 9. Did you notice trends in who adopted or didn’t adopt technologies? (low income farmers, medium income farmers, high income farmers, etc.?) 10. What factors (internal and external) inhibited or promoted adoption of AVANSE approaches and technologies? 11. How could adoption have been improved/increased? Why? 12. What have been the most important effects of these approaches and technologies on the farmers? 13. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the project? 14. To what extent do you think that other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 15. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 16. What has been the impact of AVANSE activities to strengthening input system (probe around quality / quantity / profitability): a) On farmers? b) On input supply shops? c) On private sector wholesalers?? 17. What challenges have been encountered with the development of the input system (weaknesses)? Why? 18. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained building input systems? 19. How do you think the market for inputs will change when project subsidies end? 20. What would you recommend to strengthen the inputs system in the northern area in the short and medium term? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 21. Which approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Which shouldn’t? Why? a) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled￾up? 22. Do you expect that your demand for technologies and inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 23. Do you think that sufficient demand exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a) (If yes) What partners need to be engaged in scaling up the approaches and technologies? Why? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 66 24. Do you think that sufficient capacity exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a) (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? 25. What do you think are the necessary conditions to scaling up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? How can these be addressed? 26. What internal and external factors would contribute to or constrained scaling up? 27. How can your organization contribute to that? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 28. Did AVANSE help your organization create any new relationships with private enterprises that market the products of the farmers you work with? If yes, please describe the partnership. 29. Did these partnerships increase access to markets or services? How? 30. What is the status of the relationships your organization has established with AVANSE? 31. What has been the benefit of these relationships to your organization? (probe around access to markets / income)? 32. What has been the benefit of these relationships to farmers? (probe around productivity, access to markets, income) 33. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining this relationship? Why? 34. What conditions are necessary to sustain these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 35. What is your plan for continuing the relationships you started during the AVANSE project after activities end? 36. Do you have any recommendations for improving the activities your organization participated in the future? FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE – CBO AND BENEFICIARY PRODUCERS Farm Type (banana/plantain, cacao, rice): Level of experience/ knowledge of AVANSE (low, med. high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What are the most important crops you grow here in terms of household food supply? In terms of cash crops? (Prompts: rice, plantains, cacao) 2. What are the new approaches AVANSE has introduced you to?Which of these new approaches are you using currently? Why? 3. Which of the new approaches you were introduced to did you decide not to use? Why? 4. What are the new technologies AVANSE has introduced you to? (Prompts: techniques, inputs, equipment) 5. Which of these new technologies are you using currently? Why? 6. Which of the new technologies you were introduced to did you decide not to use? Why? 7. What were the external barriers to using these new approaches and technologies? 8. What were the strengths of these approaches and technologies? What were the weaknesses? 67 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 9. What were the added costs of using these approaches and technologies? What were the benefits? What have been the changes you have experienced as a result of adopting them in terms of productivity and quality of your crops? 10. How has your income changed as a result of adopting the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? 11. How has your family’s diet changed as a result of adopting these approaches and technologies? 12. What has been the most challenging part of adopting these approaches and technologies? What was easiest? 13. Will you be able to continue to apply these approaches and techniques in the future without support from AVANSE? Why or why not? 14. How has AVANSE approaches and technologies differed from those of past similar efforts (activities, projects, and programs) that have been implemented here? 15. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 16. How do you feel that agricultural input systems have changed since the AVANSE began? Why? 17. What were the strengths of the input systems promoted by AVANSE? What were the weaknesses? 18. What were the added costs of using these approaches and technologies? What were the benefits? 19. How are AVANSE agricultural input systems similar to or different than other existing input systems (for example MARNDR)? 20. From your perspective, what effect have AVANSE inputs systems had on your farm? Why? Is it different across different types of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pest control, tools, tillage, etc.)? 21. From your perspective, how have these inputs (seeds, fertilizer, etc.) affected productivity? How have they affected your income? 22. To what extent do you think you will continue to purchase inputs promoted by AVANSE after the project ends if subsidies are removed? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 23. Do you expect that your demand for technologies and inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 24. Do you feel you have the capacity to increase use of inputs? Do you have the resources to increase your purchase of inputs? 25. Which approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Which shouldn’t? Why? 26. What, if anything, should be done to facilitate the scaling-up of successful approaches and technologies implemented by the project? 27. What might be the challenges to scaling-up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? 28. (If CBO) How can your organization contribute to that? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 29. Have you sold to any new private companies since you started working with AVANSE? What was the role of AVANSE in helping you sell to these companies? 30. What, if any, have been the benefits of selling to this private companies? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 68 31. What have been the challenges in selling in this market? Why? 32. Have you bought inputs from any new sellers since you started working with AVANSE? What was the role of AVANSE in helping you buy from these companies? 33. What, if any, have been the benefits of buying from them? 34. What have been the challenges in buying from them? 35. What were the external barriers to selling your crops to new buyers and buying inputs from new sellers? 36. Will you be able to continue to sell your crops to buyers and buy inputs from sellers after the activity ends? Why or why not? 37. Are you interested in continuing to sell your crops to buyers and buy inputs from sellers after the activity ends? Why or why not? Additional Questions for Women Beneficiaries 38. To what extent are women involved in associations or groups in the area? 39. How many women members are in your association or group? 40. To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production as a result of AVANSE activities? 41. How many women leaders are there in your association? What positions? 42. To what extent has there been any change in women’s leadership roles as a result of AVANSE activities? 43. To what extent did you notice any change in women’s decision-making as a result of AVANSE activities? 44. Are there any factors that inhibit women as AVANSE project beneficiary? If yes, which ones? Probe for training/ technology application/voucher program/market access. 45. During the course of the project has there been any difference in the access of women and men to inputs? To training? To extension services? 46. To what extent can we say that there is some form of difference in access to finance / credit for women farmers? 47. What are your suggestions to improve the involvement of women in the sector? FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE – NON-BENEFICIARY PRODUCERS, CBO, AND COMMUNITY LEADERS Farm Type (banana/plantain, cacao, rice): Level of experience/ knowledge of AVANSE (low, med. high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What are the most important crops you grow here in terms of household food supply? In terms of cash crops? (Prompts: rice, plantains, cacao) 2. What are the new approaches AVANSE has introduced to your community? (Prompts: training, extension, agroforestry, marketing, access to inputs) 3. What are the new technologies AVANSE has introduced to your community? (Prompts: techniques, inputs, equipment) 4. What were the strengths of these approaches and technologies? What were the weaknesses? 69 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 5. To what extent have farmers in your community adopted these approaches and technologies? Why? Why not? 6. What has been the most challenging part for farmers in adopting these approaches and technologies? What was easiest? 7. What were the external barriers to using these new approaches and technologies? 8. Have you noticed changes in terms of productivity and crops quality for farmers in adopting these approaches and technologies? 9. Have farmers’ incomes have changed as a result of adopting the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? 10. Have you seen that household diets have changed as a result of adopting these approaches and technologies? 11. Do you think that farmers will be able to continue to apply these approaches and techniques in the future without support from AVANSE? 12. How has AVANSE technologies and approaches differed from those of past similar efforts (activities, projects, and programs) that have been implemented in your community? What was better? What was not as good? 13. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 14. How have the input systems changed since AVANSE has been working on them here? 15. What are the strengths of the input systems promoted by AVANSE? What were the weaknesses? 16. How are AVANSE agricultural input systems similar to or different than other existing input systems (for example MARNDR)? 17. From your perspective, what effect have AVANSE supported inputs systems on farmers? (probe around productivity, access to markets, income)? 18. Has the effect varied across different types of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pest control, tools, tillage, etc.)? 19. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to purchase inputs promoted by AVANSE after the project ends if subsidies are removed? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 20. Do you expect that your demand for technologies and inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 21. Which approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Which shouldn’t? Why? 22. What, if anything, should be done to facilitate the scaling-up of successful approaches and technologies implemented by the project? 23. What might be the challenges to scaling-up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? 24. Why are you not a beneficiary of the AVANSE project? Why are you not using AVANSE promoted technologies? 25. What changes should be made so that they adopt approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE ? 26. Do they have the financial capacity to adopt approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE ? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 70 27. Do you know farmers who have sold to any private companies since AVANSE has started working with these companies? 28. What, if any, have been the benefits for the farmers for selling to these private companies? 29. What have been the challenges in selling in this market? Why? 30. What were the external barriers to selling to new buyers and buying inputs from new sellers? 31. What is the farmers plan for continuing to sell to this market after the activity ends? FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE –WOMEN LEADERS Farm Type (banana/plantain, cacao, rice): Level of experience/ knowledge of AVANSE (low, med. high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What are the most important crops women are growing here in terms of household food supply? In terms of cash crops? 2. What are the new approaches and technologies AVANSE has introduced in your community? 3. What were the strengths of these approaches and technologies? What were the weaknesses? 4. To what extent did you notice any change in women’s participation in agricultural production as a result of AVANSE activities? 5. To what extent have women farmers in your community adopted these approaches and technologies? Why? Why not? 6. What has been the most challenging part for women farmers in adopting these approaches and technologies? What was easiest? 7. What have been the benefits to women in using these approaches or technologies? What have been the costs? 8. From your perspective, has support from AVANSE to women farmers affected productivity? Has it affected income? 9. Do you think that women farmers will be able to continue to apply these approaches and techniques in the future without support from AVANSE? 10. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? 11. During the course of the project has there been any difference in the access of women and men to inputs? To training? To extension services? 12. To what extent can we say that there is some form of difference in access to finance / credit for women farmers? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 13. How have the input systems changed since AVANSE has been working on them here? 14. What are the strengths of the input systems promoted by AVANSE? What were the weaknesses? 15. How are AVANSE agricultural input systems similar to or different than other existing input systems (for example MARNDR)? 71 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 16. From your perspective, what effect have AVANSE supported inputs systems on women farmers? (probe around productivity, access to markets, income)? 17. Has the effect varied across different types of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pest control, tools, tillage, etc.)? 18. To what extent do you think women farmers will continue to purchase inputs promoted by AVANSE after the project ends if subsidies are removed? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 19. Do you expect that your demand for technologies and inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 20. Which approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Which shouldn’t? Why? 21. What, if anything, should be done to facilitate the scaling-up of successful approaches and technologies implemented by the project? 22. What might be the challenges to scaling-up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 23. Do you know women farmers who have sold to any private companies since AVANSE has started working with these companies? 24. What, if any, have been the benefits for the women farmers for selling to these private companies? 25. What have been the challenges for women in selling in this market? Why? 26. What is a women farmers plan for continuing to sell to this market after the activity ends? 27. To what extent are women involved in associations or groups in the area? 28. How many women members are in your association or group? 29. How many women leaders are there in your association? What positions? 30. To what extent has there been any change in women’s leadership roles as a result of AVANSE activities? 31. To what extent did you notice any change in women’s decision-making as a result of AVANSE activities? 32. Are there any factors that inhibit women as AVANSE project beneficiary? If yes, which ones? Probe for training/ technology application/voucher program/market access. 33. Any suggestions to improve the involvement of women in the sector? INTERVIEW GUIDE – AVANSE FIELD AGENTS General Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What approaches and technologies did AVANSE promote in the northern region with relation to the three target value chains? Why were they chosen? 2. How have the new approaches been promoted across the three value chains (cacao, rice, and banana/plantain)? 3. How have the new technologies been promoted across the three value chains (cacao, rice, and banana/plantain)? 4. How did these approaches and technologies affect farmers’ productivity and income? 5. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches promoted by the project? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 72 6. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies promoted by the project? 7. How did farmers receive these approaches? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 8. How did farmers receive these approaches and technologies? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 9. What were the hardest and easiest technologies for farmers to adopt? 10. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained use of approaches and technologies? 11. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the project? 12. To what extent do you think that other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 13. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 14. Could you explain the input system supported by AVANSE in the northern region? How does it work and who are the actors involved? (i.e. seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, plowing services)? 15. What has worked well regarding the development of the input system (strengths)? Why? 16. What challenges have been encountered with the development of the input system (weaknesses)? Why? 17. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained building input systems? 18. How would you compare the input systems supported by AVANSE to existing input systems supported by other actors (for example MARNDR)? 19. Were there differences in how well the input system supported by AVANSE performed by type of input (i.e. seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, plowing services)? 20. From your perspective, what effect (if any) have inputs provided through the system (seeds, fertilizer, etc.) had on the yields experienced by farmers? On income? Why? 21. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to have access to and afford inputs provided by input systems supported by AVANSE after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 22. Do you think input suppliers will continue to offer the same inputs after the project? Why or why not? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 23. Do you expect that the use of the approaches will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 24. Do you expect that the use of the technologies will grow, stay the same as decrease over time? 25. Which AVANSE-promoted approaches and technologies would you recommend scaling up? Why? 26. Do you think that sufficient demand exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? (If yes) What partners need to be engaged in scaling up the approaches and technologies? Why? 73 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 27. Do you think that sufficient capacity exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? 28. What do you think are the necessary conditions to scaling up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? How can these be addressed? 29. What internal and external factors would contribute to scaling up? Why? 30. What internal and external factors would constrained scaling up? Why? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 31. Could you describe the partnerships with private sector companies that have been created through AVANSE? Who are the partners and what is the nature of the partnership? 32. What have been the challenges in creating and maintaining these partnerships? Why? 33. What conditions are necessary to sustain these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 34. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the sustainability of these partnerships? 35. What are the private companies’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 36. What are the farmers’ interest/benefit in sustaining these partnerships? 37. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to markets? 38. What, if any, effects have these partnerships had in terms of farmers’ access to non￾project support services? 39. What are your recommendations for sustaining farmers’ access to markets and private sector-led service provision after the project ends? INTERVIEW GUIDE – NURSERY OWNERS Company Type (retail, wholesale, etc.): Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Size of the nursery: Date of establishment: Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 1. Could you provide a short background on your work with AVANSE? 2. Do you have an agreement with AVANSE to supply the project with seedlings? On what rhythms/frequency? 3. What are the main points of the agreement in terms of quantity, timing, and types of seedlings? 4. What has worked well regarding your engagement with AVANSE? What has not worked? Why? 5. What were the costs and benefits for your company in working with AVANSE? 6. How has your business changed over the course of working with AVANSE? a. Have sales increased? i. (If yes) Which products? b. Have you had any challenges in meeting the increased demand? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 74 i. (If yes) What kind? c. Have your relationship with your suppliers changed as a result of AVANSE? How? i. (If yes) Was this change positive? ii. (If yes) Will this positive change last in the future? d. Has AVANSE improved your ability to provide information to farmers (advise) on seedling use changed? i. (If yes) How did it change? 7. What are the main challenges facing your business? What are the main opportunities? 8. How would you compare the input systems supported by AVANSE to existing input systems supported by other actors (for example MARNDR)? 9. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to purchase the seedlings after the activity ends? Where the seedlings subsidized? 10. To what extent do you think your business will change after AVANSE activities end and subsidies are removed? 11. What additional support do you require to improve your business? 12. What would you recommend to strengthen the regional nursery systems in the short and medium term? 13. Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 14. Do you expect that your demand for your products will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 15. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the growth of your business? 16. What new technologies would be useful to smallholders in the areas where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 17. Do you think that the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Why? How? i. (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? What role could your company play in scaling these up? 18. What might be the challenges to scaling-up these approaches and technologies? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) (If medium or high level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE partnerships) 19. What kind of relationship do you have with AVANSE partners/beneficiaries? 20. Could you describe the nature of the partnership or relationship (if any) that you have built in conjunction with AVANSE? 21. To what extent do the relationship will remain after the project ends in terms of doing business together or supplying them with seedlings? 22. Have the MARNDR been involved to facilitate any transaction between your company and AVANSE regarding the purchase of seedlings? 75 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 23. What are the benefits to you of the partnerships you built in conjunction with AVANSE? 24. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining this partnership? Why? 25. What is your plan for continuing the partnerships started through AVANSE after the project ends? 26. Do you have any recommendations for improving the activities started by your nursery through AVANSE in the future? INTERVIEW GUIDE – PIF OWNERS Company Type (retail, wholesale, etc.): Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Size of the nursery: Date of establishment: Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 1. Could you provide a short background on your work with AVANSE? 2. Do you have an agreement with AVANSE to supply the project with seedlings? On what rhythms/frequency? 3. What are the main points of the agreement in terms of quantity, timing, and types of seedlings? 4. What has worked well regarding your engagement with AVANSE? What has not worked? Why? 5. What were the costs and benefits for your company in working with AVANSE? 6. How has your business changed over the course of working with AVANSE? a. Have sales increased? i. (If yes) Which products? b. Have you had any challenges in meeting the increased demand? i. (If yes) What kind? c. Have your relationship with your suppliers changed as a result of AVANSE? How? i. (If yes) Was this change positive? ii. (If yes) Will this positive change last in the future? d. Has AVANSE improved your ability to provide information to farmers (advise) on seedling use changed? i. (If yes) How did it change? 7. What are the main challenges facing your business? What are the main opportunities? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 76 8. How would you compare the input systems supported by AVANSE to existing input systems supported by other actors (for example MARNDR)? 9. To what extent do you think farmers will continue to purchase the seedlings after the activity ends? Where the seedlings subsidized? 10. To what extent do you think your business will change after AVANSE activities end and subsidies are removed? 11. What additional support do you require to improve your business? 12. What would you recommend to strengthen the regional nursery systems in the short and medium term? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 13. Do you expect that your demand for your products will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 14. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained the growth of your business? 15. What new technologies would be useful to smallholders in the areas where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 16. Do you think that the approaches and technologies activities promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Why? How? i. (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? What role could your company play in scaling these up? 17. What might be the challenges to scaling-up these approaches and technologies? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) (If medium or high level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE partnerships) 18. What kind of relationship do you have with AVANSE partners/beneficiaries? 19. Could you describe the nature of the partnership or relationship (if any) that you have built in conjunction with AVANSE? 20. To what extent do the relationship will remain after the project ends in terms of doing business together or supplying them with seedlings? 21. Have the MARNDR been involved to facilitate any transaction between your company and AVANSE regarding the purchase of seedlings? 22. What are the benefits to you of the partnerships you built in conjunction with AVANSE? 23. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining this partnership? Why? 24. What is your plan for continuing the partnerships started through AVANSE after the project ends? 25. Do you have any recommendations for improving the activities started by your nursery through AVANSE in the future? 77 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 78 INTERVIEW GUIDE – PLOWING BUSINESSMEN Company Name: Level of experience/knowledge of AVANSE (low, medium, high): Interviewer: Interview Location and Date: Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. Could you provide a short background on your company’s operations in the [VALUE CHAIN] sector? 2. How was your company initially engaged with AVANSE? How would you describe your company’s relationship with AVANSE? 3. What were the costs and benefits for your company in working with AVANSE? 4. What are the main challenges facing your company in the [VALUE CHAIN]? What are the main opportunities? 5. What are the main challenges facing smallholder [VALUE CHAIN] producers? What are the main opportunities? 6. What approaches and technologies have been effective in improving smallholder productivity / quality within the area where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 7. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the AVANSE project? 8. To what extent do you think that your company or other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 9. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of plowing systems (EQ2) 10. How does the plowing system function in the area where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 11. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the plowing system? 12. Have AVANSE activities had a positive effect on the products you purchase and market? Any negative effects? 13. What would you recommend to further strengthening the input system in the area where you work? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 14. Do you expect that your demand for plowing will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 15. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained growth of your market? 16. What new technologies would be useful to smallholders in the areas where you procure [VALUE CHAIN]? 79 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 17. Do you think that the plowing system promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Why? How? a. (If yes) How do you think the plowing system can be scaled up? What role could your company play in scaling these up? 18. What might be the challenges to scaling-up the plowing system? 19. To what extent do you think farmers will continue apply the plowing system promoted by AVANSE after the activity ends and subsidies are removed? 20. Do you think plowing suppliers will continue to offer the services after the project? Why or why not? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 21. How would you describe the status of partnerships established by your company through AVANSE? 22. What, if any, benefits have there been: a. For your company (probe around new market entry, new product development, etc.) b. For the farmers you procure from (probe around changes in income, new value￾added activities, etc.)? 23. What have been the challenges in creating and maintaining these partnerships? Why? 24. How could relations between companies like yours and small producers be improved? 25. What is the capacity and interest of your company to provide agriculture extension services to the farmers you work with? 26. What is the capacity and interest of your company to provide credits to the farmers you work with? 27. Do you work with/through farmer associations? a. (If yes) What is the capacity of your company to provide agriculture extension and/or plowing services to these associations? 28. Do you intend to continue with partnerships established by your company through AVANSE? Why or why not? INTERVIEW GUIDE – LEAD FARMERS Questions related to continued use of AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ1) 1. What are the new approaches and technologies developed by AVANSE in which you have participated? 2. What do you think is the primary value added for farmers in these approaches and technologies? 3. How did these approaches and technologies affect farmers’ productivity and income? 4. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? 5. What were the costs and benefits of the approaches and technologies promoted by the project? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 80 6. What were your contributions in promoting the approaches and technologies? 7. How did farmers receive these approaches and technologies? What did they like the best? What did they not like about them? 8. How has AVANSE’s strategy differed from past similar efforts (project and programs) in the northern region? 9. To what extent have the approaches and technologies been adopted within the project area? 10. Did you notice trends in who adopted or didn’t adopt technologies? (low income farmers, medium income farmers, high income farmers, etc.?) 11. What factors (internal and external) inhibited or promoted adoption of AVANSE approaches and technologies? 12. How could adoption have been improved/increased? Why? 13. What have been the most important effects of these approaches and technologies on the farmers? 14. To what extent do you think that farmers have the capacity to continue to use these approaches and technologies after the end of the project? 15. To what extent do you think that other actors will continue supporting these approaches and technologies after the end of the project (i.e. MARNDR)? 16. How would you suggest improving the design and the implementation of approaches and technologies like those promoted by AVANSE in the future? Questions related to AVANSE’s strengthening of input systems (EQ2) 17. What has been the impact of AVANSE activities to strengthening input system (probe around quality / quantity / profitability): i. On farmers? ii. On input supply shops? iii. On private sector wholesalers?? 18. What challenges have been encountered with the development of the input system (weaknesses)? Why? 19. What internal and external factors contributed to or constrained building input systems? 20. How do you think the market for inputs will change when project subsidies end? 21. What would you recommend to strengthen the inputs system in the northern area in the short and medium term? Questions related to scaling up AVANSE’s approaches and technologies (EQ3) 22. Which approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE should be scaled up? Which shouldn’t? Why? a. (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled-up? 23. Do you expect that your demand for technologies and inputs will grow, stay the same of decrease over time? 24. Do you think that sufficient demand exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? a. (If yes) What partners need to be engaged in scaling up the approaches and technologies? Why? 25. Do you think that sufficient capacity exists to scale up the approaches and technologies promoted by AVANSE? Why or why not? 81 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV i. (If yes) How do you think these approaches and technologies can be scaled up? 26. What do you think are the necessary conditions to scaling up the approaches and technologies implemented by the project? How can these be addressed? 27. What internal and external factors would contribute to or constrained scaling up? 28. How can your organization contribute to that? Questions related to AVANSE partnerships and access to markets and services (EQ4) 29. Did AVANSE help you create any new relationships with private enterprises that market the products of the farmers you work with? If yes, please describe the partnership. 30. Did these partnerships increase access to markets or services? How? 31. What is the status of your relationships with AVANSE and with the farmers? 32. What has been the benefit of the relationships with AVANSE? (probe around access to markets / income)? 33. What has been the benefit of these relationships to farmers? (probe around productivity, access to markets, income) 34. What have been the challenges in creating and sustaining this relationship? Why? 35. What conditions are necessary to sustain these partnerships after AVANSE ends? For private companies? For farmers? 36. What is your plan for continuing the relationships you started during the AVANSE project after activities end? 37. Do you have any recommendations for improving the activities your organization participated in the future? USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 82 ANNEX H: MAIN TECHNOLOGIES PROMOTED BY AVANSE NUMBER TECHNOLOGIES RELATED CROPS 1 SRI (Système de riziculture Intensive) Rice 2 SRA (Système de riziculture améliorée) Rice 3 Improved certified rice seed Rice 4 New banana planting techniques Banana/Plantain 5 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for plantains (Sigatoka) Banana/Plantain 6 PIF (Production Intensive par Fragmentation) Banana/Plantain 7 Cacao grafting Cacao 8 Shade control in cacao farms Cacao 9 New cacao Plantation Techniques Cacao 10 High quality and short cycle bean varietal Bean 11 High quality and short cycle corn varietal Corn 12 Sanitary cup Non specified 13 Biomechanical structures Non specified 14 Hedgerows Non specified 15 Erosion control with agroforestry cash crops Non specified 16 Demonstration plots Plantain 17 Pest management Plantain 18 Disease management Plantain 19 Soil-related fertility and conservation Non specified 20 Minimum fertilizer usage Non specified 21 Irrigation Non specified 22 Water management Rice 23 Climate mitigation or adaptation Non specified 24 Introduction of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) Rice 25 Soil related-fertility and conservation Non specified 26 Water conservation management Non specified 27 Marking rollers Rice 28 Conical weeders Rice 29 Pest management through safe application of approved pesticides Non specified 30 Three more improved technologies Non specified Source: “AVANSE Quarterly Report – Q2, FY 2019 (January – March 2019)” DAI, April 2019. 83 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX I: LIST OF MAIN APPROACHES PROMOTED BY AVANSE Approaches Details Value chains FFS-Farmer Field School Places in which farmers are trained49 by the project. Farmers receive training from AVANSE technicians in topics relevant to the cultivation of their crops. For example, rice farmers learned SRI (Système Rizicole Intensif in French) from FFS. Rice, cacao, banana Training-of-trainers (TOT) To develop the skills and capacity of Lead farmers to become technical assistance providers in their own communities. Making Cents rolled out the first session of Training of Trainers qualification (TOT) for SOFITRAINING staff on Module 1 (conducting participatory self-assessment of weakness and needs for training) during the month of May. Following the initial TOT with Making Cents staff, SOFITRIANING staff began the process of individualized assessments with a total of seven medium-sized firms50 Cacao, plantain, rice Farmer To Farmer exchange visit Exchange visit on improving rice seed production in the Artibonite region with Taiwanese government-funded project (RECAPSRIH). Throughout the visits and workshops, AVANSE-supported rice seed producers discussed the challenges and opportunities they face in the North. Producers from Trou du Nord visited a PIF demonstration plot and a PIF center in Limonade. Cacao, plantain, rice Demonstration plots Demonstration plots allow to compare the benefits of SRI side-by-side with traditional rice cropping methods Cacao, plantain, rice Collaboration with Agronomy Universities 65 students from the University of Limonade received in￾classroom training on SRI techniques and received practical training to set up demonstration plots at Dubré. These demonstration plots allowed students to compare the benefits of SRI side-by-side with traditional rice cropping methods. No specific value chains Konbit AVANSE used the traditional system named, a mechanism of social solidarity found in rural Haiti, where a community group agrees to work together to carry out various activities, particularly in agriculture. This tradition of work groups had started to disappear in the Northern region until AVANSE’s NRM team encouraged farmers to reinstate it and to use it to renovate their eroded hillsides. No specific value chains 49 Source: AVANSE Q1 FY19 report. Need more details (Gap) 50 QR2 FY14 USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 84 Approaches Details Value chains It has been adopted by the cacao team for the difficult job of orchard regeneration. Marketing Support private companies to sell their services and products (inputs stores, processing and export companies) directly or through training, Market Information System (SIMA), or grants. Help to create marketing groups to facilitate the relationship between cacao producers and private companies that buy cacao. Cacao, plantain, rice Access to agriculture inputs AVANSE’s strategy to increase access to inputs is focusing increasingly on the implementation of its voucher program (known by its French language name—Systeme d’Incitation via les Bons d’Achat or SIBA)51. This voucher program is an innovative and sustainable way to deliver targeted subsidies to farmers allowing them to purchase inputs directly from private suppliers without direct project intervention in the market that would distort incentives to suppliers and crowd out non-subsidized demand. The subsidy is partial and regressive over time so producers can cover an increasing part of the market price as their incomes increase through the adoption of new production practices promoted by IR1through the FFSs. Cacao, plantain, rice Agricultural Equipment Subsidies Through a program—with Charles Féquière, an agricultural equipment supplier in Port-au-Prince— AVANSE subsidized 60 percent of the pump cost and mechanical weeders/rototillers. The producers also received assistance and training from Charles Féquière’s partners, the input suppliers, Le Cap Quincallerie and Bon Jaden Lakay, on the proper usage and maintenance of their equipment Cacao, plantain, rice Promoting of certification products (organic and fair trade) Through the organic certification program farmers received training on the standards for organic certification. Support was also provided on fair trade to NOVELA and PISA. Access to these new markets will allow producers to obtain premium pricing as compared to prices they are paid for the conventional products52. Cacao Source: AVANSE Q1, Q2 FY19 reports 51 AVANSE QR2 FY14 52 Annual report FY2017 85 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX J: MAIN INPUTS AND EQUIPMENT USED BY CROP Crops Cacao Banana Rice Inputs None Plowing services and fertiliser 20-10-20 Fertilizer (NPK, urea, DAP)and plowing services Equipment Pruning shears and electric saw; Scale; Metallic tables and tarpaulins; Prelates Wheelbarrows, pickaxes, rakes, carpets, wood Spray pumps and marker rollers; prelates, threshing machines, boots, mops, sprinkler pump, sprinkling equipment Source: Field visits in the Northern region, November 2019 USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 86 ANNEX K: NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS 87 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV USAID.GOV USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 88 89 | USAID/HAITI AVANSE FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV