1
II
Baseline Study for FY 2016 Guatemala Food for Progress 
Project 
Program: Food for Progress 
Agreement Number: FCC-520-2016/013-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2016
Project Duration: 22016-2021
Implemented by: Counterpart International
Evaluation Authored by: 
ECI – Human Development Management
Action Against Hunger
DISCLAIMER: This evaluation was conducted by an independent third party firm. The views expressed in 
this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United 
States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accesible versión of this document can be made available upon request by 
emailing FAS.Monitoring.Evaluation@usda.gov
III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project background and assessment purpose 
The Food for Progress 2016 (FFPr) project is a five-year intervention financed by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and implemented by Counterpart International, that will be 
implemented in the Guatemala Western Highlands departments of Huehuetenango, San Marcos, 
Quetzaltenango, Sololá, and Quiche. It aims at boosting agricultural production and trade by 
increasing the use of improved agricultural techniques and technologies among target populations, 
and improving linkages between buyers and sellers. Its objectives are (1) To support capacity￾building programs and deliver strategic training with the purpose of boosting the capacity of 
Guatemala’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (MAGA) to effectively manage the National 
Rural Extension System (SNER) and (2) To increase agricultural productivity by addressing market 
access and food security challenges; strengthening the skills and technical knowledge of the public, 
NGO, and private sector extension agents; and developing the capacities of coffee producer groups. 
In order to reach these objectives, seven activities will be implemented with the support of multiple 
partners, including the National Coffee Association (ANACAFE), the Faculty of Agriculture, University 
of San Carlos (FAUSAC), the Federation of Guatemalan Agricultural Coffee Producer Cooperatives 
(FEDECOCAGUA), MAGA, the Federated Cooperative of Credit Unions (MICOOPE), and the 
University of California, Davis (UC Davis). The seven activities are meant to: develop MAGA’s 
institutional capacity, provide support for the implementation of a Certification Program for rural 
extensionists, strengthen farmer organizations, provide cash and in-kind grants to farmer 
organizations, train farmers in agricultural production techniques and farm management, facilitate 
agricultural lending, and improve farmers’ access to markets. 
In this context, Counterpart requested a Baseline Assessment for the FFPr 2016 in Guatemala, with 
the purpose of obtaining quantitative and qualitative baseline data for the Project Monitoring Plan, 
fine-tuning the project’s annual target indicators, and establishing the basis and benchmarks for the 
Mid-term and Final evaluations of the program. 
Methodology
In order to conduct the baseline assessment, complementary quantitative and qualitative research 
methodologies were employed. It included a survey conducted on 826 farmers, and interviews and 
focus group discussions with farmers, extension agents and key informants from Counterpart and 
all local partners. With regards to the survey, a cluster-sampling was implemented. Firstly, 26 
municipalities of a list of 75 provided by Counterpart were randomly selected. As a result of requests 
from different project partners, some of these municipalities were modified. Finally, the survey was 
conducted in one community of each of the selected municipalities, with the support of ANACAFE 
and MAGA. Likewise, qualitative fieldwork was conducted in Guatemala City and in three selected 
departments: Huehuetenango, Quetzaltenango, and San Marcos. In total 22 interviews and focus 
group discussions with Counterpart and partners’ authorities and staff, as well as 8 focus groups 
with farmers were implemented. Results were obtained using SPSS software as well as qualitative 
content analysis. 
IV
Highlighted findings
Activity 1. Capacity building: Government institutions (MAGA). MAGA is a relatively weak institution 
as a result of multiple reasons, among which the high rotation of technical personnel and the 
predominance of a political rationale over a technical one highlight. Different institutions, such as 
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the European Commission 
are implementing actions to strengthen the MAGA. FFPr 2016 should coordinate capacity building 
actions with them in order to synergize efforts. 
Activity 2. Capacity building: Agricultural extension agents and services (Certification Program). FFPr 
2016 will continue supporting the Certification Program that was developed during FFPr 2012. 
Counterpart expects to transition full responsibility of the Certification Program to the FAUSAC 
during this project. This seems to be an interesting strategy but may find problems with regards to 
whom will assume the cost for the program.
Activity 3. Capacity building: Producers groups and cooperatives, & FFPr Activity 4. Cash and in-kind 
grants: Inputs, equipment, post-harvest infrastructure. Counterpart will implement activities 3 and 
4 directly, as it did in FFPr 2012, without the intermediation of any partner. Nonetheless, different 
interviewees recommend that Counterpart coordinates with extension institutions such as
ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA and MAGA before selecting beneficiaries so to assure the follow up of the
project after Counterpart’s withdraw. 
Activity 5. Training: improved agricultural production techniques and farm management. Activity 5 
will be implemented jointly with ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA, it will be the first time that
Counterpart work with them as partners. Access to technical assistance and market information is 
an essential need for farmers and for the associations and cooperatives within which they partake,
however, the ratio between rural extensionists and number of farmers seems to be very low in the
area, particularly in the case of ANACAFE. Survey results show that the implementation of different
improved techniques and technologies as well as agricultural yield, are low. Thisis clearly a problem,
but also suggests that there is an important margin for improvement. When asked, farmers argued
that they did not used specific improved technologies due to three different reasons: lack of
knowledge of their existence, lack of technical assistance, and lack of capital or credit to invest.
Training activities planned in the context of Activity 5 will address the first limitation, while grants
(activity 4) and credit (activity 6) will contribute to overcome the lack of capital. 
Activity 6. Financial services: Facilitate agricultural lending. Access to credit is fundamental to 
farmers, yet only a low percentage of them have access to financial services. Coffee growing is 
particular in terms of its specific financial needs, due to the fact that a coffee plant requires between 
3 and 4 years before it produces enough fruit to be profitable. For this reason, there is currently no 
specific credit line for coffee farmers in Guatemala. In the context of FFPr 2016, MICOOPE has 
committed to taking on this task. However, creating a specific financial product for coffee growers 
in the market may take up to two years, according to this institution. Furthermore, even in the case 
that such product become operational, it is clear that not all farmers will be able to access it, because 
many farmers are poor and do not have enough creditworthiness. 
V
Activity 7. Market access: Enhance producer marketability. Activity 7 will be implemented jointly 
with ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA, as well as MICOOPE. Qualitative fieldwork and quantitative survey 
results show that most farmers sell their produce to intermediaries, because despite of the fact that 
they sometimes offer lower prices, they pay in cash and farmers do not have to wait until the final 
buyer had paid, as it usually happens when they sell to cooperatives or associations. Importantly, 
most farmers have no knowledge neither experience in the use of marketing techniques or 
strategies. FFPr 2016 could contribute to improve market access supporting the strengthening of 
farmers’ organizations and training farmers and rural extensionists in marketing techniques and 
strategies. 
Reflections and recommendations
- FFPr 2016 has 39 indicators, 13 of them FFPr standard indicators. Baseline results suggest 
that some non-standard indicators may lack a clearer definition, and that monitoring such 
a (long) list of indicators could prove to be difficult and even excessively bureaucratic. 
Moreover, there is a potential for overlapping between several of them, while others seem 
to be out of the project activities’ sphere of influence. Thus, it seems advisable to develop 
an extended definition for all non-standard indicators and eliminate those which may 
overlap or are out of the project’s control. 
- USDA’s decision to limit potential FFPr 2016 beneficiaries to smallholders who did not 
previously receive support from USDA or the US Agency for International Development
(USAID) is central and frames the project in different ways. All FEDECOCAGUA’s 
cooperatives and associations that are located in Huehuetenango and San Marcos have 
received benefits from Rural Value Chains Project (PCVR), funded by USAID, which implies 
that ANACAFE would be the only possible partner for activities 5 and 7 in both departments. 
On the other hand, the USDA decision also poses a challenge to MICOOPE and to activity 6, 
because MICOOPE aims to work with the most creditworthy farmers, and these could be so 
as the result of having previously accessed support from the US government. In this context, 
it will be essential to clarify whether or not farmers formerly supported by USDA or USAID 
could participate as indirect beneficiaries of the project. 
- Finally, it is important to note that synergies will be critical for the success of FFPr 2016. 
Firstly, it is important to create synergy between different FFPr 2016 activities, so that each 
one can be used to boost others. And secondly, synergies between institutions and partners 
are essential and can be achieved by acknowledging the potential of each partner not only 
for implementing specific activities, but also for enhancing all of them. 
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
1.2 ASSESSMENT PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF WORK 
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY 
2.2 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY: 
 INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
3. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND THE ECONOMIC 
 SITUATION IN THE TARGETED DEPARTMENTS 
4. RESULTS AND BASELINE DATA
4.1 FFPR 2016 ACTIVITIES AND BASELINE RESULTS
4.2 BASELINE RESULTS FOR PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
5. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON INDICATORS
5.2. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE 
 CONTEXT OF FFPR 2016 ACTIVITIES 
5.3. FINAL COMMENTS 
6. ANNEXES 
A1. TERMS OF REFERENCES 
A2. BASELINE METHODOLOGY 
A3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 
A4. BASELINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
A5. FULL SURVEY RESULTS TABLES
1
1 
2 
3 
3 
7 
7 
10
11 
31
34 
34
41 
43
VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Municipalities where the survey was conducted
Table 2: Municipalities visited for qualitative data collection
Table 3: Relationships between FFPr 2016 activities and indicators’ results 
Table 4. Use of improved technologies for farming
Table 5. Use of improved technologies for coffee
Table 6. Hectares under improved farming techniques or technologies
Table 7. Use of improved technologies for farming in different types of 
organizations, in %
Table 8. Use of improved technologies for coffee in different types of 
organizations, in %
Table 9. Number of received loans
Table 10. Value and volume of farmers’ sales
Table 11. Product quality standards mentioned
Table 12. Post-production techniques mentioned
Table 13. Results of the baseline assessment per performance indicators
Table 14. Summary of comments and recommendations on indicators
Table 15. List of proposed indicators for final FFPr 2016 indicators list
6
7 
11 
16
16
17
18
18
25 
27
28
29
32 
37
40
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1. Farmers applying technologies for sustaining and/or improving soil quality
Figure 2. Farmers applying technologies for increasing the availability and/or 
improving the use of water
Figure 3. Mean yield of different crops, in different departments and organizational 
contexts (in tons per hectare)
Figure 4. Level of satisfaction with rural extension services
Figure 5. Percentage of farmers having a credit
Figure 6. Percentage of farmers having a credit, by gender
Figure 7. Percentage of persons consuming food groups in Household Dietary Diversity Score 
(HDDS)
Figure 8. Perception of migration dynamics
Figure 9. Perception of crime dynamics over the last 12 months
15
15
19
21
24 
24 
29
30 
31
IX
ACRONYMS
ACH Action Against Hunger (International humanitarian organization
conducting the baseline study in association with ECI) 
ANACAFÉ National Coffee Association (Spanish acronym) 
BANRURAL Bank of Rural Development of Guatemala, corporation
CADERS Rural Development Learning Centers (Spanish acronym) 
ECI “ECI – Human Development Management” is the consultancy company
conducting the baseline study in association with ACH
EFA Guatemala Agricultural Middle Training Schools (Spanish acronym) 
ENA “Emergency Nutrition Assessment” software for survey planning and
analysis (as well beyond nutritional purposes) 
ENCA National Central School of Agriculture (Spanish acronym) 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAUSAC Faculty of Agriculture, University of San Carlos (Spanish acronym) 
FEDECOCAGUA Federation of Guatemalan Agricultural Coffee Producer Cooperatives 
(Spanish acronym) 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FFPr Food for Progress Program
GAT Group of Friendship and Work
GoG Government of Guatemala
GUATEINVIERTE Rural Development Trust ‘Guatemala Invierte’ [Guatemala Invests] 
ICTA Spanish Acronym for Institute of Science and Technology
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IR Inception Report
KII Key Informant Interviews 
X
MAGA Guatemala Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food 
(Spanish acronym) 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MICOOPE Federated Cooperative of Credit Unions (Spanish acronym) 
OD Organizational Development
ODK A survey (questionnaire) implementation software
PCVR Rural Value Chains Project (Spanish acronym) 
PMEP Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
PPS Probability Proportional to Population Size
PMP Project Monitoring Plan 
RFP Request for Proposals
RC Results Chain
SNER National Rural Extension System (Spanish acronym) 
SOW Statement of Work
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 
TNA Training Needs Assessment
ToR Terms of Reference 
TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training
UC Davis University of California, Davis 
UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group
USAC University of San Carlos of Guatemala (Spanish acronym) 
USAID US Agency for International Development 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
1
01/ INTRODUCTION 
In this report, the results of the baseline assessment of the FFPr 2016 project are presented. The 
structure of the report follows the general recommendations of the Terms of Reference (ToR). Thus, 
firstly, the project’s background and the assessment purposes are featured. A description of the 
methodology follows along with the results obtained. Finally, this report outlines some 
recommendations regarding the indicators and the future implementation of the project. 
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The FFPr 2016 is a five-year intervention financed by USDA and implemented by Counterpart
International1
. It aims at boosting agricultural production and trade by increasing the use of
improved agricultural techniques and technologies among target populations, and improving 
linkages between buyers and sellers. 
The objectives of the FFPr are: 
1. To support capacity building programs and deliver strategic training with the purpose of
building capacity at the Guatemala’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (MAGA).
This aims at helping MAGA to effectively manage the National Rural Extension System
(Sistema Nacional de Extensión Rural – SNER) to effectively expand agricultural production
and trade.
2. To increase agricultural productivity by addressing market access and food security
challenges; strengthening the skills and technical knowledge of public, NGO, and private
sector extension agents; and developing the capacities of coffee producer groups. 
These objectives will be supported by the following activities: 
1. Work with MAGA to build its capacity to more effectively manage its extension services. 
Counterpart International will utilize its Organizational Development (OD) Toolkit to develop 
a capacity-building action plan of customized trainings, technical assistance, and mentoring 
to improve MAGA’s management of SNER; 
2. Further develop the Agricultural Extension Agent Certification Program, built on prior MAGA
capacity building work, to train MAGA, NGO, and private sector extension agentsin the tools,
techniques, practices and delivery of extension services; 
3. Build the capacity of coffee and horticultural producer groups, including Rural Development 
Learning Centers (Centro de Aprendizaje para el Desarrollo Rural – CADERs), associations,
and cooperatives, to provide technical assistance to smallholder farmers; 
4. Provide capacity-building grants to competitively selected producer groups, (CADERs,
associations and cooperatives) to support agricultural development activities such as
technical services, on-farm equipment, and agricultural inputs; 
5. Provide training on improved agricultural production practices and technologies, as well as
farm management to producer groups in coffee and horticultural crops, as needed; 
1 As per Cooperative Agreement # FCC-520-2016/013-00 signed by the parties on September 28, 2016.
2
6. Facilitate agricultural lending for coffee and horticulture producer groups by working with 
Guatemalan financial institutions to expand the outreach and availability of financial
products in the agricultural sector; 
7. Implement trade promotion activities, including the facilitation of establishing fair trade,
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) or organic coffee certifications, to support producer
groups to expand their sales in new and established markets. Counterpart International will 
develop a network of technicians who will assist producer organizations in obtaining and
maintaining fair trade or similar value-added coffee certifications. 
Specifically, the program focuses on geographic areas, within Guatemala, where coffee is the
dominating value chain: the departments of Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quetzaltenango, Sololá, 
and Quiche. 
1.2 ASSESSMENT PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF WORK
The Statement of Work (SOW) of the assignment indicates that this assessment is meant to serve
the following purposes:
• To provide baseline data for the Project Monitoring Plan, and a basis for Counterpart to fine
tune the project’s annual target indicators, and 
• To provide the basis and benchmarksfor the Mid-term and Final evaluations of the program. 
The Baseline Assessment is also expected to present reliable background information and analysis 
concerning:
1. The current conditions and realities in the agricultural sector, and 
2. The overall economic situation in the targeted five departments of the Western Highlands 
of Guatemala, with a specific focus on small holder farmers/producers, focusing, primarily 
but not exclusively, on coffee farmers.
The baseline assessment has adopted a variety of tools and employed both qualitative and 
quantitative methods for collecting and providing baseline data from the following groups of
stakeholders and potential beneficiaries: 
- CADERS, cooperatives and farmers’ associations; 
- Individual farmers and extension agents operating in the targeted municipalities; 
- Major local partners such as MAGA, SNER, MICOOPE, FAUSAC, ANACAFE, and
FEDECOCAGUA.
This baseline study has also taken into consideration the following: the Project Results Framework, 
the Monitoring Plan as well as the evaluation design, methodology and findings of the Final 
Evaluation of the FFPr 2012 Program also implemented by Counterpart in Guatemala during 2012-
2016.
The SOW requests to provide baseline (quantitative) data for 19 out of 39 indicators of the FFPr 
2016 (see Annex 1 ‘Terms of Reference’), as well as contribute reliable data on the following main
aspects:
1. Current average volume/value of sales by project beneficiaries. 
3
2. Current average income level of project beneficiaries. 
3. Current average yield per hectare for coffee and other major crops.
4. Number of hectares under improved techniques and technologies.
5. Percentage/number of target population being served by the Rural Extension System Agents.
6. Number of individuals/farmers in target areas applying new techniques and technologies. 
7. Level of farmers’ satisfaction by the provided/available extension services. 
8. Percentage of target population accessing financial services for Ag production purposes.
9. Total amount of loans disbursed to the smallholder farmers.
10. Average level/percentage of post-harvest losses in the target areas.
11. Current storage capacities in the target areas.
02/ METHODOLOGY
In order to conduct the baseline assessment, complementary quantitative and qualitative research 
methodologies were employed. These included a survey conducted on 826 farmers, and interviews 
and focus group discussions with farmers, extension agents and key informants from Counterpart 
and all local partners. In this subtitle, the methodology employed is described. 
2.1 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY
2.1.1 Type of survey and selection procedure
The baseline survey has a cross-sectional design and used a three-stage approach to sampling:
1. The first stage consisted of establishing a primary sampling unit which was the municipality
2. The second stage was comprised of a selection of one community within each municipality
3. The third stage selected the basic sampling unit, which is the individual farmer (identified 
through farmer associations such as CADERs, cooperatives, associations or mutual support 
groups). 
Two, independent sampling stage-procedures were performed using standard statistical and survey 
software packages2
. The first stage consisted of cluster-sampling in order to select the clusters 
located in different municipalities, applying the “Probability Proportional to Population Size (PPS)” 
approach. The municipal random-selection was done in two steps. The first step consisted of a full 
random draw of 26 municipalities out of a list of the 75 Preliminary Project Intervention 
Municipalities, as defined in the Terms of Reference (see Annex A1). The selection of 26 clusters (i.e. 
municipalities) is based on the sample requirements, the determination of which is explained below. 
Three from the original selection were subsequently replaced due to requests from different 
implementing partners (ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA) regarding the fact that these municipalities 
had a very low number of coffee producers3
. 
2 ENA (Emergency Nutrition Assessment) software was used to carry out the random draws based on the Probability 
Proportional to Population Size (PPS) method. Despite the fact that ENA was designed by nutrition professionals, its 
functions fit the needs for planning, quality control and descriptive analysis of any non-nutrition survey as well.
3 Coffee producers are the main beneficiary group of the FFPr 2016 
4
When the baseline survey was conducted, the implementation of the FFPr 2016 had not begun, nor 
had the beneficiaries been selected. This means that, at the moment of designing the survey sample, 
only the municipalities preliminarily selected for implementing the FFPr 2016 were known, but no 
specific communities inside these municipalities, CADERs or other producer organizations or final 
beneficiaries had been defined. This fact is in line with the purpose of the baseline study – to provide 
information of performance level of specific development topics at target population level (small 
coffee and other farmers) that Counterpart plans to support. Quantifying the baseline will allow 
Counterpart to, first, characterize more precisely the exact profile of beneficiaries to be selected;
and, second, in line with this profile, define the targets, goals and milestones to achieve during the
implementation period of the FFPr 2016.
During the inception phase, the following community (cluster) selection procedure was defined, in 
agreement with Counterpart. The baseline team received a list of all communities from the 26 pre￾selected municipalities for the implementation of the baseline study and made a second, random 
(community) selection, independent from the community size.4 In each selected community, an 
open invitation was distributed through CADERs, associations and other types of farmer groups to 
participate in the survey that took place at a central meeting point on the agreed day of survey 
implementation. The required condition for farmers to be accepted as valid interview partners for 
the survey was them not having been beneficiaries of any previous US Government financed aid 
project. Since the FFPr 2016 aims to support mainly small coffee farmers, the invitation to 
participate in the survey was made in 20 communities (clusters) by ANACAFE (an institution that 
works only with coffee farmers), and in 6 by MAGA (which works mainly with small horticultural 
farmers). In the first case cooperatives, associations or groups of coffee farmers were surveyed, 
while in the second, CADERs.
2.1.2 Sampling universe
Based on the geographic area designed for program implementation, the survey was conducted in 
the Western Highlands of Guatemala (departments of Huehuetenango, San Marcos, 
Quetzaltenango, Sololá and Quiche) with coffee and horticultural producers from all of these 5 
departments. The project document for the FFPr 2016 refers to an intervention area of up to 100 
municipalities, out of with 75 of them have already been defined, according to the SOW. These 75 
municipalities constituted the geographic universe for the baseline sampling exercise.
2.1.3 Sampling framework and size
A sample size of a total of 777 farmers to be surveyed (based on the FFPr final evaluation 
methodology and FFPr total number of planned beneficiaries) has been defined as minimum 
requirement to allow for the envisaged levels of representativeness and confidence interval (see 
below). However, the final sample size of valid interviews surpassed this minimum level. In fact, 826 
interviews were conducted, out of which 77.2% were with coffee farmers, and 22.8% with 
smallholders who only produced vegetables, mostly corn and kidney beans. 
The minimum number of farmers required for the sample was calculated using the standard formula 
for cluster sample sampling:
n = Z2
Np(1-p)
(A2
N) + (Z2
p[1-p])
4 This means that all communities, independently of their size, had the same (uniform) probability to be selected through
the random draw.
5
n: is the sample size required
N: is the whole target population (universe)
P: is the average proportion of records expected to meet the various criteria, and (1-p) the average 
proportion of records not expected to meet those criteria (set in a conservative estimation at 
constant 0.5)
A: is the margin of error deemed to be acceptable (calculated as a proportion, in our case 3.5% 
provides A = 0.035) 
Z: is a mathematical constant defined by the Confidence Interval chosen (i.e. how sure we need to 
be of the result)
Given an estimated population of 44.898 coffee producers in the project intervention area
(according to ANACAFE’s estimations), with a confidence level of 95% (statistical 
representativeness); a conservative estimated prevalence of 50% (as standard proportion of any 
result to be observed); a conservative design effect of 2; and a margin of error (confidence interval) 
of 3.5%, a total of 777 interviews were required to be carried out.5 This amount of responses 
provides statistically significant and representative results. Given that the non-response rate was 
lower than expected, the team managed to collect 826 valid responses. With this sample size 
increase, the standard error for general results decreased from 3.5 to 3.39. 
2.1.4 Number of clusters
At a conceptual level, a ‘cluster’ is a group of related elements. In the context of this report, the 
word ‘cluster’ refers to a group of smallholders who live in the same community. As mentioned 
above, during the implementation of the survey, 26 clusters were randomly selected. Each of these 
had an originally defined size of 30 interviews, and was meant to represent one municipality. The 
main reason why each cluster represents one municipality is that respondents in the same cluster 
are likely to be somewhat similar to one another. As a result, in a clustered sample, selecting an 
additional member from the same cluster adds little new information (so the cluster size should not 
be too big). Regarding the need for the independence of clusters, it must be considered that 
“independent” (not overlapping) clusters are required for ensuring the statistical power of the 
results. It must also be taken into consideration that high intra-cluster correlation combined with a 
small number of clusters leads to low statistical power. This is not of importance for a baseline study 
(which does not yet produce econometric results used, e.g., for impact assessment, where statistical
significance and statistical power calculations are of crucial importance), but since any future mid￾term and final evaluation will have to respect the same sampling framework used in the baseline 
study, this assessment sampling framework must ensure that all required properties for future 
project evaluations have been considered. A sampling framework of 26 clusters, with an expected 
30 farmers each, provided a good fit when trying to balance between different factors, including 
resource limitations. Finally, on average, 32 farmers were interviewed per cluster. Table 1 displays 
the 26 municipalities where the survey was conducted. 
5 Applying the equation for sample estimation we get:
((1.96*1.96)*0.5*(1-0.5)*44898)/(44898*(0.035*0.035)+(1.96*1.96)*0.5*(1-0.5)) = 777
6
Table 1. Municipalities where the survey was conducted
HUEHUETENANGO QUETZALTENANGO QUICHÉ SAN MARCOS SOLOLÁ
Colotenango Cabricán* Chajul La Reforma San Andres 
Semetabaj*
Cuilco Colomba Nebaj San Cristobal 
Cucho
San Juan La 
Laguna
Jacaltenango Genova San Juan 
Cotzal*
San Pablo San Lucas 
Tolimán
La Democracia San Rafael Pie de
la Cuesta
San Pedro La 
Laguna
La Libertad Sibinal* Santiago 
Atitlán
San Antonio Huista Sololá*
San Ildefonso Ixtahuacan
San Gaspar Ixchill*
San Pedro Necta
* = Municipalities where farmers were invited to take part of the survey by MAGA. In the rest of the cases, 
invitations were made by ANACAFE.
For more information about the distribution of the sample, please refer to Annex 2 “Full description 
of baseline study methods”
Map 1. Selected departments for baseline study in Guatemala
7
2.2QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY: INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS 
GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Besides the survey, qualitative data (focus groups and in-depth interviews) was obtained with the 
purpose of contextualizing survey results. A total of 22 interviews were conducted with staff 
members and technical personnel of ANACAFE, Counterpart, FAUSAC, FEDECOCAGUA, MAGA, and 
MICOOPE, as well as 8 focus group discussions with coffee and horticulture small farmers. Ten 
municipalities of the 75 Preliminary Project Intervention Municipalities defined in the Terms of 
Reference (see Annex A1) were visited, 8 of which were also part of the 26 municipalities where the 
survey was conducted6
. At first, 10 municipalities were randomly selected. However, some 
modifications where later made to the list due to logistical problems (poor accessibility certain 
partners’ unavailability during specific dates where support was needed, due to an overlap with 
other activities, such as ‘The day of the coffee grower’ in the case of ANACAFE and a census that 
MAGA was conducting in all the country). The final list of municipalities visited for qualitative data 
collection is shown in Table 2. 
Table 2: Municipalities visited for qualitative data collection
HUEHUETENANGO SAN MARCOS QUETZALTENANGO
Jacaltenango San Rafael Pie de la Cuesta Colomba
La Democracia San Pablo Genova
La Libertad
San Pedro Necta
Todos Santos Cuchumatan
Unión Cantinil
03/THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND 
THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THE 
TARGETED DEPARTMENTS
FFPr 2016 project will be developed in five departments of the Western Highland region of 
Guatemala. According to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) livelihoods study 
carried out in 2016, the rural population of a large part of the municipalities that make up the 
Western Highland region have their main economic activities, sources of income and food related 
to wage labor, staple crops, vegetables, trade and remittances. In a homogeneous way, this area 
receives the Zone 06 category, as can be seen in the Map 1 (yellow area). The “Western Highlands, 
labor, staple crops, vegetables, trade and remittances” livelihood zone occupies most of the west of 
the country, including the departments of Totonicapán, Sololá, and Huehuetenango, the northern 
half of San Marcos, Quetzaltenango and Chimaltenango, as well as the western half of Quiché, all 
located within the Guatemalan highlands (the Altiplano). Most of this territory lies at 1000 meters 
6 During the inception phase, it had been agreed upon with Counterpart that at least eight districts should be visited for
qualitative data collection; consequently, the minimum requirement has been over-accomplished.
8
above sea level (masl) and over, and consists of a mixture of highland plains and escarped mountains 
and volcanoes. The basis of the local economy is a mix of agriculture, internal and cross-border trade 
and remittances. Although the zone is not amenable to large tracts of intensive agriculture, 
agriculture dominates the local customs. 
Households produce maize and beans for own consumption and vegetables, and potatoes, fruits 
and even coffee for sale. This zone is, in fact, the main production area for vegetables and potatoes 
in the country. The mountainous terrain offers ideal conditions for potato growing. Vegetable 
production is most prominent in the south of the zone. Migration to coffee and sugar cane 
production areas (zones GT11 and GT12) is also common, where harvests are performed by hand 
and demand for labor is high. The proximity to Mexico provides the supplies and the demand for a 
vibrant cross-border trade economy. Remittances form the third pillar of the economy; it is mainly 
the young who migrate and the most common destinations are the US and Mexico. Low education 
levels mean most migrants search for opportunities in low-skilled sectors (domestic services, 
construction, transport and other manual work).
Map 2. Families’ livelihoods in Guatemala Western
Highlands
The most important markets supplying the 
livelihood zone are the markets located in the 
capital town of each municipality. Formal cross￾border trade with Mexico takes place at the two 
main border markets of La Democracia and La 
Mesilla, both in Huehuetenango. Nonetheless, 
smuggling is very common and there are several 
points throughout the border where there are no 
controls
Overall, market access within the zone is limited due 
to poor infrastructure, dominated by gravel roads in 
poor condition, and the mountainous terrain, which 
impedes travel and transport in general and 
especially during the wet season when landslides 
are common. The poorest communities are always 
located far from urban centers, where road access is 
worse. Their remote location translates into poor 
market integration and fewer or less advantageous opportunities for local farmers to sell their 
produce, and also higher costs for all consumer goods arriving in the area. Vegetables are mostly 
sold to intermediaries who transport the produce to the main markets in the department or directly 
to the collection center outside Guatemala City (CENMA – Central de Mayoreo). From there, 
vegetables are also exported to El Salvador. However, in some cases, Salvadorian businessmen also 
buy vegetables in San Marcos and Sololá and send them directly to El Salvador. 
Local production of maize and beans is mainly reserved for household consumption. In fact, the local 
varieties of maize and beans are most appreciated by the local population and production levels are 
9
not high enough to warrant export to other areas. From February onwards, most households’ own 
stocks are empty and families must resort to purchasing maize at the local markets. 
Coffee production is very important in the rural areas of the five departments where FFPr 2016 is 
going to be implemented, particularly in Huehuetenango. According to the last agricultural census 
conducted in 2003, there were 171,334 coffee farmers in the whole country, 33,330 in 
Huehuetenango, 2,870 in Quetzaltenango, 6,468 in Quiché, 15,165 in San Marcos and 13,392 in 
Sololá (a total of 71,225 farmers in the FFPr 2016 intervention area, which make up 41.57% of the 
coffee growers of the country). Currently, ANACAFE informs that in Huehuetenango there are 
16,222 coffee farmers, in Quetzaltenango 2,558, in Quiché 2.553, in San Marcos 12.439 and in Sololá 
11,126 (comprising a total of 44,898 coffee farmers in the five departments). However, the number 
of families obtaining income from coffee farming, harvesting and related activities is even higher 
(the MAGA’s Contingency Plan for the Control of the Coffee Rust estimates that, per coffee grower, 
there are approximately 5 families depending on coffee production).
There are two, distinct, geographic areas of coffee farming in the five departments (see “coffee 
production” livelihood zone (GT11)). The first is located in the south of Guatemala and covers a thin 
strip of volcanic and mountainous terrain (1300 to 2000 masl) stretching from the Mexican border 
to the border with El Salvador. This area has rich, fertile soils and includes the key coffee-growing 
areas located by lake Atitlán (Sololá), as well as small transversal sections of the departments of San 
Marcos and Quetzaltenango, and others located outside the project intervention area. The second 
area is located in the highlands of Huehuetenango, which have peaks of up to 2000 masl. Here the 
atmosphere is dry and arid meaning that the soil is protected from frost.
Although coffee production is the main feature of this area, its importance as a source of income 
has been greatly reduced in recent years, due to the number of crises that have affected this sector 
(coffee rust and low prices) and especially small and medium-scale growers. As a result, coffee 
growers have started to grow fruit inside their coffee plantations, they sell the wood products that 
result from clearing plantations and pruning, in an effort to exploit the options that their farmland 
can offer. The zone now produces grains, vegetables, citrus and rubber alongside coffee, which 
continues to dominate the zone’s produce. Most of the population is involved in agricultural 
activities, particularly related to coffee. Since coffee can be harvested at different times, depending 
on the altitude (harvesting period for the FFPr 2016 intervention area is mostly between December 
and April), this zone sees a lot of internal migration. There is also a high degree of immigration into 
zone GT11 from other zones within Guatemala. Additionally, households produce rain fed staple 
crops and since the need for diversification has become more acute they have started to grow citrus 
fruits, avocados, bananas and other rain fed crops.
There are various threats that affect the zone ranging from international market prices to local 
weather disruptions. All threats have a direct and heavy impact on the poorest groups who make 
up close to 80% of the zone’s population. The infrastructure is lacking maintenance and the local 
population often lacks the educational foundation to improve their circumstances, since they are 
permanently engaged in unskilled manual labor. 
This zone has, overall, good market access with asphalt and dirt track roads, as well as the required 
modes of transportation to supply the various destinations and support the coffee sector. In some 
areas (particularly where the terrain becomes rugged) the market access has worsened due to lack 
of maintenance. Pack animals are being used to carry produce from the farms to the main roads. 
10
The main markets within the area are those of Mazatenango, Escuintla and Coatepeque, in the area 
of bocacosta, and those of Todos Santos and La Democracia, in Huehuetenango. 
Maize is grown along with beans mainly by poor households, who reserve them exclusively for 
consumption. Poor and middle-income groups produce both to cover their food needs and for sale. 
Very poor households only produce sufficient maize to cover family consumption. 
There are three different routes for the sale of coffee:
i) Suitable for small-scale and medium-sized producers7 (the most numerous), the route starts at 
the producer, coffee beans are sold to an intermediary or middleman who sells them at the main 
collection centers (Coatepeque, Antigua Guatemala, Amatitlán) where it is processed and classified 
and dried under the sun or in mechanical driers. From here they are sold to the export agent and 
the broker and ultimately to the final client.
ii) Large producers sell their produce unshelled (café oro) directly to brokers and on to the final 
client 
iii) Cooperatives and coffee-growers’ associations sell preachment coffee by the weight or unshelled 
beans already packed for direct sale to the brokers.
Coffee beans are transported by pick-up truck and larger trucks from the plantations to the 
collection centers and to the seaports (Quetzal Port for export towards Asia and the US Pacific coast; 
and Puerto Barrios for export to Europe and the US Eastern coast). Prices are fixed in advance, 
according to the global futures contracts market, traded mostly in the New York Mercantile 
Exchange.
The poor and middle groups receive remittances year-round, and especially for the holidays at the 
end of the year, the Independence Day celebrations (September 15) and the beginning of the year, 
when school related expenses increase. Increasingly, youth and even children as young as 7 to 9 
years old are migrating.
04/ RESULTS AND BASELINE DATA
FFPr 2016 has two main objectives, which are expected to be achieved through the implementation 
of seven different activities, with the support of multiple partners, including: ANACAFE, FAUSAC, 
FEDECOCAGUA, MAGA, MICOOPE, and University of California, Davis (UC Davis). In this section, two 
different types of information will be presented: qualitative findings (which will be useful for 
contextualizing results and making decisions regarding the implementation of the project), as well 
as quantitative data for the 19 indicators mentioned in Annex 1 “Terms of Reference”. These results 
will be presented by organizing them within each of the 7 activities implemented by the FFPr 2016, 
with the aim of maximizing their practical usefulness. Indicators usually relate to no one, but 
multiple activities. However, in order to present the results in a more organized way, each of the 19 
indicators will be addressed in the context of the description of one activity. In section 5 “Key 
conclusions and recommendations” the complete list of FFPr 2016 project’s 39 indicators will be 
commented and reflected upon. Table 3 lists the seven FFPr 2016 activities and shows which 
indicator will be addressed in each. 
7 According to ANACAFE’s current classification, small coffee growers produce, per year, up to 200 quintals of coffee (9
tons), medium-sized producers between 201 and 1,600 quintals(between 9.04 and to 144 tons), and large producers more
than 1,600 quintals (144 tons)
11
Table 3: Relationships between FFPr 2016 activities and indicators’ results 
Activity 
number
Activity Indicator number
1 Capacity building: Government institutions (MAGA) 26
2 Capacity building: Agricultural extension agents and 
services (Certification Program).
29, 31
3 Capacity building: Producer groups and cooperatives 6, 7, 24, 25, 28, 30
4 Cash and in-kind grants: Inputs, equipment, post￾harvest infrastructure
16, 17, 36
5 Training: improved agricultural production 
techniques and farm management
12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 27, 
30, 37
6 Financial services: Facilitate agricultural lending 18, 19, 20
7 Market access: Enhance producer marketability 1, 2, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39
--- Community context 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 32
Furthermore, in the case of activities with no direct connection to the indicators listed, only 
qualitative results will be presented. Inversely, indicators with no direct connection to activities will 
presented under the subtitle ‘Community Context’. 
4.1 FFPR 2016 ACTIVITIES AND BASELINE RESULTS
4.1.1 FFPr Activity 1. Capacity building: Government institutions (MAGA)
Interviewees have stressed that, despite being the head and the core of the SNER, for a number of 
reasons, MAGA is a relatively weak institution. Some of the reasons for this are: that there is (a) 
scarce coordination among its internal units and with other rural extension/research institutions 
such as FAUSAC, Institute of Science and Technology (ICTA), ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA; (b) a 
preponderance of a political rationale over technical considerations; (c) high rotation of staff, delay 
in the payment of salaries, and a practice of hiring extension agents who do not fulfill the position’s 
requirements (as a result of political corruption); (d) lack of a (consistent) monitoring and evaluation 
system; and (e) lack of agricultural inputs, vehicles and fuel to conduct training sessions or provide 
technical assistance in the field. 
In this context, making contributions to building the MAGA’s capacity to provide high quality rural 
extension services, and to managing the SNER, seem to be very valuable strategies. Considering that 
international donor agencies such as FAO and the European Commission are implementing actions 
in the country to contribute to the strengthening of the MAGA, it seems advisable that Counterpart 
coordinate the implementation of Activity 1 along with them. Finally, when designing the strategy 
used to strengthen the MAGA, it is essential to take into account the potential and the importance 
of rural extension personnel who have ‘Renglón 011’ contracts, which means they are MAGA 
permanent staff (those not subject to rotation or unjustified dismissal). Mid-level extension 
authorities are usually permanent MAGA staff and can become valuable allies in the process of 
institution building.
12
4.1.2 FFPr Activity 2. Capacity building: Agricultural extension agents and services 
(Certification Program)
FAUSAC and UC Davis are key partners within the context of this activity. They are both strong 
institutions and have the experience of having worked with each other and with Counterpart in the 
past (FFPr 2012). Moreover, FAUSAC’s authorities highlighted that UC Davis professors have 
experience in Latin America which, from their point of view, makes it easier to coordinate and work 
with them. 
In their Work Plan, Counterpart proposed “transitioning full responsibility of the Certification 
Program to USAC by the end of the project.” FAUSAC informed us that the first steps have been 
implemented in order to move in that direction (namely, the Certification Program for extensionists 
was approved by the USAC as an Official Program). However, despite being feasible, it is also 
important to note that transitioning full responsibility to the USAC will probably create funding 
problems because, as of now, there is no consensus on whom will assume the cost for the program.
Finally, FFPr 2016 Work Plan also proposes to support the strengthening of the Guatemala 
Agricultural Middle Training Schools (EFA) and the National Central School of Agriculture (ENCA) 
curricula, with the support of FAUSAC. FAUSAC’s dean pointed out that EFA and ENCA’s authorities 
share this objective and are committed to taking part in the process, which is fundamental for 
reaching the expected results. 
4.1.2 FFPr Activity 3. Capacity building: Producers groups and cooperatives, & FFPr 
Activity 4. Cash and in-kind grants: Inputs, equipment, post-harvest infrastructure
Counterpart will implement activities 3 and 4 directly, as it did in the previous project (FFPr 2012). 
Based on Counterpart’s previous experience as well as on MAGA interviewees’ recommendations, 
it seems advisable to coordinate with other partners (such as ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA, and MAGA) 
during the implementation phase, in order to assure that these partners provide follow-up support 
to beneficiaries. National and international experience show that follow-up support for a project, 
once it has finished, is key for consolidating changes and improvements.
With regards to specific indicators, FFPr Activity 4 “Cash and in-kind grants: Inputs, equipment, post￾harvest infrastructure” (along with Activity 6 “Facilitate agricultural lending” and Activity 7 “Market 
access: Enhance producer marketability”) will all contribute to fulfilling Indicator 37 “Total increase 
in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA assistance” (questions 151 to 
154)8
. In this line, survey results show that 48.1% of farmers store at least a portion of their produce. 
Most farmers who store their produce do so in their own house (46.9%), followed by those who 
store it in their own storage facilities (usually small and made of regular construction materials) 
warehouses (in Spanish ‘bodegas’) (33%), then by those who store in silos (27.7%) as is the case of 
corn and kidney bean storage, and, finally, those who use their cooperative’s storage facility 
(10.3%). Cold storage is almost inexistent, because of its high cost and because coffee does not need 
to be stored in cold temperatures. Additionally, in most of cases, storage capacity remained the 
same during the last year (in 1.3% of cases it increased and in 4% it diminished). 
8 Indicator 37 assesses the increase in the installed storage capacity, but not the volume of the storage capacity itself.
When designing the questionnaire it become apparent that farmers could not provide an accurate estimation of their
storage capacity, so questions were aimed at quantifying the use of storage, types of storages, and perception of the
increase or decrease of their capacity.
13
Storage capacity is important because it allows farmers to conserve their produce (if done properly) 
for consumption (in the case of corn and kidney beans), or to wait for better market prices. 
Interviews suggest that postharvest losses are high, sometimes reaching even half of the storage 
volume, as is the case of basic grains. This problem could be easily addressed through the proper 
use of silos. 
4.1.4 FFPr Activity 5. Training: improved agricultural production techniques and farm 
management
Description of FFPr 2016 partners and the problems faced when defining its beneficiaries 
Activity 5 will be implemented jointly with ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA. Both entities support 
coffee farmers on technical, organizational, financial and commercial levels. ANACAFE is a private 
association which is publicly funded by a specific tax applied to the exportation of coffee, that aims 
at promoting coffee production in Guatemala. It provides support to coffee farmers, aiming to 
transform a subsistence-oriented production system into a market-oriented one, as they consider 
the latter to be the best option in order to increase the smallholder farmer’s income and reduce 
rural poverty. However, ANACAFE does not market coffee. 
FEDECOCAGUA is a federation of coffee cooperatives that supports their own organizations, and 
engages directly in the commercialization and exportation of coffee (there are approximately 
125,000 coffee producers in the country and about 20% of them, are members of one of the more 
than 80 coffee cooperatives that partake in FEDECOCAGUA). It has its own financial institution (Bank 
of Rural Development of Guatemala [BANRURAL]) and provides technical assistance to their 
members with greater frequency than ANACAFE does. Finally, members of FEDECOCAGUA are 
expected to sell their coffee only to the Federation, which deducts its operational costs from the 
value of the sale, indirectly including a fee for the technical assistance received. 
 
With regards to the criteria for the selection of those smallholders who will partake in FFPr 2016, 
USDA established that those who received benefits from the US government (USDA and USAID) 
could not be beneficiaries of FFPr 2016. The PCVR was recently funded by USAID in Guatemala. It 
was implemented in the Departments of Huehuetenango and San Marcos by ANACAFE and 
FEDECOCAGUA. All cooperatives of FEDACOCAGUA, based in both departments, received support 
from PCVR, which implies that FEDECOCAGUA will not be able to invite new organizations to take 
part in the project in this area. FEDACOCAGUA argued that all their cooperatives in both 
departments had received support but that direct benefits did not reach all their individual 
members. Here, Counterpart and USDA will have to agree upon the definition of ‘beneficiary’ they 
are going to use. In contrast, ANACAFE highlighted that they have many coffee farmers and coffee 
organizations that did not receive PCVR in both departments. With regards to the departments of
Quetzaltenango, Quiche, and Sololá, no potential overlapping of beneficiary problems were 
identified during qualitative fieldwork. 
Training, technical assistance and access to information
Access to technical assistance and market information is an essential need for farmers and for the 
associations and cooperatives within which they partake. Qualitative fieldwork has demonstrated 
both the importance of the technical assistance provided to smallholders in the area, as well as the 
14
precarious conditions and limitations with which rural extensionists often carry out their work.
With regards to the provision of technical assistance, the ratio between technical advisors/rural 
extensionists and number of farmers seems to be very low, particularly in the case of ANACAFE 
(which is expected to support all coffee farmers in the country, approximately 125.000), but it is also 
the case for FEDECOCAGUA (whose clients are only those cooperatives and farmers that belong to 
the Federation, although to a lesser degree). The situation of MAGA is somewhat different, because 
it has many more practitioners but, as explained before, has no resources allocated for field work. 
For instance, ANACAFE has only 13 technical advisors in Quiche and Huehuetenango that are meant 
to support all coffee farmers working in both departments. In order to reach as many farmers, 
associations and coffee cooperatives as possible, rural extensionists provide technical assistance 
and training to groups of farmers or associations/cooperatives rather than to individuals. Given that 
the ratio between rural extensionists and farmers is low, it is advisable that assisted associations 
and cooperatives have their own technical support (for instance paraprofessional technicians) in 
order to complement ANACAFE/FEDECOCAGUAs’ support and build synergies. In the same vein, it 
is also important to note that scarce access to technical support is even more pressing in the case 
of those organizations wanting to obtain coffee certifications, because of the specific requirements 
they have to meet in order to obtain the certifications.
Additionally, qualitative fieldwork showed that rural extensionists and technical advisors should 
offer support not only in relation to production and marketing aspects, but also on credit 
management (i.e. on the credit lines to be implemented under FFPr 2016). This will require that 
ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA rural extensionists receive training specifically on financial matters in 
order to complement training and technical assistance, on the one hand, and credit management, 
on the other hand (Activity 6 of FFPr 2016). In the same line, with the aim of synergizing training 
and credit efforts, a good and fluid coordination between technical institutions (ANACAFE, 
FEDECOCAGUA, and MAGA) and credit providers (MICOOPE) will be essential for the success of FFPr 
2016. 
In conjunction with training and technical assistance, strengthening coffee associations and 
cooperatives at an organizational level is also needed if they are to produce and profitably sell 
coffee. This will also require that cooperative managers develop, at least, basic entrepreneurial and 
management skills (i.e. on identification of market opportunities and on direct bargaining with 
buyers).
Finally, the importance of radio and cellular phones in the communities has to be highlighted, since 
both means of communication are valuable instruments for the delivery of technical information 
and advice to target groups of farmers. 
Analysis of indicators related to agricultural production and farm management
As required, the consulting team gathered baseline, quantitative information on 7 indicators 
(number 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 27, and 30) related to the area of agricultural production and farm 
management. These results are presented below. 
Indicator 12: “Percentage of smallholder farmers who make production plans and/or investments to 
sustain and improve the quality of land and water resources” (questions 109 to 122). The following 
figures shows the percentage of farmers that implemented, over the last 12 months, different 
practices that allow for sustaining and/or improving soil quality (Figure 1), and increasing the 
15
availability and/or improving the use of water (Figure 2)
Figure 1. Farmers applying technologies for sustaining and/or improving soil quality
Figure 2. Farmers applying technologies for increasing the availability and/or improving the use 
of water
Results show three different types of practices. First, there are those productive technologies and 
techniques that maintain or increase soil quality and water availability that were practiced 
frequently over the last 12 months. Examples of these are organic fertilization and avoiding the 
burning of stubble. Secondly are the practices, such as the construction of terraces or irrigation 
systems, that were more infrequent, due to the fact that they are investment activities or, in other 
words, practices that are one time investments and are not implemented on a year to year basis 
(such is the case of organic fertilization). And finally, results also show that there is a third category 
of important practices that are carried out infrequently that, however, could be carried out on a 
regular basis, such as farming following contour lines (‘curvas de nivel’), harvesting of water, and 
even incorporation of stubble into the soil.
28.8%
80.5%
55.8%
83.1%
48.1%
34.1%
18.1%
7.5%
20%
FARMING FOLLOWING CONTOUR LINES
ORGANIC FERTILIZATION
INCORPORATION OF STUBBLE INTO THE …
AVOID BURNING STUBBLE
TILLAGE WITHOUT OVERTURNING SOIL …
CONSTRUCTION OF LIVE AND DEAD …
CONSTRUCTION OF DITCHES
CONSTRUCTION OF INFILTRATION WELLS
CONSTRUCTION OF TERRACES
33.1%
30.3%
8,4%
5%
5.3%
SOIL COVER TO RETAIN MOISTURE
COLLECTION OR HARVESTING OF WATER 
(CISTERN, BARRELS, SINKS)
CARE OR CONSTRUCTION OF (NON 
NATURAL) POND OR WATER RESERVOIR
CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF 
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
STREAM DIVERSION OR CHANNELING
16
Indicator 13: “Number of hectares under improved techniques or technologies as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #1]” (question 107), and Indicator 14: “Number of individuals who have 
applied new techniques or technologies as result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #2]” (questions 
89 to 106, and 108 to 122). Both indicators refer to the use of improved techniques or technologies 
during the production phase, number 14 refers to those carried out by individual farmers, and 
number 13 refers to the area farmed using such technologies. Technologies mentioned under 
Indicator 12 also are ‘improved techniques or technologies’, but in order to avoid repetition, they 
are not going to be described again. In what follows, Table 4 shows the percentage of smallholders 
who use key, improved technologies and practices for farming (the list of technologies was 
composed after meetings with ANACAFE and MAGA technicians), while Table 5 shows technologies 
that apply only to coffee production.
Table 4. Use of improved technologies for farming
(N=862) % N (826)
New breeding animal or with improved genetics 3.1 26
Incorporation of new varieties or seeds 28.5 235
Seed selection (traditional varieties) 32.8 271
Vaccination, including small livestock 23.1 191
Deworming 14.2 117
Use of insecticides* 61 504
Precautionary measures when using agrochemicals 28.6 236
Have or use of irrigation systems* 4.8 40
Use of ICTs for accessing climate, crop or market information 4.1 34
Table 5. Use of improved technologies for coffee 
USE OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY FOR COFFEE (N=635) % N (635)
Use of seedbeds (‘almácigos’) 40.5 257
Farming improved coffee varieties (e.g. better resistance against rust) * 35.1 223
Pruning* 90.4 574
Shade management* 93.5 594
Soil analysis 26 165
Own coffee drying facilities (‘patios de secado’) 25 159
Own coffee washing facilities (‘correteos’) 15.4 98
Use of fermentation pile (‘pila de fermentación’) 16.5 105
Treatment of coffee waste water (‘aguas mieles’) 12.3 78
Some technologies correlate with the particular terrain to which they are applied (which is the case 
of improved coffee varieties, for example), while for others it does not make sense to state whether 
or not they correlate with the area or terrain to which they are applied (which is the case of the use 
of fermentation pile, for example). Thus, farmers were asked about the terrain to which they applied 
technologies of the first kind mentioned above. Results are shown in Table 6
17
Table 6. Hectares under improved farming techniques or technologies
N Minimum Maximum Media Total
FOR FARMING
Hectares with insecticides 503 0 7 .0.54 271.62
Hectares with irrigation 39 0 1 0.15 5.85
EXCLUSIVELY FOR COFFE
Hectares with improved 
varieties
217 0 66 0.64 138.88
Hectares with coffee pruning 570 0 7 0.56 319.2
Hectares with shade 
management
590 0 7 0.57 336.3
TOTAL 826 --- --- 1.30 1,071.85
Results show that there is a wide margin for improving technologies, particularly in the case of 
coffee production, post-harvest, and wet coffee processing. These improvements include: the use 
of seedbeds, improved varieties, fertilization based on soil analysis, use of pesticides (particularly 
for integrated pest management), use of drying and washing facilities, fermentation pile and 
treatment of coffee waste water.
During qualitative fieldwork, it was observed that the impact that rust has on coffee greatly affects 
productivity. This problem reflects others ones such as, lack of proper fertilization, aging of 
plantations, and the effect of climate change, which leads to the emergence of new plagues (e.g. 
rust) for which farmers have no knowledge of how to address. 
Indicator 30: “Number of private enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that 
applied improved techniques and technologies as result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #7]”
((question 9, 89 to 106, and 108 to 122). Survey results show that smallholders in general and coffee 
farmers in particular partake in organizations, in some cases, in more than one. In general terms, 
the farmers who made up the sample belong to CADERs (21.5%), associations or cooperatives 
(34.2%), and GATs (41.3%), among other types of organizations. In the case of horticulture farmers, 
almost all of them belong to CADERs, while coffee farmers are mostly members of associations, 
cooperatives or Groups Friendship and Work9 (GATs are their initials in Spanish) (only a few of them 
belong to CADERs). However, this distribution cannot be generalized for all of the smallholders of 
the 5 departments wherein FFPr 2016 is going to work, because survey participants were invited 
through ANACAFE’s organizations and MAGA’s CADERs, which could have caused a bias in the 
sample, in terms of the organizations in which they partake. 
In tables 7 and 8 the percentage of farmers who apply specific, improved technologies -
differentiated per type of organization- are presented. Results show that the use of improved 
technologies varies enormously among farmers who are members of different types of 
organizations. For instance, CADER members apply practices such as seed selection and vaccination 
9 The GATs are groups of coffee growers supported by ANACAFE which have no legal status as associations and
cooperatives do. They can be considered proto-associations or proto-cooperatives, because ANACAFE aims to strengthen
GATs in order for them to become associations or cooperatives.
18
much more frequently than associations or cooperatives’ members (43.6% against 23.9% with 
regards to seed selection, and 35.4% against 18.4% with regards to vaccination). And, conversely, 
associations and cooperatives’ members use ICTs to look for information more frequently than 
CADERs’ members do (7.7% against only 2.1%). 
Table 7. Use of improved technologies for farming in different types of organizations, in %
CADER 
(n=195)
GATs
(n = 374)
Association or 
cooperative 
(n= 310)
New breeding animal or with improved 
genetics 
6.67% 1.60% 2.58%
Incorporation of new varieties or seeds 23.08% 29.41% 31.61%
Seed selection (traditional varieties) 43.59% 34.49% 23.87%
Vaccination, including small livestock 35.38% 21.39% 18.39%
Deworming 23.59% 12.83% 11.61%
Use of insecticides 54.87% 64.97% 62.58%
Precautionary measures when using 
agrochemicals
25.64% 27.27% 34.52%
Have or use of irrigation systems 9.74% 4.55% 2.90%
Use of ICTs for accessing information 2.05% 1.87% 7.74%
Table 8. Use of improved technologies for coffee in different types of organizations, in %
CADER 
(n= 30)
GATs
(n =370)
Association 
or 
cooperative 
(n= 277 )
Use of seedbeds (‘almácigos’) 46.67% 44.05% 34.66%
Have improved coffee varieties 13.33% 35.14% 39.71%
Pruning 90.00% 92.97% 88.09%
Shade management 93.33% 94.32% 93.14%
Soil analysis 40.00% 21.89% 33.21%
Own coffee drying facilities (‘patios de secado’) 20.00% 24.59% 27.08%
Own coffee washing facilities (‘correteos’) 16.67% 11.62% 19.86%
Use of fermentation pile (‘pila de fermentación’) 16.67% 14.32% 18.41%
Treatment of coffee waste water (‘aguas mieles’) 13.33% 11.89% 13.72%
Despite the usefulness of this data, providing a closed or final baseline figure (or figures) for this 
indicator seems difficult and even misleading, considering that survey results provided information 
about farmers’ practices but not about those of their organizations. In fact, qualitative fieldwork 
suggests that, in almost all the cases, referring to associations’ or cooperatives’ improved productive 
practices is meaningless (with the only exceptions of cooperatives that enforce specific productive 
practices as a result of coffee certifications). This is because it is the farmers who produce and can 
19
thus have “improved productive practices,” and not the cooperatives. In this line, it would seem 
advisable to remove this indicator from the FFPr 2016 indicators list. 
Indicator 15: “Increased average agricultural yield per hectare (main crops)” (questions 50 to 52). 
Yield was studied for the three main crops: coffee, corn and kidney beans. It is important to note 
that farmers were not asked about their yield. Instead, figures were constructed by dividing a unit 
of weight (quintals or metric tons) per one of surface (‘cuerdas’ or hectares), which is much easier 
to quantify. Mean yield of coffee (in parchment coffee) is 1.05 (quintals per cuerda) or 1.00 (tons 
per hectare). This information was corroborated because some farmers informed sales of cherry 
coffee (with pulp) and others of parchment coffee (without it), and they each have a different 
weight. There was a risk of having mixed both types of coffee when calculating yield. However, 
figures checked out (yield of farmers selling in cherry was the same as of those selling in parchment). 
Another significant result was that coffee yield was different depending on the department where 
it was grown, as well as depending on the farmer’s membership to different types of organizations. 
This implies that yield is not a general figure and depends on the territorial and institutional context. 
Thus, when implementing FFPr 2016, Counterpart and its partners, should keep these differences 
in mind when making decisions regarding training contents and allocation of resources. 
With regards to corn, mean yield is 1.78, and kidney beans 0.71. In the case of kidney beans some 
corrections had to be made, because some farmers informed yields of over 50 tons per hectare, 
when a reasonable maximum is 2. These results are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Mean yield of different crops, in different departments and organizational contexts (in 
tons per hectare)
1.00
1.78
0.71
1.30
0.55
0.64
0.93
0.93
1.10
0.90
0.96
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
COFFEE
CORN
KIDNEY BEAN
HUEHUETANANGO
QUETZALTANANGO
QUICHE
SAN MARCOS
SOLOLA
COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION
GAT
Coffee by department Coffee by organization Crops
20
In general, these results show that yield tends to be low and can be increased if improved 
technologies (appropriate for the territorial and socioeconomic context) are implemented. 
Indicator 23: “Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management practices (i.e. 
governance, administration, or financial management) as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Disaggregation by gender and age Standard #3]” (questions 135a and 135b). Survey results show 
that smallholders scarcely use improved farm management practices. In fact, only 16.4% keep some 
annual written record of expenses and incomes, and only 36.4% look for technical advice, 
information on the internet, or listen to radio or television programs before making important 
decisions about their farm or practices. These results corroborate that extension services have 
limited territorial coverage and thus highlights the importance of the presence of rural extensionists 
and technical advisors with proper training to provide advice on farm management practices. 
Indicator 27: Percentage of farmers who perceive that there is an increase in government’s extension 
service provision (questions 136-140). Almost half of the farmers surveyed (48.1%) were visited by 
rural extension agents or a technical advisor over the last 12 months. Amongst them, 68.3% received 
a visit from ANACAFE, 25.7% from MAGA and 10.3% from other extension institutions. This 
distribution is not surprising, considering that the sample was gathered with the support of 
ANACAFE in 20 communities, and with that of MAGA in 6. This could suggest the existence of a 
certain bias in the results, which requires that these percentages be treated with caution. 
With regards to the frequency of the visits, 39.2% of those who received technical assistance from 
MAGA argued that the quantity of visits was similar to previous years, 37.3% that they diminished, 
and 22.5% that they increased. In the case of ANACAFE, 47.6% said that quantity of visits was similar, 
28.6% that they increased, and 22.7% that they diminished. In brief, it could be assumed that 
ANACAFE’s support slightly increased during last year, while MAGA’s diminished. 
In the case of both institutions, with regards to the type of work undertaken in the communities, 
group trainings predominated, followed by individual technical assistance, and finally provision of 
agricultural inputs. In terms of levels of satisfaction, most farmers surveyed tended to be very 
satisfied with the services provided by both institutions: 69.2% of those who received assistance 
from ANACAFE and 54.9% of those who received it from the MAGA were very satisfied. However, 
despite the fact that most smallholders are highly satisfied with the technical assistance received, 
there is also an important percentage that is not (30.8% in the case of ANACAFE and 45.1% in that 
of the MAGA), which means that there is room for improvement. Level of satisfaction with rural 
extension services are presented in Figure 4. 
Figure 4. Level of satisfaction with rural extension services
21
Reflections and recommendations on training processes and technology change
Survey results and qualitative fieldwork show that there is considerable room for improvement in 
terms of the use of technology in coffee cultivation, which brings to the forefront the importance of 
training smallholder farmers in order for FFPr 2016 to succeed. In the survey, when smallholder 
farmers were asked why they did not apply specific productive technologies, 55.1% answered that 
they did not know of their existence. This lack of knowledge of the existence of more suitable 
production techniques highlights the need for improving individual farmers and farmer 
organizations’ access to technical information and technologies. Likewise, 33.2% of those farmers 
argued that they did know of said technologies but could not apply them due to different reasons, 
the most important being the lack of money or capital to invest (70.4% of those who replied that 
they were unable to apply them), and lack of technical advice (9.9%). 
Up to this point, it is important to distinguish between ‘training’ and ‘technical assistance,’ since 
both concepts are related but different. Training is a one-time activity, while technical assistance is 
an informal educational process in which a technician periodically visits farmers. Taking into account 
FFPr 2016’s objectives, it is important that the project, when implementing and/or supporting 
training activities, make use of field-level participatory training techniques such as field trips, visits 
to demonstration plots, and practical workshops, among others. To summarize, technical change 
and adoption of technologies requires training, access to credit (to finance investments and 
purchase of inputs) and technical assistance. In this context, technical assistance will be an essential 
factor for the project’s success. 
According to survey results and qualitative fieldwork, the following training topics seem to be 
strategic:
1. Coffee production, rejuvenation of coffee plantations, management of seedbeds, 
agroforestry, sustainable management of soil and water resources, and pest and disease 
preventive management.
1.4%
29.2%
69.4%
5.9%
39.2%
54.9%
UNSATISFIED
MODERATELY SATISFIED
VERY SATISFIED
UNSATISFIED
MODERATELY SATISFIED
VERY SATISFIED
SATISFACTION 
LEVEL WITH 
ANACAFE SUPPORT
SATISFACTION 
LEVEL WITH MAGA 
SUPPORT
22
2. Post-harvest and wet coffee processing, conditioning of coffee drying facilities, and 
treatment of coffee waste water
3. Environmental management, adequate use of pesticides, management of packages of 
agrochemicals, use of protective equipment during pesticide applications
4. How to manage farming as a business, use of records, and basic accounting.
5. Strengthening of farmer organizations and cooperatives 
6. Marketing and use of marketing techniques for both farmers and farmer organizations. 
4.1.5 FFPr Activity 6. Financial services: Facilitate agricultural lending
MICOOPE and access to credit in the context of coffee farming
Qualitative fieldwork revealed that the coffee value chain in Guatemala is very fragmented. Small 
coffee farmers are often linked with a small number of intermediaries who monopolize access to 
the distribution channels of their crops, which tends to erode profitability. In this context, the 
MICOOPE network can play a key role facilitating the access to proper credit lines for small coffee 
farmers. In this line, in conjunction with MICOOPE, FFPr 2016 will contribute to developing a new 
and specific financial product for coffee farmers, to the training of MICOOPEs’ loan officer on 
financial analysis applied to agricultural production, and to the provision of credit to smallholders. 
Importantly, as a financial institution, the MICOOPE credit and savings cooperative network has the 
advantage of being based on cooperative principles, which implies that borrowers are legal partners 
of their respective cooperative institutions, and thus contribute to the strengthening of their local 
savings and loans cooperatives. Likewise, the development of specific financial products for coffee 
cultivation, alternative to those currently existing for the agricultural sector in Guatemala, will also 
contribute to reducing interest rates in comparison to those prevailing in the commercial banking 
sector. These rates should be moderate enough to allow the farmer to obtain long term credit, in 
line with the natural cycle of this crop. 
However, it is important to keep in mind that the MICOOPE network still plays an incipient role in 
the financing of agricultural production. MICOOPE’s Department of Agriculture started operations 
five years ago. It decides what can be financed, for how long and for which amount, and in general 
terms, agricultural credits are not approved if production profit margin does not reach at least 20%. 
For the time being, MICOOPE has not yet developed a proper analysis of coffee production costs, 
but it is expected that this will happen in the future with the implementation of FFPr 2016. In fact, 
MICOOPE is currently working to develop improved models in order to analyze the costs of each 
agricultural product.
ANACAFÉ and FEDECOCAGUA work with other credit institutions besides MICOOPE, particularly 
with BANRURAL, which belongs to FEDECOCAGUA. According to a MICOOPE interviewee, there is 
no record of cooperation or coordinated work between MICOOPE and BANRURAL. In the same line, 
it is apparent that a proper and effective coordination between MICOOPE and other partners 
(particularly ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA) will contribute to generating synergies within FFPr 2016. 
In fact, MICOOPE’s authorities have also deemed it feasible to design new tailored credit lines to 
finance equipment, constructions and coffee crops targeting smallholder farmers assisted by 
ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA, provided that they offer MICOOPE logistical information and provide 
technical assistance. 
23
From a national perspective, MICOOPE’s network could prove capable of serving coffee farmers’ 
financial needs, despite the fact agriculture is clearly not one of their main areas of lending 
expertise, particularly because coffee growing is a long-term crop from the point of view of financing 
requirements. Currently, MICOOPE’s agricultural lending portfolio mostly goes to financing farmers 
that already have mature coffee plots, because their financial needs are usually smaller, lending 
periods shorter and credit risk low, when compared to the investments required to put new plots 
into production. 
Interestingly, MICOOPE’s interviewees highlighted that MICOOPE should take advantage of the 
opportunities provided by FFPr 2016 to better differentiate between the purpose informed by the 
credit applicant and the source of repayment (which for instance could be coffee production), 
changing the focus from the first to the latter, because financial risk is clearly associated to crop 
outcome itself. In fact, many applicants for loans seek funding through personal loans, instead of 
applying for productive agricultural loans, even though the money to repay such lending comes from 
the harvests. 
The production cost of a quintal of parchment coffee (‘café pergamino’) can vary depending on 
many factors, particularly yield. However, it can average around 475 quetzals (65.74 U$S10), which 
includes the payment of agricultural inputs and manpower. Considering that currently the price of 
1 quintal of parchment coffee delivered in December and paid in April ranged last year from 700 to 
900 quetzals (96.88 to 124.56 U$S), expected profits seem to surpass the lending threshold of 20% 
applied by MICOOPE. 
An additional problem is that, in order to lend a credit for a period of 3 or 4 years (when coffee 
plants reach maturity, start producing beans and allow farmers to obtain a profit), MICOOPE 
requires them to acquire an insurance to cover both the plant and its fruit (the beans), and thus 
reduce the financial risk involved. However, nowadays, agricultural insurances in Guatemala only 
provide financial coverage for coffee plants, not for coffee beans. As part of the Inter-American 
Development Bank Project GU-M1059 “Competitiveness and Financing of Coffee Growing in 
Guatemala”, ANACAFE, “Guatemala Invierte” (GUATENVIERTE, a public partial guarantee fund) and 
MICOOPE, are presently committed to the creation of coffee crop complementary guarantee 
mechanisms linked to the lending procedures (among other goals), but it is a work still in process. 
In this context, it becomes apparent that insurances and credit lines do not fit the specificities of 
coffee production nor those of coffee farmers. 
Analysis of indicators related to credit Access
Indicator 18: “Number of individuals receiving financial services as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #4]. Disaggregation by gender and age” and Indicator 19: “Number of loans disbursed as 
a result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #5]”. According to survey results, only 27.7% of farmers 
currently have a credit. Data analysis shows that access to credit is not statistically related to the 
farmers’ age. In contrast, important differences were identified in terms of sex, given that 33.6% of 
male farmers currently have a credit, while only 20.6% of female farmers do. Of those farmers 
(female and male) that currently have a credit, 70.3% informed having had at least one previous one 
and 72.1% that they had no trouble in repaying the previously held loans, which also implies that 
27.9% may have had some difficulties doing so.
10 In this report the applied exchange rate is always 1 quetzal = 0.1384 U$S
24
Figure 5. Percentage of farmers having a credit
Figure 6. Percentage of farmers having a credit, by gender
With regards to the main sources of both current and previous loans, interviewees mention banks 
most frequently, while agricultural cooperatives are second. In the case of respondents who 
currently hold loans, banks account for a 34.5% of the credits granted, agricultural cooperatives for 
17.7% and MICOOPE only 6.0% (14 respondents), results which show both the limited presence of 
MICOOPE in the context of agricultural credits as well as its potential to grow as a credit provider. 
Nonetheless, it is also important to mention that several interviewees pointed out that a very 
important limitation of MICOOPE is that it does not provide credit to associations or cooperatives 
(whereas banks such as BANRURAL do), but only to individual farmers. In many cases, agricultural 
associations and cooperatives themselves request the loans and then give the money to their 
members, in this way facilitating farmers’ access to credits. However, at this time, MICOOPE does 
not consider giving loans to associations or cooperatives an option, because in the past this strategy 
has led to important problems related to the repayment of the debts. 
The total number of loans disbursed was calculated by adding the number of credits each farmer 
has or has had. In Table 9, the procedure and the results are presented. These results imply that the 
average number of loans each farmer received is 0.76. 
27.7%
72.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
WITH CREDIT
WITHOUT CREDIT
20.6%
33.6%
FEMALE MALE
25
Table 9. Number of received loans
Number of loans N Percentage of all 
loan holders (229)
Total number of 
loans
0 597 0% 0 x 597 = 0
1 68 29.7% 1 x 68 = 68
2 35 15.3% 2 x 35 = 70
3 40 17.5% 3 x 40 = 120
4 or 5 25 10.9% 4.5 x 25 = 112.5
6 or more 61 26.63% 6 x 61 = 366
TOTAL 826 100% 624
Analyzing all these results, and despite the fact that the average number of loans received is nearly 
1, these results highlight the fact that most farmers have no access to credit. Most importantly, this 
low access to credit lines for agricultural production among potential FFPr 2016 beneficiaries 
reflects their level of poverty and, in consequence, their lack of sufficient creditworthiness, and not 
the absence of credit institutions in rural areas and small towns. In terms of FFPr 2016 it also shows 
that promoting access to credits is a much-needed contribution and that a sizeable impact can be 
obtained by doing so. 
At this point, it is important to analyze what the implications for Activity 7 and for indicators 18 and 
19 are that USDA and USAID beneficiaries of previous projects cannot be beneficiaries of FFPr 2016. 
Evidently, it does not mean that they will not be allowed to obtain a loan from new credit lines for 
coffee farmers developed by MICOOPE with the support of FFPr 2016, or that they cannot be 
attended by MICOOPE officials trained by the program, but that they should not be the direct and 
intended beneficiaries of FFPr 2016 resources. In contrast, it would be very valuable for them to be 
able to benefit indirectly from the project, which implies that their cases should be included (if 
possible) when periodically informing FFPr 2016 results and impacts. 
Indicator 20: “Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #6]”.
When asked about the amounts of received loans, 8.8% of the farmers that have or had had a credit 
said that it amounted to less than 1,999 quetzals (276.66 U$S), 24.1% between 2,000 and 4,999 
quetzals (276.8 to 691.86 U$S), 34.6% between 5,000 and 9,999 quetzals (692 to 1383,86 U$S), and 
32.5% more than 10,000 quetzals (1384 U$S). Considering the midpoint (12,500 for the case of more 
than 10,000) and the number of farmers included in each category, the mean loan amount received 
by surveyed farmers would be 7,604.17 quetzals (1,052.42 U$S). 
These amounts should be assessed by contrasting them to both agricultural minimum wage and 
average monthly income in Guatemala. By January 2017, agricultural minimum wage was 2,643.21 
quetzals per month (365.82 U$S) (Government Agreement/Acuerdo Gubernativo Nº 288-2016), and 
by February 2017 average monthly salary (wage after taxes) was 4,500 quetzals, according to 
available data11. Survey results show that most credits (91.2%) amount to 2,000 or more quetzals 
(276.8 U$S or more) and that its average amount is approximately 3.8 times more, which would be 
11 http://www.tusalario.org/guatemala/Portada/tu-salario/salario-minimo - https://preciosmundi.com/guatemala/
26
implying that the 27.7% of farmers that currently have a credit belong to a middle/upper level in 
terms of financial creditworthiness, and that most farmers (that is, the rest) are not interested or 
solvent enough to obtain a credit even equal to the minimum agricultural wage.
Additional evidence of obstacles faced by farmers when attempting to access financial services 
becomes apparent when acknowledging that even the 33.5% of farmers that have or had at least 
one credit (that is, the ones that have more financial capability), currently do not have bank 
accounts, fixed-term savings, a credit or a debit card, or any insurance. In brief, this implies that, in 
general terms, farmers lack the financial instruments and services needed to manage their farm as 
a business and to reduce transaction costs. Thus, even though there seems to be a percentage of 
financially capable farmers, they are a minority, and the large majority of them lacks access to credit, 
working capital and financial services. 
 
4.1.6 FFPr Activity 7. Market access: Enhance producer marketability
Activity 7 will be implemented jointly with ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA, and MICOOPE. These
institutions were presented before. In this subtitle the commercialization of smallholders’ produce 
in Western Guatemala will be addressed, as well as survey results on the topic.
Commercialization and access to the market
Qualitative fieldwork and quantitative survey results show the importance of intermediaries (also 
named “coyotes” by local farmers) as way of selling their produce. In this line, 50.7% of the farmers 
surveyed stated that they sell their products to a “coyote” and 27.8% to a cooperative. Direct sales 
in local markets or to large exporting companies were less frequent, and direct export is not possible 
for coffee cooperatives because a specific export license is required in order to export coffee, and 
there are only a few available in the country, mostly in hands of big companies. 
Interestingly, during qualitative fieldwork, the farmers interviewed pointed out that there were no 
significant differences between prices paid by cooperatives and ‘coyotes’. Moreover, it was also 
argued that cooperatives are even more demanding in terms of product quality than intermediaries. 
The survey unveiled that 9.4% of the farmers had jointly sold their produce with other farmers as a 
way of increasing produce volume and thus their bargaining power. Associative processes of this 
type have great potential for increasing smallholders’ income. In this line, many farmers argued that 
the primary problem is quantity, not quality. 
Additionally, 8.5% of the farmers surveyed claimed to have sold organic coffee, and 5.8% took part 
in fair trade initiatives, which allowed them to obtain better sales prices. These alternatives, along 
with product differentiation based on its place of origin, seem to facilitate the access to international
markets and to help obtain higher prices for their product. However, in general terms, improving 
local access to markets requires stronger farmers’ organizations as a means of increasing the scale 
of operations. In this way, small farmers will have the possibility of accessing markets that they could 
not otherwise access as individuals, as well as obtain training, technical assistance, and coffee 
quality certifications more easily, or receive agricultural inputs at a lower cost as a result of 
purchasing in bulk. Thus, in order to obtain these benefits, farmers’ organizations have to grow 
stronger so as to provide efficient services to their associates at a lower cost than what they can 
find individually in the market. 
27
Indicator 1: “Value of sales by project beneficiaries [FFPr Standard #13]” (questions 50 a 61) and 
Indicator 2: “Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project beneficiaries [FFPr Standard #14]”
(questions 50 a 61). Farmers sell different products. Although they mostly sell crops, in some cases, 
they also sell animals (mostly chickens and pigs). As part of the survey, farmers were asked whether 
they had sold crops or animals over the last 12 months (if the answered affirmatively, they were 
asked to name up to two types of crops and two types of animals). With regards to the sale of crops, 
the most important were, in terms of the number of farmers selling them, coffee, corn, avocados, 
kidney beans, tomatoes, peas, and potatoes. Results are shown in Table 10. 
Table 10. Value and volume of farmers’ sales
Crops and animals N Mean 
value per 
ton
Mean Sold 
tons
Mean sales 
amount 
(per year)
Coffee and coffee types 
Coffee (all types, only coffee 
growers)
589 --- 0.62 1,022.84
Preachment 372 2,400.54 0.56 1,402.00
Cherry 213 469.77 0.62 285.76
‘Bola’ 206 717.66 0.10 78.03
‘Pinto’ 27 906.95 0.26 231.69
Other crops (non coffee)
Corn 52 385.95 0.99 370.06
Avocados 33 1,106.27 1.31 1,075.07
Kidney beans 20 1,425.52 0.13 176.49
Tomatoes 15 785.29 0.48 326.61
Peas 13 1,226.67 1.39 1,555.88
Potatoes 12 440.57 1.36 607.47
Animals (all types, only who sold) 50 --- --- 1,338.62
All crops and animals, tons only for 
crops, for all farmers surveyed 
(n=826)
826 --- 0.61 920.12
As can be seen, coffee is the most commonly sold product, which is not surprising, considering most 
farmers were invited to be part of the sample because they are coffee growers. Nonetheless, results 
also show that farmers do not only sell coffee (even if they are coffee farmers), but also other crops, 
such as avocados (farmed jointly with coffee and used as shadow), as well as animals, which in some 
cases can be relevant sources of income. In fact, mean income from peas, avocados and animals (for 
those who sell these products) is higher than mean income for coffee. 
Indicator 34: “Percentage of smallholder farmers who can cite at least 2 product quality standards 
that they are aiming to meet but didn’t before” (questions 141 and 142) and Indicator 35: 
“Percentage of smallholder farmers who can cite at least two post-production techniques that they 
are currently using but did not before” (questions 143 to 150). 
28
Interestingly, 50.9% of farmers surveyed said that they had been trying to improve the quality of 
their crops over the last 12 months. With regards to specific quality standards that they are trying 
to meet, 15.0% mentioned at least two general quality standards from the list, and 20.5% of coffee 
farmers mentioned two specific ones for coffee production. The frequency with which farmers 
mentioned each product quality standard is presented in the Table 11. 
Table 11. Product quality standards mentioned
General quality standards (n=826) N %
Conditioning (cleaning, classification, etc.) 197 23.8
Improving of presentation for sale 10 1.2
Waiting the appropriate amount of time before selling when using 
agrochemicals
107 13.0
Organic production 92 11.1
Specific quality standards for coffee (n=638)
Harvesting at the optimum point of maturity 276 43.3
Cutting and depulping the same day 128 20.1
Washing at the optimum point of fermentation 102 16.0
Laboratory analysis for determining product quality 34 5.3
Note: n includes both farmers who are trying to improve the quality of their products as well as farmers who 
are not. In the case of standards for coffee, only coffee farmers are taken into consideration. 
Regarding post-production/post-harvest techniques, it is important to note that several of them 
overlap with production quality standards (for instance conditioning or depulping). However, and 
as required by the SOW, different (yet connected) lists of practices were developed for each 
standard. Results show that 46.8% of farmers who were not coffee growers (i.e. had not stated 
coffee as being their first or second crop) implemented at least two general post-production 
techniques or practices that were on the survey list, over the last 12 months (valid n = 190). 
Meanwhile, 62.7% of coffee farmers mentioned at least two of those specific to coffee. The 
frequency of mentioning of each post-production technique or practice is presented in the Table 12.
Table 12. Post-production techniques mentioned
Post production practices (non coffee farmers) 
(n=190)
%
Cleaning before storing 112 59.9
Humidity control before storing 79 42.0
Use of pesticides or chemical control before storing 
(silo)
87 45.8
COFFEE post harvest technologies (n=638)
Depulping 402 63.3
Washing 393 62.1
Classifying 309 49.3
Drying 385 61.0
Toasting and milling 172 27.4
29
In brief, results of indicators 34 and 35 show that there is ample room for improvement, particularly 
with regards to quality standards (considering that percentages are lower than those of post￾production techniques). In this line, providing training and technical assistance to farmers and 
organizations will contribute to increasing these figures. 
Indicator 38: “Percentage of smallholder farmers who use at least two marketing techniques/tools 
to sell their products as a results of USDA assistance” (questions 155 to 164). Survey results show 
that farmers almost never use marketing techniques nor tools to sell their produce. On an individual 
level, only 1.33% farmers mentioned that they were using at least 2 techniques. These results show 
the value and need for working on marketing strategies and tools during the project. 
Additionally, it is worth mentioning that some marketing techniques and tools for selling can overlap 
with product quality standards (indicator 34), e.g. organic production, and with post-production 
techniques (indicator 35), e.g. packaging of the product. Despite the fact that the survey assigned 
practices or techniques that could be included in two categories only to one, it is important to take 
into account this overlapping. 
Community context
Three of the indicators for which quantitative information was gathered refer to the community 
context and have no direct relationship with specific FFPr 2016 activities. Qualitative and 
quantitative information about them is presented in what follows. 
Indicator 4 “Increased Household dietary diversity score (HDDS)” (question 78). The Household 
dietary diversity Score (HDDS) is an attractive proxy indicator that expresses the number of different 
food groups consumed by members of a household over a given reference period. This indicator 
therefore reports on an important range of nutritional and socio-economic issues. The HDDS ranges 
from 0 to12, with lower numbers indicating less dietary diversity. The overall HDDS score in the 
survey was 8.0. It indicates that, on average, 8 of the 12 food groups were consumed in each 
household the day before to the survey. The expanded results for the HDDS are shown in Figure 7. 
Figure 7. Percentage of persons consuming food groups in Household Dietary Diversity Score 
(HDDS)
100%
45%
95%
57%
39%
73%
12%
86%
24%
77%
97%
96%
CEREALS
ROOTS AND TUBERS
VEGETABLES
FRUITS
MEAT,POULTRY, OFFAL
EGGS
FISH AND SEAFOOD
PULSES/LEGUMENS/NUTS
MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
OILS/FATS
SUGAR/HONEY
MISCELLANEOUS
30
Results show that family diet is based on the consumption of cereals (mostly corn), sugar, legumes, 
vegetables, and vegetable oil. Low percentages of consumption of high-protein food such as meat 
(less than 40%) or dairy products (24%) highlight. In contrast eggs (which have high levels of protein) 
are consumed by 73% of families. Partaking in a project aimed at improving agricultural production 
and increasing income such as FFPr 2016 is expected to lead to a dietary improvement, particularly 
to an increase in meat and milk consumption.
Indicator 8: “Community perception of migration rate dynamics during the reporting period”
(questions 81 to 86). Interviews suggest that emigration in general is high, and that there is indeed 
a “culture” of emigration, but also that migrants go and come back as a result of different factors. 
Among them, ‘having been successful’ is a central one. For instance, in the area there are many 
people that migrated to the United States and returned when they saved enough money to build a 
house and buy farm land. Moreover, others argued that changes in commodity prices (particularly 
a reduction in the price of coffee) could trigger emigration. Furthermore, several interviewees 
pointed out that farmers’ replies to questions about migration are not necessarily trustworthy, 
because they tend to hide such information, particularly when asked in the context of a baseline 
study funded by a US institution such as Counterpart. 
In general terms, survey results show that emigration is clearly stronger than immigration at this 
moment in the region (65.1% against 24.1%), and that most respondents consider emigration to be 
high (59%). Among the causes of emigration, “money made in rural areas is not enough to live” 
(71.7%) and “there are no jobs in rural areas” (44.8%) were highlighted. Finally, with regards to 
where farmers emigrate, most of those surveyed mentioned the US (44.8%), followed by Mexico 
(19%) and Guatemala City (18.8%). In contrast, emigration to other Guatemalan departments or 
municipalities seems to be low (7.4%).
Figure 8. Perception of migration dynamics
Indicator 11: “Community perception of crime rate dynamics during the reporting period” (questions 
87 and 88). During the interviews, farmers mentioned that many communities have used traditional 
strategies for fighting crime, including indigenous law and community enforcement (even vigilante 
Immigration 
is higher 
than 
emigration 
24%
Emigration 
is higher 
than 
immigration
65%
DK/NO
11%
31
justice). Additionally, it was also mentioned that communities do not always consider drug￾trafficking to be a problem, because these criminals do not affect or harm community members if 
they are not reported to the authorities. 
In general terms, 44.3% of survey respondents considered that crime remained stable during the 
last year, while 35.1% argued that it increased and 18.6% that it decreased, which could suggest a 
slight tendency to increase. With regards to the most common crimes, “theft” ranked first (68.5%), 
second “domestic violence” (37.4%), third “aggressions” (32.1%), and fourth “drug-related crimes” 
(27.7%).
Figure 9. Perception of crime dynamics over the last 12 months
4.2 Baseline results for performance indicators
In this heading, results of the baseline assessment are provided for each performance indicator for 
which the SOW requested quantitative data. 
Table 13. Results of the baseline assessment per performance indicator 
# Performance Indicator Indicator values
(n=826 if not mentioned differently)
1 Value of sales by project 
beneficiaries [FFPr Standard #13]
Mean value of sales per year and farmer = 920.16 US dollars
2 Volume of commodities (metric 
tons) sold by project beneficiaries 
[FFPr Standard #14] 
Mean volume sold per farmer = 0.61 metric tons (two main crops, 
animals excluded)
4 Increased Household dietary 
diversity score (HDDS) 
Mean HDDS score = 8.0
8 Community perception of 
migration rate dynamics during the 
reporting period 
59.0% considers that the number of people leaving their 
municipality (emigrating) is very high
65.1 % considers that there are more people leaving their 
municipality then moving to it, while 24.1% the opposite (the rest 
Decreased
19%
Increased
35%
Did not 
change
44%
DK/NO
2%
32
do not make up their mind)
11 Community perception of crime 
rate dynamics during the reporting 
period 
44.3% considers that crime remained stable during the last year, 
35.1% that it increased, and 18.6% that it decreased 
12 Percentage of smallholder farmers 
who make production plans and/or 
investments to sustain and 
improve the quality of land and 
water resources 
Use of different technologies and practices that conserve and 
improve soil quality over the last 12 months: avoided burning 
stubble (83.1%), practiced organic fertilization (80.5%), 
incorporated stubble into the soil (55.8%), practiced tillage without 
overturning soil (48.1%), constructed live and dead barriers 
(34.1%), farmed following contour lines (28.8%), constructed 
terraces (20%), constructed ditches (18.1%), and constructed 
infiltration wells (7.5%)
Use of different technologies and practices that conserve and 
improve water availability over the last 12 months: covered the soil 
to retain moisture (33.1%), collected or harvested water (30.3%), 
cared or constructed pond or water reservoir (8.4%), diverted or 
channeled stream (5.3%), and constructed or purchased irrigation 
system (5%)
13 Number of hectares under 
improved techniques or 
technologies as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #1] 
Mean area under improved techniques or technologies per farmer 
= 1.30 hectares 
14 Number of individuals who have 
applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #2] 
Percentage of farmers who regularly apply improved techniques or 
technologies: use insecticides (61%), practice seed selection 
(32.8%), take precautionary measures when using agrochemicals 
(28.6%), incorporate new varieties or seeds (28.5%), practice 
vaccination (23.1%), practice deworming (14.2%), have or use 
irrigation system (4.8%), use ICTs to access information (4.1%), 
incorporate new breeding animal or with improved genetics (3.1%)
Percentage of farmers who regularly apply improved techniques or 
technologies that are specific for coffee: manage shade (93.5%), 
practice pruning (90.4), use seedbeds (40.5%), farm improved 
coffee varieties (35.1%), conduct soil analysis (26%), own coffee 
drying facilities (25%), use fermentation pile (16.5%), own coffee 
washing facilities (15.4%), treat coffee waste water (12.3%)
15 Increased average agricultural yield 
per hectare (main crops) 
Coffee (n=599) = 1.00 metric tons per hectare
Corn (n=436) = 1.78 metric tons per hectare
Kidney bean (n=71) = 0.71 metric tons per hectare
18 Number of individuals receiving 
financial services as a result of
USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #4] 
Disaggregation by gender and age 
27.7% of farmers have a credit (33.6% in the case of men and 20.6% 
in that of women)
There are no differences observed due to age (Mean age of those 
who have a credit = 46.76 years old; Mean age of those who do not 
have a credit = 46.43 years old)
19 Number of loans disbursed as a 
result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #5] 
These results imply that the average number of loans received by 
each farmer is 0.76 (n=229, only credit holders)
20 Value of loans provided as a result 
of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard 
#6] 
Mean loan amount received = 1,052.42 U$S (n=228, only credit 
holders)
23 Number of individuals who have 
applied improved farm 
16.4% have written records of expenses and income
36.4% search for information on the internet, consult technicians 
33
management practices (i.e. 
governance, administration, or 
financial management) as a result 
of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Disaggregation by gender and age 
Standard #3] 
or radio/television in order to make important decisions regarding 
farming
27 Percentage of farmers who 
perceive that there is an increase 
in government’s extension service 
provision 
26.46% consider that visits from rural extensionists are more 
frequent than in previous years, 25.49% that that they are less 
frequent and 48.06 that they are the same (there are differences 
between specific institutions)
30 Number of private enterprises, 
producers’ organizations, water 
users’ associations, women’s 
groups, trade and business 
associations, and community￾based organizations (CBOs) that 
applied improved techniques and 
technologies as result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #7] 
The use of improved technologies varies depending on farmers’ 
membership to different types of organizations. Three types of 
organizations are considered here: CADER, GATs, and 
associations/cooperatives (COOP). 
Percentage of farmers who regularly apply improved techniques or 
technologies that are specific for coffee, per type of organization: 
manage shade (CADER: 93.33%, GAT: 94.32%, COOP: 93.14%), 
practice pruning (CADER: 90.00%, GAT: 92.97%, COOP: 88.09%), 
use seedbeds (CADER: 46.67%, GAT: 44.05%, COOP: 34.66%), farm 
improved coffee varieties (CADER: 13.33%, GAT: 35.14%, COOP: 
39.71%), conduct soil analysis (CADER: 40.00%, GAT: 21.89%, 
COOP: 33.21%), own coffee drying facilities (CADER: 20.00%, GAT: 
24.59%, COOP: 27.08%), use fermentation pile (CADER: 16.67%, 
GAT: 14.32%, COOP: 18.41%), own coffee washing facilities 
(CADER: 16.67%, GAT: 11.62%, COOP: 19.86%), treat coffee waste 
water (CADER: 13.33%, GAT: 11.89%, COOP: 13.72%)
Percentage of farmers who regularly apply improved techniques or 
technologies, per type of organization: use insecticides (CADER: 
54.87%, GAT: 64.97%, COOP: 62.58%), practice seed selection 
(CADER: 43.59%, GAT: 34.49%, COOP: 23.87%), take precautionary 
measures when using agrochemicals (CADER: 25.64%, GAT: 
27.27%, COOP: 34.52%), incorporate new varieties or seeds 
(CADER: 23.08%, GAT: 29.41%, COOP: 31.61%), practice 
vaccination (CADER: 35.38%, GAT: 21.39%, COOP: 18.39%), 
practice deworming (CADER: 23.59%, GAT: 12.83%, COOP: 
11.61%), have or use irrigation system (CADER: 9.74%, GAT: 4.55%, 
COOP: 2.90%), use ICTs to access information (CADER: 2.05%, GAT: 
1.87%, COOP: 7.74%), incorporate new breeding animal or with 
improved genetics (CADER: 6.67%, GAT: 1.60%, COOP: 2.58%).
34 Percentage of smallholder farmers 
who can cite at least 2 product 
quality standards that they are 
aiming to meet but didn’t before. 
15.0% mentioned at least two general quality standards (n=826)
20.5% mentioned at least two specific coffee quality standards 
(n=638, only coffee farmers)
35 Percentage of smallholder farmers 
who can cite at least two post￾production techniques that they 
are currently using but did not 
before. 
46.8% were implementing at least two general post-production 
techniques (n=190, only non coffee farmers)
62.7% were implementing at least two specific post-production 
techniques for coffee (n=638, only coffee farmers) 
37 Total increase in installed storage 
capacity (dry or cold storage) as a 
result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #11] 
48.1% store their produce (in their own facilities or those of their 
cooperative or association)
In 1.3% of cases storage capacity increased, and in 4% diminished 
(n=397, only farmers who store their produce)
34
When it increased, it did between 0.1 and 49.9% (3 cases) and 
between 50% and 100% (2 cases)
38 Percentage of smallholder farmers 
who use at least two marketing 
technique/tool to sell their 
products as a results of USDA 
assistance 
1.33% were using at least two marketing techniques or tools
05/KEY CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Comments and recommendations on indicators
FFPr 2016 has 39 indicators. 13 of them are FFPr standard indicators, and 2 are standard indicators 
to which small changes were made (which implies that their definition and content should not be 
changed), while the others 24 are not (Counterpart could modify them). During interviews, several 
key informants (Counterpart and other partners’ staff) showed concern about (a) the quantity and 
diversity of indicators, (b) their potential overlapping, and (c) the actual possibility of the project 
having an impact on all of them. 
In the first place, the definitions of FFPr standard indicators are clear, given that USDA 
documentation describes them in detail. However, this does not seem to be the case for the rest of 
the indicators. Non-USDA indicators currently have brief definitions that are not always developed 
enough to be put into practice, instead of the detailed descriptions of USDA standard indicators. In 
consequence, writing a document with a clear and standardized description of non-USDA standard 
indicators seems advisable.
In the second place, the list of indicators is large (39 in total) and their content diverse. This may 
lead to an increase in bureaucracy and may be difficult to implement, thus requiring a sizeable 
budget, where monitoring and evaluation become an end in itself. Considering that some of them 
overlap and others are beyond the area of influence of the project, reducing their number (if and 
when possible) may prove useful for FPPr 2016 (recommendations on this are made below). In what 
follows, comments and reflections on specific indicators are made:
- Indicator 3 “Number of Individuals who report an increase in income after participating in
Counterpart activities” seems to measure a variable similar to indicator 5 “Percentage of 
individuals who report increase in household expenditure”. For small farmers, “level of 
expenditure” is almost equal to “level of income”, which would allow for the removal of one of 
them from the indicator list. Being that indicator 3 is simpler to measure, indicator 5 could be 
removed from the final FFPr 2016 indicators list.
- Indicator 4 “Increased Household dietary diversity score (HDDS)” seems to be very valuable as a 
way of indirectly assessing the impact of the project on families’ lives. In this sense, it would 
make the inclusion of other indicators that assess indirect impact unnecessary.
35
- Indicator 8 “Community perception of migration rate dynamics during the reporting period” and 
indicator 11 “Community perception of crime rate dynamics during the reporting period”, 
though relevant, do not seem to be within the direct area of influence of the project. They may 
be kept as contextual information, but removing them from the indicator list would make 
Monitoring and Evaluation simpler. 
- Indicator 10 (“Number of new businesses created in low income areas”) and indicator 32 
(“Number of jobs created attributed to USDA assistance”) are undoubtedly valuable. However, 
it is worth noting that they raised a special concern among some interviewees, in the sense that 
creating businesses and jobs could be an indirect result of the project, but not what the proposed 
activities are directly aimed at achieving. Moreover, they also tend to overlap, because creating 
businesses and jobs are usually interrelated, particularly when referring to self-employement 
and family businesses. Given that indicator 32 parallels a FFPr standard indicator, indicator 10 
could be removed from the indicators list.
- All techniques, technologies and investments identified during this baseline study that refer to 
Indicator 12 (“Percentage of smallholder farmers who make production plans and/or 
investments to sustain and improve the quality of land and water resources”) are at the same 
time new or improved techniques and technologies, which implies that they are included in what 
Indicator 14 assesses (“number of individuals who have applied new techniques or technologies 
as result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #2]”). Thus, indicator 12 could be removed from the 
list of indicators without losing information. 
- Indicator 15 (“Increased average agricultural yield per hectare (main crops)”) was assessed 
during the survey using indirect strategies. In some cases, farmers overestimated production 
and, in consequence, yield, which lead to the need for evaluating yield figures with caution. 
Additionally, it is important to note that yield decrease should not always be considered negative 
in the context of this project, because it could be the result of reducing the use of agrochemicals 
due to coffee certification requirements. 
- Indicator 22 “Increase in scores of post-training assessments compared against pre-training 
assessments in trainings that are specifically about agriculture techniques and technologies” and 
indicator 25 “Increase in scores of post-training assessments compared against pre-training 
assessments in trainings that are specifically about farm management” mention different 
training topics. However, as a result of having the same rationale, they could be easily merged 
into one, hence reducing the number of indicators. 
- In the current Guatemalan institutional and political context, Indicator 27 (“Percentage of 
farmers who perceive that there is an increase in government’s extension service provision”) 
does not seem to be a good strategy for assessing the impact of FFPr 2016, due to a number of 
reasons. First, the number of ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA and MAGA extension personnel in the 
field could vary for different reasons, including political ones (in the case of MAGA), or variations 
in the international value of coffee (in the case of ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA). And, second,
the finalization of the PCVR project is causing a reduction (and is likely to cause an even greater 
reduction) in the quantity of ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA extension agents/advisors in the near 
future. In consequence, it is likely that the availability of extension services in the project area of 
intervention will change due to a number of reasons that are out of FFPr 2016’s control, such as 
MAGAs’ political priorities, and the international price of coffee. Moreover, the finalization of 
PCVR has recently reduced the presence of extension workers in Huehuetenango and San 
36
Marcos. Thus, future assessments of indicator and their contrast with baseline results should be 
taken with caution and contextualized. Moreover, the fact that baseline survey results could be 
somewhat biased towards specific organizations such as ANACAFE and MAGA, because they 
were the ones that invited farmers to partake of the sample, should be taken into consideration.
- Indicator 30 “Number of private enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) 
that applied improved techniques and technologies as result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard 
#7]”. The indicator assesses the use of improved technologies by organizations/enterprises, not 
by individual farmers themselves. However, in the context of the project intervention, it is 
farmers who are expected to implement improved practices and technologies. The idea of 
farmers’ organizations implementing productive practices does not, thus, have a clear meaning 
or reference. In this line, removing it from the indicator list would be advisable, but it is not 
possible to do so because it is an FFPr standard indicator. Thus, in this context, it could be used 
to quantify the number of associations, CADERs, GATs, and cooperatives that incorporate a new 
technology or practice as a result of a grant provided by the project, or when the majority of the 
members of a farmers’ group incorporate a new productive technology as a result of one or more 
training sessions. 
- In the context of coffee production, indicators 34 (“Percentage of smallholder farmers who can 
cite at least 2 product quality standards that they are aiming to meet but didn’t before”), and 35 
(“Percentage of smallholder farmers who can cite at least two post-production techniques that 
they are currently using but did not before”) could overlap, depending on the definition of each 
one. For instance, the correct and timely removal of the pulp could be considered both a post￾production technique as well as a key aspect of quality. Moreover, they could also overlap with 
indicator 38 (“Percentage of smallholder farmers who use at least two marketing 
techniques/tools to sell their products as a results of USDA assistance”), because practices such 
as packaging could be considered both post-production and marketing techniques. Nonetheless, 
in the case of indicator 38 there is a clear difference with the others, because it assesses the use 
of the techniques, while indicators 34 and 35 focus on the small farmers’ capacity to cite or 
mention them. Thus, particularly in the cases of indicators 34 and 35, it would be advisable to 
include in their definitions the specific practices to be considered when assessing each one. 
Additionally, and in practical terms, it will be necessary to decide whether or not these three 
indicators will be applied only for coffee production, or if they will be also considered for 
horticulture, considering that the type of practices to be assessed are substantially different.
In brief, the baseline team recommends clarifying the definition of the indicators that are not FFPr￾standard, reducing them whenever possible, and avoiding including indicators that overlap or do 
not refer directly to the project’s planned activities. 
Table 14. Summary of comments and recommendations on indicators
# Performance Indicator Brief comment Recommendation
1 Value of sales by project beneficiaries [FFPr 
Standard #13]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
2 Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by 
project beneficiaries [FFPr Standard #14]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
37
3 Number of Individuals who report an 
increase in income after participating in 
Counterpart activities
Indicator 3 seems to measure a 
variable similar to indicator 5, 
but indicator 3 is simpler to 
measure 
Keep indicator 3 and remove 
indicator 5 from the final FFPr 
2016 indicators list
4 Increased Household dietary diversity score 
(HDDS)
This indicator seems interesting, 
because it can indirectly assess 
the global impact of FFPr 2016. 
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list as a 
valid source of information, but 
do not establish a specific 
target, because FFPr 2016 does 
not aim to work directly with 
household dietary diversity
5 Percentage of individuals who report 
increase in household expenditure
Indicator 5 seems to measure a 
variable similar to indicator 3, 
and indicator 3 is simpler to 
measure
Remove indicator 5 from the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
6 Number of individuals who have received 
short-term agricultural sector productivity or 
food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #16]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
7 Total number of individuals benefiting 
directly as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #17]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
8 Community perception of migration rate 
dynamics during the reporting period
This indicator is not within the 
scope of FFPr 2016
Remove this indicator of the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
9 Total number of individuals benefiting 
INDIRECTLY as a result of USDA assistance 
[FFPr Standard #18]
This is an useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
10 Number of new businesses created in low 
income areas.
This indicator is valuable but will 
be difficult to measure, and 
tends to overlap with indicator 
32 (which parallels a FFPr 
Standard Indicator)
Remove this indicator from the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
11 Community perception of crime rate 
dynamics during the reporting period
This indicator is not within the 
scope of FFPr 2016
Remove this indicator from the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
12 Percentage of smallholder farmers who 
make production plans and/or investments 
to sustain and improve the quality of land 
and water resources
Techniques, technologies and 
investments referred to 
indicator 12 are also new or 
improved technologies 
(Indicator 14).
Remove this indicator from the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
13 Number of hectares under improved 
techniques or technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #1]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
14 Number of individuals who have applied new 
techniques or technologies as result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #2]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
15 Increased average agricultural yield per 
hectare (main crops)
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
16 Number of Organizational Capacity Building 
Grants provided to support improved inputs
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
17 Number of Organizational Capacity Building 
Grants provided to support on-farm 
infrastructure
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
18 Number of individuals receiving financial 
services as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #4]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
19 Number of loans disbursed as a result of 
USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #5]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
38
20 Value of loans provided as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #6]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
21 Number of smallholder farmers who have 
received training specifically on agriculture 
techniques and technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance.
What this indicator assesses is 
included in indicator 6, which is 
also an FFPr Standard Indicator
Remove this indicator from the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
22 Increase in scores of post-training 
assessments compared against pre-training 
assessments in trainings that are specifically 
about agriculture techniques and 
technologies
This indicator could be merged 
with indicator 25
Remove indicators 22 and 25, 
and replace them with a new 
one which reads as “Increase in 
scores of post-training 
assessments compared against 
pre-training assessments in 
trainings that address different 
topics”
23 Number of individuals who have applied 
improved farm management practices (i.e. 
governance, administration, or financial 
management) as a result of USDA assistance 
[FFPr Standard #3]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
24 Number of smallholder farmers who have 
received training specifically on farm 
management as a result of USDA assistance
What this indicator assesses is 
included in indicator 6, which is 
also an FFPr Standard Indicator
Remove this indicator of the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list 
25 Increase in scores of post-training 
assessments compared against pre-training 
assessments in trainings that are specifically 
about farm management
This indicator could be merged 
with indicator 22
Remove indicators 22 and 25, 
and replace them with a new 
one which reads as “Increase in 
scores of post-training 
assessments compared against 
pre-training assessments in 
trainings that address different 
topics”
26 Number of MAGA representatives who 
received strategic and operational trainings 
in institutional strengthening
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
27 Percentage of farmers who perceive that 
there is an increase in government’s 
extension service provision
This would be a valuable 
indicator, but multiple factors 
besides FFPr 2016 will have a 
sizable impact on the indicator, 
mostly by diminishing the 
extension service provision 
during the implementation of 
the project. 
Remove this indicator from the 
final FFPr 2016 indicators list
28 Number of private enterprises, producers’ 
organizations, water users’ associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business 
associations, and community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that received training 
in marketing and business development
This is a useful indicator for the 
project, and is different to others 
because it addresses farmer 
organizations and not individual 
farmers
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
29 Number of extension agents and MAGA 
technical staff completing specialized crop￾specific training courses
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
30 Number of private enterprises, producers’ 
organizations, water users’ associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business 
associations, and community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that applied improved 
techniques and technologies as result of 
USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #7]
This indicator is an FFPr Standard 
Indicator. However, in the 
context of FFPr 2016 project, the 
idea that farmers’ organizations 
implement productive practices 
does not have a clear meaning or 
reference. 
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list 
because it is a FFPr Standard 
Indicator and cannot be 
removed from the list.
39
31 Number of extension agents and agricultural 
advisors who received certification
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
32 Number of jobs created attributed to USDA 
assistance
This indicator parallels FFPr 
Standard Indicator #15 but does 
not read exactly the same. Its 
current definition (informed in 
the ToR), refers to the creation 
of jobs among CADER members
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicator’s list but 
change its definition to include 
other beneficiaries and not only 
CADER members
33 Number of trade promotion activities 
conducted aimed at the private sector
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
34 Percentage of smallholder farmers who can 
cite at least 2 product quality standards that 
they are aiming to meet but didn’t before.
Practices and processes included 
in 34 and 35 overlap in some 
cases, particularly with regards 
to coffee production
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list but 
include in its description the 
specific list of product quality 
standards addressed in this 
baseline study
35 Percentage of smallholder farmers who can 
cite at least two post-production techniques 
that they are currently using but did not 
before.
Practices and processes included 
in 34 and 35 overlap in some 
cases, particularly with regards 
to coffee production
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list but 
include in its definition the 
specific list of post-production 
techniques addressed in this 
baseline study
36 Number of grants provided to support 
improved post-harvest infrastructure and 
equipment
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
37 Total increase in installed storage capacity 
(dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #11]
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
38 Percentage of smallholder farmers who use 
at least two marketing technique/tool to sell 
their products as a results of USDA 
assistance
This indicator focuses on the use 
of marketing techniques or tools 
and not on the knowledge of 
their existence, which makes it 
different to other indicators such 
as indicators 34 and 35.
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
39 Number of Agreements signed between 
buyers/sellers through USDA supported 
activities
This is a useful indicator for the 
project
Keep this indicator in the final 
FFPr 2016 indicators list
Table 15 presents the list of indicators for FFPr 2016 in case all recommendations are accepted.
Table 15. List of proposed indicators for final FFPr 2016 indicators list
# Performance Indicator
1 Value of sales by project beneficiaries [FFPr Standard #13]
2 Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project beneficiaries [FFPr Standard #14]
3 Number of Individuals who report an increase in income after participating in 
Counterpart activities
4 Increased Household dietary diversity score (HDDS)
5 Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity 
or food security training as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #16]
40
6 Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #17]
7 Total number of individuals benefiting INDIRECTLY as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #18]
8 Number of hectares under improved techniques or technologies as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #1]
9 Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or technologies as result of 
USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #2]
10 Increased average agricultural yield per hectare (main crops)
11 Number of Organizational Capacity Building Grants provided to support improved 
inputs
12 Number of Organizational Capacity Building Grants provided to support on-farm 
infrastructure
13 Number of individuals receiving financial services as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr 
Standard #4]
14 Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #5]
15 Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #6]
16 Increase in scores of post-training assessments compared against pre-training 
assessments in trainings that address different topics
17 Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management practices (i.e. 
governance, administration, or financial management) as a result of USDA assistance 
[FFPr Standard #3]
18 Number of MAGA representatives who received strategic and operational trainings in 
institutional strengthening
19 Number of private enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that received training in marketing and business development
20 Number of extension agents and MAGA technical staff completing specialized crop￾specific training courses
21 Number of private enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that applied improved techniques and technologies as result of 
USDA assistance [FFPr Standard #7]
22 Number of extension agents and agricultural advisors who received certification
23 Number of jobs created attributed to USDA assistance
24 Number of trade promotion activities conducted aimed at the private sector
25 Percentage of smallholder farmers who can cite at least 2 product quality standards 
that they are aiming to meet but didn’t before.
26 Percentage of smallholder farmers who can cite at least two post-production 
techniques that they are currently using but did not before.
27 Number of grants provided to support improved post-harvest infrastructure and 
equipment
41
28 Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA 
assistance [FFPr Standard #11]
29 Percentage of smallholder farmers who use at least two marketing technique/tool to 
sell their products as a results of USDA assistance
30 Number of Agreements signed between buyers/sellers through USDA supported 
activities
5.2. Key conclusions and recommendations in the context of FFPr 
2016 activities
In what follows, some conclusions and recommendations will be presented, organized within each 
of the 7 activities implemented by the FFPr 2016. 
Activity 1. Capacity building: Government institutions (MAGA). MAGA is the most important rural 
extension institution of the country, yet it is very weak on an institutional level. Thus, contributing 
to strengthening it will be particularly valuable. Two recommendations are proposed with the 
intention of fulfilling this aim: (1) To coordinate activities and strategies with other institutions that 
are working in the same line, particularly FAO and the European Commission, and (2) To attempt to 
lend support to and give a central role to MAGA mid-level, permanent staff during the design and 
implementation of the activities, considering they are the ones who will continue to work in the 
institution over time, and not political authorities or short-term extension personnel. 
 
Activity 2. Capacity building: Agricultural extension agents and services (Certification Program). The 
training of rural extensionists/technical advisors is essential to the objective of increasing small 
farmers’ income and productivity. Considering that ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA will be new 
partners during this project, their technicians’ participation in the Certification Program should be 
encouraged. Finally, transitioning full responsibility of the Certification Program to USAC by the end 
of the project is an important aim, but it may encounter funding problems that will have to be 
adequately accounted for. 
Activity 3. Capacity building: Producers’ groups and cooperatives and Activity 4. Cash and in-kind 
grants: Inputs, equipment, post-harvest infrastructure. Counterpart has significant experience in the 
direct implementation of these activities. In order to assure the long-term sustainability of the 
impact of both activities, follow-up work with the CADERs, associations and cooperatives after 
project actions are finished will be essential. In this line, the selection of beneficiaries and the 
implementation of activities should be closely coordinated with ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA and/or 
MAGA, because they are the ones who will provide the follow-up for the groups. Moreover, 
considering that the infrequent use of certain improved technologies is often the result of the lack 
of resources available for investments, the selection of grant beneficiaries should be coordinated 
with ANACAFE and FEDECOCAGUA with the aim of supporting farmer groups trained in the context 
of activity 5. 
Activity 5. Training: improved agricultural production techniques and farm management. Survey 
results show that there is considerable margin for improvement in the use of production and post￾production techniques and technologies as well as in encouraging famers to adopt measures that 
improve product quality. In this context, the sustainable management of natural resources (i.e. the 
42
use of sustainable productive techniques) and the integrated management of pests (such as rust) 
are fundamental and should be taken into consideration during the implementation of the project. 
In the survey, farmers mentioned three reasons for not using improved technologies and 
techniques: lack of knowledge of their existence, lack of technical assistance in order to implement 
them, and lack of resources for necessary investments. Activity 5 will deal directly with the first 
reason (training and dissemination of technologies), and indirectly with the second one. With 
regards to the lack of resources for investment, a fluid articulation with Activity 4 (grants) and 5 
(credits) will be required, in order to generate synergies between all of the FFPr 2016 activities. 
Finally, the low extensionist to farmer ratio (particularly in the case of ANACAFE) has to be 
acknowledged and taken into account during the design phase of the activities, because it could 
affect the dynamics of the project.
Activity 6. Financial services: Facilitate agricultural lending. Having access to credit for investments 
and working capital is very important for the farmers. However, survey results show that most 
farmers do not have access to credits or to other financial products. Moreover, MICOOPE has no 
specific credit line for coffee growers (coffee is a product with particular credit requirements, 
because it is a permanent crop and requires between 3 and 4 years to produce and be profitable). 
MICOOPE is in the process of developing new financial products for agriculture, but developing a 
specific one for coffee could take up two years, which implies that Counterpart should define 
quantitative objectives for indicators 18, 19, and 20 accordingly. In this context, it would be 
interesting to incorporate a new indicator for the development of the new financial product(s) 
themselves. 
A good and fluid coordination between ANACAFE, FEDECOCAGUA, and MICOOPE will be 
fundamental for the development of a financial product that responds to coffee growers’ needs. 
Nonetheless, the role of FEDECOCAGUA seems to be more ambiguous here because it has its own 
financial institution (BANRURAL). However, the coordination between financial and technical 
institutions could be a good opportunity for developing an innovative financial product, in which the 
existence of technical assistance provided by these institutions could be considered as a factor that 
lowers financial risk. 
A significant fact to be taken into account is that men and women do not have equal access to credit. 
This should also be considered when implementing Activity 6, as well as the fact that it is possible 
that many coffee farmers will not even be able to access specific credit lines for coffee, due to their 
lack of financial creditworthiness. 
Activity 7. Market access: Enhance producer marketability. Market access is fundamental to 
commercial farmers. In the case of small farmers, coffee farmer organizations play a fundamental 
role in increasing the volume of product to be sold and, in helping them to have access to different 
types of certifications that are expected to increase sales prices. It is significant to note that, 
according to the survey results, farmers have scarce knowledge of marketing strategies and 
methodologies, which implies that actions undertaken to change this will be highly beneficial. In the 
same line, it is also important to take into account the role that FFPr 2016 could play in contributing 
to the strengthening of farmer organizations, as a way of increasing their negotiating capacity with 
potential buyers (this could be done in articulation with Activity 3 ‘capacity building’). Farmer 
organizations need to have storage capacity and acquire negotiation skills and techniques so as to 
43
engage effectively in national and international markets, and have enough financial capability to pay 
small farmers when they hand over the product, and not when it is paid by the final buyers. 
In this context, it is important to note that, during qualitative fieldwork, some farmers mentioned 
that prices paid by intermediaries (known locally as ‘coyotes’) were not necessarily lower than those 
paid by cooperatives, and that dealing with them could have some additional advantages, such as 
receiving payment for the product in the moment and not having to meet high demands regarding 
product quality. This does not mean that farmers consider selling to coyotes to be the best option 
in general, but that intermediaries could sometimes solve situations (such as the immediate need 
of the money), which cooperatives are sometimes unable to do.
5.3. Final comments
In the previous subtitles, reflections and recommendations regarding FFPr 2016 indicators and 
activities were presented. This heading will present two comments that are very important for the 
successful implementation of the project. 
Firstly, the USDA decision to limit potential beneficiaries to smallholders who have not previously 
received support from USDA or USAID is central and frames the project in different ways. On the 
one hand, FEDECOCAGUA has no member organizations in Huehuetenango and San Marcos that 
qualify to partake in FFPr 2016, thus implying that ANACAFE would be the only partner for activities 
5 and 7 in both departments. At the same time, there is also the dilemma of who is considered to 
be the beneficiary of a project such as PCVR, for instance, which supported coffee cooperatives and 
organizations. Only the organization itself or the organization and its individual members? The 
answer to this question could allow for the FEDECOCAGUA cooperative members who did not 
receive direct support to partake in the project in Huehuetenango and San Marcos. 
On the other hand, this USDA decision also poses a challenge for MICOOPE and activity 6, because 
MICOOPE should aim for working with the most creditworthy farmers, and these could be so as the 
result of having had access to US government support. Moreover, there is also a difference between 
direct and indirect beneficiaries. FFPr 2016 will train rural extensionists, loan officers and help 
MICOOPE to develop a specific financial product for coffee farmers. Should or should not the impact 
generated in farmers by interacting with these trained personnel be considered a result of FFPr 
2016, even though these farmers had been previously supported, for instance, by PCVR? The same 
applies for those who benefit from the new financial product to be developed by MICOOPE. Should 
the use of such products not be informed by the project, in the case when said farmer had received 
benefits from previous US government projects? In this context, it seems necessary to clarify the 
specific implications of the USDA decision before establishing the numeric objective of each 
indicator. 
In the second place, it is important to note that the key to increasing FFPr 2016’s impact and success 
is synergy. This refers to synergies between different activities implemented and between the 
different actors involved. Creating synergy between different FFPr 2016 activities means planning 
how each one could be used to boost others, for instance strengthening organizations (activity 3) in 
order to improve market access (activity 7), providing grants (activity 4) in order to support 
technology change (activity 5), and so on. These synergies should be planned beforehand and not 
only decided during the process. Likewise, synergies between institutions means acknowledging the 
potential of each partner institution for enhancing the results of all activities. For instance, training 
44
ANACAFE staff so that they can support farmers who seek to obtain credits, or coordinating with 
ANACAFE or FEDECOCAGUA during the selection of farmers for activities 3 or 4, in other for them to 
provide follow-up and support after these actions have finished. In brief, the proposal is to increase 
FFPr 2016’s impact through the construction of multiple synergies.