FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
1 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Sustainable Agriculture 
Improvement Project (MAS)
September, 2017
Final Evaluation Report for FY 2012 Food for Progress 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement Project (MAS) in 
Honduras
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-522-2012/031-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2012
Project Duration: 2012-2017
Implemented by: TechnoServe
Evaluation Authored by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores
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 accessible version of this report can be made available upon request by emailing 
FAS.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
2 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
TABLE OF CONTENT 
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 11
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 18
1.1 The MAS Project...................................................................................................................................... 18
1.2 The Project is structured in three strategic axes: ..................................................................................... 19
1.3 The project’s objectives are: .................................................................................................................... 19
II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND NATURE OF THE INTERVENTION............................................................ 19
2.1 Affirmation of the problem in the value chains (rationale) ........................................................................ 19
2.2.1Coffee ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.2Beans....................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Intervention Theory (Theory of Change).................................................................................................. 21
III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION................................................................................. 22
3.1 Purpose of the Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 22
3.2 Objectives of the Evaluation..................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 General Objective ...................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Specific Objectives..................................................................................................................... 22
IV. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION............................................................................... 23
4.1 Methodological priorities for the design.................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Selected evaluation criteria........................................................................................................ 23
4.2 Evaluation Methods Used ........................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.1 Quantitative design and implementation.................................................................................... 24
4.2.1.1 Sample definition ............................................................................................................ 24
4.2.1.2 Selected Indicators ......................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1.3 Evaluation indicator building........................................................................................... 26
4.2.1.4 Information Collection Tool............................................................................................. 26
4.2.1.5 Design of the Data Base and typing collected information ............................................. 26
4.2.1.6 Data base cleansing and preparation ............................................................................. 27
4.2.1.7 Information-analysis method........................................................................................... 27
4.2.2 Qualitative evaluation design ..................................................................................................... 27
4.2.2.1 Collection tools ............................................................................................................... 27
4.2.2.2 Information processing ................................................................................................... 29
V. MAS PROJECT RELEVANCE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Profile of the producers according to the agreement with USDA............................................................. 29
5.2 Project design relevance.......................................................................................................................... 29
5.2.1 Selection of beneficiaries involved............................................................................................. 30
5.2.2 Response to priorities from the Government, USDA, TECHNOSERVE and other key 
partners...................................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.2.1 Response to the priorities of the Central Government.................................................... 30
5.2.2.2 Response to USDA’s priorities ....................................................................................... 31
5.2.2.3 Response to TechnoServe’s priorities ............................................................................ 32
5.2.2.4 Response to partners’ priorities ...................................................................................... 33
VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BENEFICIARY POPULATION ....................................................................... 33
6.1 Household Composition........................................................................................................................... 33
6.2 Land Ownership....................................................................................................................................... 33
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
3 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
6.3 Population stability and mobility ............................................................................................................... 34
6.3.1 Migration .................................................................................................................................... 34
6.3.2 Migration destination.................................................................................................................. 35
6.3.3 Reason for Migration.................................................................................................................. 35
6.3.4 Rooted to family assets.............................................................................................................. 36
VII. STRATEGIC LINES AND COMPONENTS...................................................................................................... 37
7.1 STRATEGIC LINE 1: Facilitate the Access to high quality seeds and input ............................................ 37
7.1.1 COMPONENT 1: Community Seed Banks ................................................................................ 37
7.2 STRATEGIC LINE 2: Develop and implement a training Program in technical improvement and 
farming technologies................................................................................................................................ 37
7.2.1 COMPONENT 2: Field Schools ................................................................................................. 38
7.3 STRATEGIC LINE 3: Strengthening the PO to provide services that add value and comply with 
market standards ..................................................................................................................................... 38
7.3.1 COMPONENT 3: Strengthening capacities of Producer Organizations (POs) .......................... 38
7.3.2 COMPONENT 4: Expanding Access to Credit........................................................................... 39
7.3.3 COMPONENT 5: Developing an Agriculture Information System.............................................. 39
7.3.4 COMPONENT 6: Evaluate the POs’ storage infrastructure ....................................................... 39
7.4 GENDER COMPONENT ......................................................................................................................... 40
7.4.1 Contribution of the MAS Project to equal participation from men and women........................... 41
7.4.1.1 Land Ownership.............................................................................................................. 42
7.4.2 Participation of women in access to services in the coffee PO.................................................. 43
7.4.2.1 Technical Assistance...................................................................................................... 43
7.4.3 Participation of women in access to services in the bean POs.................................................. 44
7.4.3.1 Technical Assistance Services ....................................................................................... 44
7.4.3.2 Certified Seed................................................................................................................. 44
7.4.3.3 Sales to New Markets..................................................................................................... 45
7.4.3.4 Access to Financing........................................................................................................ 45
7.4.4 Participation of women in remunerated agricultural activities .................................................... 46
VIII. PROJECT EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 46
8.1 Alliances as a response to producers’ needs........................................................................................... 46
8.1.1 Creation of funds to expand access to credit............................................................................. 48
8.1.1.1 Leverage Funding........................................................................................................... 49
8.1.1.2 Mechanisms of Access to Credit .................................................................................... 50
8.1.2 Business contracts with competitive markets............................................................................. 51
8.1.3 Attitude to reach maximum performance levels in solidarity work.............................................. 52
8.1.3.1 Satisfaction from the producers in regards to the support received by the MAS 
Project ............................................................................................................................ 53
IX. EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT BASED ON THE STRATEGIC LINES OF THE PROJECT ....................... 56
9.1 STRATEGIC LINE 1: Facilitating Access to high quality seed and input ................................................. 56
9.1.1 Effectiveness in the achievement of expected results ............................................................... 56
9.1.1.1 Registered and basic seed production ........................................................................... 56
9.1.1.2 Community Seed Banks ................................................................................................. 57
9.1.1.3 Producers integrated into the seed production process.................................................. 57
9.1.1.4 Certified Seed Production............................................................................................... 58
9.1.1.5 Established bean seed validation plots........................................................................... 60
9.1.1.6 Use and Access to certified bean seed .......................................................................... 60
9.1.1.7 Access to improved seed................................................................................................ 61
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
4 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.2 STRATEGIC LINE 2: Developing and implementing a training program in agriculture techniques and 
technologies............................................................................................................................................. 62
9.2.1 Effectiveness in achieving the adoption of good agriculture practices ....................................... 62
9.2.1.1 Adoption of new techniques and technologies by coffee producers ............................... 64
9.2.1.2 Adoption of new techniques and technologies by bean producers................................. 71
9.2.1.2.1 Applied techniques and technologies ............................................................................. 71
9.2.1.2.2 Cropping system and sowing density ............................................................................. 72
9.2.1.2.3 The use of inoculant ....................................................................................................... 73
9.2.1.2.4 The use of certified seed ................................................................................................ 74
9.2.1.2.5 Use of fertilizer................................................................................................................ 75
9.2.1.2.6 Disease Prevention and Control ..................................................................................... 76
9.2.1.2.7 Soil and water management........................................................................................... 78
9.2.1.2.8 Post-harvest management.............................................................................................. 78
9.2.2 Impact in adopting good agriculture practices............................................................................ 79
9.2.2.1 Coffee Chain................................................................................................................... 79
9.2.2.2 Bean Chain..................................................................................................................... 83
9.3 STRATEGIC LINE 3: Strengthening POs to provide services that add value and comply with market 
standards ................................................................................................................................................. 86
9.3.1 Effectiveness in achieving expected results............................................................................... 86
9.3.1.1 Administrative and accounting practices of the PO ........................................................ 86
9.3.1.2 Access to credit and market services ............................................................................. 87
9.3.2 Impact in Coffee Chain .............................................................................................................. 98
9.3.2.1 Market condition ............................................................................................................. 98
9.3.2.2 Increase in sales from MAS Producers........................................................................... 99
9.3.2.3 Increase in income of MAS Producers............................................................................ 99
9.3.3 Impact in the Bean Chain......................................................................................................... 101
9.3.3.1 Income in terms of practice adoption scale................................................................... 101
9.3.3.2 Yield in the first cycle in terms to access to credit ........................................................ 101
9.3.3.3 Yield in bean crops in the first cycle in terms of access to credit.................................. 102
9.3.3.4 Income per sale according to access to credit.............................................................. 102
9.4 Impact on Jobs....................................................................................................................................... 103
9.4.1 Jobs strengthened by the Project ............................................................................................ 103
9.4.2 Job generation attributed to the Project ................................................................................... 104
X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 105
10.1.CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................... 105
10.1.1. Generals .................................................................................................................................. 105
10.1.2. Coverage ................................................................................................................................. 105
10.1.3. Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 105
10.1.4. Project design and strategies................................................................................................... 105
10.1.5. Commercialization ................................................................................................................... 106
10.1.6. Techniques and technologies .................................................................................................. 106
10.1.7. Natural Resource Management ............................................................................................... 107
10.1.8. Productivity and profitability ..................................................................................................... 107
10.1.8.1. Yield .............................................................................................................................. 107
10.1.8.2. Income .......................................................................................................................... 108
10.1.8.3. Employment .................................................................................................................. 108
10.1.9. Financial systems .................................................................................................................... 108
10.1.10. Human Talent Formation ......................................................................................................... 108
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
5 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
10.1.11. Strengthening Producer Organizations.................................................................................... 109
10.1.12. Gender..................................................................................................................................... 109
10.1.13. Communication........................................................................................................................ 109
10.1.14. Information systems................................................................................................................. 109
10.1.15. Budgetary execution ................................................................................................................ 110
10.2.RECOMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 110
10.2.1. Generals .................................................................................................................................. 110
10.2.2. Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 110
10.2.3. Project design and strategies................................................................................................... 110
10.2.4. Commercialization ................................................................................................................... 110
10.2.5. Human Talent Formation ......................................................................................................... 111
10.2.6. Gender..................................................................................................................................... 111
10.2.7. Information systems................................................................................................................. 111
10.2.8. Budgetary execution ................................................................................................................ 111
XI. ANNEXES...................................................................................................................................................... 112
11.1.Annex 1: Sample Calculation................................................................................................................. 112
11.2.Annex 2: Indicator Calculation Building.................................................................................................. 112
11.3.Annex 3: Quantitative Instruments......................................................................................................... 112
11.4.Annex 4: Calculation for Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 112
11.5.Annex 5: Qualitative Tools for information recording ............................................................................. 112
11.6.Annex 6: Interview Lists ......................................................................................................................... 112
11.7.Annex 7: Qualitative Collection Report .................................................................................................. 112
11.8.Annex 8: Qualitative Relevance Synthesis ............................................................................................ 112
11.9.Annex 9: Data Base (Digital).................................................................................................................. 112
11.10. Annex 10: Analysis Matrix consolidated by stakeholders (Digital) ...................................................... 112
11.11. Annex 11: Photographic evidence (Digital) ......................................................................................... 112
TABLE INDEX 
Table No. 1 Final Evaluation Sample .................................................................................................... 24
Table No. 2 Matrix 1. MAS Project performance indicators.................................................................. 25
Table No. 3 Tools and stakeholders...................................................................................................... 26
Table No. 4 Matrix of informants involved in focus groups .................................................................... 28
Table No. 5 Percentage of households with migration in the last five years. MAS 2017....................... 34
Table No. 6 Percentage of migrants according to place of destination. MAS 2017............................... 35
Table No. 7 Reasons for Migration. MAS Project, 2017........................................................................ 35
Table No. 8 Average household members who will continue the coffee and bean activity. MAS 2017. 36
Table No. 9 Participation of women in the coffee value chain ............................................................... 41
Table No. 10 Participation of women in the bean value chain................................................................. 41
Table No. 11 Land Ownership - bean...................................................................................................... 42
Table No. 12 Land ownership - coffee..................................................................................................... 43
Table No. 13 Coffee harvest seasons in which producers received training and technical assistance from 
the MAS Project 43
Table No. 14 Training in Coffee Quality .................................................................................................. 43
Table No. 15 Farmers that know the quality of their coffee ..................................................................... 44
Table No. 16 Coffee producers selling to exporters in the 2017-2018 harvest........................................ 44
Table No. 17 Coffee harvest seasons in which producers received training or technical assistance from 
the MAS Project MAS....................................................................................................................................... 44
Table No. 18 Places where certified seed was purchased...................................................................... 45
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
6 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 19 Percentage of bean sales in the first and second cycles to IHMA, 2016 ........................... 45
Table No. 20 Percentage of producers satisfied by selling to IHMA........................................................ 45
Table No. 21 Access to financing by sex................................................................................................. 46
Table No. 22 Number of Public/ Private Alliances................................................................................... 46
Table No. 23 Private/Public Alliances...................................................................................................... 47
Table No. 24 Percentage of coffee producers that will continue using techniques and technologies 
promoted by MAS 54
Table No. 25 Percentage of bean producers who will continue applying techniques and technologies 
promoted by MAS 55
Table No. 26 Basic and registered seed production, by sowing cycle..................................................... 56
Table No. 27 Establishing validation plots in the bean crops .................................................................. 60
Table No. 28 Percentage of producers that have applied and adopted 3 or more new techniques and 
technologies, by gender.................................................................................................................................... 63
Table No. 29 Expected and actual participation in field schools.............................................................. 63
Table No. 30 Adopted techniques and technologies in the coffee crops (% producers). MAS 2017....... 65
Table No. 31 Use of fertilizer in the coffee chain. MAS 2017 .................................................................. 68
Table No. 32 Producers (%) who report pests in their coffee farms. MAS 2017 ..................................... 69
Table No. 33 Techniques and technologies adopted in the bean chain (% producers). MAS 2017........ 72
Table No. 34 Bean cropping systems according to farming cycles (% producers). MAS 2017 ............... 72
Table No. 35 Sowing density in bean crops. MAS 2017.......................................................................... 73
Table No. 36 Producers that report and control diseases in the bean crops. MAS 2017 ........................ 76
Table No. 37 Producers (%) according to the years of conducting disease control and prevention 
practices in bean crops. MAS 2017 .................................................................................................................. 77
Table No. 38 Impact of the MAS Project in adopting coffee growing practices ....................................... 79
Table No. 39 Incremental value in coffee productivity, FE and MTE versus BL..................................... 81
Table No. 40 Increase in coffee crop yield .............................................................................................. 82
Table No. 41 Impact of the MAS Project in commercial coffee production yield ..................................... 82
Table No. 42 Significant difference in yield according to good practices between the intervention and 
control group 82
Table No. 43 Impact of the MAS Project in the adoption of practices for bean crops.............................. 83
Table No. 44 Incremental value in bean productivity, FE and MTE versus BL........................................ 84
Table No. 45 Impact of the MAS Project in bean yield ............................................................................ 85
Table No. 46 Producer Organizations that have applied administrative and accounting practices ......... 86
Table No. 47 Number of loans facilitated and MAS producers who benefited from financial services .... 88
Table No. 48 Post-harvest infrastructure assessment to organizations of producers, MAS 2017........... 88
Table No. 49 Number of organizations of producers linked to investors in infrastructure. MAS 2017..... 89
Table No. 50 Number of producer organizations with a working messaging system .............................. 89
Table No. 51 Number of producers that have frequent access to at least one updated source of market 
information through SMS .................................................................................................................................. 90
Table No. 52 Percentage of messages received by MAS Project producers .......................................... 90
Table No. 53 Percentage of producers that received messages, per frequency. MAS 2017 .................. 90
Table No. 54 Institutions and organizations that send messages. MAS 2017......................................... 91
Table No. 55 Percentage of producers selling to cooperatives or other organizations............................ 91
Table No. 56 Percentage of producers and bean production commercialized per cropping cycle, 
according to buying agents. MAS 2017 ............................................................................................................ 92
Table No. 57 Number of signed agreements between buyers and sellers. MAS 2017 ........................... 93
Table No. 58 Number of PO selling directly to exporters. MAS 2017...................................................... 94
Table No. 59 Average price reached by exporters in regards to New York’s stock market. MAS 2017 .. 95
Table No. 60 Producers trained in coffee quality control and youth graduated in tasting........................ 97
Table No. 61 Percentage of producers and coffee sale price for cupping rating..................................... 97
Table No. 62 Average sale value per buying agent................................................................................. 98
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
7 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 63 Significance of the value of sales according to coffee buying agents ................................ 98
Table No. 64 Significance between coffee buyers from the MAS and control groups. MAS 2017 .......... 98
Table No. 65 Average income in coffee sale (US$)................................................................................. 99
Table No. 66 Average income of MAS families and control families, coffee harvest sale 2016-2017... 100
Table No. 67 Impact of the MAS Project in income from the coffee chain ............................................ 100
Table No. 68 Significant difference in income in terms of good practices between MAS and control ... 101
Table No. 69 Yield in bean for the first cycle and its relation with access to credit. MAS 2017............. 101
Table No. 70 Yield in bean crops for the second cycle and its relation with access to credit. MAS 2017
102
Table No. 71 Income in beans, and its relation with access to credit. MAS 2017 ................................. 102
Table No. 72 Number of jobs strengthened with the assistance of MAS in 2016-2017. MAS 2017 ...... 103
Table No. 73 Impact of the MAS Project in strengthening jobs in the coffee and bean chains 2012-2017
103
Table No. 74 Number of jobs attributed by the MAS Project, 2017 ....................................................... 104
CHART INDEX 
Chart No. 1 Leveraged Funds by Component ....................................................................................... 49
Chart No. 2 MGF Funds awarded and leveraged in the Coffee Chain .................................................. 50
Chart No. 3 Level of Satisfaction from coffee producers of the support they received from the MAS 
Project in techniques and technologies. ........................................................................................................... 53
Chart No. 4 Level of satisfaction from bean producers of the support they received from the MAS 
Project in techniques and technologies ............................................................................................................ 55
Chart No. 5 Number of established community seed Banks. MAS, 2017 ............................................. 57
Chart No. 6 Number of producers integrated into the seed production. MAS, 2017 ............................. 57
Chart No. 7 Percentage of producers according to the variety of bean acquired. MAS, 2017 .............. 58
Chart No. 8 Percentage of producers by source of certified seed according to intervention and control. 
MAS, 2017 59
Chart No. 9 Producers that use certified seed. MAS, 2017 ................................................................... 61
Chart No. 10 Percentage of producers that use and have access to improved bean seed. MAS, 2017 . 62
Chart No. 11 Adoption of good practices by coffee chain producers (%) ................................................ 64
Chart No. 12 Producers who apply one or more tissue management or pruning practices in coffee crops
66
Chart No. 13 Percentage of coffee producers that apply tissue management techniques ...................... 66
Chart No. 14 Percentage of producers by level of shade regulation. MAS, 2017 ................................... 67
Chart No. 15 Percentage of producers who report diseases in their farm. MAS, 2017 ........................... 68
Chart No. 16 Coffee producers that apply disease control techniques (%) ............................................. 69
Chart No. 17 Percentage of producers who apply pest control practices. MAS, 2017 ............................ 70
Chart No. 18 Percentage of producers that apply soil and water techniques .......................................... 70
Chart No. 19 Percentage of bean producers according to their level of adoption of GP. MAS, 2017 ..... 71
Chart No. 20 Percentage of bean producers that know and apply inoculant .......................................... 73
Chart No. 21 Tendency in the use of inoculants by bean producers. MAS, 2017 ................................... 74
Chart No. 22 Producers that use certified seed. MAS, 2017 ................................................................... 75
Chart No. 23 Percentage of producers that adopt good nutritional practices in coffee crops with the 
assisted producers and the control group. MAS, 2017 ..................................................................................... 76
Chart No. 24 Disease Prevention and control per producer in bean crops (%) ....................................... 77
Chart No. 25 Bean producers that apply good practices in soil conservation (%) ................................... 78
Chart No. 26 Percentage of bean producers who apply good post-harvest practices ............................. 79
Chart No. 27 Impact in commercial coffee production yield, MAS versus control ................................... 80
Chart No. 28 MAS productivity behavior in commercial coffee production .............................................. 81
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
8 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 29 Impact in the yield of beans in the second cycle, MAS versus control ............................... 83
Chart No. 30 MAS Productivity behavior and second cycle bean yield ................................................... 84
Chart No. 31 MAS productivity behavior and bean yield in the first cycle ............................................... 85
Chart No. 32 Percentage of producers who manage records in farm administration .............................. 87
Chart No. 33 Percentage of producers who received loans .................................................................... 88
Chart No. 34 Percentage of producers per kind of coffee according to buyer, MAS and control. MASP, 
2017 92
Chart No. 35 Coffee sales behavior of producer organizations with exporter companies per harvest year 
(MT x Harvest) 94
Chart No. 36 Increasing value of sales from the PO’s attributed to USDA assistance............................ 95
Chart No. 37 Commercialized coffee quality with exporters, per harvest ................................................ 96
Chart No. 38 Specialty coffee commercialized with exporters, per harvest............................................. 96
Chart No. 39 Increased value of sales from producers attributed to USDA assistance .......................... 99
Chart No. 40 Jobs created by the MAS Project in the coffee and bean chain ....................................... 104
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
9 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS 
Abbreviations Definition
AFS Association of Seed Funds 
AHPROCAFE Honduran Association of Coffee Producers 
ANACAFEH National Association of Coffee Growers in Honduras
CSB Community Seed Bank
BID Inter-American Development Bank 
BM World Bank 
BSR Beneficio Santa Rosa 
CAP Knowledge, Attitude, Practice 
CC Chain Coordinators
CE Training Coordinator
CG Control Group
CRAC Savings and Credit Groups 
DICTA Agricultural Science and Technology Directorate 
ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 
CT Community Trainer 
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FUNDER Foundation for Rural Development
FE Final Evaluation
FG Focus Group
FS Field School
GAP, GP Good Agriculture Practices
HCB Honduras Central Bank
GoH Government of Honduras 
Kg or kg Kilogram 
Ha or ha Hectare 
IHCAFE Honduran Coffee Institute 
IHMA Honduran Agriculture Marketing Institute
HRNS Hans R. Neumann Stiftung
INE National Statistics Institute
BL Base Line 
L or l Liter
MAS Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (Project) 
MdH Molinos de Honduras
MSU Michigan State University 
MTE Mid-term Evaluation
Mz or mz Block of land 
PO Producer Organization 
PH Wet parchment 
PI Producers assisted by MAS Project 
PROGRANO National Association of Stable Grain Producers
Qq or qq Quintal (100 lbs) 
RED PASH Network of Artisanal Seed Producers of Honduras 
TOR Terms of Reference
MT Metric Ton, 1000 kilograms 
UNA National Agriculture University
UNAH National Autonomous University of Honduras
US United States
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
SAG Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
10
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
SERNA Ministry of State in the Dispatch of Natural Resources and Environment
WFP World Food Program 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
11
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This document is the report for the final evaluation of the Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS for its 
acronym in Spanish) Project. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded and TechnoServe 
(TNS) implemented the MAS program, to provide assistance to 9, 000 smallholder and medium coffee and 
bean producers in the departments of Comayagua, Francisco Morazán, El Paraiso, Yoro and Olancho. 
The Final Evaluation (FE) methodology consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative analysis – comparing 
producers in the coffee and bean chains benefited by the MAS Project versus a Control Group (CG), the Mid￾Term Evaluation (MTE) and the Base Line (BL). The methodology sought to validate changes observed in the 
producers with respect to the following variables: level of organization, productivity, sales, adoption of good 
practices, funding and sustainability of results. 
The main findings of the evaluation are summarized below: 
The Statistic Variance Analysis (ANOVA) showed that the differences in the level of adoption of good practices 
among MAS producers and the CG were significant; therefore, they can be attributed to the MAS intervention. 
MAS producers showed a medium to very high level of adoption (with the adoption of six or more good 
practices). On the other hand, CG producers showed medium to very low adoption (they adopted 6 or less 
good practices). 
In terms of the significance tests and in comparing the yields from the first (primera in Spanish) 2016 bean 
harvest between MAS producers and the CG, there was a significant statistical difference with a level of 
confidence of 95%. The result validates that the difference is due to the assistance from the MAS Project. 
MAS helped producers achieve yield improvements in both coffee and beans. The evaluators observed that 
MAS coffee producers obtained 47.1 QqPH/Ha in the 2016-2017 harvest, in comparison with 31.9 QqPH/Ha 
obtained by the CG during the same period, and achieved an increase in yields of 55% with regard to the BL, 
in which the producers obtained 30.4 QqPH/Ha in 2012-2013. 
In the bean value chain’s first harvest, MAS producers obtained 20.7Qq/Ha in the 2016-2017 harvest, in 
comparison with the 17.9 Qq/Ha obtained by the CG. Baseline data was not reliable, so data was compared 
against the Mid-term Evaluation (MTE), which registered 11.4 qq/ha for the first harvest. An increase of 81.6% 
was observed with regard to the MTE. In terms of the second annual harvest (postrera in Spanish), the result 
from the significance test affirms that the difference between MAS producers in the FE (17.4 Qq/Ha) and the 
MTE (12.7 Qq/Ha. MTE – second harvest 2013) was due to the assistance from the MAS Project. However, 
the difference in the FE between CG producers (16.9 Qq/Ha) and MAS Producers (17.4 Qq/Ha) was not 
significant. 
With regard to the coffee value chain, as a result of the market linkages promoted by MAS, the total sales 
value achieved by coffee beneficiaries reached US$ 49.2 million after four harvests, surpassing an initial target 
of US$ 13.3 million. At the same time, this had positive repercussions in the income of assisted producer 
families, which had an average income of US$ 4,359, twice the income of families in the CG. The variance 
analysis showed significant levels of differences in income between MAS producers and CG producers. This 
showed that the difference in income between MAS coffee producers and the control group could be attributed 
to the MAS project intervention.
In the bean chain, the FE found an average income of US$ 1,366 per producer with a difference of $ 473 
relative to the income obtained by the control group ($ 893), which was statistically different due to the MAS 
project contribution. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
12
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Data from the FE showed that 46% of the MAS producers affirmed that they cupped their coffee (to evaluate 
quality), while only 4% of the CG producers cupped their coffee. MAS producers who cupped their coffee 
obtained an average yield of 50.9 Qq/Ha PH, while those who did not cup their coffee obtained a yield of 41.1 
Qq/Ha PH. The producers in the CG who cupped their coffee obtained lower yields than MAS producers, 
estimated in 36.5 Qq/Ha PH. Those who did not cup and produce quality coffee obtained yields of 30.5 Qq/Ha 
PH. 
In terms of employment, during the 2016-2017 harvest, MAS strengthened 15,386 post-production jobs in the 
coffee chain, surpassing the target (12,300) by 125 percentage points. MAS also strengthened 12,181 on-farm 
jobs. In the bean chain, 2,367 jobs were strengthened, surpassing the target (389) by 500 percentage points. 
On the other hand, jobs created due to the project in the coffee chain reached 2,404 jobs, surpassing the 
target (1,300) by 84.9 percentage points. In the bean chain, jobs created due to MAS were 534 jobs, 
surpassing the target (313) by 70.6 percentage points. 
The evaluation also showed an important technological difference between MAS producers and the CG. While 
27% (N=247) of MAS beneficiaries have coffee dryers, only 2% of CG Producers have them (N=95), which in 
comparison to the BL, only 0.1% of producers reported having dryers. 
With respect to the application of good agricultural practices, data suggests that for every hectare of coffee, 
MAS beneficiaries applied 392 kilograms of chemical fertilizer, while the CG applied 325 kilograms. This 
difference is attributed to the efficient use of fertilizer from the soil analysis promoted by MAS. A similar result 
was found in the application of organic fertilizer. MAS beneficiaries applied 2,332 kg/ha in comparison to the 
1,109 kg/ha applied by the CG. MAS producers applied 4.3 Lit/Ha of foliar fertilizer against 5.3 Lit/Ha in the 
CG. MAS producers also used 73 Kg/Ha of calcium lime on their soils against 36 Kg/Ha of the CG, to regulate 
the acidity of soil and the efficiency in the use of fertilizers. 
With regard to the bean chain, 52% of MAS producers used inoculants in their crops, while only 0.5% used it in 
the CG. Data revealed that 63% of MAS producers used certified seed promoted by the Project, in contrast 
with 8% from the CG. 
The technological innovation in the first link of the value chain, with the improvement of genetic material 
through the introduction and expansion of the use of improved varieties, performed a key role in the 
development of coffee and bean farms. 
The organization and strengthening of 233 Producer Organizations (POs) facilitated the development of trade 
and market management linkages, to achieve successful product sales, negotiations and an increase in 
producers’ income. Likewise, the establishment of 16 public-private strategic alliances was successful, which 
encouraged producers and their POs to explore new financial and market relations. Under this new model, 325 
POs sold coffee directly to exporters and other coffee cooperatives, giving continuity and sustainability to the 
processes conducted throughout the entire productive chain. 
Field investigation showed that 65.7% of MAS Project coffee producers received loans. On the other hand, 
31.1% of control producers said they had credit assistance for coffee growing activities, translating into a 
difference of 34.6 percentage points. With regards to bean crops, 42.8% of MAS Producers affirmed having 
loans, while only 13.7% of control group producers had loans, creating a difference of 29.1 percentage points. 
This difference reflects the support that the project provided in financial assistance to the production of these 
crops. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
13
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
It can be concluded that the resources transferred to producers by the MAS project in technological 
innovations and financing throughout the different links of the chain were the foundation for the results 
obtained. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 
Project implementation was strongly affected by external factors like: i) the coffee leaf rust attack between 
2012 and 2013, which reduced the country’s exportable production in 24% (HCB: 2016) and ii) drought from 
2012 to 2015. These external factors were not considered when designing the project. 
Entrepreneurship formation and strengthening for rural youth and women is still at an early stage. For future 
actions, it is recommended to TNS the definition of an incentive policy and the establishment of broad 
compliance conditionalities, for women and youth participation aspects. 
By incentive policy we mean an internal policy that specifies activities targeting women and youth. These 
activities should be included in the budget and within the annual or implementation plans. In our context, an 
incentive could mean interventions such as: training, entrepreneurial development, providing access to credit, 
and/or any other intervention that is based on the learning that TechnoServe obtained by implementing a pilot 
project with youth and women in MAS. This policy and these plans should provide better employment 
opportunities and better incomes, in agricultural and non-agricultural occupations. 
Land coverage 
MAS Project comprised 31% of municipalities nationwide. This territory is too large to achieve a direct 
beneficiary population coverage. That is why the MAS project had producer assistance with a high degree of 
dispersion. Thus, there were dispersion adjustments, influenced also by security issues. 
MAS Project needs to continue with both types of producers: who are distributed in disperse areas and 
concentrated in less disperse areas. What needs to be developed is a differentiated supporting strategy for 
each case, and thus, guarantee the efficiency and effectiveness of the technical assistance and the 
achievement of equal opportunities in poorer rural areas. 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
The Project had a potent monitoring system, which recorded progress in the implementation. However, it 
required a greater analysis of the programmed targets. In this case, it was observed that the targets were 
possibly underestimated since they were overall easily exceeded in the implementation. 
The project conducted a baseline, however, the MAS project staff concluded that the baseline was not as 
reliable as the data collected during the mid-term evaluation. Along with the Evaluation team, the decision was 
made to use mid-term evaluation data instead of the baseline. For future interventions, faster decision-making 
is recommended to establish appropriate lines of comparison in the implementation. It is also recommended to 
strengthen the process of selecting consultants for the baseline survey, in order to have rigorous databases 
that can be used in subsequent evaluations. 
Project design and strategies 
The Project developed a series of activities aimed towards the sustainability of interventions. In coffee, MAS 
organized and strengthened POs, trained local talent as trainers for technical assistance, strengthened the 
POs for trading and built alliances for trading and assistance with credit. In the bean chain, alliances with IHMA 
and FUNDER in trading grains, promoted processes for sustainability. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
14
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Local economic capital was strengthened in a cross-cutting way with the development and strengthening of 
savings groups and trust funds for institutions that specialize in credit, like the José Maria Covelo Foundation 
and FUNDER. However, once the project is completed, all this human, social and economic capital requires 
integration and further institutionalization. 
In response to climate change adaptation, 64% of project beneficiaries implement good practices in soil and 
water management, use of organic fertilizer, shade management, disease and pest control, and tissue 
management, which contribute to decreasing greenhouse gas effects. In comparison, only 47% of the CG 
producers contributed to reducing these effects on the environment. In terms of mitigation, institutionalization 
with municipal governments and national institutions, it is recommended, in order to promote policies and 
regulations, to apply good practices, for instance: no burning, the use of organic fertilizer, among others. 
 
Trading 
The trading strategy for bean producers through an Alliance with FUNDER and IHMA identified early payment 
as an excellent mechanism to encourage production. However, it is necessary to explore different paths 
towards sustainability. IHMA has low capacity to absorb volumes greater than 30,000 quintals of bean and in 
addition, it operates under a price control system. 
Quality improvement for production chains was achieved through the organization and strengthening of 233 
POs that attracted US$ 381,000 from strategic partners like TNS, Covelo Foundation and Molinos de 
Honduras, to be invested in productive infrastructure. In addition, quality improvements strengthened 
commercial transactions through formal agreements and facilitated the creation of sixteen (16) public private 
alliances, which mobilized US$ 8.6 million for technical assistance, community banks, seed production, 
training in good agriculture practices, access to credit, commercialization and local financial capital. 
Techniques and technologies 
In the coffee chain, an average of 26.2% of the MAS producers adopted up to three key agricultural practices 
in comparison with only 8.7% of the producers in the control group. It is worth mentioning that 67% of MAS 
producers adopted six or more techniques and technologies, in comparison the 32.3% of the CG producers. In 
the bean chain, 31.3% of MAS producers adopted up to three key agricultural practices compared with only 
10.3% in the control group. It was observed that 56% of the bean beneficiaries adopted six or more practices 
versus 10% by the CG. This result shows a transformation in the production systems and in the management 
of the value chains as being done in a more aware and sustainable way. 
The FE found that overall 63% of MAS producers adopted six or more good agricultural practices, in 
comparison with 32% of the CG. Even though it is common for coffee producers to adopt some practices, we 
can conclude that MAS has achieved transforming the traditional coffee farm to a more modern one, through 
tissue, soil and water management, the use of organic fertilizer and improved administrative and accounting 
record-keeping skills. 
The fact that 56% of MAS bean producers adopted six or more techniques and technologies, in contrast with 
10% of the CG, explains the improvement in producers’ profitability arising from innovation and the use of new 
technologies associated with fertilization, the use of inoculants and improved and certified seed. 
In future interventions, it is recommended that the project continue supplying innovations and new 
technologies, leading to significant improvements in production systems, the conservation of the environment, 
and family living conditions. New farming practices matching environmental issues derived from climate 
change intensification, at this regional level, would be driving next project interventions. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
15
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Aside from what was done by the MAS Project, socio-environmental certification procedures may be 
incorporated since only coffee producers have guaranteed prices and by getting certified they are getting 
better income in comparison with producers who trade conventional coffee. 
Natural resource management 
It was observed that coffee producers as well as bean producers conducted practices for the conservation of 
flora and fauna (93% of coffee producers conducted shade management, 48% of coffee producers and 79% of 
bean producers conducted good soil and water management). Managing natural resources contributes to 
quality production and climate change adaptation. In the case of production, good practices on natural 
resource management established differences between the people who adopt them and those who do not. In 
coffee, the average yield was 46.6 Qq/Ha PH for those who adopted good practices, in comparison to the 30.6 
Qq/Ha PH obtained by the CG who did not adopt any good practices. 
Implementing good practices in disease management (70% coffee and 73% bean) and pest management 
(76% coffee and 82% bean) with organic input and cultural practices contribute to decrease pollution from 
water sources and improving coffee and bean quality. 
Productivity and profitability 
FE data shows that the MAS Project achieved improving yield for coffee and bean producers. In coffee, 
assisted producers had an average of 47.1 Qq/Ha PH, in comparison to the 32 Qq/Ha PH from the CG. 
Relative to the BL, increase in yield was 55%.
In the first annual (primera) bean harvest, MAS beneficiaries obtained yields of 20.7 Qq/Ha in comparison to 
the 17.9 Qq/Ha by the CG. When comparing yields, MAS producers had an 80% increase in regards to the 
MTE. 
Productivity in terms of the adoption of GAP promoted by the MAS Project made important changes in the 
coffee and bean chains. Coffee producers adopted 6 GAP or more and obtained yields between 46 and 55 
Qq/Ha PH. Bean producers’ yields exceeded 21 Qq/Ha. 
Coffee producing families participating in MAS obtained an average income of US$ 4,359, which is twice as 
much as the income of families in the CG. In the bean chain, average income for beneficiaries was US$ 1,366 
in comparison to US$ 893 for the CG. The differences in income were significant and are attributed to the MAS 
Project. 
Financial systems 
The organization and strengthening of the local financial systems created conditions for producers to have 
access to credit where the formal financial system is not present and made the local economy more dynamic. 
The Project transferred US$380,000 to more than 100 first-level entities (savings groups) and, through two 
second level entities (Covelo Foundation and FUNDER), credit was facilitated to finance productive activities in 
the coffee and bean chains, as well as non-farming activities. 
By the end of the project, 25,960 loans (20% for women) were accounted for from a target of 5,400 granted 
loans. The value of the loans was over US$15.5 million, which exceeded the programmed target of US$5 
million. 
With the 16 established alliances, opportunities were created to invest on the improvement of the coffee and 
bean chains. These alliances mobilized US$ 8.6 million (target was $5 million), to capitalize family assets with 
productive infrastructure and capacities to improve competitiveness. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
16
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Human talent development 
Local talent training contributed to the continuity of technical assistance within the territory. MAS trained 100 
community trainers and technicians who then strengthened the capacities of 16,000 male (81%) and female 
(19%) coffee producers and of 10,000 male (87%) and female (13%) bean producers through new knowledge 
and incentives for behavioral change to adopt new techniques and technologies. 
ANED considered that interventions such as MAS that delivered training via community trainers are the most 
cost-effective and convenient to increase productivity in the country. However, in the case of MAS, the 
sustainability of the extension model is subject to the exporters’ will to continue with the scheme. We 
recommend that TechnoServe continues with this training system based on community trainers but strengthen 
relationships with other potential partners so the model is not only reliant on exporters. The evaluators 
recommend establishing partnerships or agreements with agricultural service providers such as the National 
Agriculture University, the National Autonomous University of Honduras, the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Livestock and DICTA, El Zamorano University, FHIA, IHCAFE, non-governmental organizations working in 
rural areas, independent organized providers, among others. These partnerships would be established 
between TechnoServe and institutions and companies, projects and programs, service providers and 
beneficiaries. TechnoServe could contribute to increasing capabilities within the agricultural sector by 
transferring their training methodology, particularly to municipal government institutions working in agriculture. 
In the Honduran agricultural sector, there are technical service providers organized based on the technical 
assistance model created in the year 1992. This model needs an update since it has not been 100 percent 
functional and effective. 
PO Strengthening 
The creation and strengthening of 233 producer organizations (surpassing the target of 200) facilitates market 
access for their member producers by providing economies of scale and increasing their negotiation capacity. 
Strengthening the capacities of 135 POs allowed coffee producers to obtain more than 47% of their income 
through sales to exporters against 7% of the CG. The strengthened capacities of the POs included 
administrative and entrepreneurial management, which enabled the signing of 884 (target 180) agreements 
between buyers and sellers (694 for coffee and 190 for bean) and direct negotiations between 325 POs and 9 
exporter companies. 
Gender 
The Project made significant efforts to promote the involvement of women in different activities, by promoting 
the acknowledgement of women’s work in the rural areas through access to knowledge, technical assistance 
and markets. 
However, the gaps between men and women did not have any variances in terms of land ownership, income 
or investment. An example of this was income disaggregated by sex in the coffee chain: men had income 1.8 
times higher than women. In the bean chain, men had income 1.2 times higher. For future interventions, it is 
suggested to redirect investment and training in order to achieve: a) more participation from women in 
investments directed to productive assets and production and b) greater supervision and monitoring in 
resource allocation, by diversifying financial support sources for women. 
Communications and Information Systems 
Leveraging the means of communication (radio, cable, others) facilitated the dissemination of actions 
promoted by the Project throughout the territory. However, it is necessary to have a communication strategy 
that will give continuity to information exchange of learning and GAP to guarantee sustainable processes. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
17
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The implementation of the SMS activity generated interest among the participant stakeholders; however, since 
the Project was in charge of it, it is still uncertain how the sustainability of the system will continue. The number 
and frequency of time of the messages must be reinforced, encouraging the participation of the producers, 
with greater participation by youth, women and seniors. 
Budgetary execution 
Funds invested and leveraged through the Matching Grant Fund to strengthen the Coffee chain should 
contribute to the sustainability of the Project. However, procedures are required for the administration of non￾reimbursable funds to guarantee sustainability through time in the benefit of the producers. 
It is recommended to strengthen the fund leveraging model with the implementation of a properly regulated 
and permanent mechanism. It is necessary to create a trust fund with a financial institution that will manage 
funds; in order to develop a control and transparency mechanism in the use and administration of resources 
for the MAS Project in line with the MGF agreements and with what has been established by the State’s 
controlling agencies, especially the Supreme Court of Audit (TSC). 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
18
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Honduras is a small country in terms of territory; it has a land extension of 112,492 Km2
 and a population of 
8.7 million people (EHOM/INE/2016). Poverty is one of the highest in the Latin America and Caribbean 
countries. Figures from the same source show that 60.9% of households are under conditions of poverty and 
38.4% under extreme poverty. These proportions are even more critical in the rural area. 
The country’s economy according to the Honduras Central Bank (HCB)/2016 grows at a 3.6% rate every year 
and the agricultural sector grows at a 4.2% rate. This sector of the economy is one of the most important ones 
since it contributes with 13.9% to the national GDP. Its importance stands out since it absorbs 28.5% of the 
labor of the country, according to the Household Survey from the National Statistics Institute 
(EPHPM/INE/2016). 
In national agriculture, the coffee crop is the most transcendental. According to information from 
IHCAFE/2016, there are 120, 000 coffee producers, mostly smallholder producers, who grow 30, 70 hectares 
with an approximate yield of 7.1 million quintals. Coffee has become the main product for export in the country. 
With regard to bean, it is a very important crop, since it is a staple grain for the population’s diet. It is usually 
grown by smallholder producers (from less than 1 Ha to less than 3 hectares) distributed in 11 of the 18 
departments of the country. 
TechnoServe with funding from USDA has promoted the implementation of the Sustainable Agriculture 
Improvement (MAS) Project, aiming to improve income for stallholder coffee and bean producers by 
leveraging agricultural practices and technologies as well as the trading channels to promote the coffee and 
bean value chains. 
The Project has ended and it is the appropriate time to measure the impact it had by the end of its 
implementation period. ANED Consultores is in charge of conducting such measurements based on 
objectives, effects and results stated in the overall programming of the MAS Project. 
The fundamentals of the MAS program management are justified, since agriculture in Honduras is the most 
important activity for the population living in the rural area of the country. This is an emerging activity and it
keeps families under higher levels of poverty; nonetheless, significant efforts are being made through 
institutional development actions, especially through external ones. It is acknowledged that improving life 
conditions of the farming population needs the highest levels of organization and efficiency in the use of scarce 
resources and availability of more resources for the production. 
 
1.1 The MAS Project 
The United States of America Government (USG) through the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), funded a three-year program (2012-2015) with an initial extension of two years which add up to five 
years in total (2012 to June 2017), under the Food for Progress Program, which is known as the “Sustainable 
Agriculture Improvement (MAS)” in Honduras. It addressed smallholder producers from the coffee and bean 
value chains. 
Therefore, USDA delegated the implementation and monitoring of the MAS program to TechnoServe, which is 
consistent with the national policies established in the Nation Plan, Country Vision and Government National 
Plan. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
19
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
1.2 The Project is structured in three strategic axes: 
 Strategic Axis One has the objective of facilitating Access to high quality seed and input and improves 
income and the level of life of producers and their families by increasing production and productivity in 
the activity of both crops (coffee and bean). 
 Strategic Axis Two has the objective of developing and implementing a training program on better 
agriculture techniques and technologies and developing the capacities of producers by directly linking 
them to the market. 
 Strategic Axis Three has the objective of strengthening the producer organizations (PO) to provide 
services that would add value and comply with market standards and support the organization of 
groups of producers to have Access to greatest possible benefits. 
1.3 The project’s objectives are: 
 Increasing agriculture productivity in the coffee and bean value chains through agricultural 
practices, expanding access to credit, establishing community seed banks and developing 
agriculture information dissemination systems. 
 Expanding commerce of agricultural products in coffee and the value chains by evaluating the 
infrastructure of the organizations of producers and strengthening the capacity of the 
organizations of producers. 
II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND NATURE OF THE INTERVENTION 
2.1 Affirmation of the problem in the value chains (rationale) 
Honduras has been considered for many years a country with forestry and agricultural potential, lately, with 
forestry potential1
 to guarantee the sustainability of natural resources within the agro-silvopastoral production 
systems and practices. The rational and sustainable use of resources, would allow decreasing, mitigating and 
adapting to the effects and impacts of climate change. 
The agrarian sector in Honduras is one of the most important food insecurity mitigation elements, since it 
produces food for family consumption and allows selling surplus within the smallholder and medium producers. 
Likewise, it generates income in some value chains for export and employment within the sectors of the 
different productive chains by adding value to the agricultural assets. 
However, there are gaps to promote national agriculture, like: i) rural migration to the United States and other 
countries, ii) Little or no support and lack of technical assistance from the government; and iii) the banking 
industry considers this sector as High Risk, and therefore access to private bank credit is very limited; all of the 
above provokes the lack of investment on new technologies, infrastructure and restriction to leverage. 
2.2.1 Coffee 
Coffee growing is an agricultural product for external consumption (export) and a very low percentage for 
internal consumption. According to the HCB in the year 2016, 6.9 million quintals were exported, which meant 
an income of 882.8 million dollars, equivalent to 23.5% of the total exports of the country for that year. Due to 
its income generation, this crop is the most important and the one with greater socioeconomic impact in the 
country due to the high revenue and permanent and seasonal job creation. It is considered the crop with 
 
1 Agroforestry is a discipline and modality of productive land use, where there is spatial and/or 
temporary interaction of terrestrial and non-terrestrial plant species and animals. Ospina 2008.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
20
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
greater social balance, with approximately 120, 000 female and male producers and among those most are 
smallholder producers. 
Coffee growers are facing, just as in other crops, the effects of climate change and its negative impacts, such 
as: i) pests, especially coffee berry borer (CBB), i) diseases, rust being the most important one, which has 
lately attacked varieties that were resistant just two harvests ago, ii) erratic rainy seasons and dry seasons, 
added to the sudden changes of temperature and extreme temperatures, affecting flowering and extending the 
harvest periods, among other environmental disorders. 
Therefore, Hondurans in the rural sector have to face three challenges: i) elevating productivity in the different 
value chains like staple grains, coffee and others, ii) improving their competitiveness by giving an added value 
to their products developing the capacities of the producer families to leverage the available markets; and iii) 
increasing income and profit for producers through a positive change in the relationships between producers 
and buyers and/or exporters. 
In addition to these issues, Honduras is considered, by the consortium of international observatories of climate 
change, one of the first five most vulnerable countries in the world to the effects of climate change. In some 
periods, it occupies the first position as the most affected country in terms of economy and socially; the regular 
cycles of rain or lack thereof, are no longer reliable. The effect of El Niño and La Niña phenomenon has also 
disrupted the production cycles. For instance, in coffee harvest season for the years 2015 and 2016, rain has 
made coffee over ripe, which makes harvest more difficult and damages the road infrastructure, added to the 
fact that producers do not have artificial cherry drying systems. 
Other natural effects that have an impact in the national agro-food sector are storms and hurricanes Honduras 
is exposed to, since they provoke significant losses in harvests, landslides and flooding in the agricultural 
areas as well as alterations in the micro-watersheds and pollution of the water sources. 
2.1.2 Beans 
Estimations from INE show that in the year 2015, 114, 700 hectares of bean were grown in the country, 
procuring production in 1.85 million quintals based on a 16.2 Qq/Ha yield. In the recent past, national bean 
production allowed covering internal demand. However, in the last few years, considerable annual beans 
imports have been observed, even so that in 2016 the amount of 264,600 quintals of bean were acquired from 
the external market, which are necessary to complement the internal demand of this product. Exports of this 
grain for the same year were approximately 50, 600 quintals. With the national production plus annual imports, 
the internal demand of the country is covered, which is usually between 2.0 and 2.2 million quintals for an 
apparent per capita consumption of 11.0 Kg./person/year. The greatest limitations of the crop are related with 
the adverse effects of climate change as well as the aspects of technology, credit, land ownership and 
organization to face difficulties presented in the national market and extreme weather conditions. 
This is the main element for food security in the country and in the nutritional policy of Honduras; bean is a 
basic grain in Hondurans’ diet since it supplies vegetable proteins necessary for consumers. Therefore it is 
found under the category of “staple grain”. As a value chain, it is considered as the crop that needs the most 
support in technical assistance, credit and support in searching for markets; since its production is in the hands 
of smallholder producers that are not organized and due to the importance of its consumption by the poorest 
population in Honduras. 
Beans are grown on hillsides around the country, but mainly in the departments of Olancho, El Paraìso, Yoro, 
Comayagua and Francisco Morazán. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
21
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
2.2 Intervention Theory (Theory of Change) 
In order to analyze the structure and dynamic of the project from the point of view of the implementation, the 
theory of change was built, with participation from the TechnoServe team for both productive chains to analyze 
the interaction between the different interventions conducted by the project. These models reflect, in a 
summary, the interaction between activities to generate the effects and results in both productive chains. 
Figure No. 1 Theory of change for the bean chain 
Source: ANED Consultores, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
Figure No. 2 Theory of Change for the coffee chain 
Source: ANED Consultores, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
22
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The results of this process indicate that: 
• The achievement of Project outcomes in terms of increasing income for producers started from: 
changes in the productivity, offer for technical assistance and integration into the market system. This 
process demanded establishing strategies to articulate these interventions. 
• Understanding the project and its approach was made from a systematic perspective in which social 
change is the result of the interaction between interventions. 
• In Project implementation, it was necessary to create synergies between actions to improve the 
technical capacity of producers and managing and administrating farms and in their integration into 
the market system as mechanisms to increase profitability and usefulness of the agricultural activity. 
• Project interventions were not developed in a linear way, but looking for the integration to produce 
combined effects and at a greater scale within the chain of results. For instance, training and 
technical assistance actions were linked to the organizations of producers’ strengthening strategies, 
access to credit and integration to markets. 
• Sustainability of Project outcomes implied the need to articulate the different strategies and actions to 
achieve synergies among the productive and institutional actors in order to have impacts in time. 
III. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION 
3.1 Purpose of the Evaluation 
The purpose of the final evaluation was to revise and assess the impact and outcomes that the Project had in 
the activities foreseen with producers from the coffee and bean value chains, as well as in the organizations 
and companies that render services. Likewise, the evaluation sought to identify lessons learned and 
opportunities for improvement to replicate them into future interventions of TechnoServe and the donor in 
Honduras. 
3.2 Objectives of the Evaluation 
3.2.1 General Objective
To measure the effects and determine the direct and indirect impact of the MAS Project and the relevance, 
effectiveness and sustainability of the program 
3.2.2 Specific Objectives 
• To ascertain relevant indicator compliance as well as the Project targets. 
• To measure Project outcomes in regards to the production, economic benefits, adoption of new 
practices and opportunities to increase Jobs in farms, as well as analyzing the impact of the program on 
outcome and target indicators. 
• To value the impact in gender equity and generational replacement in the Organizations of producers 
(POs) and in the households in terms of conditions of Access, conditions of work, decision power, 
training opportunities, among others. 
• To identify strengths and weaknesses in the project’s strategy and implementation.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
23
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
• To identify the best practices, as well as the project’s learning lessons in order to improve the design 
and implementation of similar future projects. 
IV. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION 
The methodology used in the evaluation contemplates the behavior of indicators from the beginning (Base 
Line) to the end of the MAS Project. It is worth mentioning that after a revision of the collected information both 
in the base line and in the mid-term evaluation survey, there was no significant variance in data between both 
data bases. It was agreed with TechnoServe to compare data from the final survey with data collected in the 
mid-term evaluation, since it was considered that the data base from this evaluation ensured a better quality in 
the collected data.
In order to strengthen the analysis and being able to compare the changes produced in the participant 
producers, the “control group” was incorporated as a measurement element to establish comparisons, under 
the premise that without the Project, both groups of producers (intervention and control) would report similar 
results in a comparison analysis. Producers from the control group were selected in different communities 
close to the communities of the intervention group. The main aspect for the selection was that they had the 
same characteristics in terms of land ownership, technology and crops as the beneficiaries of the project. 
4.1 Methodological priorities for the design 
In the first place, the Theory of Change, is established in the Project from the indicators and linked to impacts, 
effects and results programmed in the monitoring plan, under the perspective of building the logic of change 
from everyone involved in the implementation processes. In second place, gender equality is addressed from a 
balanced consideration of the needs of both genders and the acknowledgment of at least three gender 
awareness raising elements relevant in the evaluation: i) women have different needs than men, either 
individual or special needs; ii) women are a group at a disadvantage With regard to men; and iii) women’s 
development implies working towards increasing equity and empowerment. In third place, in priority, 
Monitoring and Evaluation incorporated into the Project as an ongoing and systematic process. 
The evaluation exercise analyzes this system from how it has operated the information-collection mechanisms 
and follow up, how the information consolidation and validation processes have worked and how the M&E 
actions have supported decision-making in terms of the strategic direction of the Project and what has been 
the added value of M&E in the implementation. Finally, two key aspects: the environment and food security. 
Regarding the first, the interest was identifying and valuating how the application of environment-friendly 
techniques are promoted, especially knowing how the adoption of environment-friendly practices has worked. 
About the second one, we tried to analyze the indirect effects of food security within the MAS framework. 
4.1.1 Selected evaluation criteria 
The methodological design and its application focused on the 6 key criteria for evaluation: appropriateness, 
seen from the opportunity, adaptation and convenience of the design, actions and activities of the Project; 
relevance, looking to identify the level of alignment with the national and sector development policy and the 
level of satisfaction of the needs of beneficiaries; effectiveness, how the capacity to comply in place, time, 
quality and amount of established targets and objectives: efficiency, of resource administration and rational 
use thereof, impact, considering the valuation of direct-indirect and expected not-expected effects; and 
sustainability¸ looking for it to remain in time and the level of “irreversibility” of interventions. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
24
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
4.2 Evaluation Methods Used 
4.2.1 Quantitative design and implementation 
Quantitative results of the evaluation are obtained through four surveys based on defined probabilistic samples 
with a 5 per cent error and a 95 per cent level of confidence. Land coverage of the surveys was extended to 
the five departments of influence of the project (El Paraíso, Olancho, Francisco Morazán, Comayagua and 
Yoro). 
4.2.1.1 Sample definition 
This evaluation uses a sample analytical design, which dedicates the development of detailed models 
describing the relation of dependent variables with self-explanatory variables. Treatment variables are also 
included here. In addition, the sample framework includes elements from the mid-term survey (assumed as the 
base line) that must be matched with the collections in the field. In other words, if a subject of study was 
collected in a base line, the same subject must be collected in the impact measurement. 
For a greater sample guarantee, the sample size is determined foreseeing possible sample attrition. Under 
these considerations an extended sample in 12.5% by sample attrition is: 
Table No. 1 Final Evaluation Sample 
Department
Impact
Intervention Control Total
Coffee Bean Coffee Bean
Comayagua 88 96 60 120 364
El Paraíso 152 112 132 88 484
Francisco Morazán 56 56 52 48 212
Olancho 88 112 92 88 380
Yoro 88 112 74 88 362
Total 472 488 410 432 1,802
Final Sample Established 473 484 412 438 1,807
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
A significant sample size is considered, which has been useful to employ impact measurement models based 
on probabilistically comparing parameters for each group. The initial target was using the difference model that 
links the individual from the base line to the individual in the impact measurement, however, due to the 
difference in information management, the variance analysis or ANOVA method is used, using all the 
appropriate statistic parameters for the complete analysis (Annex No. 1). 2
4.2.1.2 Selected Indicators 
Indicators that are part of the evaluation were agreed between TechnoServe and the donor (USDA); they were 
documented in the Project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) document. Most of these indicators are the 
ones the Project Log frame contemplates as impact, outcome and effect indicators. Occasionally, output level 
indicators will be addressed. 
 
2 A variance analysis allows determining if different treatments show significant differences and if 
these differences are attributable or not to an intervention.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
25
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
 
Table No. 2 Matrix 1. MAS Project performance indicators 
Dimension Level of 
indicator Indicator
Income Impact
1.1. Increased income coming from productive value chains
1.2. Increased income coming from value chains assisted by MAS 
Productivity
Outcome 2..1. Increased wet parchment coffee yield 
Outcome 2..2. Increased bean yield
Community Banks and 
use of bean seed 
Output 3.1. Number of community Banks for bean seed established 
Output 3.2. Number of seed validation plots established 
Outcome 3.3. Number of producers that use Certified seed, classified and/or commercial
Output 3.4. Number of producers with Access to improved bean seed 
Loans 
Outcome 4.1. Number of producers that benefit from the use of financial services promoted 
with the assistance of MAS 
Outcome 4.2. Value of farming loans given to farmers as a result of MAS assistance 
Output 4.3. Number of loans disbursed to farmers as a result of MAS assistance 
Job Outcome 5.1. Number of Jobs strengthened with MAS assistance 
Outcome 5.2. Number of Jobs attributed to MAS assistance 
Commercialization
Outcome 6.1. Increased value of sales from coffee producing organizations. 
Outcome 6.2. Increased value of sales from coffee producers 
Outcome 6.3. Increased value from sales of bean producing organizations 
Outcome 6.4. Increased value of sales from bean producers 
Outcome 6.5. Sales value in MT of coffee producers to the PO
Outcome 6.6. Sales value of bean to the PO
Outcome 6.7. Average Price reached by coffee co-ops in regards to the New York stock 
market 
Training 
Effect
7.1. Number of producers who have applied better farm management practices 
(organization, administration, financial management) as a result of MAS 
assistance 
Output 7.2. Number of people who receive training on short term productivity from the 
farming sector or in food security as a result from USDA 
Output 7.3. Number of established Field Schools 
Adoption
Effect 8.1. Number of producers who have applied new techniques and technologies as a 
result of MAS assistance 
Effect 8.2. Number of hectares under improved techniques and technologies as a result 
of the MAS Project 
Effect 8.3. Number of organizations of producers that have applied new technologies or 
administrative practices as a result of MAS assistance 
Value chain 
Outcome 9.1. Number of signed agreements (contracts, memorandum of understanding, 
etc.) between buyers and sellers. 
Outcome 9.2. Percentage of producers selling to co-ops and other organizations of 
producers. 
Impact 9.3. Number of organizations of producers selling directly to exporters 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
26
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Dimension Level of 
indicator Indicator
Outcome 9.4. Number of public-private alliances created 
Outcome 9.5. Value from leveraged public-private alliances 
Access to market 
information.
Output 10.1. Number of producers who receive market information through SMS 
Output 10.2. Number of organizations of producers with a working SMS Messaging System 
Output 10.3. Number of conducted SMS messaging campaigns 
Infrastructure Output 11.1. Number of post-harvest infrastructure assessment conducted to organizations 
of producers (PO)
Outcome 11.2. Number of organizations of producers linked to investors in infrastructure 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting consortium based on the MAS Project Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. 
4.2.1.3 Evaluation indicator building 
Indicators from the evaluation have been built through mathematical formulas that are homogeneous in 
regards to the calculations that have been employed in the base line and mid-term evaluation, in order to allow 
comparability. It is ratified that indicators are expressed in the same units exposed in the Project’s log frame, 
which is commonly in percentages, in absolute amounts, in monetary units, in quintals per hectare, in scale￾based valuations, etc. This is essential to compare the indicators of the evaluation with the ones exposed for 
the control group and assisted group (Annex No. 2) 
4.2.1.4 Information Collection Tool 
Four surveys were designed. Two tools to be applied to coffee producers (assisted and control) and two tools 
to be applied to bean producers (assisted and control). These tools respond to 37 indicators selected for this 
evaluation, which are stated in the field information analysis plan part of the Project evaluation (Annex No. 3). 
Table No. 3 Tools and stakeholders 
Tool Stakeholders Context 
Survey to coffee producers in 
the assisted group and control 
group (2).
Population over 18 years old, men, 
women who live in selected households 
(assisted and control) 
In 5 departments of Honduras in the 
programs influence area. 
Survey to bean producers in 
the assisted group and control 
group (2).
Population over 18 years old, men, 
women who live in selected households 
(assisted and control) 
In 5 departments of Honduras in the 
programs influence area. 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
4.2.1.5 Design of the Data Base and typing collected information 
In order to conduct the information-typing process of the ballots, work was done at different stages or phases. 
The process was stated to guarantee data quality and compliance of the proposed time. The process was 
compiled in the following way: 1) ballot revision, 2) data entry program design, 3) ballot typing process, 4) 
internal cleansing and consistency, 5) exit table generation. 
Data entry, consistency and validation program design, has been operated in the “Census and Survey 
Processing System” (CSPro) program. Control variable identification is included as well as the incorporation of 
consistency rules, like the validation of closed response ranges and flows and leaps. Afterwards SPSS 
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used to process the information (Annex No. 9). 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
27
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
4.2.1.6 Data base cleansing and preparation 
It was prepared based on the logic-mathematical Consistency Rules and ranges of entry questions, likewise, 
flow leaps from the ballot were revised, checking on consistency of the questions with each one of the 
responses. This activity was conducted in different processes, the process sequence was to employ a program 
of inconsistencies when entering data, which will send a list of errors; the second was the revision of 
frequencies and cross variables that reveal extreme values and values out of range; and then, the 
inconsistency program was applied showing incongruent information between different values, i.e., data 
revision was made, from macro to micro. 
4.2.1.7 Information-analysis method 
Method selection is made under the perspective of analyzing impact and causality. Therefore, the reference is 
the following: 
Impact analysis method: ANOVA statistic method; indicators to analyze: yield, sales income and adoption of 
practices (Annex No. 4). 
 
Causality Analysis Methods: Statistic method of indicators based on percentages: adoption of practices vs. 
Yield, market condition (Linked Not linked) vs. Sales income, quality (Differentiated per value chain) vs. Sales 
income, participation in technical practices vs. Adoption of practices, Access to credit vs. Adoption of practices. 
Considerations for variables are: Adoption of Practices defined as a weighted indicator established by the 
hiring party. Market Condition defined as being or not linked to a buyer. Coffee Quality, the cupping index, only 
for the ones who sold dry parchment. Bean quality, for the ones who used improved seed. Participation in 
practices and techniques: percentage of adopted technical practices. 
4.2.2 Qualitative evaluation design 
The Sustainable Agriculture Improvement Program’s Qualitative Evaluation was explanatory and analytical on 
how the processes works and effects and impacts achieved with the outcomes. The approach was focused on 
responses from the people involved in the project and valuating evaluation criteria during its implementation. 
Regarding the program, this qualitative evaluation research took into account the following criteria: Effective 
participation of producers and community instructors, of their life conditions. It was sought for producers to 
participate in the results’ analysis, effects and impact of the project from their perceptions and personal 
experiences and shared work between investigators and producers (Annex No. 5). 
4.2.2.1 Collection tools 
Data collection was mainly made in the rural area, where the ones selected are part of the subjects from which 
information was taken (qualitative) and implied two phases or stages: (a) initial immersion in the field and (b) 
data collection for analysis, for which two kinds of tools were implemented, each one of them with its own 
characteristics, in which their scope is explained: 
Focus groups 
18 focus groups were conducted in all with an average participation of 15 members included by geographic 
convergence and significance of the value chain, in accordance to geographical areas. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
28
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 4 Matrix of informants involved in focus groups 
No Participants Selection criteria Total
Groups
Total 
participants
1 Coffee producers
Women and Men with at least a year of having 
participated in the Project and with at least two services 
rendered by MAS. At least 4 producers were selected 
per municipality, for a total of 15 per focus group. 
3
45
2
Organizations of 
coffee producers
Organizations with a commercialization relation with an 
exporter linked to the Project for more than one year and 
with at least two purchase-sale negotiation contracts. At 
least two board members per organization and 2 or 3 
organizations per municipality. For a maximum of 15 
participants per focus group and with a representation of 
at least two exporters linked to MAS. 
3 45
3
Bean producers
Women and Men under a year of participating and with 
at least two services rendered by MAS. At least 4 
producers were selected per municipality, for a total of 15 
focus groups.
3 45
4
Seed Banks and 
seed funds
Producers of Certified bean seed and board members 
from the Association of Seed Fund (AFS) with more than 
a year of being strengthened by the MAS Program, from 
at least 3 municipalities. Equitable participation of men 
and women board members of CSB and AFS. 
3 45
5
Youth from 15 to 
25 years old
More than a year of participating in the program, men 
and women (5 women and 5 men). According to the 
experiences: El Paraiso: youth from the coffee value 
chain; Olancho: input sale; Yoro: entrepreneurs: input of 
fertilizer, sales of materials and equipment, organic 
fertilizer, plantain chip sales, small grocery stores and 
school supply stores. 
3 45
6
Community 
trainers
With more than a year of hiring by the MAS Program, 
equitable participation per department. 1 15
7
MAS’s technical 
and management 
staff 
With more than a year working in MAS and six months in 
the position. Ensuring participation of: 1 departmental 
advisor (total 5), 1 from training, 1 from communications, 
2 from monitoring, 2 chain coordinators, 1 from finance
section, 1 program manager and 1 country manager.
1 14
8 Cuppers
Support cuppers from the Project and from exporters in 
the departments of Olancho, El Paraiso and Comayagua 
who are the most representative from the coffee.
1 6
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation. 
Interviews for different informant categories 
Donor-USDA: the purpose was to achieve valuations in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, impact, monitoring, 
follow-up and transfer and compliance of agreements in order to highlight facilitating and limiting elements 
towards following program interventions similar to MAS (Annex No. 6). 
MAS Management Staff Counterpart with USDA: perceptions at strategic and technical level are collected 
about the program, aligned with the results, processes, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, monitoring and 
evaluation, learning and relation with the donor. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
29
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Coffee and bean buyers and exporters: visualizing the contribution of the relationship highlighting the 
magnitude of the benefit, on the other hand, measuring relation formalization mechanisms, potentiating 
strategic alliances, sustainability and at the same time projecting sales and income with entrepreneurial 
management between the parties. 
Financing funds: financing mechanisms and conditions are valued and out of these, the level of coordination 
with technical assistance in order to guarantee influencing production and productivity. 
Counterpart: a contrast of the institutional vision and program vision to be able to demonstrate compliance of 
objectives and targets from both parties for formal management established in the inter-institutional 
agreements. On the other hand, measuring if the alliance is guaranteeing benefits to smallholder producers. 
Cuppers: the perception on the methodology, strategy and transfer mechanisms of knowledge, field school 
methodologies of the producers, managing information systems and migration, equity and sustainability are 
rescued. 
4.2.2.2 Information processing 
Qualitative information was organized, first it was organized individually according to the stakeholder from 
whom it was collected. In second place, according to the group of informants and in third place, according to 
the category of analysis through which the tool was designed. Two processing mechanisms were employed, 
on one hand, the traditional analysis matrix and on the other hand, the use of Software Atlas.ti (Annexes 1, 8, 
10 and 11)
V. MAS PROJECT RELEVANCE ANALYSIS 
5.1 Profile of the producers according to the agreement with USDA 
General criteria defined to select beneficiaries from the coffee and bean value chains, are the following: 
 Being members of families with food insecurity. 
 Living in the areas of intervention 
 Having access to land and water 
 Attending trainings and applying technical recommendations 
 Having a per capita income under $10/day. 
 Having the capacity to implement improved farming practices 
 Participate voluntarily in project activities. 
 Working and collectively contributing with other families, especially in the farm production market. 
Adopting innovative practices. 
 Having deeds of property for their farm or being on the process. 
 Having access to the farm year-round 
 Being committed with the project and willing to participate in the trainings 
 Not receiving similar technical assistance from other organizations or IHCAFE. 
5.2 Project design relevance 
It is said, that a rural development Project is relevant, appropriate and congruent with the needs of the 
beneficiary population when it adjusts to the strategic guidelines of public policies. In a country that is 
characterized by high levels of poverty in the rural sector that derive from the low levels of productivity in their 
plots and their deficient connections with the market which makes them live under conditions of high poverty. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
30
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The project gives assistance to these insufficiencies and they incase under the policy lines that lead to: i) 
fostering chaining between the producer, agro-industry, commercialization and consumers to reduce margins 
of intermediation and disloyal market competition; ii) strengthening entrepreneurial development and improving 
mechanisms of organization and training of producers and developing “Strategic alliances with NGO, 
cooperating agencies, the academia and strengthening both chains. The Strategic Plan of the Agro-food 
Sector of Honduras 2014-2018, also places gender equity and youth at a preferential position, allowing them 
access to production assets and technology, loans, land use and ownership. 
 
5.2.1 Selection of beneficiaries involved 
Coffee producers were selected according to the following specific criteria: 
1. Producers with 5 hectares or less (exploited) – farm size 
2. Area grown under 3.5 Ha in coffee and up to 2.1 Ha in bean. 
3. Having plantations with a minimum age of 3 years 
4. Belonging to a group of producers or not. 
5. Years of plantation (plantation at least 3 years old) 
6. Main source of income in coffee. Not in beans (producers have other sources of income) 
7. Control group producers must be from neighboring communities (different) from the communities 
of the treatment group.
8. Not receiving similar technical assistance from other organizations. 
Bean Producers and organizations were selected according to the following specific criteria: 
1. Capable of growing beans in the geographic area of intervention 
2. They are organized groups either legally constituted or in process, as well as co-ops or 
companies 
3. Capacity to incorporate at least 100 new stallholder producers as members and/or suppliers 
4. Organizational capacity to hire administrative and support staff 
5. Willing to invest their own resources and/or attract investors 
6. Willing to pay awards to producers for best quality products 
7. Attitude of social responsibility shown toward the rural community. 
8. Willing to share information of the performance of their business. 
9. Not receiving similar technical assistance from other organizations 
5.2.2Response to priorities from the Government, USDA, TECHNOSERVE and other key 
partners 
5.2.2.1 Response to the priorities of the Central Government 
Honduras is among the top five most vulnerable countries in the world, and it is found in a region where the 
greatest climate changes are foreseen; in a preliminary study of climate change in the country, it was 
estimated that by the year 2030, the annual average temperature of the country will have increased 1.4ºC. 
According to the results from the models, in the year 2016, temperature increase in the planet had reached 
1.4ºC in regards to the initial year of the Industrial Revolution (1750). 
This increase in temperature, accompanied by the intensified dry and hot periods and the reduction of rain, 
provoked a water deficit and consequently, a change in the areas fit for different crops. This is added to the 
probable increase of frequency and intensity of extreme events (drought and tropical storms) and climate 
variability that has been observed in the last years in Honduras. (CIGAR 2015). 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
31
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The situation of the country in regards to Central Government priorities for agriculture is based on key aspects 
like: 
• Increase of the annual median temperature and decrease in the precipitation foreseen for the year 2030, due 
to the effects of climate change, which will have significant impact in the agriculture of the entire country. 
• In consequence, it is likely that areas that are currently fit for crops that support farm exports and food 
security will change in the future. Some municipalities will gain productive aptitude for certain crops, others will 
lose it. 
• The capacity of the rural population to adapt to these changes, both if they represent a loss or profit, depend 
on their Access to basic services, Access to information, resources for innovation and healthy ecosystems. 
• Honduras has greater vulnerability to climate change in Central America, but it also has a regulatory and 
institutional framework favorable to work in its reduction; in particular in the agro-food sector, as shown in the 
content from the Nation Plan (2010-2022), the Climate Change Adaptation National Strategy (2010), the 
Climate Change Adaptation National Strategy for the Agro-Food Sector in Honduras (2014-2024) and the 
Food and Nutritional Security Strategy (2010-2022); the Climate Change Adaptation Plan has been prepared. 
Several government initiatives, like the Committee of Agriculture Insurance or the Adaptation Fund Project, 
support inclusion of social and economic benefits at local level as part of the adaptation agenda, 
complementing with efforts from the civil society and technical cooperation. 
5.2.2.2 Response to USDA’s priorities 
USDA sought to support the Honduras Government, to face challenges that implied responding to a 
problematic area of the agricultural sector in the two value chains (coffee and bean), which has a high 
socioeconomic impact and motivates people to stay in their place of work. It was arranged for USG resources 
to be allocated in order to assist five strategic geographic areas (Olancho, Yoro, Comayagua, Francisco 
Morazán and El Paraíso), avoiding technical and resource dispersion. USDA’s priorities were defined in terms 
of the size of farming exploitation, low technological level, low income level, and not enough negotiation 
capacity in the market. 
There was a statement to solve weaknesses, obstacles and needs from the productive chains and on how to 
improve the quality of products, added value, contribute new technological knowledge and its application by 
producers, strengthening the organization, improving access to markets, valuing storage capacities, among 
others. 
MAS strengthened strategic alliances between stakeholders from the value chains and others at level of 
governmental agencies and the academia in order to form human capital that will support the organizational 
and entrepreneurial development. 
The project facilitated several behavioral changes in coffee and bean value chains, specifically: 
- Developed capacity to negotiate directly with buyers: With the MAS Project, beneficiary bean 
producers are now organized to receive and manage technical assistance. As a result, they 
organized Community Seed Banks and developed capacities to negotiate directly with buyers such as 
IHMA. IHMA provided a better guaranteed price to producers. 
- MAS Producers adopted more practices than the control group: data suggests that 47% of MAS 
coffee beneficiaries adopted 6 to 7 practices in comparison with 32% of the control group. The level 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
32
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
of adoption of MAS producers imply a greater capacity to deal with rust and CBB issues in coffee 
management, including proper tissue management (e.g. eliminating axillary buds, topping and 
middle-pruning), soil and water management to avoid erosion, water conservation. In the case of 
beans, producers incorporated into their practices new technologies like the use of inoculants, they 
apply specific fertilizer according to crop’s needs, make soil analysis, apply soil fertility amendment 
and apply a value chain conceptual vision within their agricultural practices 
Producers increased their understanding of the quantity and quality they sell: in coffee, MAS 
supported farmers to understand how selling their coffee by weight rather than volume could 
significantly increase their incomes. Additionally, it was observed that MAS producers adopted key 
practices that lead to an improved quality. 
- Producers increased their participation in formal credit schemes: the MAS program facilitated 
favorable financial agreements between producer and buyers, medium term agreements, that allowed 
the loan allocation in both productive chains and promoted payment in kind loans (supplies), as 
fertilizers, in accordance to requirements derived from soil analysis implemented in participant farms. 
With the MAS Project, beneficiary producers are now organized to receive and manage technical assistance, 
they have organized Community Seed Banks, they maintain commercial and financial agreements with coffee 
trading companies and with IHMA for beans. They receive a guaranteed price for bean trade from that same 
institution; now they participate in a more organized way in periodic access to market information; they have 
incorporated into their practices new technologies like the use of inoculants in bean crops, they apply specific 
fertilizer according to the crop’s needs, make soil analysis, apply soil fertility amendment and apply a value 
chain conceptual vision within their agricultural practices, among other behavioral modalities. 
At the adoption level of 6 to 7 practices, there was the greatest quantitative leap of MASP producers, by 
increasing the producers’ percentage with a greater response capacity to rust and CBB issues in coffee 
management, including proper tissue management (e.g. eliminating axillary buds, topping and middle-pruning), 
soil and water management to avoid erosion, water conservation. MAS Project achieved the transformation 
from traditional farm to modern farm. 
5.2.2.3 Response to TechnoServe’s priorities 
TechnoServe has had presence in Honduras since 2003, supporting farming projects in the value chains with 
a considerable volume of producers and with great potential to scale the effect of interventions. The main 
objectives of TechnoServe is improving income of rural families and thus, guarantee their food security by 
increase productivity in crops like coffee, beans and others, promoting business development and developing 
strategic alliances among the actors of the coffee and bean value chain. Likewise, TechnoServe adds 
technological components and good agricultural practices, with a vision of respect to the environment and the 
preservation of resources, progress in the productive organization and commercialization of agriculture and 
increase local capacities to have access to seeds with better genetic quality and to other improved input. 
TechnoServe designed the Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) project, for Honduras to support poor 
families from the coffee and bean chains and implement practices and innovative technologies, for an 
implementation period of five years (2012-2017). Now, those experiences allow creating lessons learned, of 
what was done and learned, allowing examining how the project helped families of coffee and bean producers 
make and build solid agriculture business relations and with promising sustainability opportunities in both value 
chains, to replicate them both in Honduras and in other countries where TechnoServe works. 
In order to achieve its objectives, TECHNOSERVE provided technical assistance through “Community 
Trainers and Cuppers” and trained producers to improve their yields, designing a technological approach that 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
33
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
started from soil analysis to practices in density management of the shades in the farms, managing tissues 
from the coffee plants up to how to manage density from the shade of the farms, managing coffee plant tissue, 
suing new varieties of beans resistant to drought. Aside from developing the relationship between producers 
and the market, it sought to create a link in the chain through inclusive business. In order to achieve proper 
ownership, TECHNOSERVE implemented a methodology to develop abilities and competencies in adults from 
the rural area based on the learning cycle, known as CREATE (Connect, Reflect, Engage, Activate, Try/ Test 
out, Encourage). 
5.2.2.4 Response to partners’ priorities 
Within partners TECHNOSERVE identified for the success of the MAS Project, we can find the sector 
rendering financial services to small entrepreneurs like the José María Covelo Foundation and the Foundation 
for Rural Entrepreneurial Development (FUNDER). They created loan mechanisms with a revolving fund to 
create sustainability; TECHNOSERVE signed tripartite agreements involving loaners of financial services, 
export companies and TechnoServe. 
Coffee exporters that bet for the development of smallholder and medium producers along with TechnoServe 
were: Beneficio Santa Rosa, Molinos de Honduras, COMSA, COCAOL, Louis Dreyfus Commodities and 
OLAM. 
In the case of bean, the strategic partners were the Honduran Agriculture Marketing Institute (IHMA for its 
acronym in Spanish) and the World Food Program (WFP). 
These complementary sectors, along with the academic sector, prefer acting with groups of producer families 
organized solidly with evident stability and institutional support. These preferences are covered through the 
entrepreneurial and social model defined by the MAS Project. 
VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BENEFICIARY POPULATION 
6.1 Household Composition 
The MAS project's target population was made up of smallholder and medium-sized producers of coffee and 
beans. The heads of households were in 85% men and 15 % women; the average age of the heads of 
household was 45 years of age, schooling 4.6 years and the literacy rate 84%. Households were made up of 5 
members of different ages (Final Evaluation 2017). 
6.2 Land Ownership 
In case of the coffee chain, target producers owned an average of 6.5 hectares and out of these an average of 
3.0 hectares are cultivated with coffee in production. The producers of the control group had an average area 
of 3.7 hectares in exploitation, and of these, 2.4 had coffee in production. When disaggregating data by sex of 
the target population, women owned 2.9 hectares and 2.0 hectares cultivated with coffee, on the other hand 
men had 7.3 hectares and 3.2 with coffee in production. In the control group in the disaggregation by sex, 
women had 1.9 hectares and 1.9 cultivated with coffee, men had 4.1 hectares and 2.6 cultivated with coffee. 
For the bean chain, the average area of exploitation is 2.7 hectares and 1.5 of these are planted with beans. In 
the producers of the control group, the average area of exploitation is 2.2 hectares, and of these 1.3 hectares 
were planted with beans. 
In case of women, there is a 20% more land ownership in the coffee chain than in the bean chain. In the case 
of men, the differential percentage is only 8%, in favor of the coffee chain. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
34 
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
6.3 Population stability and mobility 
6.3.1 Migration 
Migration is a social phenomenon that in recent decades has been accentuated in the country, and is 
generated mainly from rural to urban areas and to other countries. The fundamental cause of migration lies in 
the ancestral poverty of the population, which is forced (particularly youth) to look for other optional places for 
education and labor. Violence, lack of access to land, urban and rural unemployment, among others add to 
these conditions of poverty.
In the beneficiaries of the MAS project, the results of the final evaluation reveal that 14.8% of coffee producers’ 
households reported migration over the past 5 years. On the other hand, bean producers’ households reported 
16.3 % of migration in the same period. (Table No. 9).
Table No. 5 Percentage of households with migration in the last five years. MAS 2017 
Head of 
Household
MAS Project Control Differences
Coffee 
N=473 Bean N=484 Coffee 
N=412 Bean N=438 Coffee Bean
Total 14.8 16.3 15.3 17.1 -0.5 -0.8
Women 23.3 21.9 24.4 21.0 -1.1 0.9
Men 12.8 14.6 13.2 16.2 -0.4 -1.4
Source: Final Evaluation of MAS Project August 2012 to March 2017
The figures shown in this Table show small differences between the MAS project beneficiaries and the non￾beneficiary group of producers, in the sense that more non-beneficiaries migrate. This difference is -0.5 in the 
coffee chain and -0.8 in the bean chain. A similar behavior is shown in the data regarding men and women. 
The data clearly shows that migration is higher in households headed by women than in households headed 
by men, so much so that, in the beneficiaries of the project, both in coffee and beans, there is a difference of 
10.5 and 7.3 percentage points respectively; likewise, in the control group, the difference between women and 
men who migrate is 11.2 and 4.8 percentage points respectively.
Usually, households headed by women live under more precarious conditions, obliging families to a greater 
migration, which is usually internal, since they are not able to do it abroad due to economic conditions. They 
migrate to maquilas (men and women) and for household services (women). The statistical significance was 
only obtained to measure aspects of impact of the project (productivity, income and others). The differences 
between households headed by men and women might not be significant. It is also true that the social 
behavior of the population is not always short term, usually medium and long term. Measurement of migration 
coincided with the MAS Project life, meaning that recent migration was measured which covers the last 5 
years, in beneficiary households of the project and in the control group. 
Migration prior to the period of the project was not explored. Migration is considered a social and economic 
phenomenon that can be altered with long-term interventions or with intensive public policy actions specifically 
addressed to this occurrence. In order to measure MASP effects on migration in a durability scale, these 
effects would have to maintain a consistent long-term trend comprising a long period. 
Migration of the population in the country (men and women) has two main reasons, labor (mostly) and 
schooling in a lesser proportion. Women migrate because agriculture activities keep men in the field more than 
women. Traditionally, agriculture is an activity developed by men. People migrate due to various reasons, but 
mainly for work. In the rural area, women work on house chores and helping men in agriculture work; the 
availability of well-paid job opportunities for women is much less than men. Therefore, the pressure to migrate 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
35
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
(to improve economically and socially) is greater for women than men. If the rural area does not offer the youth 
improvement in: income, education, household, health, energy services, water, etc. they are obliged to look for 
answers elsewhere. 
6.3.2 Migration destination 
Within households that report migrant population, the destination of migration is within the country and abroad. 
In the beneficiaries of the project, there is more internal migration (51 and 58 per cent in coffee and beans, 
respectively) than external (49 and 42%, respectively); in contrast, in non-beneficiary producers’ households, 
internal migration is lower (37 and 39 per cent in coffee and beans, respectively), and external migration is 
much higher (63 and 61% respectively). The migration to the United States is greater in households owned by 
non-beneficiaries of the project, by reporting 52 and 47 per cent in coffee and beans, respectively (Table 
No.10). 
Table No. 6 Percentage of migrants according to place of destination. MAS 2017 
Place of Destination MAS Project Control
Coffee N=70 Bean N=79 Coffee N=63 Bean N=74
Elsewhere in Honduras 50.6 57.9 36.9 39.0
USA 32.5 29.9 52.4 47.0
Another country 16.9 11.2 10.7 14.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: MAS Project Final Evaluation august 2012 to March 2017
In conclusion, internal migration was higher in households from project beneficiaries, and the opposite 
happens for external migration which was greater in those families who are not project beneficiaries. Part of 
the internal migration is justified due to education, search for better paid jobs and professional occupations. 
Likewise, it can be concluded that in the households of coffee producers benefited by MAS, external migration 
is greater (49%) than in the bean producers (42%), due to the greater difficulties that households that cultivate 
beans have to afford the travel cost of their migrants abroad.
6.3.3 Reason for Migration 
Economic reasons prevail in the decisions for migration, which is stimulated by the gap in the income that a 
wage earner receives in the country and the salary received in the country of destination. The study from 
CEMLA3
 (2017) shows that the average monthly income of Honduran migrants surveyed resulted in $3,156, 
the amount of the average monthly remittance is $384.5 with an average of 13.5 remittances per year. This 
income scenario establishes the main reason for migration in Hondurans. The final evaluation carried out to 
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the MAS project clearly showed that the main reason for migration is to 
search for job opportunities. Within the beneficiary households of the project, both in coffee and in beans in 
74% of the cases migration is defined by the search for labor opportunities, with the same happening in the 
cultivation of coffee for the group of non-beneficiaries (control). Also the information highlights that in the 
control group, 92 per cent of households that reported migration do so for the same reason. Personal security 
has no significant impact on the migration of the population surveyed to be reported by about 1.0 percent of 
households (Table No. 11). 
Table No. 7 Reasons for Migration. MAS Project, 2017 
Reason MAS Project Control
Coffee N=70 Bean N=79 Coffee N=63 Bean N=74
Studies 14.5 14.0 13.1 1.0 
Work 74.7 73.8 73.8 92.0 
 
3 http://www.cemla.org/PDF/remesaseinclusion/2017-04-migracion-remesas-inclusion-honduras.pdf
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
36
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Reason MAS Project Control
Coffee N=70 Bean N=79 Coffee N=63 Bean N=74
Security 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 
Other 9.6 11.2 13.1 7.0 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Source: MAS Project Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
Job opportunities in the rural area are very limited. Agriculture is the main economic activity, and in many 
cases is the only one, however, rural employment is temporary and does not meet the expectations among the 
population, especially young people, who are forced to seek opportunities outside of their place of origin. 
When there are more permanent employment opportunities, the population settles permanently in the rural 
area. This perception is confirmed by coffee cupper Félix Ponce, who worked with the MAS project and said: 
"It has never crossed my mind to migrate from this country, I have a visa, and I have not traveled to the United 
States. It has helped me a lot to work in the coffee area. All my colleagues are working, and having work, there 
is no room for such thoughts”.
6.3.4 Rooted to family assets 
The fact that rural households do not have access to social security or retirement and pension system 
generates a dilemma in the transition of family wealth in the hands of parents to the children, a situation that 
becomes a challenge that affects the establishment of daughters and sons to continue with the cultivation of 
the land. This situation is shown in the population assisted by the MAS project, where on average 1.5 
members of the coffee producing families and 1.2 members of the bean-producing families think about 
continuing with these activities. A similar scenario was found in the families of the control group (Table No. 8).
The economic opportunities that the coffee activity generates slows down the exit process of family members - 
compared to what happens to the bean-producing families. This means, that the coffee producing families, will 
retain more members of the household, due to the fact that the crop (coffee) generates greater economic 
resources, making families more stable with regard to the need of migrating within or outside the country. 
 
Table No. 8 Average household members who will continue the coffee and bean activity. MAS 
2017
Sex MAS Project Control
Coffee Bean Coffee Bean
Total 1.49 1.17 1.34 1.11
Women 1.58 1.21 1.35 1.19
Men 1.47 1.15 1.34 1.10
Source: Final MASP Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
This was the question asked in the survey: “Excluding yourself, how many people who live in your household 
will continue with the technical management of the farm (coffee or bean) as household inheritance?” 
 
The overall average of people per household in the sample of the evaluation was 5, similar to the national 
average for the rural area (INE). 
In average, 1.5 people per household would continue with the technical management of the farm, for coffee 
and 1.2 for bean in project beneficiaries. The answer to the question is subjective, based on the perception of 
the rest of family members. These two values also include a unit corresponding to the head of household, who 
answered the question. 
Among departments, the highest rooting in the beneficiary population happened in the coffee producers of 
Olancho and Comayagua, with 1.9 and 1.6 members that would continue with these assets, the same 
happens for the control group of the same value chain. The opposite happens in the departments of El Paraiso 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
37
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
for the intervention group and the control group of the bean value chain. In summary, the results suggest that 
in the coffee chain there is more family rooting than in the bean chain. 
The efforts to strengthen the productive chains, in this case coffee and beans, must be accompanied by 
initiatives with investments on utilities (water, access roads, energy, health, education, housing, land, etc.) in 
order to increase the rooting, especially of the youth. 
In regards to the impact of the MAS project in this field, it can be said that there is a greater tendency of 
rooting by household members of the coffee chain, due to the support received from MAS in strengthening the 
systems of production and in increasing the productivity and income that has been achieved. In contrast, in the 
bean chain, the progress of productivity does not exceed the income needs of families, and makes migration a 
survival strategy. It is important that in future development interventions, strategies that integrate opportunities 
for generational replacement with retirement and pension are defined and to incorporate the young men and 
women to technical and financial education linking them to their family assets and livelihood. 
VII. STRATEGIC LINES AND COMPONENTS 
7.1 STRATEGIC LINE 1: Facilitate the Access to high quality seeds and input 
In this strategic line, TechnoServe focused operations in the establishment of Community Seed Banks as a 
single component of the strategic line. Community banks worked for the bean chain. The purpose of the 
strategy was to generate its own institutionalism of the Communities for artisanal seed production, at low cost, 
and with certified quality. There were several alliances in this regard. See section 6.4.3.2., page 38; section 
8.1.1., page 49; section 8.1.1.4., page 51 and section 8.1.1.7., page 54. 
7.1.1 COMPONENT 1: Community Seed Banks
The global target of the MAS project was to establish and continuously operate 60 Community Seed Banks 
(CSBs) for beans. MAS established 150 CSBs, with 133 of them certified by SERTISEM / SENASA / SAG. 
Within these CSBs, the project promoted three varieties of beans: Amadeus – 77, Deorho and Carrizalito. 
Two hundred twenty five (225) individual seed producers were incorporated into 42 groups of producers. 
During the years of the project, the CSB produced 8,787 quintals of certified seed. The CSB became the main 
supply source of certified bean seed. Through the Associations of Seed Fund, the service was extended to 
communities that were not directly addressed by MAS. 
The MAS project, also achieved establishing 350 farmers’ plots for the validation of technical seed production. 
This method made the use of the three varieties of certified seed popular, faster. 
7.2 STRATEGIC LINE 2: Develop and implement a training Program in technical improvement and 
farming technologies. 
In this line, the main adopted method was the establishment of the Field Schools (FS), using demonstration 
plots in farmers' fields. MAS designed 13 training modules for farmers. See sections 8.2., page 55; up to 
section 8.2.2.2., page 72. 
The project organized a field technical team to provide training to farmers, in each of the five departments. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
38
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
7.2.1 COMPONENT 2: Field Schools 
In the farms owned by coffee and bean producers, MAS established 452 FS. The global goal included a total 
of 400 FS, 226 in coffee and 174 in bean. 
To continue with this FS model, it is recommended to promote agreements with the cooperating agencies of 
support services for the farmers, such as the National Agriculture University, National Autonomous University 
of Honduras, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the El Zamorano University, FHIA, IHCFE, among 
others. 
7.3 STRATEGIC LINE 3: Strengthening the PO to provide services that add value and comply with 
market standards 
Under this line, the project sought to address the funding aspects of the agricultural activity, facilitating credit to 
producers, market relations to have access to centers of consumption or export with better recognition of value 
in the price of coffee and beans, storage facilities and other infrastructure in the farm, linking the elements of 
value chains in both crops, a basic system of information exchange using the infrastructure of existing 
commercial digital communication, and the administrative and accounting capabilities of individual producers. 
The strategic line focused on four implementation components: Component 3, Strengthening the capacities of 
Organizations of producers (PO's); Component 4, Expanding access to credit; Component 5, Developing an 
agricultural information system; and Component 6, assessing the storage infrastructure of Organizations of 
producers. See sections 8.3.1.1., page 75, section 8.3.3.7., and page 92.
7.3.1 COMPONENT 3: Strengthening capacities of Producer Organizations (POs) 
The strengthening areas included increasing the PO’s market management capacity by linking them to coffee 
exporters, the Honduran Institute of Agricultural Marketing, the World Food Program, and other actors in the 
chain; conducting infrastructure assessments and linking producers with infrastructure investors; the 
improvement and adoption of Good Agricultural Practices; The adoption of technical procedures for 
administrative controls. 
The number of producer organizations considered as an initial goal was 210 units. At the end of the MAS 
project, 233 POs joined, all of which are linked to investors of infrastructure. 
For the next coffee harvest, 153 associations of coffee producers have already established marketing 
agreements with the following companies: Molinos of Honduras, COMSA, OLAM, COCAOL, Louis Dreyfus 
Co., and waiting for Beneficio Santa Rosa, Coffee Planet Corporation, Co. Honducafe. 
The total number of agreements signed by the PO with companies, IHMA, and others, was of 884, 694 for 
coffee and 190 for bean. 
The POs achieved 126 infrastructure assessments, of an initial goal of 80. The funded infrastructure projects 
add up to 42.
9,013 coffee producers applied new techniques and technologies. In beans growing, progress came up to 
5,552 producers that apply best practices. The initial goals were 6,000 coffee producers and 3,000 bean 
producers trained. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
39
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Administrative controls have been adopted on average by 40% of coffee producers assisted and in the control 
group only 16% keep some type of administrative record. In the assisted population, 73% adopted production 
records, 38% with inventories of input, and 33% with costs, 34% payroll and 24% sales; on the other hand the 
GC does not exceed the 10% in all these types of records. 
7.3.2 COMPONENT 4: Expanding Access to Credit 
Access to credit, according to the final evaluation survey, 77% of project beneficiaries were reached and the 
amount exceeded US$ 18.4 million, surpassing the target of US$ 5 million. 77% of women, under the MAS 
project intervention had access to productive credit versus the 44% of the CG. 
The initial target was 5,400 credits to coffee producers, which in the end became 20,319 credits granted. In the 
bean production the stated target was 1,406 credits facilitated for producers, which in the end became 5,822 
credits facilitated. 
7.3.3 COMPONENT 5: Developing an Agriculture Information System 
The basic information system was to collect and share information on markets through electronic 
communication (via cell phone or SMS) between central offices with organizations of producers and with the 
producers; as well as between the organizations, institutions and companies allied with the producers and 
central offices. 
The project goal was to incorporate at least 10 POs to the permanent operation of the information system. In 
the end, 14 POs have been incorporated. 
The project proposed reaching 15,000 people with at least one up-to-date source of market information; at the 
end of the project, reached the amount of 16,068 people were reached. 
According to project beneficiaries, coffee producers expressed that 43.3% (205/473) received information via 
SMS text message and bean producers received the information in 18% (70/388).
The system is still at its initial stage. The amount and frequency in the time of the messages must be 
reinforced, encouraging the participation of the farmers themselves, and with an emphasis on greater 
participation from youth, women and senior adults. 
7.3.4 COMPONENT 6: Evaluate the POs’ storage infrastructure
The MAS project secured the involvement of strategic partners to assess the storage infrastructure of the POs. 
The partners were: Beneficio S. M and R DE H, IHCAFE and Michigan State University (MSU). These 
public/private partnerships implemented a funding of US$5,000 in the activity. 
The purpose of the evaluation was to obtain information that served to link the POs with investors in 
infrastructure. MAS linked 233 organizations in this regard. The investments will be directed to the construction 
or improvement of warehouses, drying patios, grain dryers, coffee processing facilities, and water harvesting 
and irrigation systems. 
The 126 infrastructure assessments also included the exploration of the ease of use and management of silos, 
warehouses, etc., with the purpose of facilitating the subsequent credit efforts. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
40
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Source: Formation on Improved Farming Practices, April 2017.
7.4 GENDER COMPONENT 
The incorporation of gender into the MAS project was designed to make it easier for women to take advantage 
of the knowledge and skills provided by the project just as men do and that their contributions to the sector 
were valued. In addition, an approach was promoted for families to manage the farms as a unit and not only 
having the man with all the knowledge about growing and managing the farm. In this context, the promotion of 
gender equality and equity was taken as a commitment within the framework of the MAS project 
implementation. As a cross-cutting axis, a target was set to include the participation of 20% of women as 
project beneficiaries, both in the production of coffee and beans. During the year 2014, a rapid assessment 
was made on gender and an action plan was developed that would guide actions to achieve incorporating the 
gender approach into the various project actions. In this regard, one of the participants in the focus group from 
management and a technician pointed out the following. "Properly speaking, we cannot say that we have 
looked for gender equity. Rather, we have adopted a participatory approach of gender, due to the fact that 
there is a limited participation of women”. 
The results of the evaluation show that the achievements were significant to women beneficiaries of the project 
in opportunities to improve their farms with the cultivation of certified seed, access to financing, negotiating 
power to know the quality of their coffee, deciding who to negotiate their coffee with, aspects that are 
highlighted in this paragraph. However, there is still much to do, especially in assessing the impact on gender 
equity and the generational change within each of the organizations of producers, since there are still cultural 
barriers that prevent the recognition of the productive work of women in rural areas. 
In the implementation of the program, the technical team of the project was trained and they worked under the 
"family team work" slogan, an integration approach to family production. Small messages on gender were 
designed in each of the training modules, on the importance of the contribution of women, how their work is 
valued, and the role of the sons and daughters. Posters addressing the subject were distributed, for example: 
"Men and women who walk side by side get very far, because they are both equal, this is where change 
begins," and were placed in key locations, such as grocery stores, mini-markets, among others. Figure No. 3 
summarizes the gender strategy in the project. 
Figure No. 3 Gender strategy Approach in the MAS Project 
This strategy facilitated the opening of spaces 
for women’s participation as beneficiaries of 
the project and as community trainers. The 
implementation of these actions aimed at 
facilitating the access to resources and 
benefits for men and women of the MAS 
project, which has had to face severe cultural 
barriers that still prevail in the rural area. 
Despite efforts to involve more women in 
project activities the masculine character 
persists in many agricultural activities. There 
are still many activities related to the 
cultivation of beans and coffee that continue 
to be primarily attributed to men. 
 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
41
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Illustration No. 1 Poster socialized in communities 
7.4.1 Contribution of the MAS Project to equal participation from men and women 
In case of the coffee chain, the participation of women was 19%. In the mid-term evaluation this figure was 
16%, not overcoming the planned target of 20%. In the production of coffee, the collection activities have 
traditionally enabled incorporating family work. Women have been incorporated as cuppers, but it has been 
difficult to incorporate them in greater proportion as community trainers due to the personal risks associated to 
moving in a motorcycle in solitary places. In the rural savings and credit groups associated with the MAS 
project, there is more presence of women in productive activities than in the other groups of producers in rural 
areas that are part of its social base, since by August of 2016 it reached 32% of participating women, 
promoting the participation of women and youth in decision-making, in productive work and in the 
management of salaries and profit. There is an upward trend in some positions where women are doing quite 
well, in positions such as: secretariat with a high participation (53%), Treasury (38%) and chair of the 
supervisory board (35%) which are the mechanisms of governance and accountability of the rural savings 
groups4
. 
Table No. 9 Participation of women in the coffee value chain 
Final Evaluation MTE
Women Men Women Men
19% 81% 16% 84%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
The results of the project’s evaluation show that the foreseen target on the incorporation of women was 
achieved. In case of the bean chain, as a result of project actions participation of women who received 
technical assistance or were trained was 23%, surpassing the results of the mid-term evaluation, which was 
14% and the proposed target was 20%. 
Table No. 10 Participation of women in the bean value chain 
MASP MTE
Women Men Women Men
23% 77% 14% 86%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
 
4
 FUNDER. Fourth and Last Report on Project Expansion (From June 1st to August 31st, 2016).
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
42
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
It is important to note that, in the case of the bean chain, many of the spaces in the post-harvest activities like 
the selection and classification of seeds are performed by women. A female producer of the focus group said: 
"We cannot speak of the existence of a gender balance since a substantial part of the groups served are 
savings groups where women represent the majority of members. It is recognized that women have fine skills 
for the classification of seeds. The project has involved women and youth, and this seems to be an innovative 
and interesting thing”. 
7.4.1.1 Land Ownership 
Land ownership5
 is a key element in the access to and control of resources that allows the participation of 
women in both chains, being a key factor for their empowerment. In the case of the bean chain, 61% of women 
are owners of their land and 25% of the production units belongs to their partner and 6% to both. In the case of 
men, 83% are owners of their land and 3% of the plots are owned by their partner and 5% belongs to both. In 
the control group, 60% of women own the land compared with 86% of men and 3% that belongs to both. 
Table No. 11 Land Ownership - bean
Description
MASP Control Group
N=64
Women
N=213
Men
N=81 
Women
N=357
Men
It belongs to me
61% 83% 60% 86%
It belongs to my 
partner
 25% 3% 25% 2%
Both 6% 5% 9% 3%
My children 5% 0% 2% 1%
Other 2% 7% 2% 9%
Not responsive 3% 3% 4% 1%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
In coffee production 81% of the women coffee producers are owners of their land and 10% is owned by both, 
compared with 91% of men and 7% belongs to both. In the control group 80% of the women are owners of 
their land and 91% of men. 
We confirm that 81% of owners refer to managing of the land. In the final evaluation survey, the producers 
declared if they rented or owned the land but the survey did not ask whether the farmers had property titles. 
In Honduras, several valid ways of land ownership are established by law, including freehold (credited by 
authorities with a public deed), beneficial ownership (in possession of the land, with documents from municipal 
authorities), community deed (under special legal safeguard, on indigenous communities), and other forms of 
ownership acknowledged by law. The evaluation study did not include the forms of property distributed 
according to gender. 
There is also land rental, which would be the closest to simple land management, without property rights. 
Finally, there is simple land settlement, which is occasional and does not grant rights over the land 
 
5 The sum is not greater than 100% since in some cases a farm could have two or more kinds of land 
ownership. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
43
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 12 Land ownership - coffee
Description
MASP Control Group 
N=71
Women
N=347
Men
N=63
Women
N=312
Men
It belongs to me 81% 91% 80% 91%
It belongs to my 
partner 7% 1% 10% 1%
Both 10% 7% 9% 7%
My children 5% 1% 5% 1%
Other 0% 2% 1% 2%
Not responsive 0% 0% 0% 0%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
7.4.2 Participation of women in access to services in the coffee PO 
7.4.2.1 Technical Assistance 
Technical assistance is one of the main supporting axes provided to coffee producers by the MAS Project. Of 
a sample of 90 coffee producing women interviewed, the technical assistance of MAS per year of harvest 
increased since the start of the project in 2013-2014 from 23% to 92% in the 2016- 2017 harvest. In case of 
men of a universe of 383, 15% to 91%, respectively, as shown in the following table: 
Table No. 13 Coffee harvest seasons in which producers received training and technical assistance 
from the MAS Project 
Harvests N=90
Women
N=383
Men
2013-2014 23% 15%
2014-2015 43% 46%
2015-2016 73% 81%
2016-2017 92% 91%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
Last table shows the coffee harvest seasons where women received training or technical assistance from a 
community trainer of the MAS project, reaching the highest proportion in the 2016-2017 harvest, a similar 
behavior is found for men. 
Table No. 14 Training in Coffee Quality 
MASP Control Group
N=90
Women
N=383
Men
N=81
Women
N=347
Men
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yes 80% 87% 10% 15%
No 20% 13% 90% 85%
 Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
From the total universe of the evaluation, 80% of women and 87% of men received training on the quality of 
coffee, reflecting equal access for both. It is worth noting that the quality aspects were not only receiving the 
training, it is reflected that 7 of every 10 women trained know about the quality of coffee they produce, a 
situation that is of little relevance in the control by showing that the number of women who received training in 
coffee cupping was a minimum (1 person). 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
44
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 15 Farmers that know the quality of their coffee 
MASP Control Group
N=37
Women
N=182
Men
N=1
Women
N=17
Men
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Yes 70% 67% 100% 53%
No 30% 33% 0% 47%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
About future sale relations for the 2017-2018 harvest, 80% would sell their coffee to the exporter. Of these, 
67% of producers negotiate directly with the exporter, 16% through their organization that has an agreement 
with the exporter; while 25% of women sell through the exporter. In regards to the control group, it is noted that 
67% of the women sell their coffee directly to the exporter and 66% of men, in the search for better prices. 
Table No. 16 Coffee producers selling to exporters in the 2017-2018 harvest 
MASP Control Group
N=90
Women
N=383
Men
N=81
Women
N=347
Men
Yes 80% 88% 63% 56%
No 20% 12% 37% 44%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
7.4.3 Participation of women in access to services in the bean POs 
7.4.3.1 Technical Assistance Services 
One of the main services that the bean producers had access to through the MAS project was to technical 
assistance, which women producers of grain otherwise would not have access to, which is evident in the 
control group, who reported that they did not have access to that service. Of a universe of 113 women 
producers of beans, the technical assistance of MAS per cycle of harvest was increasing since the start of the 
project in the second cycle of 2013 from 22% to 82% in the second cycle of 2016. In case of men from 19% to 
75%, respectively, as shown in Table No. 21. 
Table No. 17 Coffee harvest seasons in which producers received training or technical assistance 
from the MAS Project MAS 
Harvest N=90
Women
N=383
Men
2013-2014 23% 15%
2014-2015 43% 46%
2015-2016 73% 81%
2016-2017 92% 91%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
7.4.3.2 Certified Seed 
One of MAS’s strategic lines is to facilitate access to high quality seed and inputs, and this is an opportunity for 
women beneficiaries. In this sense, 83% of the women interviewed reported that they acquired the certified 
seed at the MAS Community Banks. To a lesser extent, they were acquired in an Association of producers, 
trading houses and other centers of seed supply, but not in the control groups. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
45
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 18 Places where certified seed was purchased 
Description MASP Control Group
N= 78 Women N=226 Men N=3 Women N=32 Men
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Community Bank/MAS 83% 87% 0.0% 0.0%
Association of producers 
that supplies certified seed 
(AFS)
4% 2% 0.0% 3.1%
Technological Bonus 0% 0% 0.0% 6.3%
Trading House 4% 4% 0.0% 12.5%
Other 9% 7% 66.7% 68.8%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
The technological bonus is a contribution as supplies, made by the Government through the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Livestock, for smallholder producers. The amounts have changed throughout the years, but 
usually it includes 1 quintal of urea, 1 quintal of formula (N, P, K) and 25 or 30 lb of seed. The bonus is only for 
staple grains (corn, beans, rice, sorghum).
7.4.3.3 Sales to New Markets 
An opportunity in the bean chain as a result of the intervention of the project was the sale of the production to 
IHMA. In the year 2015, the sale in formal markets is marketed on a larger scale through the signing of an 
agreement with IHMA under quality standards. These business opportunities with new actors were growing, 
considering that 42% of women indicate that the quantities sold in the first cycle of 2016 were higher than 
sales in the first cycle of 2015, as well as for the second cycle of 2016, 21% of women consider that they were 
greater than the second cycle of 2015. On the other hand, the control group did not report any sales to IHMA. 
Table No. 19 Percentage of bean sales in the first and second cycles to IHMA, 2016 
Description
First Second
N=19 
Women
N=69 
Men N=19 Women N=69 
Men
Greater 42% 57% 21% 36%
Equal 21% 12% 26% 10%
Less 11% 14% 16% 16%
Did not sell 21% 10% 37% 38%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
It is important to note that both female producers (95%), and male producers (88%) who sold to IHMA are 
satisfied with the sales conditions; 63% of women and 71% of men stressed that in the next harvest either first 
or second season of 2017 they would sell their bean production to IHMA. 
Table No. 20 Percentage of producers satisfied by selling to IHMA 
Description N=19 
Women
N=69
Men
Total 100% 100%
Yes 95% 88%
No 5% 12%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
7.4.3.4 Access to Financing 
A key aspect that affects access to opportunities for improvement of their plots is the financing. In this regard, 
access to financing during 2016, presented no great differences between men (43%) and women (41%), but it 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
46
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
can be highlighted that in the control group the percentage of women and men without access to financing is 
greater. 
Table No. 21 Access to financing by sex 
MASP Control Group
N=114
Women
N=370
Men
N=81
Women
N=357
Men
YES 41% 43% 10% 15%
NO 59% 57% 90% 85%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
7.4.4 Participation of women in remunerated agricultural activities 
It is important to highlight that the participation of women in agricultural activities, especially in the 
implementation of the MAS project, involved two key aspects: on the one hand, employment opportunities in 
the various activities of coffee production, incorporating them as cuppers and in beans in post-harvest 
activities. 
In the case of beans, the results of the evaluation indicate that women had an increase in productivity of 3.4 
quintals per hectare, which was reflected in an increase in income. 
 
Figure No. 2 Increase in bean yield for women 
VIII. PROJECT EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS 
8.1 Alliances as a response to producers’ needs
A strategy to respond to the needs of coffee and bean chains responds to the knowledge of the real 
possibilities to find solutions to the problems producers face, through strategic allies. Therefore, the creation of 
Strategic Alliances made it possible to expand the intervention and the response of MAS, achieving a greater 
competitiveness and development of the families served. To this end, 16 public/private alliances were agreed 
during the life of the project (Table No. 22).
Table No. 22 Number of Public/ Private Alliances. 
MASP Target Differences
Public/ private alliances 16 6 10
Source: Final Evaluation of MASP August 2012 to March 2017
These alliances responded to five basic aspects of the 2 productive chains: 1) technical assistance for the 
dissemination and adoption of improved agricultural practices, 2) the research for the validation and production 
15.7 qq/Ha
Intervention
12.3 qq/Ha
Base Line
Increase in 
Yield
3.4 qq/Ha
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
47
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
of bean seed, 3) the establishment of community seed banks to preserve the vegetative material adapted to 
local environments, 4) the organization and strengthening of the local financial capital through rural savings 
groups and 5) the improvement of market insertion through proper storage and packaging of products. Table 
27 describes some of the alliances established and their financial contribution to the activities in the field that 
were promoted by the MAS project. 
Table No. 23 Private/Public Alliances
Strategic Partners Investment Value chain Strengthened Component
1 Neumann Foundation 2,500,000 Coffee
Strengthening the capacity of the PO. Technical 
assistance to 2,000 smallholder producers affected by 
rust in three departments.
2 USAID-Feed the Future 50,000 Bean Establishing community seed banks. Validation of bean 
varieties resistant to climate change and bio-fortified.
3
World Food Program 
(WFP) 60,000 Bean
Establishing community seed banks. Bean Research 
and Development and installation of the laboratory for 
soil fertility of SAG-DICTA.
4
Honduran Coffee Institute 
(IHCOFFEE) 270,000 Coffee
Training on Improved Agricultural Practices and 
strengthening the capacity of organizations of 
producers. Joint program to support farmers affected 
by rust.
5
Research and Technology 
Directorate (DICTA) 290,000 Bean Establishing community seed banks. Research and 
production of improved varieties of bean seed
6 FAO-Honduras 200,000 Bean Establishing community seed banks. Strengthening of 
community seed banks and the PASH network
7 Beneficio Santa Rosa 2,150,000 Coffee Strengthening the capacity of the PO and expand 
access to credit
8
Molinos de Honduras 
(MdH)
2,200,000 Coffee Training in improved agricultural practices and expand 
access to credit
9
Foundation for Rural 
Development (FUNDER) 389,500 Coffee/Bean
Strengthening the capacity of the PO and expand 
access to credit. Training of 160 savings groups of 
smallholder producers and financing to smallholder 
coffee growers
10
Beneficio S.R y M DE H, 
IHCAFE and Michigan 
State University.
5,000 Coffee/Bean
Assessing the storage infrastructure of the PO. 
Research to improve the packing and storage of beans 
and coffee
11 TechnoServe -KRAFT 50,000 Coffee/ 
Bean Training on Improved Agricultural Practices 
12 COVELO Foundation 400,000 Coffee/ 
Bean Expand Access to credit
Total 8,564,500
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017. Final Evaluation MASP 
The establishment of these alliances allowed the project to mobilize financial resources of over US$8.5 million, 
and set the stage for opportunities for producers of coffee and bean chains to undertake improvement 
processes in their production systems, to give added value and guarantee achieving agreements and 
contracts for the marketing of products. Likewise, they were inserted into local financial markets; they 
appropriated technological innovations and agreed to new markets with differentiated pricing of their traditional 
markets. 
The strategy of change in the organizational and institutional capacities through public private partnerships, 
had three major impacts: 1) technologically, which has to do with the improvement and the balance of the 
production systems with their local and national environment, 2) socially, through impact on the increase of 
employment and income to improve their competitiveness and 3) strategically, to ensure their food security 
and preserve the family assets. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
48
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
8.1.1 Creation of funds to expand access to credit 
Producers of the bean chain reported that one of the main strengths of the MAS Project was its approach 
strategy to the producers for their productive organization, based on the organizations that were already 
developed by the communities themselves and by other institutions. These include rural savings groups, 
established rural businesses, and other associations promoted by government projects. It also meant a 
significant saving of resources, the use of Field Schools as a method of supplementary technical training to 
farmers. This method proved attractive to participants. 
In some cases, the invitation to participate as a strategic ally of TechnoServe’s MAS project was accompanied 
by a solidarity contribution for the financing of producers. 
- UNDER-COMSA-TECHNOSERVE Alliance 
COMSA’s manager addresses the topic by expressing the following: 
"A financing fund was formed, which provides some input to the producer, especially fertilizer. Each one of us, 
TECHNOSERVE, FUNDER and COMSA, contributed $100 thousand to have a fund of $300 thousand for 
financing. In reality, producers need more, but they can start going forward with this fund. 
At the conclusion of the time of the project, half of TECHNOSERVE’s fund will capitalize our finance unit that is 
called BANCOMSA, which is supporting with education and credits to producers. When recovering the total 
amount of $ 300 thousand, 50 thousand of funds contributed by TECHNOSERVE will be passed on to 
FUNDER and $50 thousand to BANCOMSA, which in reality is a savings and credit group that has that name. 
With this fund, we will continue funding to producers. This fund will become a revolving fund.”
- Molinos de Honduras-COVELO Foundation-TECHNOSERVE Alliance 
Due to the intervention, Molinos de Honduras and the Covelo Foundation created a joint fund for the financing 
of coffee producers. In this regard Molinos de Honduras’s manager said the following: 
“We were helped to make an alliance with COVELO. With them, we established a fund for producers. We 
share the risks of the financing. In practice, we have always formed a 'pool' with TECHNOSERVE and 
COVELO”.
- OLAM-TECHNOSERVE Alliance 
When asking the sales rep from OLAM on the matter, he said the following: 
"The financing that we give here comes directly from Olam, from the company. OLAM’s credit policy has as 
a frame of reference to do business. There is financing if we achieve to do business with producers. 
The funding is separate. TECHNOSERVE has its area and we have ours. However, TECHNOSERVE has 
spoken to us about the subject of the Tripartite funds. At the time, we exposed it to headquarters. Up until 
now, nothing has been materialized on the matter”.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
49
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
8.1.1.1 Leverage Funding 
Leveraged funds contributed to the improvement of the financial efficiency in the MAS project, noting that the 
major contribution of the strategic partners focused on strengthening the components of Expanding Access to 
Credit with 216% and strengthening the Capacities of Organizations of producers 201%, surpassing even the 
funds allocated by USDA. On a smaller scale, the establishment of Community Seed Banks was supported 
with 46%, Training in Best Practices 9% and evaluate the Storage Infrastructure with 4%, according to what is 
shown in Chart N° 36. 
Chart No. 1 Leveraged Funds by Component 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
Strategic alliances have been a fundamental bastion in the implementation of the MAS project because it 
wouldn't have been possible to achieve similar results with fewer resources considering that:
a) The signing of technical cooperation agreements with strategic partners, has contributed to 
complement the actions undertaken by the MAS project. 
b) Its effects can transcend, because in addition to open access from the PO to markets, the training of 
community trainers, the organization of community groups, training and technical assistance to 
improve productivity and access to improved seed, contribute to the stabilization of the marketing 
chain and financial services model.
c) The coffee chain will be able to continue without difficulty because producers are protected with the 
contracts signed for five years with MDH;
d) There is a real commitment from producers to offer a competitive product in the international market 
in terms of quality and cup. The PO will be able to meet the payments and it has been proven that the 
POs are good payers.
e) Late payments or non-payment constitute less than 3%;
f) The financial assistance provided by Covelo and FUNDER, ensures that they will continue to provide 
assistance in this matter.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
50
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
In the opinion of the Country Manager "having managed with the exporters the direct relationship with the 
producers through agreements, the PO feel that if they can perform their actions as small entrepreneurs, they 
can directly negotiate prices and this forces them to maintain the quality in order to remain competitive; in 
addition, the agreements signed with the partners have helped to give a sense of security and trust to the 
funders, because there is a real commitment from producers to offer competitive product and quality. For 
example, Molinos de Honduras is signing agreements with a validity of up to five years, an aspect that 
contributes to the sustainability of the project even when TechnoServe leaves. The participation of strategic 
partners to leverage the project exceeded initial expectations, considering that not only the investments have 
been increasing each year, but, in addition, new partners have been incorporated to see the results obtained in 
supporting Organizations of producers financially and with technical assistance, can offer quality products”.
8.1.1.2 Mechanisms of Access to Credit 
Access to credit in the coffee chain is relevant and to assess the allocation and mobilization of counterpart 
funds to the credit portfolio, the project's Financial Specialist was interviewed, who said that in order to 
increase the use of financial services and specialized technical assistance to strengthen the coffee chain funds 
Matching Grant Fund (MGF) are available. Currently, four exporters are working with their own funds, 
Beneficio Santa Rosa, Coffee Orgánico Marcala SA DE CV (COMSA), Molinos de Honduras (MDH) and the 
Coffee Cooperative Olancho Limited (COCAOL). The model can be sustainable provided that parties fulfill the 
responsibilities set out in the agreements, keep the delinquency rate below 3% and that the guarantors for the 
PO to comply with the payments will be financial institutions (COVELO AND FUNDER). Below is a Chart with 
the behavior of the funds that are currently leveraging the coffee chain. 
Chart No. 2 MGF Funds awarded and leveraged in the Coffee Chain 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017. MAS Project Final Evaluation.
The total leverage through MGF is US $1,650,000 provided by the partners and US $ 650.000 by the MAS 
project, creating a revolving fund to be administered by the financial institutions to continue providing support 
to producers even if TechnoServe would leave. However, the MAS project has not developed yet a regulation 
for the use of the funds allocated by TechnoServe, a non-refundable deposit which will be administered by the 
financial institutions (COVELO Foundation, FUNDER and NEUMANN Foundation)
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
51
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
8.1.2 Business contracts with competitive markets. 
MAS Project officials actively mobilized to establish strategic alliances between organized producers and 
exporters of coffee and buyers and processors of beans, creating a mutual beneficial exchange relationship of 
quality products and better prices, effectively removing traditional intermediaries from the commercialization 
chain. 
In the coffee chain, the exporting company with higher rating demonstrated in the international market was 
selected in the first place, and on their ensured cooperation they expanded the participation of the export 
sector. With regard to the consultation on how the strategic alliance started with TechnoServe’s MAS project, 
managers from exporting companies expressed the following: 
- The Manager from Coffee Orgánico Marcala, Sociedad Anónima (COMSA), responded as 
follows: “We were approached by some people who work with the project. Among them we 
found Mr. Tomas Membreño, Maryorie Plats and Hugo Paz. They were very active, very 
inspired by the goals of the project and by the desire of making a direct relationship between 
smallholder producers and the exporter. They were very motivated to modify the traditional 
models of the smallholder producer who was almost inevitably led to the intermediary. 
From the start, we developed a capitalization strategy for the company, but also the sustainable 
development of the producers.”
- The Procurement Officer from OLAM, in Villanueva, Cortés, responded along the same 
lines: “We met with the engineer Ricardo, with Hugo Paz and with Mr. Tomas Membreño. We 
met with them, they presented the project and how we could fit into it. Due to our interest in 
working directly with producers, we found common grounds and we started the relationship 
with them. We wanted to work directly with the producer and benefit them and TechnoServe 
offered us this opportunity through the project”. 
COCAOL Co-op’s Manager, in Santa María del Real, Olancho, said the following: “We 
began our approach with what they call a junior officer and not with a senior officer. They have 
their categories to work. I think it was with Julio Guerrero. He visited us to offer some kind of 
support for the members they were going to work with in a coffee and wine area to see if it was 
possible for us to support them in the marketing process with producers that they had organized 
directly. Following the visit, we began the relationship with them mainly based on the topic of 
marketing with the producers that they had. That is how it all started”. 
COCAOL Co-op’s Manager emphasized on the fact that without the intervention of the MAS 
Project is would have been very likely that this relationship had never happened. 
. 
- The female in charge of MARVISA plant, a bean buying and processing Company in San 
Pedro Sula, about how the MAS project had been involved with strategic allies, she highlighted 
the visit they had received from TechnoServe officials, who arrived with producers associated to 
the project: “Yes, Mr. René came with 2 or 3 more people, an engineer and 2 farmers who were 
in the project”.
Both in the case of MARVISA as well as in the coffee exporting companies, it is worth 
highlighting, the interest they had in working directly with smallholder producers. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
52
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
In this regard, one of the strategic partners of the MAS project, has been the Molinos de Honduras 
coffee exporter. On this matter, the manager of Molinos de Honduras said the following: 
“I have been working with the company for four years. We took the company to create new 
opportunities, introduce improvements and new approaches”. 
“From the beginning we wanted to buy coffee directly from producers. We had no idea on how to do 
so, but I got to know about the MAS project and came into contact with them. Look, the thing 
is that traditional commercialization was a bit complicated and it was done through 
intermediaries. We were looking for quality and we were convinced that, with the 
intermediaries meddling, we wouldn’t be able to find quality. Therefore, it was a logic decision 
to look for the producer directly, and the MAS project, gave us that valuable opportunity.”
“We learned, very soon, that working directly with producers would give us advantages that 
traditional commercialization through intermediaries wouldn’t give us. We see this relationship 
from a business perspective. It is not just about having a kind heart. 
The thing is that the producer receives benefits and that I, as an exporter, can also receive 
benefits. It is about having both sides happy doing business together. 
I trusted in the potential of the smallholder producer. We have been able to confirm this potential in 
the 4 years we have been making business with smallholder producers under the guidance of 
the MAS Project”. 
“The MAS Project has given us access to a volume of good quality coffee that has been increasing 
sustainably over the last 4 years and now they are an important offeror for us. For instance, 
when I started in the company 90% of the coffee we exported was purchased from 
intermediaries. Currently, web buy one third from intermediaries, one third from co-ops and 
one third from producers associated with the MAS project, whom which we have fluent 
communication. I like to sign agreements every year with producers”. 
8.1.3 Attitude to reach maximum performance levels in solidarity work 
The main agents carrying agronomic and technological innovations have been the MAS technicians and 
community trainers. The commitment from technicians has stood out as well as the horizontal treatment they 
give to the producers they work with. 
On this matter, a member from the board of the MAS Project said the following: 
- “It seems to me that one of the key factors for the achievements we have had in the Project 
lies here, in our work team. It is a team that has no sense of entry or exit time. It is a team that 
does not know the difference between a work day and weekend. 
Technical assistance’s quality offered to producers is important. But it is also important to mention the empathy 
with which the team arrives to each household from producers and a horizontal relationship between the 
technician and the producer. The attitude of the technician is different: “I am your friend and I come to give you 
a hand for you to improve what you are doing”. The fact of not approaching the producer with an attitude of 
imposition, with an authoritarian voice, telling them what they have to do, but giving them technical advice in 
the form of recommendations and that recommendation is supported by tests, facts, results and it has been 
key to understand the project’s achievements. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
53
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
8.1.3.1 Satisfaction from the producers in regards to the support received by the MAS Project 
The most important appraisal from this evaluation is the satisfactory opinion from coffee and bean producers 
that were part of the Project as beneficiaries. Therefore, each the members of the investigation was asked 
about the level of satisfaction they felt on the support they received from the MAS Project during the 
implementation period. The consultation was based on the following satisfaction scale: 1) more than what was 
expected, 2) within expectations, 3) less than the expectations and 4) nothing. Likewise, there was a 
consultation on the possibility to continue in the future with practices and technologies that were given by the 
Project. The results of these consultations were the following: 
8.1.3.1.1Satisfaction from producers in the coffee chain 
Producers manifested their greater satisfaction, in the “more than expected” and “within expectations” 
categories, with percentages between 81% and 93% in the following activities: usefulness of the Field Schools, 
tissue management, shade management, disease control, pest control and record management. Chemical and 
organic fertilization and soil and water management with an acceptance level of 71 to 76% and access to 
loans had a lower acceptance level (50%). The latter could be associated to the costs of investment in labor 
and financial resources to build some kind of physical infrastructure. In this regard, it is recommendable to 
promote low cost BP in soil and water. 
This result of greater satisfaction was linked to the transference of innovative techniques and technologies, like 
the case of field schools and the records of inventory and accounting controls, but also of innovations and 
practices that they has already performed but that in this case the new knowledge and skills acquired 
produced important changes in production and productivity, the least satisfaction was with those new 
technologies that they knew less about and that demanded greater financial resources and labor (See Chart 
27). 
Chart No. 3 Level of Satisfaction from coffee producers of the support they received from the MAS 
Project in techniques and technologies. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
54
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
8.1.3.1.2Continuity in applying techniques and technologies in coffee growing 
For producers in the coffee chain that were consulted and that gave answers to questions related to the 
continuity of implementation of techniques and technologies, without the support of the MAS project, it was 
noticeable that more than 92% of the producers expressed that they would continue this process of 
technological innovation. This reply comes to show that in producers’ minds, they want to make these activities 
part of a stable, profitable, productive and environment-friendly assets. (See Table 24).
Table No. 24 Percentage of coffee producers that will continue using techniques and technologies 
promoted by MAS 
Techniques and technologies N Continue Will not continue
Tissue management 314 100 0
Shade management 331 98.8 1.2
Disease Control 365 97.5 2.5
Pest control 379 99.2 0.8
Soil and water management 303 93.4 6.6
Record management 187 92.5 7.5
Using Field Schools 367 97.3 2.7
Receiving information through 
SMS 205 97.1 2.9
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017. Final Evaluation MASP 
8.1.3.1.3Satisfaction from producers in the bean chain 
In regards to the support from the MAS Project in techniques and technologies, producers in the Bean chain, 
showed they were greatly satisfied, in the “more than expected” and “within expectation” categories with 
acceptance percentages over 90%. Techniques within these levels of acceptance are: inoculant for seed 
(96%), the field school (94%), certified seed (92%) and record management (91%). The rest of technologies 
were found within an acceptance from 74 to 77%, these technologies are related to post-harvest management, 
plague control, disease control, use of fertilizers and soil and water conservation. 
This result with a greater level satisfaction was linked to the transfer of new technologies that made an impact 
in their level of knowledge and generated significant changes in production and productivity, the least level of 
satisfaction is associated to techniques and technologies they made prior to the project or some prior 
knowledge they had. In case of soil and water management, their least level of satisfaction could be 
associated to the costs this practice requires for its implementation (See Chart 4). 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
55
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 4 Level of satisfaction from bean producers of the support they received from the MAS 
Project in techniques and technologies 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017. Final Evaluation MASP
8.1.3.1.4Continuity in applying techniques and technologies in bean growing 
For bean producers who were consulted and gave answers to questions related to whether or not they would 
continue implementing these techniques and technologies, it was noticeable that more than 93% were ready to 
continue this technological innovation process. Between 4 and 7% of producers expressed not being able to 
continue using certified seed and the inoculant. This could be related to the price, either because they cannot 
afford it or because input is not available locally. 
Table No. 25 Percentage of bean producers who will continue applying techniques and 
technologies promoted by MAS 
Techniques and Technologies N Continue Not continue NS / NR
Certified seed 304 95.1 4.9 0
Inoculant 252 93.3 6.7 0
Fertilizer 355 95.5 2.3 2.3
Disease control 294 96.3 0.3 3.4
Pest control 328 95.1 0.3 4.6
Harvest practices 398 94.2 1.5 4.3
Use of farm records 138 98.6 1.4 0
Receiving messages 149 98.7 1.3 0
Source: MAS Project Final Evaluation, August 2012 - March 2017
The results of the opinion measurement from producers on the level of satisfaction with the support received from the 
MAS project and the conviction to continue with the development of activities in the future, are evidence that help 
ensure that the project was successful in its field activities. Probably the testimony of the producers is the most valid of 
all testimonies since it is an honest assessment and it is closer to the truth.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
56
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
IX. EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT BASED ON THE STRATEGIC LINES OF THE PROJECT 
9.1 STRATEGIC LINE 1: Facilitating Access to high quality seed and input 
9.1.1 Effectiveness in the achievement of expected results 
To improve production and productivity of bean crops, certified seed becomes an important input. Smallholder 
bean producers are characterized by the low use of certified seed. Institutional efforts have been made to 
improve the use of quality seed among producers; however, coverage of field programs has been limited. 
Furthermore, the high costs of seed produced conventionally and the low profitability of the crop, become 
factors that discourage the use of this input in bean production. With the implementation of the MAS project 
and other field projects, the quality certified seed production strategy was promoted by establishing and 
strengthening the Community Seed banks. In order to achieve the target, the MAS Project was inserted into 
the operational structure of bean seed production that had already been established in the country, finding 
necessary to strengthen institutional coordination mechanisms and the subscription of operational agreements, 
in order to achieve efficiency in the development of field activities. DICTA/SAG; El Zamorano University, 
SERTISEM/SENASA/SAG, Michigan State University (Hired by TechnoServe); IHMA; the Seed Program from 
FAO and the PASH Network, were important allies in this process. The results are shown below: 
 
9.1.1.1 Registered and basic seed production 
For the implementation and strengthening of quality seed production, the reproduction of improved varieties 
with known productive potential was promoted, and its improvement must have gone through the four 
conventional stages of a genetic enhancement process (genetic seed, from foundation, registered and 
certified). A total of 788.19 quintals of registered seed was produced from the varieties of bean promoted by 
the Project, these were: Amadeus – 77, Deorho and Carrizalito. Furthermore, 17.3 quintals of basic seed from 
the PM2 variety. It is important to mention that a total of 225 people (22 women among them) were trained in 
certified seed production and bean post-harvest technologies. 
. 
Table No. 26 Basic and registered seed production, by sowing cycle 
Farming cycle
Variety
Total
Amadeus (qq) -77
Registered
Deorho
Registered
Carrizalito
Registered
PM2
Basic
Late postrera/ second cycle 2012-2013 36.89 49.0 42.35 0 128.24
Postrera/ second cycle 2013 57.50 285.0 183.20 0 525.70
Late postrera/ second cycle 2014-2015 84.25 0 0 0 84.25
Postrera/ second cycle 2015 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/
Late postrera/ second cycle 2015-2016 50.0 0 0 17.83 67.83
Primera/ first harvest 2016 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/
Total… 228.64 334 225.55 17.83 806.02
Source: Report of activities and results of the MSU-DICTA 2013-2016 sub-contract (august). 
1/ No sowing 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
57
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.1.1.2 Community Seed Banks 
The MAS Project proposed as a Global Target establishing and strengthening 60 Community Seed Banks 
(CSB), by the end of the period 150 banks were accounted for, exceeding the target in 90 units or in 150 
percentage points. It is important to highlight that during the life of the project 133 community banks were 
certified by SERTISEM/SENASA/SAG, which becomes a successful sign of the activity promoted by the 
project.
Chart No. 5 Number of established community seed Banks. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 MAS Project Final Evaluation
9.1.1.3 Producers integrated into the seed production process 
As part of the formation and consolidation of the CSB, 225 individual seed producers were incorporated in the 
years of the project, disseminated in the municipalities of the 5 assisted departments. The strategy to 
incorporate producers into seed production consisted in conducting a major integration (of producers) in the 
first years of the Project and diminishing the incorporation of new members in the subsequent years, a time 
that would be dedicated to the consolidation of the activity. In addition, the MAS project started a formation and 
strengthening process of groups of producers in bean seed. Forty-two (42) groups were accounted for to have 
an important farming activity in the seed production. The strategy to incorporate groups into the seed 
production process was valid and consequent with the development of the activity, since this will allow the 
continuity in the exchange of good quality seed and the CSB would become the disseminators of technologies 
for the validation of new materials that the producers themselves rescue or ones introduced by programs, 
projects or government institutions. 
Chart No. 6 Number of producers integrated into the seed production. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by the ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017, Mas Project Final Evaluation 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
58
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.1.1.4 Certified Seed Production 
The fundamental work of the CSB was to supply quality certified seed to its partner producers and buyers in 
general. With the contribution from MAS and other field projects, 8, 787.83 quintals of certified bean seed were 
produced in 4 years. With this amount of seed, it is estimated that there is capacity to grow approximately 10, 
250 hectares of bean and reach slightly over 205,000 quintals of bean yield. 
The support action from MAS to the CSB and access to seed through activities promoted in the field, are 
successes in improving bean production in the assisted areas and in the country overall. The target related 
with the number of seed banks was greatly surpassed. The sustainability of the CSB is based on the 
soundness reached with the assistance of MAS and from other programs and projects. 
When producers (N=484) were consulted in the final evaluation about the planted certified bean varieties in the 
first and second harvest of 2016, the response was the following: 46% said that they had sown the Amadeus 
variety; in second place, the Deorho variety with 28% and in third place the Carrizalito variety with 24% and 
lastly, PM2 with 2% of the producers. 
Chart No. 7 Percentage of producers according to the variety of bean acquired. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017, MAS Project Final Evaluation 
Likewise, producers were consulted about the place they got certified seed from. The CSB was their main 
supply source for certified seed (86.2%) for producers assisted by the MAS Project, followed by other sources 
(7.2%), AFS (2.6%). On the other hand, the control group had other sources (68.6%) as the main source for 
certified seed, followed by the trading houses (11.4%), another important source was the Technological Bonus 
distributed by the Government of Honduras through SAG. However, it is worth observing that producers in the 
control group also get their supply from the AFS in a similar proportion, which suggests that this service is 
reaching neighbor communities that are not assisted by the MAS Project. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
59
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 8 Percentage of producers by source of certified seed according to intervention and 
control. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017, MAS Project Final Evaluation. 
There are other aspects that could be concluded from these results, if the AFS work in a network with the 
CSB, they could become an important stakeholder in the dissemination of certified seed in the surrounding 
areas; likewise, the CSB could supply the Honduran Government’s Technological Bonus to reach producers 
from the regions where the CSB is not present. 
Data is conclusive, in the sense that the CSB are the ones guaranteeing certified seed availability in the field 
and putting it within reach of producers in the areas. 
Promoting quality bean seed production by establishing and strengthening the CSB constitutes one of the 
greatest acknowledged successes in the four years of field work from the MAS project. This assertion is 
supported by the criteria set by representatives of allied institutions and agencies, who expressed the 
following: 
Dr. Luis Flores. Director of the Dry Grain Legume Program from MSU, expressed: “The objectives 
underlying the cooperation of the University of Michigan with the MAS Project were met and exceeded. In 
terms of numbers of beneficiaries reached we are doing well, in aspects of seed volumes achieved we are 
doing well; we set our minds to reach a certain number of Community Seed Banks and we are also doing well. 
We understood in an excellent way with our counterpart in Honduras, which is DICTA and we defined what 
each one was going to do and I consider that the objectives were achieved, both by DICTA and the MAS 
Project and for us”.
Ing. Ricardo Salgado, DICTA’s Head of Technology Transfer Program, said: “The MAS Project came to 
strengthen the bean area, DICTA worked with the bean investigation team and with the Seed Program from 
SAG, achieving to release new varieties and generating certified seed through the seed banks in several 
regions of the country. One of the greatest achievements of MAS is that the bean grain producers at a 
commercial level bought certified seed from the community seed banks, and the result was increases in yield, 
uniform and excellent quality grains and according to the demands from buyers like: IHMA, WFP, MARVISA, 
and others. In the past, producers produced poor quality grain, since they were planting genetically degraded 
seeds, procuring low yield and they also lacked a safe market. Currently, they even have a guaranteed price. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
60
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The implementation of the MAS project awakened the different stakeholders in the bean value chain, who 
were dormant and neglected, mainly due to the depressed prices and in the hands of intermediaries. Now the 
Panel was reactivated and the PASH Network is working better”.
Dr. Lenin Gradiz, FAO Representative’s Assistant /Honduras, said: “The implementation of the MAS 
Project helped meeting one of FAO’s targets, eradicating hunger. The achievement of the MAS Project was 
making the bean chain, a sustainable productive activity, especially in the targets to provide smallholder 
producers services and input for their small entrepreneurship. The bean chain was depressed, there were no 
quality regulations, now there is a political awareness at the highest level, the bean chain is a priority and the 
food security of the Honduran people partially lies on it”.
Abg. Mario Gómez. Honduran Agriculture Marketing Institute (IHMA): “The experience we had with the 
MAS Project was very positive. IHMA acquires good quality product from the producer due to the technical 
support given to them through MAS. 
Seed Focus Group from Olancho: “The training we have received from TechnoServe has allowed us to have 
Access to the PASH network and has made us important certified seed producers. TechnoServe has given us 
an added value as producers and the project we have with them is very important”. 
Carmen, from the same focus group, affirms: “Well, now we have really received the support, because 
women have always been marginalized, as if they weren’t able. Currently, we have been given participation, 
for instance, in my case, as a woman I have had the support from the project to come in as a producer to the 
seed bank. Now, I haven’t been excluded, I was in the past”.
 
9.1.1.5 Established bean seed validation plots 
The validation plot is a knowledge and skill transfer methodology that has upsurge over the past few years. Its 
virtues are focused on the fact that the knowledge and skills are given by another producer and/or community 
leader with broad experience in the production topics, also getting the specialized technical assistance for 
those cases that require it. Training happens in the producer’s field with direct participation from producers in 
the community throughout the growing period. The MAS project has promoted this methodology, procuring a 
better adoption of quality seed from it (See Table No. 27). It is considered that a great part of the success 
achieved by MAS is directly related with this training methodology from technicians and producers, in learning 
by doing in the environments and plots of the beneficiaries. 
Table No. 27 Establishing validation plots in the bean crops 
Activity TARGET 2014 2015 - 2016 Total
Plot 45 105 245 350
Source: MAS Project Monitoring Unit, 2017.
The project goal was establishing 45 validation plots for the production of bean seed. By the end of the project 
350 plots were accounted for, exceeding the goal in 677 percentage points. Validation plots is a methodology 
that has been and is being used by other stakeholders in the development of production and they have the 
conditions for it to be broadly disseminated in the different areas of bean production and for other crops from 
national agriculture. 
9.1.1.6 Use and Access to certified bean seed 
Under the conventional system of certified bean seed supply, its use is relatively limited. The causes of this 
behavior have to do with the fact that it is a self-pollinating plant, condition, which favors its greater genetic 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
61
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
stability in the field. Therefore, it does not require the producer to acquire it through purchase or by other 
means, in each crop cycle. On the other hand, the physical availability of the seed at the local level is not 
always feasible, and its price, is not always affordable for the producer. Under these circumstances, the 
alternative to use certified bean seed is made possible through quality artisanal seed production.
The MAS project contemplated within its strategy improving bean yield, the promotion of the use of certified 
seed. The results show that 63% of the MAS project beneficiaries use certified seed in bean growing, which is 
different from the producers that were not beneficiaries, who quantify that the degree of use of this input is 8%, 
expressing a difference of 55 percentage points. There is no doubt that the improved seed is a necessity in the 
smallholder and medium bean producers. The bean production in the country may be substantially increased 
due to the use of certified seed in their plots.
Chart No. 9 Producers that use certified seed. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
Nonetheless, Jairo Aguilera seed producer considers that it is necessary to “open up markets because the 
incentive – for the producer to adopt the improved variety seeds – is for there to be an industry that would buy 
that product, where there may be a negotiation in prices from the producers with the industries. Because the 
only buyer respecting a guaranteed price is IHMA and it does not have the capacity to buy the national 
production. On the adoption of the improved varieties of seed: “with more competitive demands and market 
quality standards it is a need for the producer to grow certified seed, otherwise, it will not be able to keep up 
with those markets”. In his opinion the PO understand the message “If we want to enter differentiated markets, 
it will only happen by growing beans from certified seeds”. 
9.1.1.7 Access to improved seed 
Access to improved seed is directly related with how easy it is to obtain it, with the Price and quality of the 
product. The MAS Project promoted access to improved seed as a way to contribute to the improvement of 
bean crop yield. In order to achieve this, the life of the project set as a goal supporting access to improved 
bean seed for 5, 000 producers, by the end of the period 7, 462 producers were assisted exceeding the target 
established in 49 percentage points. When the MAS producers were asked about the access to the improved 
bean seed, 58% said yes, on the other hand, only 6.4% of producers in the control group reported that they 
had access to it. 
In consultations to the producers, they acknowledge the virtues of the certified bean seed, however, access to 
it, is conditioned by local availability, price accessibility and financing availability to acquire it. In this access 
process the methodology used by the Project was determining through demonstrative plots and the CSB. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
62
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 10 Percentage of producers that use and have access to improved bean seed. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
9.2 STRATEGIC LINE 2: Developing and implementing a training program in agriculture techniques 
and technologies 
9.2.1 Effectiveness in achieving the adoption of good agriculture practices 
One of the expected results from the MAS Project focused on creating attitude changes in producers to 
achieve the adoption of good practices that would allow improving their capacities in managing the coffee and 
bean chains. Thus, the success of the MAS Project lies on the training work made with both local leaders, field 
technical staff and in the producers. Therefore, the Project proposed assisting 15,000 coffee and beans 
producers through training on how to learn by doing in field schools to achieve that 60% of them (6,000 in 
coffee and 3,000 in beans) adopted new techniques and technologies promoted by the Project. Over the five 
years of the project, 26,902 producers received training in both chains. 
For the last harvest year, 67% (5,293) out of 7800 coffee producers have adopted 3 or more techniques in the 
growing season, , concentrating a greater response in the producers of El Paraíso by 60% and Comayagua 
with 23%. Regarding the beans category of 3,957 producers for the last year, 76.2% (3,015) have adopted the
same number of practices or more. For this item, a response to superior adoption is obtained in El Paraíso and 
Olancho in a very similar percentage, 26% and 25% respectively, followed by 18% or less for Comayagua, 
Yoro and Francisco Morazán in their order. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
63
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
One of the main achievements of the MAS Project in its field action is related to the levels of technology 
adoption reached by producers. Regarding coffee growing, the results presented in Table 28 show that 67.9% 
of the producers managed to adopt 3 or more techniques or technologies aimed at improving crop production 
and productivity. The effort of the project in terms of assistance by gender, indicates that it was very similar, 
noting that 66.7% of women managed to adopt three or more technologies promoted by the Project, while 
68.1% of men achieved the same level of adoption. 
On the other hand, in the bean crop the level of adoption of technology was higher, as it was indicated that 
76.2% of the producers achieved 3 or more techniques or technologies adopted as a result of the action of the 
Project. Regarding adoption by gender, it was similar. In this case, 74.6% of women achieved three or more 
technologies, and in the case of men, it was 76.8%. 
The data also show that the highest adoption was reached in the bean crop, surpassing the coffee producers 
by 8.3 percentage points. This difference may be related to the lower degree of difficulty offered by bean 
techniques and technologies in relation to coffee.
Table No. 28 Percentage of producers that have applied and adopted 3 or more new techniques and 
technologies, by gender 
Producer by crop and 
gender N
3 or more 
technologies Percentage
Coffee producters 473 321 67.9
Women 90 60 66.7
Men 383 261 68.1
Bean producers 484 369 76.2
Women 114 85 74.6
Men 370 284 76.8
Field Schools 
Technical assistance provided by national institutions in farming production is complemented by development 
programs and projects, funded by external cooperation. Assistance coverage in farming production is low, 
therefore producing a technological gap that have effects in natural resources and in the production of crops 
for food security in the population and for those products destined for export. . that is why to overcome gaps in 
technologies, the MAS project implemented a short, medium and long term strategy from the farms or plots of 
the producers, called Field Schools (FS), in order to generate from the endogenous knowledge with the 
exogenous knowledge, a series of technological innovations of their own or adaptable to the productive areas 
and the producers themselves, as well as an opportunity for formation of young human talent, where in 
technological adoption and innovation they would have the opportunity to find incentives in their plots from 
increase in productivity, improvement of vegetable material available and increase in their income. In order to 
achieve the expected results, the project programmed establishing 400 FS, distributed in 226 for coffee crops 
and 174 for bean crops. By the end of the project the total target was surpassed by 52 units of production 
training, equivalent to an execution of 13 percentage points over the expectancy (Table No. 29). 
Table No. 29 Expected and actual participation in field schools 
Field schools MAS Target Differences
FS for coffee 255 226 29 
F for beans 197 174 23 
Total 452 400 52 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
64
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The benefit of FSs is that they are focused on exchanging knowledge, skills and abilities among producers. 
Leader producers and agricultural technicians; having an experimental lab in their plots where they test, 
validate and innovate technological practices adapted to local environments. In these FS, the project 
introduced new input and agricultural practices, reproducing vegetable materials from new technologies 
(improved seed, seed inoculation, fertilizer doses, tissue, etc.), disseminating and divulging technologies 
(good practices in soil and water management, shade management, pruning and lower pruning in coffee 
farms, others) and achieving diffusion and adoption thereof, which at the end of the process, produced the 
sought technological change, as a response to the problem that the coffee and bean productive chains 
faces. 
This launched the project to technological innovation through the field school strategy, which facilitated the 
process of adoption of new technologies and allowed small producers, men and women to improve their 
income and profitability of their productive activities within the value chain for coffee and beans and at the 
same time, generate a healthy impact in the environment and natural resources. 
9.2.1.1Adoption of new techniques and technologies by coffee producers 
9.2.1.1.1 Adopted techniques and technologies 
When comparing the levels of adoption of five selected good practices6
 that are determinant for productivity 
between producers assisted by the Project and the control group, it was evident that 68% of producers from 
the control group had 5 or less good practices whilst in assisted producers only 38% was between 3 and 5 
good practices. On the other hand, 47% of the producers from the Project adopted 6 to 7 good practices and 
16% more than 7 good practices. The opposite happened with the control group, where only 32% of producers 
adopted 6 or more good practices. 
Chart No. 11 Adoption of good practices by coffee chain producers (%)
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017. MAS Project Final Evaluation 
The following table describes the techniques and technologies and the percentage of producers by different 
levels of adoption in the coffee chain. Note that the good practices in post-harvest, shade regulation and 
chemical fertilization, are adopted by all producers including the control group, meaning that they are 
essential within the coffee chain. In chemical fertilization practice, at all levels the project beneficiaries used 
less quantities than control group farmers because they were based in soil analysis. 
 
6 Five specific practices were selected for this analysis, these were: tissue management, shade regulation, 
disease control, pest control and fertilization.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
65
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
For producers who adopted between 4 and 5 good practices to post-harvest, shade regulation and 
chemical fertilization they also added pest and disease control (rows 1-3 and rows 4-5). These last two 
became the response to exogenous factors that affect coffee crops like rust and CBB, mainly. 
At the level of adoption of 6 to 7 practices there was the greatest quantitative leap of Project producers, by 
increasing the percentage of producers with a greater capacity of response to the rust and CBB issue in coffee 
and proper tissue management was added to these (e.g. eliminating axillary buds, topping and middle-pruning) 
and soil and water management to avoid erosion and achieving water conservation (rows 1-3 plus rows 4-5 
plus rows 6-7; last 4 columns). Here is where the Project achieved transforming from the traditional farm to a 
modern farm. 
The level of adoption with more than 7 good practices made a shift in 16% of producers for farm management 
based on appropriate information related to prices and markets and a greater commitment with the 
environment and society (all rows, last 2 columns). 
Table No. 30 Adopted techniques and technologies in the coffee crops (% producers). MAS 2017 
Good Practices (GP) Up to 3 GP 4 to 5 GP 6 to 7 GP More than 7 
GP Observation
MAS CG MAS CG MAS CG MAS CG
Post-harvest 95 95 99 100 100 99 100 100 3 cross-cutting GP in the coffee 
activity Shade 85 85 87 93 96 99 100 100
Chemical fertilization 25 48 57 77 69 90 89 100
Pest control 17 14 62 56 90 86 96 95 Exogenous factors that required 
a cultural change in agricultural Disease control 5 1 55 49 82 84 96 95 practices 
Tissue 24 6 53 39 87 83 96 100 Technologies and investments 
that transformed the traditional Soil and water management 10 2 21 19 55 43 96 95 farm into a modern farm 
Records 8 5 18 12 43 23 87 63 A change toward informal 
decision making 
Organic fertilization 5 6 10 6 26 28 63 63 Change in attitude when facing 
the environment and society 
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 Note: MAS →Project CG → Control Group
In summary, when the Project achieved for 63% of producers to reach a threshold of 6 GP and exceed them, it 
transformed the capacities of producers from the coffee chain and set the foundation for an efficient, profitable, 
sustainable and friendly economic activity with the environment and society. Meaning that it went from 
individual needs to the responses of collective needs, of more oxygen, more water, more soil, more 
employment and income and less greenhouse effect gas emissions
9.2.1.1.2 Tissue Management 
Tissue management is a widely known practice by coffee producers, which is also called restoration and 
salvage of the investment in the farm. 
The final evaluation, consulted coffee producers if they had applied tissue management or pruning in their 
crops, 73.2% of MAS producers confirmed they had done it. Almost all of these (98.8%) confirmed they started 
doing it because of the assistance from the Project. In a less proportion, 44.7%, producers from the control 
group confirmed they had done it as well. The difference of 28.5% shows that the MAS Project promoted 
improving techniques related to tissue management in order to achieve a greater production and productivity 
of the crop. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
66
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 12 Producers who apply one or more tissue management or pruning practices in coffee 
crops 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
The confirmation on the kind of practices implemented in tissue management indicates that MAS producers 
adopted eliminating axillary buds (51%), followed by 45% who prefer lower pruning and 42% prefer topping. 
Data from Chart No. 9 show that MAS producers exceeded control producers in these kinds of practices: 
eliminating axillary buds, topping and middle-pruning. CG producers perform angle pruning (27%), pruning 
lateral branches (53%) and lower pruning (51%). 
Chart No. 13 Percentage of coffee producers that apply tissue management techniques 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
9.2.1.1.3Shade Regulation 
Just as the prior one, shade regulation is a traditional practice in coffee growing management. Shade is 
regulated at different levels to allow solar energy in. It was confirmed that most of MAS producers (54%) have 
their crops under the shade, 7% keep their crops out under the sun and 39% have both under the shade and 
under the sun. A very similar situation happens in the control producers, 66% keep their crops under the 
shade, 7% under the sun and 27% under both. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
67
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Producers who keep their crops both under shade and under both, which represent 93% (439 cases in MAS 
and 382 in the CG), were asked if they were used to regulating the shade for their crops, of these universes, 
85% of MAS producers (372 cases) confirmed they did and 84% in the CG (321 cases) did. When asking 
about the level in which they regulated shade in their farm, data from Chart No. 10 shows that in both study 
groups, the ones who regulate shade predominate at a level between 26 and 50%. Control producers slightly 
surpassed MAS producers (56%) by three percentage points (Chart No. 14). 
Chart No. 14 Percentage of producers by level of shade regulation. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
9.2.1.1.4 Fertilization 
Fertilization is a very common practice among coffee producers, however, many times the results in terms of 
productivity and profitability are not the ones expected. Traditionally, the producer expects a greater response 
in yield by applying more chemical input in their farm. This is a key factor in order to change their mindset and 
invest in coffee growing. It started with soil analysis, in order to define formulas, amount and the number of 
applications, the moment for applying it, incorporating organic fertilizer and lime to regulate the pH of the soil. 
The result of this intervention was to reach a greater efficiency in using the correct amount of this input by 
making crop fertilizations. Differences are evident, in the use of chemical fertilizers, in average, Project 
producers are using 392 Kg/Ha against 325 Kg/Ha in the control group; in terms of foliar fertilizer they use 4.3 
L/Ha against 5.3 L/Ha in the CG; just as in organic fertilizer, they use 2, 332 Kg/Ha on the other hand the CG 
use 1,109 Kg/Ha; and, in the use of calcium lime, Project producers used a greater number of kilos in order to 
balance pH in the spoil and thus, make the amount of other input much more efficient. It is clear that organic 
fertilizer and calcium lime doubled in the intervention group and it diminished the need to use foliar fertilizer. 
According to the Final Survey, 74 per cent of producers from the CG apply chemical fertilizer versus 65 per 
cent of MAS producers. In soil analysis, only 14% of the CG does it versus 36% of MAS producers. . 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
68
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 31 Use of fertilizer in the coffee chain. MAS 2017 
Evaluation ChemicalF 
Kg/Ha OrganicF Kg/Ha FoliarF
L/Ha
Limestone 
Kg/Ha
Intervention 392 2,332 4.28 72.5
Control 325 1,109 5.28 35.6
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project 
Final Evaluation, 2017
In summary, producers have achieved changing their attitude in the efficient use of input with the correct dose due to the 
soil analysis. Thus, they have learned that an excessive application of fertilizer (CG), due to the lack of soil analysis, 
becomes a “luxury absorption” by the plants which creates a physiological unbalance and limits their productive capacity. 
9.2.1.1.5 Disease identification 
Coffee diseases are widely known by producers. The diseases with greatest impact are rust, Mycenae 
citricolor and Pelliculario koleroga. In line with the Project, producer training achieved improving the 
identification capacity of the disease by 51 and 60% of producers in regards to the Mycenae citricolor and rust 
disease, which made a difference in 8 and 10 percentage points in regards to the control group, respectively 
(Chart No. 15) this way, when improving their capacity to diagnose the coffee diseases, producers improve 
their control and the kind of treatment to have a healthy and productive farm. 
Chart No. 15 Percentage of producers who report diseases in their farm. MAS, 2017 
 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 MAS Project Final Evaluation 
Disease Control
The Producers’ response capacity to diseases has improved with the kind of treatment they conduct; some of 
them are chemical, biological, cultural and tolerant variety control. Project assistance achieved for 70% of 
producers in average to adopt improved practices in disease control against 58% of the CG. Among the 
disease control techniques we find “cultural control” in 50% of assisted producers against 31% from the CG, 
and “Chemical control” applied by 40% of beneficiaries versus 14% more for the CG. The technique for 
resistant varieties and biological control were used in a less percentage (Chart No. 16) 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
69
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 16 Coffee producers that apply disease control techniques (%)
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017
9.2.1.1.6 Pest Control 
The main pests attacking coffee are CBB and leaf miner. The producer knows these pests and conducts 
control according to their knowledge and possibilities. The MAS Project trained producers on Integrated Pest 
Management (IPM), starting from the knowledge of the economic threshold of pests, using less chemical 
products and for them to be as environment-friendly as possible and interact with other controls (biological, 
ethological, etc.). 
Most of the coffee farms are affected by pests, 70% of the Project producers acknowledge having these 
problems against 65% of the CG producers. Among the reported pests, 74% of assisted producers said they 
have had attacks from CBB against 61% reported by the CG. In terms of the leaf miner, 17% of assisted 
producers reported it against 10% from the CG. 
Table No. 32 Producers (%) who report pests in their coffee farms. MAS 2017 
Pest MASP (N= 473) Control (N= 412)
Coffee Bean Borer 74 61
Leaf miner 17 10
Other pest 3 3
Average 76 65
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
Project actions achieved a response on behalf of the assisted producers. Seventy-six per cent (76%) of 
assisted producers apply pest control practices against 55% of the CG. Of the total of assisted producers 43% 
make a cultural control (scavenge beans, repeal, and regulate shade, tissue and weeds) against 22% of the 
CG, 28% of the beneficiaries place “Alluring traps” against 9% of the CG. In terms of chemical control, 21% of 
assisted and non-assisted producers applied it (See Chart No. 16). 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
70
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 17 Percentage of producers who apply pest control practices. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
9.2.1.1.7Soil and Water Management 
A characteristic of coffee is that it is grown on hillsides with steep slopes and high precipitation, which puts it at 
risk of erosion. Soil and water conservation practices were directed to building channels, barriers and water 
harvest. In these practices the level of adoption from participants varied between 4 and 24% of participant 
producers, generating a variance between 1 and 13 percentage points in regards to the control group (Graph 
No. 14). These are the good practices that support family assets, sine healthy, fertile and deep soil guarantees 
investment. However, here is where the Project has found some resistance from the producers to adopt. It will 
require from the Project in a future intervention, to assess the possibility of establishing a policy on incentives 
and conditions headed toward promoting the adoption of soil and water GP, starting from those requiring less 
investment of financial resources and time, but ones that would revert the possible loss of soil and humidity 
that threatens family assets and their environment. 
Chart No. 18 Percentage of producers that apply soil and water techniques 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017, MAS Project Final Evaluation
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
71
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.2.1.2Adoption of new techniques and technologies by bean producers 
9.2.1.2.1 Applied techniques and technologies 
Among the GP addressed and supported by the Project, in the bean chain, are the ones related to crop 
fertilization, use of improved seed, and inoculant use and management, soil and water management, disease 
and pest control, post-harvest management and administrative records. The results on the application and 
adoption of these GP are the following: 
When comparing the levels of adoption of selected GP that are determinant to increase productivity7
 it was 
evident that 56% of producers assisted by the Project had adopted 6 and more GP in comparison with only 
10% of the control group.. Regarding the adoption of 4 to 5 GP, the greatest percentage of CG producers were 
found with 59%, while the assisted producers added 34%; at the lowest level of adoption with less than 3 GP, 
the CG had 31% and beneficiaries barely 10%. 
Chart No. 19 Percentage of bean producers according to their level of adoption of GP. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017. MAS Project Final Evaluation 
The following table describes techniques and technologies and the percentage of producers in the different 
levels that have adopted them in the bean chain. Note that the Post-harvest, pest control and disease control 
GP are adopted by all producers including the control group, meaning that they are essential within the bean 
chain. Likewise, for assisted producers, soil conservation is much more adopted than disease control, in the 
adoption level of 3 GP. For producers who adopted between 4 and 5 GP, both assisted producers and the CG 
had a greater adoption of Post-harvest, pest control, soil conservation, disease control and fertilization GP. It is 
worth mentioning that disease control and fertilization is prioritized by the assisted group but the good 
practices of Fertilization and Soil Conservation are accepted by the CG. In the levels of adoption of 6 to 7 
practices, there was a greater quantitative leap from Project producers, by increasing the number of GP 
adopted incorporating certified seeds and inoculant in seeds; on the other hand the CG adopted certified or 
improved seeds. The level of adoption for more than 7 GP includes data records and improved seed, which 
assisted producers included. 
 
7 The specific practices selected for this analysis were: the use of inoculant, disease control, pest control and 
fertilization. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
72
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
In summary, when the Project achieved for 56% of producers to reach a threshold of 6 and more GP, it transformed the 
capacities of producers in the bean chain and set the foundations for “more integral” management of the bean crop 
system, which seeks for a greater economic efficiency, resilient to diseases and pests, a high yield with quality 
germplasm, a greater innovation and adoption of technologies and a reaction from producers before the need of soil 
conservation to continue with the agricultural activity. In other words, the assisted bean chain achieved preserving the 
crop from external factors and found its assistance profitability efficient for the crop, with new technologies in natural 
resource management and in producers. It transformed the way in which they interacted with the environment and 
society. 
Table No. 33 Techniques and technologies adopted in the bean chain (% producers). MAS 2017 
Good practices Hasta 3 BP 4 a 5 BP 6 a 7 BP
More 
than 7 
GP
Observation
MAS GC MAS GC MAS GC MAS
Post-harvest 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Good practices like preserving the 
crop and production
Pest control 36.0% 45.3% 76.1% 94.6% 91.0% 97.7% 98.8%
Soil Conservation 44.0% 27.0% 69.9% 76.3% 87.8% 83.7% 98.8%
Disease control 28.0% 38.0% 62.0% 89.1% 83.6% 95.3% 98.8%
Fertilization 32.0% 21.9% 61.3% 77.0% 83.6% 95.3% 98.8% Changes in the technological 
innovation by incorporating 
technologies to potentiate 
effectiveness and profitability of the 
crop
Certified seed 14.0% .7% 41.1% 3.1% 78.3% 58.1% 100.0%
Seed inoculants 8.0% 0.0% 31.3% .4% 66.1% 2.3% 87.8%
Improved seed 2.0% .7% 9.8% 3.1% 23.3% 60.5% 64.6%
Farm records 8.0% 3.6% 8.6% 7.0% 33.3% 44.2% 82.9%
Changes in the incorporation of 
management for informed decision￾making.
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
9.2.1.2.2 Cropping system and sowing density 
Smallholder producers grow beans under different sowing systems, especially in the hillside with the purpose 
of making a more efficient use of soil and protect it from erosion. The predominant cropping systems are 
monoculture, polyculture and crop rotation. Within the staple grains, the frequent systems are corn + bean; 
corn + sorghum, bean + sorghum, bean + sorghum and corn + sorghum + squash. 
. 
Table No. 34 Bean cropping systems according to farming cycles (% producers). MAS 2017 
System First Second
MASP Control MASP Control
Monoculture 78.9 70.4 61.3 62.4
Polyculture 16.3 26.8 21.8 25.9
Crop rotation 4.8 2.8 16.9 11.6
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017
According to the results from the final survey, in the first cycle the MAS Project promoted monoculture at a 
greater level in order to achieve better productivity, aside from this, varieties promoted by the Project are 
systemic, due to the size of the plant (determined growth). In this case, it is shown that 79% of Project 
producers planted their bean plots in monoculture, surpassing the CG in 8.5 percentage points; on the other 
hand, the polyculture system was reduced in 10.5 points, going from 26.8 (CG) to 16.3 (MAS beneficiaries); 
and the crop rotation grew in 2.0 percentage points for Project beneficiaries (4.8) in regards to the control 
group (2.8%). For the second cycle in both cases (MAS beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries), producers in 
monoculture diminished in around 10 points in regards to the first cycle, due to the short time of precipitation in 
many bean producing areas during this cropping cycle, condition (short period of rain), which within staple 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
73
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
grains, only beans cover the needs for humidity of the plant (60 to 70 days). Producers in crop rotation for the 
second cycle are very similar to the ones expressed in the first cycle, the same in Project beneficiaries and 
non-beneficiaries. 
Bean sowing densities as part of the cropping systems has improved for many years, due to the technical 
assistance given by the institutions, therefore, beneficiary and non-beneficiary producers have achieved 
having sowing distances (between ditches and plants) that are very similar. Data shows that beneficiaries have 
42 centimeters between ditches and 24 between plants in average, on the other hand, non-beneficiaries 
average between 37 and 22 centimeters respectively. Sowing distances depend on several considerations; 
however, size (height) of the plant is the most important one. 
Table No. 35 Sowing density in bean crops. MAS 2017 
Distance Recommended MASP Control
Between Ditches (cm) 40-45 42 37
Between Plants (cm) 30-40 24 22
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium MAS Project Final Evaluation 2017
9.2.1.2.3 The use of inoculant 
The use of inoculant in bean production is not very well known among bean producers. The MAS Project after 
making validations in the field and knowing about the virtues from the point of view of production and its impact 
in the environment, promoted it among beneficiary producers. Results obtained in the final evaluation, show 
that 71% (344/484) of beneficiary producers knew about the use of inoculant and 52% (252/484) were 
applying it. On the other hand, in producers that were not MAS beneficiaries only 3% (12/438) of them knew 
about it and 0.5% (2/438) of producers were using it. 
Chart No. 20 Percentage of bean producers that know and apply inoculant 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017
On the other hand, even though there isn’t a record of the base line survey, when observing the results from 
the midterm survey, there is a trend to increase in the amount of producers assisted by the MAS Project that 
use this technological innovation, by surpassing the 57.6% of producers that had knowledge about it and 
66.8% of them used it. Data shown in Chart No. 17 confirm the growing behavior in the use of inoculant in 
each harvest cycle from the producers assisted by the MAS Project that confirmed they applied it in the final 
evaluation. The initial situation of 13 per cent of the producers changed up to 49 per cent of them using 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
74
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
inoculant in the later harvest of 2016. It is relevant to mention that 93.3% confirms they will continue using it 
even if the Project ends: 
Chart No. 21 Tendency in the use of inoculants by bean producers. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
Another important element that must be considered, is the fact that since the inoculant is a product generated 
in a laboratory through efficient bacteria in capturing nitrogen from the air and soil, its practical use could not 
be within the reach of bean producers, however, MAS, with scientific and technical support from El Zamorano 
University achieved to produce it, isolating efficient native strains and reproducing the product at a commercial 
level. With this, MAS, in seeking for sustainability in technology has gone beyond that, by training staff from 
DICTA in the preparation of inoculant with the required quality. In order to guarantee the availability of the 
inoculant in the communities, a distribution strategy was defined through trading centers of agricultural input 
and the institution providing technical assistance to bean producers. 
Another important achievement from the MAS Project is leaving out in the open and promoting the viability of 
the use of inoculant in bean crops, as well as its production and commercialization and having shown the level 
of productivity that can be reached with this technology. It will be up to DICTA, the projects supporting bean 
production and the agricultural input trading centers to continue promoting the technology in other areas of 
bean production, making it sustainable and keep up the quality of the product. 
9.2.1.2.4 The use of certified seed 
Promotion of the use of improved bean seed has been limited nationally, since it is a self-pollination plant that 
does not oblige the producer to acquire it in each cropping cycle, which means that from the specialized 
commerce point of view it is not as attractive as a commercial economic activity, however, under the artisanal 
seed production category, the use of this input is standing since it is viable for production with accessible Price 
and it significantly contributes to the improvement of productivity. Project producers, have put into practice and 
have adopted the use of certified bean seed in their crops. The results form the final evaluation evidences that 
63% (N=484) of MAS producers have incorporated into their system, the use of certified seed, against 8% 
(N=438) of the CG producers, with a difference of 55 percentage points. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
75
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Project support to strengthen or establish certified bean seed banks, ensures input availability for commercial 
grain producers and at the same time it stimulates a specialized production line like seed production. In terms 
of production, the MAS Project allowed going from the use of commercial grain as seed to seed from certified 
varieties to aligned sowing and less seedlings per position to improve crop productivity. 
MAS Project producers have recognized implemented and adopted the use of certified bean seed in its 
cultivation. The results of the final evaluation evidence that 62.8% (304/484) of the producers of the universe 
of study assisted by MAS confirmed the use of certified seed of improved varieties of beans. These results 
significantly exceed the universe of control producers with a difference of 54.8 percentage since only 8% 
(35/438) of the producers interviewed used it. It is important to note that 95.1% of the 304 producers who 
confirmed using certified seed will continue sowing once the MAS project is completed, the control producers 
that represent approximately 10% (35 cases) compared to the universe that uses certified seed from the ones 
assisted by MAS, 85.7% confirm they will continue to use it in the future. 
Chart No. 22 Producers that use certified seed. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
9.2.1.2.5Use of fertilizer 
After many years of continuous use, soils have decreased their level of fertility, a condition that is recognized 
and attended by a large part of the producers. In the cultivation of beans chemical fertilization is quite 
widespread. In the case of foliar fertilization, 83% (n=484) of the producers assisted by MAS applied this 
practice, surpassing by 9.3 percentage points non-beneficiary producers, which was 74% (n= 438). In regard 
to the granular chemical fertilizer the use is lower. 63% (n= 484) of the producers with the assistance of the 
MAS Project carried out this practice, on the other hand, in the 49% (n=438) of the non-beneficiary producers 
put it into practice, making a difference of 24 percentage points. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
76
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 23 Percentage of producers that adopt good nutritional practices in coffee crops with the 
assisted producers and the control group. MAS, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
9.2.1.2.6 Disease Prevention and Control 
If there is a crop susceptible to environmental changes (Excess humidity), to varieties and infected seeds, is 
the bean, which frequently exposes producers to loss due to diseases. The results from the final evaluation 
show that for the first cycle 74% (N=484) of beneficiary producers report attacks from diseases. Among the 
producers form the CG, this percentage was greater, 83% (N=438), making a difference of 9 percentage 
points. The second cycle, showed a similar behavior. 
Regardless if the bean producer is beneficiary or not of the project, producers always take prevention actions 
to the attack of diseases in the bean crop. In this case, the response from producers was very similar, by 
indicating that about 73% of producers try to prevent the damage caused by these diseases. 
Table No. 36 Producers that report and control diseases in the bean crops. MAS 2017 
MASP N= 484 Control N= 438
Disease Report 74.2% 83.1%
Disease control 73.1% 73.7%
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017
In order to prevent and control bean disease, producers conduct several practices, some with greater level of 
acceptance than others. Among the control practices, chemical control is the one applied the most, due to its 
effectiveness in regards to combating the pathogen and vector (insect) that spreads the disease. Data show 
that 65% of MAS Project beneficiaries use chemical products for disease control in bean crops; on the other 
hand 62% of the non-beneficiary producers did it. The difference is minimal (3.0 percentage points) since it is 
the preferred control method by producers. Cultural control is practiced at a relatively low level. Non￾beneficiaries report a greater level (23%) and MAS beneficiaries report 6.0% of producers. Finally, for the 
resistant varieties of bean, 18% of MAS Project producers expressed that their varieties have a certain level of 
resistance or tolerance to the attack of diseases. On the other hand, only 2.0% of non-beneficiaries of the 
project observe resistance or tolerance to the attack of diseases. In this case, it is acknowledged that the local 
varieties are susceptible to the attack of diseases. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
77
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 24 Disease Prevention and control per producer in bean crops (%)
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017, MAS Project Final Evaluation
As shown previously, control and prevention of disease attack in the bean crop from beneficiary and non￾beneficiary producers has been permanent, however, the Project promoted greater effectiveness in this 
practice, with important differences in the four years of Project implementation. 
Producing big changes in disease control for beans requires a lot of time, since there are different ways to fight 
it; in some cases through seed, in other cases through vectors (insects) that spread it, due to the favorable 
environmental conditions for diseases and because chemical control (preferred by producers) is costly. In 
many cases, it is out of the economic possibilities of the producer. However, the effort of the Project is evident 
by achieving a greater incorporation of producers to bean crop disease control. 
Table No. 37 Producers (%) according to the years of conducting disease control and prevention 
practices in bean crops. MAS 2017 
Years of practice MASP N= 346 Control N= 317
< 1 year 1.2 0.6
1 year 4.3 1.3
2 years 18.2 4.7
3 years 24.6 9.5
4 years 13.6 6.0
5 years and up 38.2 77.9
Source: ANED Consultores, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
Changes in bean disease control and prevention were observed since the beginning of the project by reporting 
in the first year that 4.3% of MAS producers were preventing and controlling diseases from bean crops. 1.3% 
of the control group developed these kinds of activities. In the following years, disease control for the crop was 
much higher, for instance, in the third year 24.6% of producers from the project controlled and prevented 
diseases in the crop and 9.5% of producers from the control group conducted the same activity. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
78
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.2.1.2.7 Soil and water management 
In soil management and conservation, 79% of beneficiaries against 62% of the CG have adopted these GP. 
With the target population, the MAS Project promoted a series of technologies that make an important 
difference in regards to soil and water management in terms of the cropping system. Technologies are not 
something new for producers, but their adoption has been slow, despite training and assistance actions from 
the MAS staff. 
Of the GP shown in the Chart, MAS project actions make a difference in regards to what the non-beneficiary 
producers performed. Therefore, an important effect of the Project was no-burning for 48% of the MAS 
producers, which has a difference of 20 percentage points in regards to the CG; in the minimal tilling, the 
difference was 10 points; in stubble handling the difference was 8 points and in live barriers the difference was 
6 percentage points. 
Chart No. 25 Bean producers that apply good practices in soil conservation (%) 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
9.2.1.2.8 Post-harvest management 
In the past, post-harvest management technologies were promoted by technical assistance institutions and 
projects, to the extent that they are considered conventional technologies. Among these old conventional 
technologies we can still find drying in the backyard and grain cleaning. This does not allow establishing a 
difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the project. 
On the other hand, grain classification technology with strainer is applied by 29% (N=484) of MAS producers, 
against 9% (N=438) of the CG, the difference here is 19 percentage points. Likewise, there is a difference in 
solar drying of grain. It is reported that 13% (N=484) of assisted producers said they had solar drying, while 
only 7% (N=438) of non-beneficiaries put this technology into practice. 
 
What is being affirmed, is that these technologies have been presented in producers for many years. Drying 
and cleaning the grain has been made taking advantage of the sun and the wind. Both are rudimentary but 
economic (minimal investment), which is something the producer values a lot. It is important to highlight that 
the conventional technologies are rooted within the producers and changing them from one year to the other is 
not easily achieved, especially when the producer has an advanced age. Youth are more open to changes. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
79
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Changes happen, but it is a process that advances as the producer is completely convinced of the value of the 
technologies, especially related to their investment, functionality and maintenance. Not everything in the past 
is deficient or bad; there are things from the past that are better than the current ones. 
Chart No. 26 Percentage of bean producers who apply good post-harvest practices 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
9.2.2 Impact in adopting good agriculture practices 
9.2.2.1 Coffee Chain 
9.2.2.1.1Adoption of techniques and technologies 
In regards to the adoption of techniques and technologies, results from the final evaluation gave significant 
evidences between the assisted producers and the control group. The average adoption of techniques and 
technologies was 0.70 for assisted producers and 0.57 for the control group. This means that the adoption 
levels of assisted producers are between medium and high, on the other hand, the control group does it from 
medium to low (See details in Table 41). Among the techniques and technologies considered in the impact 
measurement model were: tissue and pruning management, shade regulation, disease control, pest control 
and fertilization. 
Table No. 38 Impact of the MAS Project in adopting coffee growing practices 
Indicator MTE Control MAS
Significant Differences (p<0.5)
MTE - Control MTE - MAS Control –
MAS
Adoption of Practices - 0.57 0.70 - - Yes 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium MAS Final Evaluation 2017.
 Note: 95% level of confidence.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
80
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.2.2.1.2Relation between techniques and technologies with yield and income in coffee 
The project’s impact analysis measured its relation of techniques and technologies in regard to yield and 
income. It considered 5 cropping practices, like: Tissue management, shade regulation, disease control, pest 
control and fertilization. Each practice received a weight due to its effects in productivity (See Annex No. 4). 
With the weight a practice adoption scale was established in regards to its valuation, which was the following: 
very low adoption (0 - 0.2), low adoption (0.21 - 0.4), medium adoption (0.41 - 0.6), high adoption (0.61 - 0.8) y 
very high adoption (0.81 – 1.0). 
9.2.2.1.3Yield in terms of practice adoption levels 
The impact of the project on yield is analyzed in terms of the MAS farmers’ adoption of the promoted good 
practices. Data was compared to the control group’s adoption rate. Using the variance analysis (Two-way 
ANOVA), it showed significant levels between the intervention and control. Under mean separation, we can 
conclude that there is significance between assisted and control producers with a “Very High Adoption” (5) of 
practices in regards to the producers from the control group with an adoption between ‘High’ (4), ‘Medium’ (3), 
‘Low’ (2) and ‘Very Low’ (1) adoption. On the other hand, those assisted producers that had a ‘Medium’ (3) and 
‘Low’ (2) adoption showed significant differences only with the control producers that had a ‘Very Low’ (1) level 
of adoption. (See Table 41).
9.2.2.1.4Coffee commercial production yield 
According to the results from the MAS Final Evaluation, MAS producers who harvested coffee in the 
commercial production area (plantation with 3 or more years old) obtained an estimated average yield of 47.1 
quintals of wet parchment per hectare (qq/Ph Ha) for the 2016-2017, harvest, which is superior by 16.7 
quintals to the yield from the MTE for the 2013-2014 harvest. This difference represents 54.9% increase, i.e. 
29.8 percentage points more than the established target (25%). On the other hand, the final evaluation found 
that control producers obtained less yield than MAS producers, estimated in 31.9 qq/PH Ha for the 2016-2017 
harvest, which is 15.2 quintals less and only 4.9% increase in regards to the MTE. 
 
Chart No. 27 Impact in commercial coffee production yield, MAS versus control 
Source: MAS Information System 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
81
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 28 MAS productivity behavior in commercial coffee production 
30.4 30.4
47.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
BL… MTE… FE…
qq / Ha.
Source: MAS Information System
Table No. 39 Incremental value in coffee productivity, FE and MTE versus BL.
8
Base line 2012-2013 
harvest (qq/Ha)
MTE 2013-2014
harvest (qq/Ha)
Final evaluation 2016-2017 
harvest (qq/Ha)
Incremental value 
MTE/BL (%)
Incremental value 
FE/BL (%)
30.4 30.4 47.1 0.0 54.9
Note in Table No. 40, that in the five departments, MAS producers increased their yield with respect to the 
MTE. It is worth highlighting Francisco Morazán, which presented the lowest yield in the MTE, but in the final 
evaluation it is the highest, results show that it went from producing 20.7 to 63.8 qq/Ha PH,. This situation 
represents a 208.0% increase in productivity. Yoro is observed in a lesser proportion, since it went from 25.7 
to 55.2 qq/Ha PH, which reveals an increase of 114.8%. MAS producers from the department of Comayagua 
reveal the lowest increase in productivity (11.8%); however, the yield of 56.9 qq/Ha PH exceeds the final 
average of the MAS Project. 
 
8 Note: in the final evaluation of MAS the MTE was considered the baseline
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
82
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 40 Increase in coffee crop yield 
(Yield in quintals of wet parchment coffee per hectare)
Indicator
MTE
Final Evaluation
Increase Value 
(%) MAS Control Target (%)
2013/2014 2016/2017 2016/2017
Total 30.4 47.1 31.9 54.8 1/ 25
Comayagua 50.9 56.9 56.7 11.8 2/
El Paraíso 24.6 39.5 22.3 60.7 2/
Fco. Morazán 20.7 63.8 32.7 208.0 2/
Olancho 22.7 30.9 16.1 36.1 2/
Yoro 25.7 55.2 41.1 114.8 2/ 
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
1/ Percentage in regards to the base line 
2/ Percentage in regards to the MTE 
9.2.2.1.5Impact in coffee productivity 
The impact in coffee yield was evident when comparing the results obtained in the 2013-2014 harvest referred 
to in the midterm evaluation (MTE) with the 2016-2017 harvest in the final evaluation (FE). Both MAS and 
control groups are compared against the average yield of the MTE (30.4 qq/Ha PH). Data in the final 
evaluation revealed that yield was 31.9 qq/Ha PH for the control producers, while MAS producers obtained 
47.0 qq/PH Ha. These differences as shown by data from Table No. 41 are statistically significant at a level of 
confidence of 95%. 
In conclusion, the significance test shows that the difference in yields between MAS producers and 
the control group from the Mid-term to the Final Evaluation is due to the assistance of the MAS 
Project.
Table No. 41 Impact of the MAS Project in commercial coffee production yield 
Indicator MTE
Final Evaluation Significant Differences (p<0.5)
Control MAS MTE -
Control MTE - MAS Control –
MAS
Yield (qq / Ha) 30.4 31.9 47.1 No Yes Yes
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores - Sigil Consulting Consortium. MAS Project Final Evaluation 2017.
Note: 95% level of confidence.
Table No. 42 Significant difference in yield according to good practices between the intervention 
and control group 
Level of adoption
Adoption of Practice in Control
5 Very 
High
4 
High
3 
Medium 2 Low 1 Very Low
Adoption of practice in the intervention
5 Very High no yes yes Yes Yes
4 High no no no yes Yes
3 Medium no no no no Yes
2 Low no no no no Yes
1 Very Low no no no no No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium MAS Final Evaluation 2017. 
Note: 95% level of confidence.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
83
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.2.2.2 Bean Chain 
9.2.2.2.1Adoption of techniques and technologies 
In regards to the adoption of techniques and technologies, the results from the final evaluation showed 
significant evidence between the assisted producers and the control group. The average adoption of selected 
techniques and technologies was 0.78 for the assisted producers and 0.73 in the control group. Among the 
techniques and technologies considered in the impact measurement model were: the use of inoculant, disease 
control, pest control and fertilization. 
Table No. 43 Impact of the MAS Project in the adoption of practices for bean crops 
Indicator MTE Control MAS
Significant differences (p<0.5)
MTE -
Control MTE - MAS Control –
MAS
Adoption of Practices - 0.73 0.78 - - Si
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium MAS Final Evaluation 2017. 
Note: 95% level of confidence.
9.2.2.2.2Yield in harvested area in the postrera cycle (second harvest) 
The second harvest season in 2016 presented changes in bean yields because the rains have become erratic, 
both in intensity and frequency. 
Due to climate change effect, the gap between rain to rain has increased. 
When natural events occur, as droughts in El Niño phenomenon, whose effect is high or severe, its impact is 
similar in project’s assisted production and not assisted production. As a result, both yields are similar, those of 
local varieties and improved varieties. There are occasions when bean local varieties have better responses 
than improved varieties to environmental changes (diseases, pests, drought, frost, heat waves and others), 
since the level of adaptation and response of local varieties is higher than the improved varieties (by its recent 
introduction). 
Chart No. 29 Impact in the yield of beans in the second cycle, MAS versus control 
Source: MAS Information System 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
84
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The target established by the Project consisted of reaching 16.0 quintals per hectare in the second cycle, i.e., 
20% growth form base line (12.3 qq /Ha.). Final data shows that producers assisted by the MAS Project 
increased yields by 41.6%, exceeding significantly the established target. 
Chart No. 30 MAS Productivity behavior and second cycle bean yield 
12.3 12.7
17.4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Base Line
Second harvest 2012
MTE
Second harvest 2013
Final Evaluation
Second harvest 2016
qq / Ha.
Source: MAS Information System 
Table No. 44 Incremental value in bean productivity, FE and MTE versus BL. 
Base line 
second harvest
2012 (qq/Ha)
MTE second 
harvest 2013 
(qq/Ha)
Final evaluation 
second harvest 
2016 (qq/Ha)
Incremental 
value MTE/BL (%)
Incremental value 
FE/BL (%)
12.3 12.7 17.4 3.4 41.6
9.2.2.2.3Yield per harvested area in the first cycle 
Bean yield in the first cycle of 2016 in the harvested area was 20.7 quintals per hectare (qq/Ha). Since there 
wasn’t a baseline indicator available, the reference was yield of beans in the first cycle of 2014 contemplated 
in the midterm evaluation (11.4 qq/Ha). On the other hand, the target established by the project for the first 
cycle considered a 30% growth from baseline. Comparing data from MTE in 2014 (11.4qq/ha) with the Final 
Evaluation (20.7 qq/ha), it is observed 81.6% growth in yields. . 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
85
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
. 
Chart No. 31 MAS productivity behavior and bean yield in the first cycle 
Source: MAS Information System
The combination of high yield with a trend of increasing bean prices due to shortage in the last 4 months prior 
to the second harvest, motivated producers to increase sown areas in regions of the country where there is a 
favorable climate for first cycle production. 
9.2.2.2.4Impact in bean productivity 
According to the result obtained through the significance test (Table No. 45). It can be concluded that the 
difference in yields between the FE (second harvest 2016) estimated at 17.4 qq/Ha and the 12.7 qq/HA from 
the MTE (second harvest 2013) is due to the MAS Project assistance. However, the difference obtained in the 
final evaluation between producers from the CG (estimated at 16.9 qq/Ha) and the MAS Producers (17.4 
qq/Ha) was not significant. 
In table 45, it can also be observed in the first cycle of the 2014 harvest (collected during the MTE) an average 
yield of 11.4 quintals per hectare was registered. In the final evaluation, MAS producers obtained yield of 20.7 
quintals, producing a difference of 9.3 quintals against MTE. With a lesser yield, control producers quantified 
17.9 qq/Ha, which makes a difference of 6.5 quintals. On the other hand, second cycle results and first cycle 
results of 2016 between MAS Producers and control producers reveal a difference that is statistically 
significant to a level of confidence of 95%. The result obtained through the significant test confirmed that the 
differential is due to the assistance from MAS project. 
Table No. 45 Impact of the MAS Project in bean yield 
Indicator MTE
Final Evaluation Significant Differences (p<0.5)
Control MAS MTE - Control MTE – MAS Control – MAS
Primera/ first harvest yield (qq / 
Ha) 11.4 17.9 20.7 Yes Yes Yes
Postrera/ second harvest yield 
(qq / Ha) 12.7 16.9 17.4 Yes Yes No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Final Evaluation 2017. Note: 95% level of confidence.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
86
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.2.2.2.5Yield in first cycle in regards to the practice adoption scale 
When analyzing yield in the first cycle in regards to the practice adoption scale through a variance analysis 
(Two-way ANOVA), it was found that the adoption of practices between treatment and control did not result in 
a significant difference between the yield measurements for this cycle. Not having a big difference in yield
between groups of producers could be related to climate change (drought or excess precipitation) in beans 
producing areas, reducing the production potential that could be obtained under suitable environmental 
conditions. Usually, environmental changes go hand in hand with severe attacks from pests and diseases, 
whose prevention or control goes beyond the possibilities of producers. In addition, since bean is a staple 
grain in the population’s diet, it gets attention from institutions and field programs. This support is reflected in 
the yield achieved by the control group.
9.2.2.2.6Yield in second cycle in regards to the practice adoption scale 
When analyzing the yield in the second cycle in regards to the practice adoption scale through a variance 
analysis (Two-way ANOVA), it was found that the adoption of practices between control and treatment did not 
result in a significant difference between the yield measurements. The causes for not having a significant 
difference in the second cycle among producers from the intervention and control groups are the same 
exposed for the first cycle. 
9.3 STRATEGIC LINE 3: Strengthening POs to provide services that add value and comply with 
market standards 
9.3.1 Effectiveness in achieving expected results 
9.3.1.1 Administrative and accounting practices of the PO
 
One of the greatest weaknesses of many producer organizations is related to management and accounting
capacities. Weak legal and administrative processes are often found, due to the lack of control and 
accountability mechanisms. The project promoted the improvement of the administrative capacity by applying 
practices to ensure the POs strengthen their administrative and accounting capacity, considering the available 
resources they have. 
For the life of the project, the target established was to strengthen 120 POs. 135 POs were assisted 
surpassing the goal by 13 percentage points. This training and strengthening of social capital in rural areas is 
generating business opportunities, competitiveness and levels of trust that allow for a more dynamic local and 
rural economy. 
Table No. 46 Producer Organizations that have applied administrative and accounting practices 
Organizations MAS Target Differences
135 120 15
Source: MAS Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
An example of this is the number of POs that received technical assistance from FUNDER, which includes 117 
savings and credit groups (CRAC for its acronym in Spanish) in order to strengthen commercialization and 
credit committees, during the September 2016 to May 2017 period. 
Concrete actions were performed in this area: training was delivered to promote a better understanding of the 
paperwork required to acquire a National Tax Number (RTN for its acronym in Spanish), follow up was 
provided in obtaining Legal Status which supports the legal constitution of POs, and, lastly, the MAS project 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
87
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
strengthened the entrepreneurial and administrative management capacity of the assisted CRACs directly or 
through others.
9.3.1.1.1Administration of producers’ farms 
Administrating economic activities leads to better analysis of cash flow and the financial results of each period 
and programmed activity. The MAS project created the conditions for better administration of the coffee and 
bean chains, from raw material management to payroll recording, cost analysis, purchased and sold 
production, prices and the value of production as well as the financial analysis of each chain. 
During the final evaluation, producers valued the relevance of this knowledge, which has allowed them a more 
efficient and rational use of the resources they invest, the costs they incur and the profit or loss margin they 
have by the end of their activities. According to the results, 39.5% of MAS producers assisted in the coffee 
chain recorded at least one record related to farm management, while in the CG 15.5% did the same. In the 
bean chain, 30.8% of MAS producers recorded at least one record, while in the CG, 9.8% did the same. 
Chart No. 32 Percentage of producers who manage records in farm administration 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
Getting producers to implement the elemental principles of financial and accounting administration in the 
coffee and bean chains has been important for them to know the profitability of their investments. Even more 
important has been the involvement of women and youth in the administration, which has allowed them to 
know the situation of their family assets and to think about administrative strategies to consolidate it. 
9.3.1.2 Access to credit and market services 
9.3.1.2.1Expansion of Access to credit 
Credit is one of the most important needs that coffee and bean producers have, as well as producers of any 
other crop in the country. In part, the lack of farming development is related to the credit limitations for 
production. With the financial support provided by MAS, credit demand from bean and coffee producers was 
satisfied and surpassed the target. The target was facilitating 5,400 coffee loans, which in the end became 
20,319 loans facilitated. Likewise, for beans, 1,406 loans were programmed, which became 5,822 loans 
achieved by producers. Financing of coffee activities surpassed the project target by 400 percentage points, 
and in beans it was surpassed by 30 percentage points. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
88
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 47 Number of loans facilitated and MAS producers who benefited from financial services 
Sex MAS Project Target Difference
Coffee Bean Coffee Bean Coffee Bean
Total 20,319 5,822 3,994 1406 16,325 4,416
Men 16,111 4,657 2,959 1,041 13,152 3,616
Women 4,208 1,165 1,035 365 3,173 800
Source: MAS Project Monitoring Unit March 2017 
It is important to point out that 8,787 producers (25% women) received at least three cycles of loans with the 
project assistance. This fact shows the support and impact of the MAS Project in providing financial assistance 
to coffee and bean producers. 
During the field research, coffee producers were consulted if they had received loans. The FE found that 
65.7% of MAS producers received loans. On the other hand, 31.1% of control producers said they received 
credit assistance for the coffee growing activities, with a difference of 34.6 percentage points. With regard to 
bean crops, 42.8% of MAS producers affirmed that they received loans. On the other hand, 13.7% of control 
producers received financial assistance for the production of this crop. 
Chart No. 33 Percentage of producers who received loans 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation 
9.3.1.2.2Linkages with infrastructure investors 
The MAS Project included in its interventions, conducting entrepreneurial assessments on the post-harvest 
infrastructure of producer organizations. The purpose was to understand the needs of the producer 
organizations in regards to the facility of use and management of silos, warehouses, drying equipment and 
transportation. Then, the project will assist them to apply for financial resources to Government institutions and 
agencies. With this intervention, institutions participated in their condition of strategic allies to know, for 
instance, the percentage of producers who had access to solar dryers and drying services. 
 
Table No. 48 Post-harvest infrastructure assessment to organizations of producers, MAS 2017 
Assessments
MASP Target Differences
126 80 46 
Source: Final Evaluation of the MASP August 2012 to March 2017 
With this purpose, the MAS project established as a global target conducting 80 assessments. By the end of 
the project, 126 assessments were conducted, surpassing the target by 58 percentage points. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
89
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
In the four years of the project, 233 producer organizations were assisted (210 as target), which demanded 
financial resources to acquire or improve their productive infrastructure, both in the coffee and bean chains. 
Investments were addressed to the construction or improvement of warehouses, drying patios, grain dryers, 
coffee mills, water harvests and irrigation systems. Financial resources available to the PO came from a 
matching grant fund created by the project valued in US $ 381,000.00, whose contribution came from the MAS 
Project ($ 177,000), Molinos de Honduras ($ 102,000) and José María Covelo Foundation ($ 102,000). To
date, 42 infrastructure projects were funded, which included 39 static dryers and 3 coffee cupping labs. 
Table No. 49 Number of organizations of producers linked to investors in infrastructure. MAS 2017 
PO linked to 
investors
MASP Target Differences
233 210 23 
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
Regarding coffee drying, technological changes led to selling 24% of MAS farmers’ production in dry 
parchment. On the other hand, only 7% of producers in the control group sold dry parchment coffee. The 
effects were reflected in the price that MAS producers received, on average L. 2,145.57 per qq/PH against L. 
1,552.75 per qq/PH received by the control producers, opening a favorable gap among these in the total 
amount of sales. 
9.3.1.2.3Access to agriculture information 
Within the intervention strategy of the MAS Project, setting in motion an information system was considered. 
This system allowed the producer organizations to send electronic messages (via mobile phone) to producers. 
Likewise, among organizations, institutions and companies allied to the producers and head offices. The 
system was improved over the years and has remained standing. The project linked different information 
systems available in the national market with the coffee and bean chains, among these, the ones developed 
by DICTA, FUNDER, producer organizations. 
Information became an effective strategy between information-generating institutions, producer organizations 
and producers. Its effectiveness is based on being appropriate and relevant for evidence-based decision￾making. Data collected with field research show that the Project established as a target in this activity, setting 
in motion a system in 10 producer organizations. By the end of the project 14 organizations were accounted 
for, surpassing the target with 4 organizations or in 40 percentage points. 
Table No. 50 Number of producer organizations with a working messaging system 
MASP Target Differences
Organizations of producers with SMS 14 10 4
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
It is important to note the fact that organizations of producers incorporated into the system are located in rural 
areas and specifically in communities with limited access to service internet. Additionally, it is equally important 
to note the scarce budget they have to invest in equipment and electronic communication technology. In order 
to reduce the aforementioned restrictions, the project established an alliance with the Federation of Buyer 
Organizations from the private sector; input and equipment suppliers, NGOs, government and other 
stakeholders that can act as a technical and entrepreneurial information center. 
In global terms, the project proposed 15,000 people with at least one updated source of information from the 
market. By the end of the project, 16,068 people were incorporated, surpassing the target by 7.1 percentage 
points. These people receive market information by using SMS and Frontline. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
90
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 51 Number of producers that have frequent access to at least one updated source of 
market information through SMS 
Number of MAS producers with at least one updated source of 
information from the market 
MASP Target Differences
16,068 15,000 1,068 
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
According to the investigation, it was found that 86.7% of coffee producers and 80.2% of bean producers had 
a mobile phone. They confirmed that the messages they received were related to cropping practices, 
meteorological information, market prices and convening to training. According to what the producers – who 
had mobile phones – said, in the coffee chain 41.7% confirmed that they mainly received information about 
market prices, and in second place about cropping practices. In the bean chain, messages on cropping 
practices was predominant, confirmed by 33% of them, followed by 19.1% who confirmed receiving 
meteorological information, and 18% received information on market prices. It is worth noticing that community 
trainers used messages to convene producers to the trainings they held. 
 
Table No. 52 Percentage of messages received by MAS Project producers 
Topic of messages Coffee (N = 473) Bean (N= 388)
Percentage Percentage
Cropping practices 38.0 33.0
Meteorological information 17.0 19.1
Market Price information 41.7 18.0
Convene to training 26.0 18.0
Source: MAS Project Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
There were three predominant frequencies in the transmission of messages, the most frequent ones were 2 to 
3 times a month (38% and 38.3% of coffee and bean producers, respectively); seldom once in a while (36.6% 
and 42.3% for coffee and bean producers, respectively) and 2 to 3 times a week reported by 20.5% and 13.4% 
of coffee and bean producers, respectively. 
Table No. 53 Percentage of producers that received messages, per frequency. MAS 2017 
Frequency of messages Coffee (N = 205) Bean (N= 149)
Percentage Percentage
Every day 0.5 3.4
2 to 3 times a week 20.5 13.4
2 a 3 times a month 38.0 38.3
Once in a while 36.6 42.3
I just received one 3.4 0.7
I have never received one 0.0 0.0
Other 1.0 2.0
Source: MAS Project Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017.
According to consultations made to producers on the message sender institution or organization, data 
emphasizes that the information system was implemented almost exclusively by the MAS Project; in 
consequence, supporting institutions and organizations had low participation in the information system. This 
situation could limit the sustainability of the system. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
91
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 54 Institutions and organizations that send messages. MAS 2017 
Message sender Coffee (N = 205) Bean (N= 149)
Percentage Percentage
MAS Project 94.0 93.3
FUNDER 0.0 2.0
DICTA 0.0 2.0
Organizations of producers 1.5 3.4
Other 4.4 0.7
Source: MAS Final Evaluation August 2012 - March 2017
In spite of this, this communication strategy implemented by the project is very important and convenient for 
producers and the institutions that provide assistance for production – since it facilitates communication 
between institutions, organizations, and producers through mobile phones and Apps. For future interventions, 
it is important that the education gap of rural producers is taken into consideration in the meteorological 
information and market information analyses. Similarly, it is important to take into consideration the additional 
costs the system support incurs as well as establishing alliances with innovative communication methods and 
techniques through the app. 
9.3.1.2.4Direct access to competitive market 
9.3.1.2.4.1 Commercialization services through PO
In the commercialization process, the Project defined a long-term validity strategy through co-ops and 
producer organizations in order to ensure competitive advantages in the coffee and bean value chains. In 
general, most of the producers from these two chains commercialized their production through other 
individuals, intermediaries, and in local and national markets. The target of 40% of producers who sold to co￾ops and other organizations was reached and surpassed in the commercialization of coffee, by reaching 62% -
- surpassing the target by 22 percentage points. In the case of bean, the target was not achieved since only 
29.7% of producers made this transaction through co-ops or national programs, leaving 10.3 percentage 
points below what was established (Table No. 55).
Table No. 55 Percentage of producers selling to cooperatives or other organizations 
Chain MASP Target Differences
Coffee producers (%) 62.0 40.0 22.0
Bean producers (%) 29.7 40.0 - 10.3
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
Producers were asked by the agent buying their products, and their response in regards to coffee and bean 
production was the following: 
Coffee buying agents. Among the producers assisted by the Project, commercialization with intermediaries 
predominates (50.5%), in second place, followed by exporters (40.5%), while 6.2% commercialize with 
producer organizations. Control producers mostly commercialize with intermediaries (83.7%), followed in a low 
percentage by exporters (6%), and barely 3.4% with producer organizations. (Chart No. 34).
MAS producers prefer selling to exporters, since they can get better prices in the sale according to quality and 
awards, which also derive from the quality of coffee produced. 
Bean buying agents. Bean producers commercialize their production with several buying agents; however, 
the most important ones are the intermediaries, IHMA, and particular buyers. The MAS Project strategy was 
addressed to promote bean commercialization with IHMA, since this has the highest reference price 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
92
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
(US$43.02 and US$40.30 a quintal in the first and second harvests, respectively). On the other hand, control 
producers’ prices vary from US$41.40 and US$40.5 a quintal respectively. 
Chart No. 34 Percentage of producers per kind of coffee according to buyer, MAS and control. 
MASP, 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017 
The project strategy had an effect in the commercialization of beans in the year 2016, by achieving 28.8% of 
assisted producers to commercialize 55.4% of the production obtained in the first cycle. And, 22.6% of 
producers achieved 26.9% commercialization of the second cycle, respectively. On the other hand, the level of 
commercialization from the control producers with IHMA was under 3% of producers, and under 5.1% of 
production obtained in any of the production cycles. 
Table No. 56 Percentage of producers and bean production commercialized per cropping cycle, 
according to buying agents. MAS 2017
Buyer 
INTERVENTION (%) CONTROL (%)
First N= 240 Second N= 288 First N= 186 Second N= 249
Producers Production Producers Production Producers Production Producers Production
IHMA 28.8 55.4 22.6 26.9 2.7 5.0 0.4 0.5
Intermediary 42.5 31.2 49.3 54.4 54.3 59.4 56.2 61.5
Organization 4.6 3.9 4.9 3.9 2.2 2.9 1.6 2.7
Particular 14.6 5.5 9.7 3.3 9.7 6.2 10.0 6.0
Other 9.6 4.0 13.5 11.4 31.2 26.6 31.7 29.2
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
Data also evidence that participation from intermediaries in bean commercialization within the assisted group 
diminished substantially. It is reported that for both cropping cycles at least 50% of MAS producers 
commercialized at least 55% of the production. On the other hand, in the control group, over 54% of producers 
commercialized little over 59% of the production in any of the production cycles. 
Commercialization of the production with producer organizations shows certain level of importance, where it is 
marked that about 5.0% of MAS producers commercialize about 4.0% of production in both cropping cycles. 
Control producers presented a similar behavior; i.e., around 2.0% of producers commercialized with 
organizations a little less than 3.0% of the bean production. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
93
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
In spite of the commercialization data for bean, do not have a strong difference between MAS producers and 
control producers. The efforts and achievements reached by the project are acknowledged in the 
commercialization of this value chain. If IHMA achieves the improvement of the payment system to producers 
and the Early Payment mechanism is institutionalized and strengthened administrative and financially; the 
level of production commercialization for bean which be much more important. 
9.3.1.2.4.2 Business Agreements between PO’s and buyers 
Coffee commercialization for producers assisted by the MAS project was done in compliance with sales 
contracts between other organizations and exporter companies such as: Molinos de Honduras, COMSA, 
OLAM, LDC, COCAOL, Louis Dreyfus Company, Beneficio Santa Rosa, Coffee Planet Corporation y Co. 
Honducoffee. As an example, the commitments established for the 2017-2018 harvest are signaled, where 
153 coffee POs have signed at least one commercialization contract. In this case, it is estimated that the total 
signed agreements would be 227 contracts with the PO. Contracts need to be signed with Beneficio Santa 
Rosa, Coffee Planet Corporation, and Co. Honducoffee. The POs attended by MDH were assisted by the MAS 
Project. 
Table No. 57 Number of signed agreements between buyers and sellers. MAS 2017 
Signed agreements MASP Target Differences
Agreements with coffee 648 139 509 
Agreements with bean 190 41 149 
Total 838 180 658 
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
Targets established by the project were highly surpassed. In terms of coffee, the general program for the 
project established a target of 139 signed agreements. These agreements reached 648, producing a 
difference of 509 signed agreements, which are equivalent to an over execution of 366.2 percentage points. In 
terms of bean, the situation is similar, the programmed target was 41 signed agreements. And, 190 were 
conducted, exceeding the target in 149 which represents a difference of 363.4 percentage points. 
This action becomes another success achieved by the MAS Project in strengthening the coffee and bean 
chains. Formalizing agreements among buyers and sellers has a great importance by allowing buyers and 
sellers to start a negotiation process and formalizing commitments for coffee or bean sale and buying. On the 
other hand, intermediation is attack up front, and it is characterized by fostering the informal market – which 
only favors the buyer. 
9.3.1.2.4.3 Results of commercial relation between POs and coffee Exporters 
A. Increase in volume of coffee commercialized by producer organizations. 
In coffee production, specifically, we can highlight that in the past, commercialization was defined almost 
exclusively between the producer and intermediary as a buying agent. The MAS Project promoted producers 
to open commercialization relations with the organizations, companies, and exporters directly. Under this 
statement, the proposed target was taking 180 coffee producers to commercialize directly with exporters. 
When closing operations in the field, the project counted 325 producer organizations selling directly to 
exporters, which threw a difference of 145 organizations of producers exceeding the target. In terms of 
percentage this means an over execution of 80.6 percentage points. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
94
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Table No. 58 Number of PO selling directly to exporters. MAS 2017 
Indicator MASP Target Differences
Organizations of coffee producers 325 180 145
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
Project progress is very significant and opens the doors for the producer to advance in an organized fashion 
along the links of the chain, and as consequence, achieve a greater organization and management capacity to 
reach agreements with buyers. This action, will translate in the end in better levels of profitability of the 
productive activity. 
According to focus groups, support from the MAS Project has allowed the producer-buyer-exporter relationship 
to create an increase in: the volume of coffee sales, and the quality of coffee to the extent of becoming 
important suppliers. 
As shown in the data below, among the four harvests (from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017) within the validity of the 
project, approximately a total of 13,508 MT of dry parchment were commercialized. 
Chart No. 35 Coffee sales behavior of producer organizations with exporter companies per harvest 
year (MT x Harvest) 
Source: MAS Information System
B. Increase in sales of producer organizations 
Coffee producer organizations increased their sales in a significant way. As a global goal the sum of 6.0 million 
dollars were established for coffee. By the end of the project’s standing period it increased to $13.8 million, 
generating a difference of $7.8 million. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
95
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 36 Increasing value of sales from the PO’s attributed to USDA assistance
Source: MAS Information System
C. Price of coffee reached by exporters in regard to the Stock in New York. 
In regards to the price increase obtained by exporters with prices from the stock market in New York, results 
show that the highest difference, US$ 0.67/lb. of coffee was obtained in the period 2013 – 2014, which 
diminished starting from 2014-2015 until reaching US$0.38 in 2016-2017. According to this behavior, the 
proposed target by the project of US$ 0.25/lb. of coffee was surpassed in the four harvests showing a 
difference between US$ 0.13 and 0.42/lb. 
Table No. 59 Average price reached by exporters in regards to New York’s stock market. MAS 2017
Harvest Price US$ per pound
Target MASP Difference
Harvest 2013-2014 0.25 0.67 0.42
Harvest 2014-2015 0.25 0.60 0.35
Harvest 2015-2016 0.25 0.51 0.26
Harvest 2016-2017 0.25 0.38 0.13
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
D. Sustained increase in the offer of quality coffee 
Prior to the MAS Project, all the coffee harvested by producers participating in the PO reached the market as 
conventional coffee. Thanks to the technical team and cuppers of the MAS Project, who discovered cup 
profiles up to 89 cupping points in SCAA formats; the response from the Project emerges to promote the 
differentiation of coffee due to its quality. And, motivates the producer to improve and be perseverant in 
managing good practices as well as their farm, harvest, wet milling, and drying. 
The incentive system convened with exporter companies, is for them to consider adjusting the price or an 
award from 84 points and up in the cup profile – which had an impact in the volume of quality coffee by 
increasing them sustainably throughout the project. Data from Chart No. 33 show that the cup damage had a 
14.5 rating in the 2013-2014 harvest, and it was reduced to 5.8 in the 2015-2016 harvest. Increase in the 
exportable quality stands out – since it has been maintained in a rating between 85.8 and 87.0 points – as well 
as specialty coffee which from 12.0 in the 2013.2014 harvest doubled to 25.0 in the 2016-2017 harvest. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
96
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Chart No. 37 Commercialized coffee quality with exporters, per harvest 
Source: MAS Information System
Data from Chart No. 38 support the increase in quintals of specialty coffee dry parchment shown by exporters 
linked to the MAS Project in each harvest. Specialty or differentiated coffee – due to the cup quality in case of 
the project – are coffees with exceptional attributes that are achieved due to the agro-climatic conditions that 
nature provides, variety in cropping, the management that the producer gives to it, in the field, in the harvest, 
and in the wet mill. It is worth observing that in the 2013-2014 harvest, only 500 quintals of dry parchment of 
specialty coffee were commercialized. This volume increased significantly in the 2016-2017 harvest by 
counting 25,696 quintals, making a total of 35,196 quintals of specialty coffee dry parchment in all four 
harvests by exporter companies. As a result, it benefited more than 322 producers who were awarded for 
having cupping ratings of 84 points and up, with prices and awards that go from HND 200.00 or US$ 8.43 to 
HND 1,600 or US$67.50 per quintal. 
Chart No. 38 Specialty coffee commercialized with exporters, per harvest 
Source: MAS Information System
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
97
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
E. Coffee quality becomes an incentive 
In order to achieve stand out and award coffee quality – as a factor of sustainability for the smallholder coffee 
producer – the MAS Project developed along with its team of cuppers a training program on the quality of 
coffee achieving the participation of 8,286 producers during its implementation. Simultaneously, it developed 
an innovative experience, the Basic Cupping Knowledge School “ECOBCAFE”, from which 84 youth were 
graduated between the ages of 18 and 30, associated to the producer organizations. Of those, at least 5 
young women were hired by formal companies working in coffee buying. 
Table No. 60 Producers trained in coffee quality control and youth graduated in tasting 
2014 2015 2016 Total
Producers trained in quality control 1,547 1,950 4,789 8,286 
Cuppers graduated from ESCOBCAFE 26 16 42 84 
Source: MAS Information System. 
Knowledge of the coffee quality produced. 
The subjects of the study were consulted in the final evaluation on whether they had received training on 
coffee quality; 86% of MAS producers confirmed having participated, while only 15% of the control producers 
participated. 
Coffee quality measurement involves a tasting process made by staff trained by the Project. When producers 
were asked if their coffee had been cupped, 46% of MAS producers answered yes. On the other hand, from 
control producers only 4.0% of them did. 
Out of the producers who tasted their coffee, the ones that knew the quality of coffee they produced, from a 
total of 219 MAS producers, 68% said they knew, but 32% said they did not know. On the other hand, of the 
18 control producers, 56% said they knew about their coffee quality. 
Of the total of MAS producers who said they cupped their coffee (219), 3.0% of them said that their score fell 
in the category of Central Standard, 22.0% expressed their rating was High Grown. On the third level, we find 
26% of producers who knew their coffee rating. This category includes the greatest amount of producers. In 
the rating for gourmet coffee or specialty coffee, 13% of project beneficiary producers confirmed. 
In regards to control producers, from a total of 18 producers who cupped their coffee, 6.0% had a rating for 
Central Standard coffee, 17.0% said their rating was High Grown, and the same percentage for Strictly High 
Grown. The rating for gourmet or specialty coffee was only found in 6.0% (N=18) of the producers. 
Table No. 61 Percentage of producers and coffee sale price for cupping rating 
Cupping rating
P. MAS (N = 219) CONTROL (N = 18)
Percentage Price ($/Qq) Percentage Price ($/Qq)
Central Standard 3.0 55.1 6.0 49.6
High Grown (HG) 22.0 61.7 17.0 55.5
Strictly High Grown (SHG) 26.0 68.5 17.0 73.0
Gourmet / Specialty 13.0 65.6 6.0 95.9
NS/NR 37.0 73.3 56 55.7
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
98
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
There are great differences between both groups of producers who know: the quality of produced coffee, 
which coffee makes an important difference, which coffee is consequence of technical assistance that the 
project gave to the assisted population through their own cuppers as well the ones from the export companies. 
Coffee quality ratings fall within the High Grown and Strictly High Grown categories and then the Gourmet or 
specialty coffee. This behavior tells us that there is progress in terms of quality coffee production. 
9.3.2 Impact in Coffee Chain 
9.3.2.1 Market condition 
One strategy from the MAS Project was strengthening the negotiation capacity of coffee chain producers with 
the different buying agents. Usually, producers see their incomes affected depending on the agent with which 
they make their sales transactions. In global terms, producers obtained different income for their 
commercialized coffee. By linking to intermediaries they obtained less income (US$1,986.4) per sale volume 
(US$ / TM dry parchment coffee). Instead, their income was greater when the producer commercialized 
through the Exporter (US$2,702.4), and PO (US$ 2,996.0). Data suggests that 53% of MAS farmers sold to 
exporters. From these, 57% stated that they sold more coffee to exporters compared to the previous harvest. 
Table No. 62 Average sale value per buying agent 
Market Agent Average sale value in US$ / TM
Intermediary 1,986.4
Exporter 2,702.4
PO 2,996.0
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017. 
Variance Analysis shows significant differences between “Exporter vs. Intermediary” and “Organization vs. 
Intermediary”, but not significant difference between “Organization vs. Exporter”. The strategy of linking the 
coffee producer with higher links in the chain, allows having greater income than when it is done with an 
intermediary. 
Table No. 63 Significance of the value of sales according to coffee buying agents 
Market agent Significant Difference
Exporter vs. Intermediary Yes 
PO vs. Intermediary Yes 
PO vs. Exporter No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017. 
The variance analysis made between buying agents from MAS producers with buying agents from the control 
group show significant differences. The PO strengthened by the Project established significant differences with 
the “Exporter” and “Intermediary” from the control group. Likewise, the “Exporter “linked to MAS shows 
significant differences with the “Intermediary” of the control group. This result shows that as buying agents are 
strengthened in the coffee chain, the value of income improves for producers. 
Table No. 64 Significance between coffee buyers from the MAS and control groups. MAS 2017 
Market agent Control
Exporter Intermediary PO
MAS 
Producers
PO Yes Yes No
Intermediary Yes No No
Exporter No Yes No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
99
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.3.2.2 Increase in sales from MAS Producers 
MAS Producers increased their sales significantly. The global target was established at US$13.3 million for 
coffee, by the end of the period of the Project it increased to US$49.2 million, generating a difference of US$ 
35.9 million. 
Chart No. 39 Increased value of sales from producers attributed to USDA assistance 
Source: MAS Information System. 
9.3.2.3 Increase in income of MAS Producers 
9.3.2.3.1Sales income from coffee in producer families 
The MAS Project aimed for participant families to increase their average income to US$4,359.10 in coffee 
production in the 2016-2017 harvest, surpassing efforts from the control group with coffee ($2,191.1), in 
98.9%. In regards to income by gender, women expressed an important progress, even if differences persist 
(in income) between both sexes (Table No. 65). This income increase in favor of producers assisted by the 
Project is related with the yield improvement and producers’ linkage with competitive market – where 
commercial transactions are made –, whose price determinations were based on product quality. Regarding 
coffee, they even receive awards, which are real incentives for producers. All of this reached improvement is 
product of technical assistance provided by MAS, which improved production systems and developed an 
appropriate strategy for producer insertion into better markets as well as adding crop value. It is considered 
that this impact will have positive effects in time since income from the two products (coffee and bean) bear 
severe variations in price and productivity. 
Table No. 65 Average income in coffee sale (US$) 
Indicator COFFEE
P. MAS(N=470) CONTROL(N=470) Difference
Average 4,359.10 2,191.10 2,167.90
Men 4,763.00 2,421.20 2,341.90
Women 2,703.60 1,190.00 1,513.60
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
100
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.3.2.3.2Income in coffee sales from producer families according to the department 
If the MAS Project achieved important changes in average income of coffee producers in the 2016-2017 
harvest, these were more important to the producers from Olancho, Yoro, and El Paraiso. On the other hand, 
producers from Francisco Morazán (29.6%) and Comayagua (14.9%) were distanced from the control group 
(Table No. 66). This behavior was originated in the commercialization of the product with exporters, and the 
market dynamic in producing areas. In addition, those are logical changes as a consequence of the technical 
assistance introduced through new technologies provided by the Project, and adopted by producers – which 
by the end of the project, 68% of them used. Activities contributed to transform the way to process coffee for 
selling. Assisted producers in 24.4% (N=473) sell their coffee in dry parchment, in contrast to the control group 
from which only 6.5% (N=484) did. 
Table No. 66 Average income of MAS families and control families, coffee harvest sale 2016-2017
Total Average income (US $ / family) Di. (%) MAS Control
Comayagua 4,103.60 3,491.70 14.9
El Paraíso 4,174.30 2,046.70 51.0
Francisco Morazán 4,209.50 2,965.50 29.6
Olancho 4,914.20 945.8 80.8
Yoro 4,455.80 1,742.60 60.9
Total 4,359.10 2,128.30 51.2
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017
Note in the following charts, the change made by coffee producers from Francisco Morazán with support from 
the Project, where 50% sell coffee in dry parchment, while in the control group only 24% did. This change was 
also made by producers assisted by the department of El Paraiso (23%) versus the control group (3%). 
9.3.2.3.3Impact analysis in coffee sales income 
In terms of income, results from the final, mid-term, and control surveys are compared. The result from the 
Final Evaluation was an average income per producer of US$ 4,359.00, which, is 2 times greater than the 
control group income (See Table No. 68). This result is due to an increase in yield that was able to endure 
international price drops (they dropped by 70% between the period of 2013 and 2016). Additionally, it is also 
due to the quality that produced greater added value and strengthening of the PO. And, the relationship 
between these as well as producers with exporters through a greater capacity of negotiation in terms of 
commercialized volumes, and product prices. 
Table No. 67 Impact of the MAS Project in income from the coffee chain 
Indicator MTE Final Evaluation Significant differences (p<0.5)
MTE – Control MTE – MAS Control - MAS
Control MAS
Income (US$) 4,825.6 2,191.1 4,359.0 No Yes Yes
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Final Evaluation 2017. 
Note: 95% level of confidence.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
101
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
The impact of the Project was analyzed from the income during the 2016-2017 harvest; in terms of their 
response to the levels of good practices adoption which were promoted. They also received a response from 
the control group. Using a variance analysis (two-way ANOVA), significant levels were shown between MAS 
producers and control producers. 
Under mean separation, we can conclude that there is significance between assisted and control producers 
with a “Very High Adoption” (5) of practices in regards to the producers from the control group with an adoption 
between ‘High’ (4), ‘Medium’ (3), ‘Low’ (2) and ‘Very Low’ (1) adoption. On the other hand, those assisted 
producers that had a ‘Medium’ (3) and ‘Low’ (2) adoption showed significant differences only with the control 
producers that had a ‘Very Low’ (1) level of adoption. (See Table No. 68) 
Table No. 68 Significant difference in income in terms of good practices between MAS and control 
Level of adoption Adoption of practices in control producers
5 Very High 4 High 3 Medium 2 Low 1 Very Low
Adoption of 
practice in MAS 
Producers
5 Very High No Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 High No No No No Yes
3 Medium No No No No Yes
2 Low No No No No No
1 Very Low No No No No No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017. Note: 95% level of 
confidence.
9.3.3 Impact in the Bean Chain 
9.3.3.1 Income in terms of practice adoption scale 
Likewise, the income response was analyzed in terms of the study group and the Level of Practice Adoption,
finding that the practice adoption between the different groups did not result in a significant differences
between the mean of income per sale.
9.3.3.2 Yield in the first cycle in terms to access to credit 
Financing is an element that promotes production through resource availability to acquire input, equipment, 
labor, and any other requirement from crops or the production. When requirements from the crop are supplied, 
results translate in a greater yield. However, this behavior was not that clear for the coffee crop in the first
cycle – since there was only a significant difference between the producers assisted by the Project and the 
producers from the control group who did not receive credit assistance. 
Table No. 69 Yield in bean for the first cycle and its relation with access to credit. MAS 2017 
Significant difference in first yield
MAS Control
Received Did not receive Received Did not 
receive
MAS Yes No No No Yes
No No No No No
Control Yes No No No No
Yes No No No No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
102
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.3.3.3 Yield in bean crops in the first cycle in terms of access to credit 
For the second cycle, results of the final evaluation show a similar behavior, i.e., when producers from the 
control group receive financial assistance they establish a significant difference with the producers from the 
intervention group that did not receive it. The same happened between the producers form the control group 
who were assisted with loans and those who did not receive it within the intervention group of beneficiaries.
Table No. 70 Yield in bean crops for the second cycle and its relation with access to credit. MAS 
2017
Significant difference in second
yield
Intervention Control
Received Did not receive Received Did not receive
Intervention Yes, received No No No No
Not received No No No No
Control Yes, received No Yes No Yes
Not received No No No No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017.
9.3.3.4 Income per sale according to access to credit 
As expected, income is directly related with financing of crop activities. Data from the final investigation show 
that there is a significant difference between producers from the intervention group who received financial 
assistance and those who did not. There is also significance between producers from the intervention group 
who received assistance, and the ones who did not within the control group.
Table No. 71 Income in beans, and its relation with access to credit. MAS 2017 
Significant difference in income for 
sale
Intervention Control
Yes, received No, did not 
receive Yes, received No, did not 
receive
Intervention Yes No Yes No Yes
No No No No No
Control Yes No No No No
No No No No No
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017.
Conclusion on the impact in the bean chain 
In regards to bean crops, results from the final evaluation of the project provide clear evidence that the MAS 
Project achieved a significant impact in yield, income, and adoption of good practices for the bean chain. This 
conclusion provides enough evidence of a successful project implementation. 
Project impact in terms of crop yield is measured by achieving an average yield of 20.4 quintals per hectare, 
surpassing in 9.0 quintals for the ones obtained in the mid-term evaluation (11.4 qq/Ha). This difference is 
statistically significant at a level of confidence of 95%. 
In terms of income, the final evaluation expressed an average income per producer of US$1,365.9 making a 
difference of US$472.8 in regards to what is generated by the control group, US$893.1, which were different 
statistically. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
103
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
Likewise, in the adoption of techniques and technologies, the final evaluation shows significant evidence 
between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; achieving an average level of adoption in techniques and 
technologies of 0.82 for project producers, and 0.78 in producers from the control group. 
9.4 Impact on Jobs 
9.4.1 Jobs strengthened by the Project 
One of the main strategies in income generation for families from the poorest territories of the country is the 
migration to coffee growing areas. These people get jobs in these places and obtain income that guarantees 
food security and strengthens their livelihoods. That is the extent of how strategic coffee growing is for the 
country. More than “120,000 families grow coffee and generate around one million jobs” (MTE 66: 2014). By 
the end of the Project, it strengthened 25,613 jobs, which surpassed what was recorded in the MTE in 2,404 
jobs. With these employments, coffee producers generated US$ 28.9 million, based on 260 days a year and 
US$8 per labor day. 
Bean producers improved their production system with the introduction of new technologies; they also 
improved job opportunities for rural families. Out of 1,305 strengthened jobs identified in the MTE, the project 
created conditions to strengthen 2,367 jobs – having innovated with seed inoculation, cultural activities, crop 
fertilization, and production increase which demanded more labor. 
 
Table No. 72 Number of jobs strengthened with the assistance of MAS in 2016-2017. MAS 2017 
Demand for labor translated into 27.5 million of labor in coffee crops, and 1.4 million in bean crops, which 
translates into 220 million dollars and 110 million dollars, respectively (Table No. 73). In total, both chains were 
strengthened with 111,213 jobs which total value is of 231 million dollars. 
Table No. 73 Impact of the MAS Project in strengthening jobs in the coffee and bean chains 2012-
2017
Years
Coffee Bean US$ Coffee 
+ Bean Worked 
Days
Total 
Jobs US$ Total Worked 
Days
Total Jobs US $ Total
2012/2013 5,498,480 21,148 43,987,840
|
 43,987,840 
2013/2014 3,655,080 14,058 29,240,640 29,240,640 
2014/2015 4,658,680 17,918 37,269,440 349,440 29,240,640 2,795,520 40,064,960 
2015/2016 6,442,540 24,779 51,540,320 272,480 40,064,960 2,179,840 53,720,160 
2016/2017 7,284,420 28,017 58,275,360 754,260 53,720,160 6,034,080 64,309,440
Total 27,539,200 105,920 220,313,600 1,376,180 64,309,440 11,009,440 231,323,040
Source: MASP Final Evaluation August 2012 to March 2017. 
The result of the MAS Project in strengthening employment shows the benefits of technological innovation in 
the transformation of coffee and bean chains, and highlights its strategic contribution to income generation of 
rural families. It is a result that offers a view of the valuable contributions that an appropriate intervention has, 
in looking for responses to the economic and productive needs of the strategic cropping systems of producer 
families. 
Sex COFFEE BEAN
MTE P.MAS Difference MTE P.MAS Difference
Strengthened 23,209 25,613 2, 404 1,305 2,367 1,062
Source: MASP final evaluation August 2012 to March 2017 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
104
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
9.4.2 Job generation attributed to the Project 
The MAS Project proposed having an impact in employment, in order to contribute to the improvement of the 
rural area population occupations. Based on the target established, coffee crops generated at least 2,404 jobs, 
with a difference of 1,104 jobs, which surpass the target in 84.9 percentage points. 
Table No. 74 Number of jobs attributed by the MAS Project, 2017 
Crop MTE E. FINAL
2013 – 2014 2016 - 2017
Coffee 1,300 2,404
Bean 313 1062
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, MAS Project Final Evaluation, 2017
In regards to coffee crops, its characteristic is that it creates jobs in a limited way; however, due to the job 
situation in rural areas, it is always an important activity from an occupational point of view. According to the 
results, 1062 jobs are attributed to the Project. At the end of the period, the project managed to generate 3,466 
(2404 + 1062} attributions, derived from coffee and beans.
Chart No. 40 Jobs created by the MAS Project in the coffee and bean chain 
Source: Prepared by ANED Consultores – Sigil Consulting Consortium, 2017 – MAS Project Final Evaluation
Results obtained by the Project in terms of jobs created and strengthened justify the investment made to 
transform the capacities of producers, and productivity of their cropping system. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
105
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
10.1. CONCLUSIONS 
10.1.1. Generals 
 Project implementation was strongly affected by external factors: i) the coffee leaf rust attack between 
2012 and 2013, which reduced the exportable production in 24% (HCB: 2016) and ii) drought from 
2012 to 2015. These external factors were not considered in the project design. 
 Likewise, MAS Project implementation was affected by security issues, which caused the 
implementation team to change or abandon communities initially considered as part of the project 
(MAS Project Director). This factor put technical assistance and results at risk, and created gaps due 
to adjustments of territories and beneficiaries. 
 The project faced a great challenge from the point of view of impact measurement of its intervention 
since the baseline results were nor consistent with reality. This gap had to be bridged by using data 
available in the Mid-term Evaluation (MTE). 
 
 Entrepreneurship development of rural youth and women is still at an early stage. 
10.1.2. Coverage
 The program covered 31% of the municipalities nationwide and assisted 15.7% of producers. In the 
department of Comayagua, coverage reached 38% of municipalities. In Francisco Morazán coverage 
reached only 12% of producers. This means that the project should have made an adjustment in its 
coverage to assist a greater percentage of producers per department and thus diminish technical 
assistance dispersion. Each community trainer assisted over 130 producers. In this regard, two 
strategies could be implemented: 1) increase the number of community trainers to decrease the 
workload or 2) organize producers in such a way that the population is concentrated in fewer 
municipalities. 
10.1.3. Monitoring and Evaluation 
 The selection of bean beneficiaries met 97% of the criteria defined by the donor (USDA) and 76% for 
coffee producers. 
 
 The Project has a strong monitoring system, which tracked the progress of the interventions. 
However, during the project planning stage a more in-depth analysis is needed to define the project 
targets. In the case of MAS, it was observed that the targets were possibly underestimated since they 
were easily surpassed by the implementation. 
 The project conducted a baseline, however, the MAS project staff concluded that the baseline was 
not as reliable as the data collected during the mid-term evaluation. In collaboration with the 
Evaluation team, it was decided to use the mid-term data sets in substitution for the baseline. 
10.1.4. Project design and strategies
 The Project results in coffee showed that the crop was tended to by 30% of household members 
while the bean value chain was tended to by 23% of household members. This was consistent with 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
106
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
the low percentages of migration, 15% in coffee and 16% in beans. Data from the final evaluation 
suggested that 49% of family members of the MAS producers emigrated abroad, while in the CG, it 
was observed that 63% of household members emigrated. 
 The Project developed activities aimed towards the sustainability of interventions. In coffee, MAS 
organized and strengthened the producer organizations (PO), trained local talent to deliver technical 
assistance, strengthened POs for commercialization and built partnerships for commercialization and 
facilitation of credit. In the bean chain, alliances with IHMA and FUNDER in the commercialization of 
grains promoted processes for sustainability. Local economic capital was strengthened in a cross￾cutting way with the formation and strengthening of savings groups and trust funds within credit 
institutions, like the José Maria Covelo Foundation and FUNDER. 
 In response to climate change, 64% of project beneficiaries implement good practices on soil and 
water management, use of organic fertilizer, shade management, disease and pest control, and 
tissue management, which contributed to decreasing greenhouse gas effects. In comparison, only 
47% of the CG producers contributed to decreasing these effects on the environment. 
10.1.5. Commercialization
 The commercialization strategy of early payments for bean producers, through the partnership with 
FUNDER and IHMA, is an excellent mechanism to encourage production.
 IHMA has low capacity to absorb volumes of over 30,000 quintals of bean. In addition, it operates 
under a price control system.
 Quality improvement for the production of bean and coffee was achieved through the organization 
and strengthening of 233 producer organizations that obtained US$ 381,000 from strategic partners 
like TechnoServe, Covelo Foundation and Molinos de Honduras, for investments in infrastructure. In 
addition, quality improvement strengthened commercial transactions through agreements, facilitated 
the creation of sixteen (16) public private alliances, which mobilized US$ 8.6 million for technical 
assistance, community banks and seed production, training in good agriculture practices, access to 
credit, commercialization and local financial capital. These achievements allowed access to markets, 
better prices and commercial agreements for trustworthy relationships in the future that would allow 
planning production and granting guarantees for loan management. 
10.1.6. Techniques and technologies
 In the coffee chain, an average of 65% of MAS producers adopted techniques and technologies, in 
comparison with 52% of the CG producers. In the bean chain, the adoption was 64% of the 
beneficiaries against 50% of the CG. This result reflects a transformation in the production systems 
and management of the chains in a more aware and sustainable way. 
 The Final Evaluation found that 63% of MAS producers adopted 6 or more good agricultural 
practices, in comparison with 32% of the CG. Even though it is common for coffee producers to 
implement come practices, we can conclude that MAS has achieved transforming the traditional 
coffee farm to a more modern one, though tissue, soil and water management, the use of organic 
fertilizer and improved administrative and accounting record-keeping. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
107
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
 The fact that 56% of MAS producers in bean adopted 6 or more techniques and technologies in 
contrast with 10% of the CG explains the improvement in producers’ profitability arising from the 
innovation and use of new technologies associated with fertilization, the use of inoculants and 
improved and certified seed. 
 For future interventions, it is recommended that projects continue with innovations and new 
technologies that may cause important changes in the production systems, the environment and the 
livelihoods of producers and their families. Transforming a traditional farm into a modern one must 
include the introduction of three technologies: tissue management, soil and water management and 
the use of organic fertilizer, which create resilience in response to climate change. In the bean chain, 
efficiency and profitability depend on the use of three technologies: fertilizers, inoculants and certified 
or improved seed. 
10.1.7. Natural Resource Management 
 It was observed that both coffee and bean producers conducted practices for the conservation of flora 
and fauna (93% of coffee producers conducted shade management, 48% of coffee and 79% of bean 
implemented soil and water management). Managing natural resources contributes to production 
quality and climate change adaptation. In the case of production, the natural resource management 
practices established differences between the people who adopt them and those who do not. In 
coffee, the average yield was 46.6 Qq/Ha PH for those who adopted, in comparison to the 30.6 
Qq/Ha PH for the CG producers that did not adopt any good practices. 
 Implementing good practices in management disease (70% coffee and 73% bean) and pests (76% 
coffee and 82% bean) with organic input and cultural practices contributes to decreasing pollution 
from water sources and improving coffee and bean quality. 
10.1.8. Productivity and profitability 
10.1.8.1.Yield 
 FE data shows that the MAS Project helped coffee and bean producers to improve their yields. In 
coffee, assisted producers obtained an average of 47 Qq/Ha PH, in comparison to the 32 Qq/Ha PH 
from the CG. Productive yields increased by 55% in regards to the baseline ( 30.4 Qq PH/ha). In 
beans, in the first harvest cycle, MAS beneficiaries achieved yields of 20.7 Qq/Ha in comparison to 
the 17.9 Qq/Ha by the CG. This reflects that producers in MAS showed an 80% increase in their yield 
in regards to the midterm evaluation. In the second harvest cycle, MAS producers increased their 
yields by 41.5% relative to the baseline. However, yields from the MAS producers obtained in the 
second harvest cycle (17.4 Qq/Ha) were similar those achieved by the control group (16.9 Qq/Ha). 
 The project’s impact on yields was analyzed based on the level of adoption of good practices that 
were promoted by MAS. Producers who adopted 6 GP or more practices in coffee obtained yields 
between 46 and 55 Qq/Ha per hectare; in the case of bean, yields surpassed 21 Qq/Ha. 
 The difference in yields between MAS producers and the control group was significant in statistical 
terms. This means that changes in yields for MAS beneficiaries both in coffee and beans can be 
attributed to the MAS Project 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
108
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
10.1.8.2.Income 
 Coffee producing families benefited by MAS had an average income of US$ 4,359, which was twice 
as much as the family income in the CG. In the bean chain, average income of beneficiaries was US$ 
1,366 in comparison to US$ 893 for the CG. These differences were significant in the statistical 
significance tests. This means that the difference in income among beneficiaries and the control 
group could be attributed to the MAS intervention. 
 When desegregating data by sex, it was observed that in the coffee chain, men obtained 1.8 times 
more income than women. In the bean chain, men had 1.2 more income than women. A similar 
situation was observed in the income of producers from the control group. Due to these results, it is 
recommended that new interventions define or revise a gender policy in terms of the investments and 
technical assistance that could contribute to decreasing income gaps among sexes. 
10.1.8.3.Employment 
 In the 2016-2017 harvest, the project strengthened 25,613 jobs and created 2,404 new jobs in the 
coffee value chain. In the bean chain 2,367 jobs were strengthened. On the other hand, the creation 
of 1,062 jobs in the bean chain was attributed to the project. 
 The result of the MAS project in the strengthening and generation of employment exposes the 
benefits of technological innovation in the transformation of the coffee and bean chains. It also 
highlights its strategic contribution to the income opportunities of rural families. It is a result that offers 
a look at the valuable contributions that a timely intervention has in the search for answers to the 
economic and productive needs of the strategic farming systems of rural families. 
10.1.9. Financial systems
 The organization and strengthening of local financial systems represent an option for access to credit 
where the formal financial system is not present. At the same time, the local economy becomes more 
dynamic and creates opportunities to diversify economic activities. The Project transferred over 
US$380,000 to more than 100 first level agencies (savings groups). Likewise, two second-floor 
instances (Covelo Foundation and FUNDER) facilitated credit to fund productive activities in the 
coffee and bean chains, in addition to non-agriculture activities. 
 By the end of the project, 25,960 loans (20% delivered to women) were accounted for, surpassing a 
target of 5, 400 granted loans. The loans were valued at more than US$ 15.5 million, which exceeded 
the programmed target of US$ 5 million. 
 With the 16 established alliances, opportunities were generated for investment in the improvement of 
the coffee and bean chains. These alliances mobilized US$ 8.6 million (target was $5 million), to 
capitalize family assets with productive infrastructure and capacities to improve competitiveness. 
10.1.10. Human Talent Formation 
 Intervention from MAS through a transfer of knowledge from producer to producer was materialized 
by training 100 community trainers (local leaders) with relationships of trust with the target 
communities. This strategy contributed to strengthening the capacities of producers in the coffee and 
bean chains. This human talent formation contributes to the continuity of extension within the assisted 
communities. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
109
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
 The acquisition of new knowledge and changes in attitude to adopt new transforming technologies 
was achieved by strengthening the capacities of more than 9,000 coffee producers (19% women) and 
over 5,000 bean producers ( 20% women). Mainly, capacities were strengthened in natural resource 
management, production systems, adoption of technologies for production infrastructure and post￾harvest, and administrative and accounting controls. 
10.1.11. Strengthening Producer Organizations 
 The creation and strengthening of 233 POs (200 target) facilitates access to markets for the 
producers through economies of scale and by increasing their negotiation capacity. 
 Strengthening the capacities of 135 POs allowed coffee producers to obtain more than 47% of their 
income through sales to exporters, in comparison with 7% of the CG that sold to exporters. 
Strengthened capacities of the POs included administrative and entrepreneurial management aspects 
which enabled the signing of 884 agreements (target 180) between buyers and sellers (694 for coffee 
and 190 for bean) and direct negotiations between 325 producers and 9 exporter companies. 
10.1.12. Gender 
 The Project made significant efforts to foster the involvement of women in the different activities, thus 
promoting the acknowledgment of women’s work in the rural area through access to knowledge, 
technical assistance and linkages to market opportunities. 
 The gaps between men and women did not show changes in regards to land ownership, income or 
investment. An example was the income disaggregated by sex in the coffee chain: men earned 1.8 
times more income than women. In the bean chain, men registered 1.2 times more income than 
women. For future interventions, it is suggested to reorient investment and training in order to 
achieve: a) more participation from women in investments in productive assets and production and b) 
a greater supervision and monitoring in resource allocation, by diversifying financial support sources 
for women (savings groups, micro entrepreneurship opportunities, etc.). 
10.1.13. Communication 
 Leveraging the means of communication (radio, television, others) facilitated the dissemination of 
actions promoted by the Project throughout the territory. However, it is necessary to have a 
communication strategy that will give continuity to information exchange of learning and good 
practices to guarantee sustainable processes. 
10.1.14. Information systems
 Establishing an information system with messages related to crop management, climate and prices 
had a high acceptance, but companies and institutions that transfer those messages do not have the 
experience yet to prepare content that can be better leveraged by populations with low levels of 
education and technological gaps. 
 The implementation of the SMS messages was an activity that generated interest among the 
participants due to how useful they were. However, since this activity was managed by the Project, 
there is uncertainty in terms of its sustainability after project completion. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
110
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
10.1.15. Budgetary execution 
 Fund leveraged through Trust Fund (TF) to strengthen the coffee chain contributed to the 
sustainability of the Project.
10.2. RECOMENDATIONS 
10.2.1. Generals 
 In the future, more rigorous quality controls in the baseline collection processes are recommended, in 
order to have quality data that could be used in project evaluations. 
 For future interventions, it is recommended that TechnoServe keep working with women and youth to 
promote income generation opportunities. This may contribute to decreasing migration flows.
10.2.2. Monitoring and Evaluation 
 A recommendation for future interventions is to conduct adjustments to comply with the selection 
criteria for the beneficiaries, particularly with respect to the coffee value chain. 
 For future interventions, faster decision-making is recommended to establish appropriate lines of 
comparison in the implementation. It is also recommended to strengthen the process of selecting 
consultants for the baseline survey, in order to have rigorous databases that can be used in 
subsequent evaluations. 
10.2.3. Project design and strategies 
 This data suggest that by strengthening the production systems and increasing productivity and 
income, incentives could be generated to maintain or grow agricultural crops and therefore, family 
assets. 
 However, once the project is completed, all this human, social and economic capital require 
integration and institutionalization processes, so that mechanisms are established since the 
beginning to secure changes or impacts in the producers’ living conditions.
 In terms of mitigation, institutionalization with municipal governments and national institutions is 
recommended in order to promote policies and regulations to apply good practices, for instance: no 
burning, the use of organic fertilizer, among others. 
 For future actions, it is recommended that TechnoServe define an incentive policy and conditions for 
broad compliance in aspects of women and youth participation and the environment. These 
interventions must be reflected in annual budgets and operational plans. 
10.2.4. Commercialization 
 It is recommended to look for strategies to expand coverage in terms of purchase volumes and 
territories, as well as to increase financial capacity to facilitate resources under this mechanism. It is 
also suggested to explore the possibility of linking this mechanism to the creation of strategic 
reserves with communal, municipal, and commonwealth grain banks and to develop business/ 
entrepreneurial opportunities for women. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
111
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
10.2.5. Human Talent Formation 
 To continue with this training system with community trainers, it is recommended to promote 
agreements with cooperating agencies that support farmers, such as the National Agricultural 
University, National Autonomous University of Honduras, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, 
the University of Zamorano, FHIA, IHCAFE and others. 
10.2.6. Gender 
 For future interventions, it is recommended to define strategies that would integrate a generational 
replacement incorporating young men and women into technical and financial education linked with 
their family assets and livelihoods. 
10.2.7. Information systems 
 The SMS model is still be considered to be in its initial phase. The number and frequency of 
messages must be reinforced, motivating the participation of farmers and emphasizing greater 
participation by youth, women and seniors. 
10.2.8. Budgetary execution 
 Regulations are required for the administration of trust funds to guarantee sustainability over time in 
the benefit of the producers. 
 Committees established by TechnoServe to continue improving the bean and coffee chains could be 
strengthened with the identification of institutions that will assume the coordination, leadership and 
monitoring mechanism after the project ends, to achieve sustainability of the chains.
 In order to guarantee the project’s economic and technical sustainability, it is recommended to make 
an additional effort in a second phase of the project in regard to the following: 
o Consolidate the fund leveraging model with the implementation of a permanent mechanism 
for its regulation. The creation of a trust fund with a financial institution as the trustee of the 
revolving fund is recommended to develop a control and transparency mechanism in the use 
and management of funds contributed by the MAS Project, in line with the MGF agreements. 
This will guarantee for resources to continue growing and reaching producers through time. 
o Another recommendation is to identify and strengthen institutions to coordinate the 
committees to assume leadership and maintain the funds available for the bean and coffee 
value chains after TechnoServe closes the project. In addition, such committees must 
establish a post-project monitoring mechanism for the preparation of follow-up reports. 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
Sustainable Agriculture Improvement (MAS) Project 
112
Prepared by: SIGIL - ANED Consultores 
XI. ANNEXES 
11.1. Annex 1: Sample Calculation 
11.2. Annex 2: Indicator Calculation Building 
11.3. Annex 3: Quantitative Instruments 
11.4. Annex 4: Calculation for Impact Analysis 
11.5. Annex 5: Qualitative Tools for information recording 
11.6. Annex 6: Interview Lists 
11.7. Annex 7: Qualitative Collection Report 
11.8. Annex 8: Qualitative Relevance Synthesis 
11.9. Annex 9: Data Base (Digital) 
11.10. Annex 10: Analysis Matrix consolidated by stakeholders (Digital) 
11.11. Annex 11: Photographic evidence (Digital)