EVALUATION END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EGYPT FOOD SECURITY AND AGRIBUSINESS SIMPLE FOR USAID February 22, 2021 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Nils Junge, Gebril Mahgoub, Nivine Ramsis, Bassem Adli, Youmna Khalil, Noha Hassan, Ehab Sakr, Amal Refaat, Wael Abdel Karim Sawsan Refaat, Hany Hussein and Um Hashem Refaat with support from Ahmed Gabr, Avinesh De Silva, Adriana Abreu and Eric Benschoter of The QED Group. EVALUATION END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EGYPT FOOD SECURITY AND AGRIBUSINESS SUPPORT (FAS) January 26, 2021 Submitted by: The QED Group, LLC 1820 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209, USA Tel.: +1. 703.678.4700 www.qedgroupllc.com Egypt Office: The QED Group, LLC 1A Nadi El Etisalat off Ellaselky Street, New Maadi, 11435, Cairo, Egypt Office: +20 (0) 2 25226697 PHOTO CAPTION: Farmer Using Floppy Irrigation System (Credit FAS Evaluation Team – FSC In Assiut) DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. i | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) Project fielded an evaluation team tasked with conducting the end-of-program performance evaluation for USAID/Egypt’s Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) Project. The evaluation team thanks the organizations and individuals who contributed to our understanding of this project. In particular, we wish to express our appreciation to the following institutions and people for giving their cooperation and time to the data collection team: Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA); World Food Logistics Organization (WFLO); the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA); government officials based in the governorates; all grantees; the 59 associations; more than 600 smallholder farmers who responded to requests either to speak with the data collection team or to fill out questionnaires; and the USAID/Egypt contracting officer’s representative (COR) for FAS and the USAID/Egypt Program Office. The report is based on each of these organizations and individuals sharing information and insights with the team, on which the analysis and the report are based. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................I ACRONYMS............................................................................................................. III PREFACE................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................ VI INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS..........................1 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................2 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................8 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................36 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK........................................37 ANNEX 2: LIST OF CONSULTED STAKEHOLDERS ......................................51 ANNEX 3: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ...........................56 ANNEX 4A: FAS SET OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR) ..............................................................................62 ANNEX 4B: RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE......................................................98 ANNEX 5: DATA ANALYSIS CHARTS AND TABLES ..................................102 ANNEX 6: LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS ..............................................165 ANNEX 7: FAS DATA COLLECTION TOOLS (ARABIC AND ENGLISH) 167 ANNEX 8: BIOGRAPHIES...................................................................................266 iii | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACRONYMS ARDII Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes ADS Automated Directives System CB Capacity Building CDA Community Development Association CEOSS Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease of 2019 DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DTL Deputy Team Lead EGP Egyptian Pound (currency) EQ Evaluation Question EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAS Food Security and Agribusiness Support FSC Farmer Service Center FY Fiscal Year GD Group Discussion ICT Information and Communications Technology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development ILO International Labour Organization IOM International Organization for Migration IP Implementing Partner J2SR Journey to Self-Reliance KII Key Informant Interview LOP Life of Project M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MENA Middle East and North Africa NFSA National Food Safety Authority USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | iv OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development SAIS School of Advanced International Studies SFD Saudi Fund for Development SIMPLE Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation Project SMS Short Messaging Service SOW Scope of Work TL Team Lead TPW Team Planning Workshop UNDP U.N. Development Programme UNHCR U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees UNIDO U.N. Industrial Development Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollars USG United States Government VC Value Chain WFLO World Food Logistics Organization WFP World Food Programme v | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV PREFACE This report summarizes the evaluation of the Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) Project, focusing on its last three years of implementation. USAID/Egypt emphasized that the evaluation’s purpose was to learn about specific activities where the Agency lacked information and data, and to capture lessons learned for the future; hence, the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations do not cover the project in its entirety. They are linked to, but should not be construed as a reflection of, the FAS Project’s performance as a whole. As this report shows, the project met and exceeded many of its indicator targets. The evaluation team notes the effect that COVID-19 had on the pace and performance of the project implementation, and the project’s efforts to promote safety practices among beneficiaries.1 Data collection for the evaluation likewise faced challenges, while observing strict COVID-19 precautions. (The FAS evaluation was also the first evaluation SIMPLE conducted for USAID/Egypt after the COVID-19 pandemic began). While implementation was successful, safety measures to ensure the safety of the evaluation team and all participants were required, especially amid concerns about a second wave of the epidemic. The evaluation team hopes this report and its recommendations will contribute to ensuring better service delivery and improvement in the execution and performance of similar projects in the future. 1 As reported by the FAS IP key informants. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS This final evaluation of the FAS Project commissioned by USAID/Egypt is intended to inform the design and management of future programming in support of the Mission’s development objectives. The evaluation team examined the effectiveness of key interventions related to FAS’s grants component, capacity building of 77 associations and promotion of innovative tools and technology among 17,078 smallholder farmers. PROJECT BACKGROUND The FAS Project (July 2015 – November 2020) was funded through the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) bilateral agreement to bring targeted beneficiaries into environmentally appropriate high-value commercial horticulture value chains. The project covered seven governorates in Upper Egypt and worked on several value chains. 2 It sought to increase incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through four components: 1) Improved on-farm production; 2) More efficient post-harvest processes; 3) Improved marketing of agriculture crops and products; and 4) Improved nutritional status, especially for women and children. The evaluation findings relating to selected activity interventions should be considered within the context of FAS’s overall outcomes. According to the final FAS quarterly report (Q4 2020), the activity met or exceeded several of its core indicators, including an increase in annual sales of farms and firms receiving U.S. Government (USG) assistance vastly exceeding the target (12 times higher), and 70 percent more farmers having received short-term agricultural sector productivity training. The project activities which this evaluation focused on were implemented during the last three years of the project, from 2018 – 2020. EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation was tasked with answering the following evaluation questions, which addressed activities under the first three of the four components: • EQ1a. To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors / segments / input suppliers / pack houses / private sector processors / associations) • EQ1b. How successful have the grantees been in instituting sustainable business models and contributing to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post￾harvest and marketing? 2 Tomatoes, onions, sweet potatoes, peppers, green beans, table grapes, mangoes, coriander, cumin, pomegranates, garlic and anise. vii | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • EQ2. In what ways did the FAS approach to building the capacities of the partner associations and to adopting successful sustainable business models result in improved business performance, as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (smallholder farmers), value and volume of traded crops, including repeated sales (thus affecting farmers’ incomes)? • EQ3. Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES Data collection consisted of five methods from eight types of stakeholders, enabling the evaluation to triangulate results and validate data. The evaluation team developed 10 data collection tools, one per stakeholder type and two each for farmers and associations (qualitative and quantitative). The evaluation was conducted between September 2020 and January 2021, with fieldwork data collection taking place between October 14 and November 10, 2020. DESK REVIEW: The team reviewed FAS reports and other relevant documents to aid understanding of the project, and ensured that robust secondary research augmented and informed primary data collection. (See Annex 6 for a complete list of documents reviewed.) QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: Quantitative primary data came from two types of core beneficiaries—farmers and associations—using: • Face-to-face questionnaire administration. Farmers were invited to fill out pencil-and￾paper questionnaires with closed-ended questions. • Telephone questionnaire. A telephone questionnaire was administered to the 59 associations who received capacity building activities from FAS (survey approach). QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: Qualitative data came from farmers through group discussions (GDs) and from associations and project stakeholders via key informant interviews (KIIs): • Group discussions. On average, each group included just over five farmers, with 118 farmers participating in 22 GDs held at the associations in the seven targeted governorates. • Key informant interviews. Face-to-face KIIs took place with government representatives, private sector representatives, grantees, FAS partners, FAS staff and the USAID FAS contracting officer’s representative (COR). LIMITATIONS SAMPLING LIMITATIONS. Due to time constraints, the evaluation team could not cover the whole region using a random sampling approach. Instead, at the governorate level, purposive sampling was used to select one or two nearby districts per governorate. Given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, results can only be generalized at the project level and some, but not all, governorates. DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS. Some associations and farmers were unwilling or uninterested in participating in the evaluation. As a result, only slightly more than half of the target of 1,004 farmers were interviewed. This increased the margin of error from 3 percent to 4.2 percent. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | viii This meant that analysis could not be conducted at the governorate or the crop level, only at the aggregate level. ANALYSIS LIMITATIONS. FAS has only recently completed implementation of the grants component under evaluation (last two quarters of 2020). It was therefore too early to assess the benefits they may deliver to smallholder farmers, given that the machinery and other equipment financed through these grants was not yet in use. Our conclusions are limited by these circumstances, so that impacts of certain activities (in-kind grants) could not be evaluated. IMPLEMENTATION LIMITATIONS. Due to COVID-19, data collection required use of safety precautions (e.g., personal protective equipment and social distancing), which increased preparation time and created additional challenges to field work dynamics. Furthermore, the team leader (based in Washington, D.C.) was not able to travel to Egypt and participated remotely in coordination with an in-country deputy team lead. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors / segments / input suppliers / pack houses / private sector processors / associations) Findings Eleven grants were distributed to private operators to address value chain gaps by creating privately run farmer service centers (FSCs), one-stop shops designed to meet farmers’ comprehensive needs, and by investing in post-harvest services (for seeds and herbs). Preparation of the grants component began in 2017, two years into the life of the project, with delivery of in-kind grants three years later. The slow process was compounded by a long application period. Delays stemmed from USAID rules and regulations on procurement, insufficient technical expertise at the implementing partner (IP) and the COVID-19 pandemic. Another issue concerned changes to equipment specifications, which led to grantees receiving equipment that differed from what they had agreed to (for example, a grant agreement indicated a production line and equipment valued at $300,025 but the grantee received machinery valued at $195,000). The grantees were not told about the changes, but in every case the changes to specifications resulted in grantees receiving lower-value and lower-quality equipment. The grants were largely concentrated on one end of the value chain and didn’t cover the specific link that the famers needed: grants focused on production, while farmers’ priorities focused on input quality and affordability and post-harvest marketing. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] With respect to geographical coverage, the distribution of grantees was uneven. Eight grantees were clustered in the three northern governorates, but the four middle and southern governorates were home to only three grantees. ix | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusions Based on implementation issues and the fact that most in-kind grants were delivered in the final two quarters of the project life, and in most cases had not been put to use yet, it is unclear if the grants would have successfully filled the value chain gaps based on the following: 1. The machinery procured to address value chain gaps (grantees had to justify their applications on this basis) was limited to certain segments of the value chain (production, in eight of 11 cases), which were not what the farmers emphasized as important to them, such as post￾harvest and marketing. 2. The combination of weak planning, weak implementation and limited, if any, follow-up (given that the project closed shortly after delivery of in-kind grants) raises concerns about whether the benefits of the grants program will reach smallholder farmers. 3. The grant component was not strongly integrated with other activities focused on production, post-harvest and marketing. It was implemented in a silo, which is likely to impede its ability to contribute to project results. Recommendations • Continue engaging with the private sector to improve existing production and marketing solutions that can fill value chain gaps most relevant to the local area and geared toward smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] • Expand private sector involvement to include newly established and promising agribusiness initiatives and social enterprises to diversify the type and scale of services provided to smallholder farmers and geographical coverage of these services. [USAID, IP] • Focus on building linkages between agribusinesses, farmers associations, financial institutions and the private sector from the start of the project. [USAID, IP] EVALUATION QUESTION 1B How successful have the grantees been in instituting sustainable business models and contributing to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Findings Most grantees were unable to describe a sustainable business plan for how smallholder farmers would benefit. Neither was the use of in-kind grant machinery linked to their main line of business and they were unable to clearly articulate how it would affect or enhance their business. They included no clear operational cost, clear pricing strategy, cash flow projection or break-even analysis. While some grantees received training on the equipment, there was no planning for a follow-up mechanism for the post-project period to reduce the risk that benefits from the grants program will not reach smallholder farmers. Conclusions The fact that grantees had not thought through how their grants would be part of a sustainable business model raises concerns. The reason for focusing on machinery appears to have been because it represented the most expensive investment and for which financial support was most needed. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | x Nonetheless, the high cost-share of investment, at least 50 percent, increases the probability that production support will continue after project close, and thus will be sustainable. Project activities are likely to be more sustainable when linked to stakeholders (government, private sector) who remain after the project implementer leaves. Recommendations • Create a framework for the post-project period to ensure that the grants model benefits users after the project closes, through strengthened formal and sustainable linkages with farmers associations. [IP] • Begin the grants component early in the project, taking into account long procurement processes to allow the effect on smallholder farmers to be measured and assessed. [IP] • Provide technical assistance that extends beyond grant disbursement in the early phase of the project. [IP] EVALUATION QUESTION 2 In what ways did the FAS approach to building the capacities of the partner associations and to adopting successful sustainable business models result in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (smallholder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Findings The FAS Project provided a range of capacity building support to associations, including training, farm￾based services and marketing support. Ninety percent of associations reported receiving support and rated it highly. They said this support resulted in improved performance. Farmers corroborated this effect, although they reported performance improvements in their association even in cases where it had received no support from FAS. In comparisons from before and after the project, associations reported an increase in quantity of crops (in tons) of 68 percent, and an increase in the total contracts/deals amounts of more than 103 percent in nominal terms (although much of the increases were offset by an increase in costs to farmers). 3 This is in the context of the project vastly exceeding its target annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance by 12 times ($78.8 million vs. $6.4 million).4 Despite these positive perceptions and improved outcomes for farmers, the evaluation found no evidence that the capacity of associations to adopt sustainable business models increased, or that associations played a significant role in these improvements. In KIIs, associations could not explain the business model concept [Association KIIs] and could recall only support focused on institutional strengthening and not farm services. Farmers continue to see associations mainly as suppliers of (subsidized) inputs and view them as lacking in capacity.5 3 Data from Associations questionnaire, n = 59. Inflation stood at more than 10 percent during most of the project until mid-2019 and exceeded 30 percent in 2017. 4 FAS Project Quarterly Report Q4 2020 5 Farmer GDs, n = 22 xi | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Three in four farmers said they benefited from the project but attributed most improvements in production to three areas: inputs, training and technical assistance (blue)—hardly at all from areas related to post-harvest, tool and technologies and marketing (red). 6 TABLE 1. FARMERS REPORTING ON CONTRIBUTION OF FAS SERVICES (%) QUESTION: FAS SERVICES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR GAINING BENEFITS BENEFITED INPUTS TRAINING ASSISTANCE TECHNICAL PRODUCTION AND MECHANIZATION SUPPORT HARVEST SUPPORT POST-HARVEST SUPPORT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATION SUPPORT MARKETING SUPPORT MARKETING SALES AND CONTRACTS 1. Increased yield 74.6 23.6 45.9 70.3 0.8 1.8 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Improved quality of production 72.9 26.8 37.1 74.3 2.1 1.0 2.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Reduced use of chemicals and pesticides 42.8 15.9 40.7 75.7 1.8 3.1 2.2 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. Reduced harvest loss 37.3 20.8 37.6 68.0 4.1 4.1 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5. Higher quality of inputs 33.9 36.9 35.8 69.8 0.6 1.7 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Accelerated production processes 33.5 30.5 42.9 70.1 2.3 3.4 2.8 2.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. Better prices for harvest 32.4 14.6 32.7 66.7 2.9 4.7 3.5 1.2 0.6 8.2 4.1 0.6 4. Reduced cost of inputs 31.6 18.6 33.5 74.3 1.2 3.6 3.6 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 8. Increased connection to markets 12.7 11.9 37.3 58.2 3.0 6.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0 1.5 11. No benefits gained 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. Ability to export 8.0 40.5 16.7 52.4 4.8 7.1 7.1 7.1 4.8 9.5 11.9 0.0 Source: Farmer questionnaire, n = 528 Conclusions The FAS Project clearly contributed to improvements in on-farm production, but this largely resulted from FAS working directly with farmers, rather than from an increase in association capacity or a change in the way they operate and engage with farmers. 6 Farmer questionnaire, n = 528 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | xii Associations reported that they found the capacity building useful, the support was appreciated and enhanced performance, and production improved. All of this was linked to the project. Yet, despite these positive changes, we cannot conclude that the associations established sustainable business models, or that farmers are seeing production benefits because of the associations’ work. Positive changes in production and sales have a weak correlation with how farmers see changes in association performance. This is because there is little evidence that the project’s capacity building directed toward associations translated into project goals of associations delivering more services to farmers using a new business model. This should not be surprising; institutional change requires many years of ongoing support. Recommendations • To better support smallholder farmers, develop a results-based capacity building strategy that targets both institutional and technical capacity of associations so they can apply what they have learned (an actionable plan). [IP] • Beyond just delivering training, the strategy should assess whether it is being applied and why or why not, and then address the identified issues through tailored support. The project M&E system should reflect this. [USAID, IP] • Incorporate the above recommendation as qualitative learning outcomes in project indicators—in addition to quantitative indicators, such as capacity or knowledge building— to track the effect of association capacity building on smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] EVALUATION QUESTION 3. Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Findings Almost half of farmers responding to the questionnaire—242 (46 percent)—said they used a FAS technology. In all, the group used a total of 506 FAS technologies between them, or just over two per farmer on average.7 This would represent almost 8,000 project farmers, assuming that the evaluation sample is fully representative of all farmers in the program. The FAS target was 6,200 “individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance.” The FAS IP reported reaching 5,2188. The target was for 6,200 beneficiaries applying improved management practices or technologies due to FAS assistance, and the FAS IP reported reaching 5,218. Inadequate planning appears to have prevented the project from distributing innovations and technologies more widely. In the case of pH / EC meters,9 the device was distributed only in the last days of the project.10 7 Farmer questionnaire, n = 528 8 According to FAS Project documents: “Rationale for Targets (optional): The indicator targets are based on the projected number of farmers participating in the FAS crop production training program, the number of managers of firms receiving FAS grants and the expected rate of uptake (100 percent for association managers and firms, 90 percent for farmers based on interim FAS results of farmer uptake).” Uptake is assumed to refer to adoption, not delivery of a technology. 9 pH/EC devices help farmers measure the pH level (acidity or alkalinity) and conductivity of their soil and irrigation water, enabling them to take measures to support crop growth and use agricultural inputs more efficiently. (FAS Project Quarterly Report Q4 2020) 10 Farmer GD, n = 22; association KIIs xiii | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Of the eight technologies assessed through the farmer questionnaire and group discussions, the most common type of technology mentioned was safe use of pesticides (27.3 percent), followed by improved water-use efficiency (19.7 percent) and the red palm weevil device (17.6 percent). Although yield and quality of production increased for the majority of farmers, technologies and tools had only a marginal influence, if any, per both the questionnaire responses and the GDs. When asked about all of the support they received, only 2.5 percent of farmers cited tools/technology.11 According to group discussions with farmers, many farmers did not benefit from information and communications technology (ICT) support in the form of either a platform that generates short messaging service (SMS) transmissions (introduced early in the project) or a WhatsApp extension service (introduced to mitigate risks related to COVID-19). This was in part because of weak internet and low rates of smartphone use. While the above findings highlight the low value added by technology to the project’s overall impact, the evaluation team did identify several successful examples, including: 1) coding and certification (for pomegranates), a major project support provided to farmers and traders in Assiut; and 2) professional￾grade mango boxes, which kept the fruit in better condition and directly improved profits. Conclusions Farmers benefited measurably from the project support, but innovations and technologies had only a marginal impact, if any. It is possible that their low level of contribution to production resulted from their late delivery, and a follow-up assessment at the end of the next season might show different results. The project succeeded in delivering innovations and technologies to many farmers. Although this is not the same as promoting their use, farmers rated them positively, indicating that they were welcome. Two success factors can be highlighted. 1) The use of a demand-driven approach, by delivering innovations / technologies to associations whose farmers grew crops where the innovation/technology was appropriate and needed. 2) In the case of coding and certification, the project linked to existing institutions and their mandates. Several hindrances prevented technologies from having a noticeable impact: 1) Late distribution of technologies near project end (computers, pH/EC device, cold chain app). 2) The distribution approach was not accompanied by a clear implementation strategy. 3) Operational issues (delays, outreach, geographical coverage) prevented the project’s ability to disseminate and scale up. 4) In the case of ICT, farmers’ literacy levels and poor internet access limited the benefits of the WhatsApp extension service. 11 Farmer questionnaire, n = 528; farmer GDs, n = 22 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | xiv Recommendations • Deliver innovations / technologies at the beginning of projects rather than at the end. This is necessary to allow time to monitor outcomes, identify weaknesses in the process and provide technical support. • Develop a systematic distribution plan, based on a needs assessment that maps the technologies to crop type, land requirements and geographical coverage. Conduct a cost￾benefit analysis at the farm level on a sample of farms before introducing new technologies. • Facilitate linkages to financial institutions supporting tailored products for increasing smallholder farmers’ financial ability to apply new technologies introduced. CROSSCUTTING ISSUE: GENDER Findings Project documents describe plans to give special consideration to women’s producer groups and groups with stronger female participation and to support women entrepreneurs to “generate ideas and to promote their products”12. However, the evaluation did not observe tangible results from these efforts. In terms of the project’s income benefits, the project benefited primarily men, given that only 2.1 percent of smallholder farmers are women. The FAS MEL Plan only referred to gender for disaggregation purpose without adding gender specific indicators. . Of the association staff supported, 59.6 percent were women. While the evaluators met with associations that had women on their board of directors and on their staff, women-led associations were not targeted with tailored support. Conclusions Although the activities evaluated included some gender elements (grant applications, association capacity building), these were not a core factor in the design and the evaluation did not observe or find evidence that they had succeeded in empowering women. Training associations on gender has not translated into visible results. Serving women clients and employing women is not the same as empowering women within the agricultural sector, or taking into account their specific needs and constraints, such as challenges with land ownership. In Egypt, women traditionally work in production lines and packhouses, so it is unclear how enumerating their presence contributes to women’s empowerment. Recommendations • At the beginning of the project, conduct a gender analysis across components to identify the distinctive needs of men and women farmers under each component. Based on the analysis, introduce gender-responsive activities and interventions. [IP] • Develop a strategy that goes beyond target numbers related to employment positions and takes into account the constraints and conditions that women face. Develop tailored interventions and support that focuses on women’s empowerment. Include gender target numbers for indicators in the project M&E system. [IP] 12 FAS Work Plans for Project Years 4 and 5 1 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV INTRODUCTION The FAS Project launched in July 2015 and was completed in November 2020 (including a five-month no-cost extension). Initial project funding was $23 million. The Cooperative Agreement aims to increase incomes of smallholder farmers through various measures in seven governorates of Upper Egypt: Assiut, Aswan, Beni Suef, Luxor, Minya, Qena and Sohag. The project was funded from the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) assistance l agreement, which, according to the Evaluation Scope of Work “seeks to bring targeted beneficiaries into environmentally appropriate high-value commercial horticulture value chains.” EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The evaluation is intended to help USAID/Egypt improve and learn from the FAS Project, to inform design and performance of future activities and support the Mission’s development objectives by examining the effectiveness of key aspects of activity interventions. The primary audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Egypt and mission management. Secondary audiences include the implementing partner of FAS, other implementing partners, FAS stakeholders, the Government of Egypt (GOE), relevant donor groups, and the private sector The evaluation was conducted at the end of the project (which closed in November 2020). The evaluation questions addressed a subset of project activities and components where the Mission lacked information and had reason to believe challenges existed. These were Activity 1.1: Associations and cooperative strengthening and Activity 1.3: Promotion of innovative tools and technology (Component 1: Improved on-farm productivity and income for smallholder farmers), as well as the grants component (separate from other components). Thus, findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report should not be construed as an overall project evaluation. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation was tasked with answering the following evaluation questions: • EQ1a. To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-pack houses- private sector processors-associations) • EQ1b. How successful have the grantees been in instituting sustainable business models and in contributing to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post￾harvest and marketing? • EQ2. In what ways did the FAS approach to building the capacities of the partner associations and to adopting successful sustainable business models result in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2 • EQ3. Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support Implementer Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) Bilateral Agreement # Cooperative Agreement # BA# 263-299 CA# AID-263-A-15-00022 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project (TEC) $23,000,000 Life of Project July 2015 – November 2020 (including five month NCE) Active Geographic Regions Upper Egypt Development Objective(s) (DOs) Egyptian Economy is More Competitive and Inclusive USAID Office Economic Growth Office PROJECT BACKGROUND The project goals were to increase incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through four components: 1) Improved on-farm production; 2) More efficient post-harvest processes; 3) Improved marketing of agriculture crops and products; and 4) Improved nutritional status, especially for women and children. FAS operates under the theory of change that if the efficiency of post-harvest processes, the marketing of these goods and the nutritional status of women and children are improved, farmers will produce better-quality products and be able to sell the products at higher prices and thereby increase their incomes. The FAS IP supported this approach though direct support services, training sessions, capacity building activities and coordination of networking activities, and indirectly through partnering with private firms and resource partners. [FAS Project scope of work (SOW)] The FAS programmatic goal is linked to USAID/Egypt’s objective of inclusive agriculture sector growth. The project’s results framework shows how the intermediate results targeted by each of the four components and their respective activities will lead to increased smallholder farmer income in Upper Egypt. [FAS Project SOW] 3 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE 1. PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK Source: Egypt FAS MEL Plan Final, 2019 In addition, the FAS Project sought to address complementary, crosscutting sector support, including extension services, irrigation infrastructure (delivery) and irrigation efficiency. Over the duration of the project, smallholder farmers were expected to benefit from significantly higher sustained incomes compared to farmers who grow more traditional, natural resource-intensive crops. The project worked with several horticultural value chains, mainly: tomatoes, onions, sweet potatoes, peppers, green beans, table grapes, mangoes, coriander, cumin, pomegranates, garlic and anise. [FAS Project SOW] IN-KIND INVESTMENT GRANTS. Through the grants component, the project engaged with the private sector to improve farmers’ access to inputs and extension services, and thus improve production and income. The component aimed to expand input supply services and service centers by providing in-kind grants to private operators and by creating privately run farmer service centers (FSCs). CNFA has implemented the FSC concept in other countries; it is described as “a “one-stop￾shop” offering inputs—seeds, fertilizers, crop protection products and veterinary supplies—and services like crop price information, veterinary advice, financing and trade credit and equipment leasing to as many as 20,000 farmers per location.”13 Three grants were also made to companies engaged in post-harvest processing and cold storage capacity.14 ASSOCIATION CAPACITY BUILDING. The project provided targeted support to 77 associations through 30 activities, with the goal of enabling them to expand the services to farmers in a sustainable manner. Capacity building to enhance association service provision included: • Four training modules on institutional/management issues; • Farmer-based services in 15 areas, including training, computers, database business plan template and tools (pH / EC meters); and 13 CNFA. Farm Center Service Model: https://www.cnfa.org/resource/cnfa-farm-service-center-fsc-model/ 14 A post-harvest center is an area equipped to receive the harvested fruits to proceed the post-harvest treatments including: sorting, grading, packaging, labeling and storing in the cooling houses until transferring to the shipping ports or whole-sale markets. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4 • Community awareness and marketing, including marketing materials, visiting input supply fairs, exhibitions and field visits to demonstration plots. INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY. Under several components, the project aimed to deliver and promote various technologies. Under Component 1. Improved on-farm production, they included: innovations and technologies (given to farmers via associations); ICT extension services through WhatsApp; computers, printers, data shows given to associations and the floppy sprinklers irrigation system to grantees. Under Component 2. More efficient post-harvest processes, they included a cold chain app and coding and certification (for pomegranates). PROJECT PARTICIPANTS. Based on the project database, FAS worked with 24,215 participants from six categories (see Table 2). Among the 17,078 smallholder farmers in the seven governorates, 16,725 (97.9 percent) were male and 353 (2.1 percent) were female.15 Conversely, 96.1 percent of the 6,602 participants in the Improved Nutritional Status Component (which is not within the scope of this evaluation) were female. TABLE 2. PROJECT PARTICIPANT BY CATEGORY FAS PARTICIPANT FEMALE MALE TOTAL Farmer/producer/worker 353 16,725 17,078 Nutrition component participants 6,347 255 6,602 Private sector actor 232 104 336 Manager or employee from an association or cooperative 84 57 141 Manager or employee from a firm 1 32 33 Missing data (blank) 15 10 25 Grand total 7,032 17,183 24,215 The evaluation findings relating to selected project activities should be considered within the context of the project’s overall outcomes. According to the final FAS quarterly report (Q4 2020), the project met or exceeded several of its core indicators, including an increase in annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance vastly exceeding the target (12 times higher), and 70 percent more farmers received short-term agricultural sector productivity training (see Table 3). TABLE 3. SELECTED PROJECT INDICATORS OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE AGRICULTURE-RELATED INCOMES OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN UPPER EGYPT PROJECT TO DATE LIFE-OF-PROJECT TARGET EG.3.2-26 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance. USD $78,782,668 USD $6,425,046 EG.3-2 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs. 23,845 14,000 INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1: IMPROVED ON-FARM PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOME FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS PROJECT TO DATE LIFE-OF-PROJECT TARGET 15 A large number of cases (1508) were mismatched against their gender in the FAS project database. This might be due using the spouse’s ID in the registration process. 5 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE AGRICULTURE-RELATED INCOMES OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN UPPER EGYPT PROJECT TO DATE LIFE-OF-PROJECT TARGET EG.3.2-24 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance. 5,218 6,200 (Custom) Number of farmers who have received USG-supported short-term agricultural sector productivity training. 17,260 10,000 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES Data collection used five methods and from eight types of stakeholders, enabling the evaluation to triangulate results and validate data reliability. The evaluation team developed 10 quantitative and qualitative data collection tools, one for each project stakeholder type, except in the case of farmers and associations, 16 with whom both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools were used. 1. Desk review: FAS reports and other relevant documents were reviewed to help the evaluation team understand the project, and ensured that robust secondary research augmented and informed the primary data collection. (See Annex 5. for complete list of documents reviewed) QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION. Quantitative primary data was collected from two types of project core beneficiaries: farmers and associations: 1. Face-to-face questionnaire administration. Farmers were invited to fill out pencil-and-paper questionnaires with closed-ended questions. Enumerators administered the questionnaires to farmers in groups, reading out questions while the farmers responded to them. 2. Telephone questionnaire. A telephone questionnaire was administered to the 59 associations that received capacity building activities from FAS (survey approach). The other 18 were unreachable or did not respond to the call. QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: Qualitative data from farmers came through group discussions (GDs); associations and project stakeholders participated via key informant interviews (KIIs): 1. Group discussions. On average, each group included just over five farmers, with 118 farmers participating in 22 GDs held at the associations in the seven targeted governorates. 2. Key informant interviews. Face-to-face KIIs took place with government representatives, private sector representatives, grantees, FAS partners,17 NFSA, FAS IP and USAID. This approach allowed for in-depth discussions, probing questions and nuances, which are more difficult using other forms of data collection. Sampling. Using a stratified, cluster sampling method, 1,450 farmers were targeted for the questionnaire, to achieve a sample of 1,004. Because response rates were far lower than anticipated, the evaluation team increased the number of targeted farmers. The sample represents a 95 percent 16 For the purposes of simplicity, the term “association” applies to both associations and cooperatives, in line with the evaluation questions. 17 FAS partners are Blue Moon, National Food Safety Authority, Souktel, Winrock International and WFLO. Only Winrock International and WFLO accepted the evaluation team’s invitations to KIIs. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6 confidence interval, and a 4.2 percent margin of error. Given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, findings can be generalized only at the project level and for some (but not all) governorates, but not at the crop level. For qualitative data collection, the team used purposive sampling to select stakeholders through KIIs. (Table 4.) TABLE 4. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND SAMPLING INFORMANTS POPULATION FRAME TARGET SAMPLE SIZE ACTUAL SAMPLE CORE BENEFICIARIES Farmers, Quantitative 17,078 1,004 529 Farmers, Qualitative 168 participants (in 24 GDs) 118 participants (in 22 GDs) Associations, Quantitative 77 77 59 Associations, Qualitative 14 31 participants (14 associations) Grantees 12 11 11 KEY STAKEHOLDERS Government Representatives 8 8 9 Private Sector Representatives 49 7 7 FAS Implementing Partners 4 4 2 USAID Program Offices 2 2 1 FAS Team (Current and Former Staff) 58 4 7 Total 17,230 1,285 Fewer than 774* Note: Some people were interviewed twice because they belonged to an association that was also a grantee, or they received a farmer questionnaire and then participated in a GD. DATA ANALYSIS. The evaluation team used descriptive statistics to analyze the two sets of quantitative data (farmer questionnaires and association questionnaires) using SPSS software. A first round of analysis produced frequency tables for each response (variable) and analyzed for patterns to help address the evaluation questions. The team then conducted further analysis using cross￾tabulations. Coding and analysis of qualitative data used the qualitative data analysis software application Taguette. Team members coded all 73 KII and GD notes and uploaded them to Taguette, after developing a coding tree with 109 themes. After this, queries were run to explore the qualitative data by theme. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE. The evaluation team discussed and documented all identified issues affecting validity. The interpretation of findings, conclusions and recommendations took into consideration data limitations. 7 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LIMITATIONS The evaluation faced limitations related to data collection, analysis and implementation. SAMPLING LIMITATIONS. Due to budget and time constraints, the evaluation team could not cover the whole region using a random sampling approach. Instead, at the governorate level, purposive sampling was used to select one or two nearby districts per governorate. Given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, results can only be generalized at the project level and some, not all, governorates. For the same reasons, the sample is not representative at the level of crops. DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS included: 1) some associations and farmers were unwilling or uninterested in participating in the evaluation; 2) some associations did not reach out to farmers; 3) association managers in some cases did not recognize most farmer names on the list provided to them; and 4) farmers did not respond to requests to be interviewed. The result was that the team interviewed just over half of the target of 1,004 farmers. This increased the margin of error from 3 percent to 4.2 percent ANALYSIS LIMITATIONS. The implementation of some project elements (distribution of grants and some tools and technologies) in the last two quarters of 2020 limited the ability to assess their effectiveness. At the time of this report’s writing, it was too early to assess the benefits that the grants component may deliver to smallholder farmers, given that the machinery and other equipment were not yet in use. IMPLEMENTATION LIMITATIONS. Data collection during COVID-19 restrictions required use of safety precautions (such as personal protective equipment and social distancing), which increased preparation time and created additional challenges. In addition, the team leader (based in Washington, D.C.) did not travel to Egypt and participated remotely only. MITIGATION MEASURES The evaluation team undertook the following mitigation measures (See Annex 2 for further details): 1) Focused on associations that match the geographical and value chain targeting and their served farmers to enhance the data collection process efficiency and ensure fair representation of target groups. 2) Requested FAS support in providing introductions to the associations and confirming the associations’ receipt of the questionnaire. 3) Communicated ahead of time with the targeted associations, checking the data collection dates, and provided an allowance to cover farmers’ transportation costs as an incentive to participate. 4) Six associations changed during data collection, because the original targets did not receive in￾kind support from the project or for other reasons were unwilling or unable to cooperate. 5) When the evaluation team encountered difficulties in reaching farmers and attaining a sufficient sample size, they changed their approaches to encourage farmers to participate. 6) The team followed COVID-19 safety requirements during data collection to ensure the safety of both team members and participants by: 1) wearing masks and face shields in the field; USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8 2) using sanitizer frequently to disinfect all material used in the field and washing hands frequently; 3) distributing masks to all farmers and other participants met; 4) ensuring that all participants in the evaluation maintained social distancing while completing the surveys and taking part in FGDs. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors / segments / input suppliers-pack houses- private sector processors-associations) FINDINGS Overview The team could not evaluate the effect of the grant component because the in-kind grants (mainly lab equipment and tractors and attachments) were delivered too late in the project to be used by the time of data collection. Grantees reported numerous issues—around quality, compatibility and currency value—with the in-kind grants they received, noting that it differed from the agreement in the FAS IP. Eight grantees did not receive registration papers or receipts for the equipment they received. The value chain focus of the in-kind grants was mainly on production, with only three grants going to post-harvest processing companies. When farmers spoke about their value chain priorities, however, they focused mostly on quality and price of inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizer, pesticides) and marketing (e.g., the price they received for their production). Implementation A challenge faced by the evaluation concerned late implementation of the grants component. In some cases, in-kind grants were delivered only in the final quarter of the project’s life. Since the equipment had not been put to use yet, it was not possible to answer questions about effectiveness. Twelve grants were awarded and 11 were distributed. One grant was canceled after failing to meet the cost-share requirement. (See Table 5.) Most grants went to input suppliers (agriculture supply stores) and only three to post-harvest. Even when in-kind grants were given to input-suppliers they were production related (not input-related). That is, tractors and attachments will be used for production. In the former case, these were primarily in the form of tractors, attachments and labs, all of which are production-oriented. TABLE 5. OVERVIEW OF GRANTS PROGRAM RECIPIENTS TOTAL AWARDED = 11 POST-HARVEST = 3 PRODUCTION FOCUS = 8 TO ASSOCIATIONS TO PRIVATE SECTOR INPUT SUPPLIERS TO COMPOSTER Number awarded 2 1 7 1 Name Al Bayahoo El Esra Stars of Export Abd El Hamid AI Modather Al Firdaws Al Khair Al Baraka Al Faraena 9 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Gezerat El Arab Sharif Sons Silver Moon Source: FAS Project documents Preparation of the grant component began in 2017, two years into the life of the project, with delivery of in-kind grants three years later. The slow process was compounded by a long application period— two years between submitting, signing and starting. [Grantee KIIs, FAS quarterly reports for Q4 2020 and Q3 2020] Issues around technical expertise, changes in specifications, and USAID rules and regulations on procurement led to approvals in late 2018/early 2019. [Grantee KIIs; FAS IP KIIs] The COVID-19 pandemic further impeded the process. The delays caused problems for three grantees as they incurred unnecessary costs related to rent, operations and staff salaries. For example, one had rented land and hired operators, then had to let them go after several months because the tractors and other machinery had not arrived. Another rented land to build a greenhouse, which was canceled. Another incorporated the in-kind grant into their business plan, which was negatively affected because the equipment was not delivered. [Grantee KIIs] Some grants or parts of grants were canceled. In one instance, a grant applicant was unable to meet their share of the contribution. Grants totaling $1.75 million that would have gone to women entrepreneurs were canceled (see the section titled Crosscutting Issue: Gender). [FAS team KII] For these and other reasons (e.g. project’s responsiveness to changing needs, market limitations, etc.), only $2.4 million of the project’s grant allocation budget of $5.6 million was disbursed. [FAS 2Q 2020] Distribution of the in-kind grants began only in 2020, and was continuing through the end of the project, at the time the evaluation team was collecting data in the field in November 2020. [Grantee KIIs; FAS quarterly reports for Q4 2020 and Q3 2020; grantee KIIs] Tractors, cold storage equipment, labs and other machinery were delivered in Q3 of 2020 or later.18 When the machinery did arrive, some grantees complained that they did not have the opportunity to inspect it on arrival. [Grantee KIIs] Aside from the slow process, issues related to equipment specifications led to grantees receiving equipment that differed from their agreement. Issues with in-kind procurement can arise in the procurement process related to different vendors, specifications, and sources. One grantee was unhappy with the tractor the FAS project purchased under the grant agreement; it came from a domestic vendor and had much lower horsepower than the grantee requested. This rendered it incompatible with the attachments that came with it, such as for laser leveling work, especially in new reclaimed/desert hilly area. [Grantee KIIs] One grantee expected to receive a processing line made in the U.S., but received a cheaper line made in Turkey. The received line was of lower quality and capacity, impeding production efficiency. Another grantee reported agreeing to equipment valued at $300,025, but received cheaper models valued at $195,000. This also effectively increased the grantee’s in-kind contribution well beyond the agreed 25 percent.19 The grantee described being “stuck with this equipment they didn’t agree on.” Both a grantee and the FAS IP noted that FAS lacked technical experts in procurement. [FAS IP, Grantee KIIs] 18 Cold storage delivered for post-harvest grantees in Q4 2019. Next delivery was in Q4 2020. Some equipment (cold storage) delivered for two grantees (post-harvest) in Q4 FY2019 – the next deliveries were in Q3 FY20. 19 The grantee cost-share was 25 percent for associations and 50 percent for the private sector. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10 Referring to the grant amount, FAS IP noted that original budgets were based on pro-forma invoices provided by grantees as part of their grant applications, and then reviewed by the IP for reasonableness based on the market at the time, and that grantees were aware that the IP had sole discretion over disbursement of assistance, which was made clear to the grantees in the grant agreement.20 Partly related to the changes in specifications (which in at least three cases were not included in the grant agreements) and partly to non-delivery, grantees received less than what they had agreed to. One grantee noted that the value was less than what FAS was responsible for paying, and the difference was not made up with additional equipment. Another did not receive $38,000 worth of equipment included in the agreement and ended up paying for it himself. Yet another reported that the value of the equipment was worth 1 million EGP (approximately USD $64,645) less than in the agreement. [Grantee KIIs] The change in value had an impact on the grantee’s contribution level: in cases where the value of the grant was less than agreed, this meant that the contribution exceeded the 50 percent level (or 25 percent in case of associations). Issues over the cost-share agreement came up repeatedly, including over how much the grantee had contributed to it, what an acceptable cost-share was and whether it had to be applied to the same business activity as the one the grant was funding. A grantee said that if he had known the cost-share had to be for the same activity, he would have bought a greenhouse and seedlings instead of machinery. [Grantee KIIs] Except in one case, all grantees met their contribution requirements, and thereby demonstrated their commitment. The issue was on the changes in cost of machinery (due to change in specification). After the contracts were signed, grantees learned that some of their contributions were not eligible, decreasing the value of the contribution below 50%, and therefore the value of the in-kind contribution was also decreased, to match the 50%, based on the revised eligibility criteria. Grantees were not able to participate in the technical/purchasing committees (for evaluating bids for the equipment). A grantee complained that the procurement process “wasn’t participatory at all.” Another agreed that the process was not participatory, noting that no one asked for grantees’ opinion before choosing the machines. [Grantee KIIs] Eight grantees said that they did not receive registration papers or receipts for the equipment, which creates problems for them. [Grantee KIIs] For the tractor received in May without papers—we have already lost 6 months of the guarantee. – Grantee There was no expert present when we received the equipment – we just received and signed. And if there is anything wrong … we just had to sign. – Grantee The biggest problem is that I don’t even know the price of the things they bought—I don’t have a paper that tells me the prices of any of the equipment I received. – Grantee We don’t have any receipts and guarantees and papers. The association does not have the estimation for their assets. – Grantee 20 FAS IP written communication, January 8, 2021. 11 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The FAS IP notes that the grant agreement does not require receipts to be shared, and they are not usually provided by implementing partners to grantees without a specific reason or justification.21 However, this clearly posed a challenge for some grantees. For various reasons, several grantees reported that they had not used the new machinery yet: not all of the equipment (e.g., tractor attachments) had arrived; the harvest seasons had passed; or insufficient time had passed for the new grant to make a difference in sales. In the case of greenhouses, although their construction was included in some grantee proposals, in the end FAS canceled its support and construction work was not finished. [Grantee KIIs] Applicability The appropriateness and applicability of the in-kind grants to the conditions and needs of farmers was not always clear. Farmers prioritized high-quality seeds and pesticides, but these concerns were not fully reflected in or addressed by the project. FAS provision of machinery to input suppliers (seven out of eleven) did not respond to farmers’ high priority needs, even if machinery for production features as one of the value chain gaps in the Value Chain Assessment. No farmers mentioned machinery as a need, while the need for marketing came up repeatedly in all farmer groups. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] For example, one grant included a tractor with laser leveling technology, although this was not suitable for the terrain where it was stationed. In another case, a floppy irrigation system (given as part of the grant to an FSC) was being used for an inappropriate crop (potatoes instead of pomegranates). [Grantee KIIs]. The FAS Project’s value chain (VC) assessment identified a host of issues that included input constraints (fertilizers and pesticides are overpriced / seed quality is low / climate change is having a negative impact); production constraints (extension services are inefficient / irrigation is in short supply and comes at a high cost / diseases and infections are taking a toll); and marketing constraints (farm gate prices are fluctuating / traders are taking monopolistic actions / financing is lacking / infrastructure is poor / domestic and export market information is lacking). Farmers confirmed these as issues they continued to face, and almost never mentioned machinery as a production service they received.). [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528; farmer GDs, n = 22]. Addressing Value Chain Gaps The services that farmers reported needing most—such as higher-quality and more affordable inputs (e.g., effective pesticides and good-quality seed), post-harvest services, access to fair markets and financial services—were generally not part of the FSC services offered. This essentially added a machinery rental service to their core business of input suppliers. Two grantees reported that it would have been impossible for a single private entity to provide everything, because each service required its own set of permits from different government entities, depending on the nature of the service and its requirements. [Grantee KIIs] The IP expects that with time, FSCs will adjust the services they offer to meet farmer demand as it evolves, and that FSCs would be empowered to ensure that they understand the market and smallholder farmer demands to adapt their input and service offerings.22 However, this was not observed at the time of the evaluation. The grants addressed only limited segments of the value chain (production and limited post-harvest services, but not higher-quality inputs or marketing) with eight of 11 focusing on production and the 21 FAS IP written communication, January 8, 2021. 22 FAS IP written communication, January 8, 2021. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12 remaining three on post-harvest process. Of the 11 grants distributed, eight went to input suppliers (farm supply centers selling fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, etc.), who added a new business line—renting out tractors and equipment financed with the grants. One grantee noted, “Most of the grantees are actually traditional—just shops selling inputs traditionally. The ad [FAS Project announcing the grants] focused on innovation and there are many people that have innovative ideas and innovative ways of working.” The result was an emphasis on a single value chain segment, or uneven coverage of the value chain gaps identified by the project [FAS Egypt Value Chain Report Final: Value Chain and End Market Studies, Volume II]. One grantee had no previous expertise in agriculture projects and may lack the expertise, complementary resources and network to manage their new business line. The grantee’s good reputation in the field may enable faster integration but is likely to be hindered by the normal learning period for new projects. [Grantee KIIs] How or whether a particular applicant would fill the identified value chain gap was a major criterion in the selection process, according to an FAS IP key informant. However, the grants addressed only a limited number of value chain gaps identified by the grantees and were not necessarily related to farmer priorities. No community mapping was conducted to assess farmers’ specific needs or existing resources in a given location. Instead, the grant recipient was asked to apply a specific service or technology based on its application. Uneven Distribution With respect to geographical coverage, the distribution of grantees was uneven. Eight grantees were clustered in the three northern governorates, but the four middle and southern governorates were home to only three grantees. (See Figure 2.) 13 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE 2. MAP OF UPPER EGYPT SHOWING LOCATION OF PROJECT GRANTEES CONCLUSIONS The investment grants component has not yet succeeded in filling gaps in the value chain. No impact could be measured (and there was zero or minimal impact) given that insufficient time had passed since delivery, or the in-kind grant (machinery, lab equipment or processing line) was not in use yet. Even if the grants had been delivered earlier in the project, it is unclear that they would have successfully filled the value chain gaps based on the following: 1) The machinery procured addressed value chain gaps (grantees had to justify their applications on this basis) in only limited segments of the value chain (production, in eight of 11 cases), which were not what the farmers emphasized as important to them (post-harvest and marketing). 2) The combination of weak planning, weak implementation and limited, if any, follow-up (given that the project closed shortly after in-kind grants were delivered) raises concerns about whether the benefits of the grants program will go to smallholder farmers. There is no guarantee that smallholder farmers will be able to benefit, since grantees did not have to produce a plan aimed at supporting these farmers. Many farmers may be left out. 3) The grant component was not strongly integrated with other activities focused on production, post-harvest and marketing. It was implemented late, which is likely to impede its ability to contribute to project results. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14 Conclusions cannot be drawn on the impact of the post-harvest grantees on the value chain. One was not working yet because the season had not started. Another reported that they were working with whatever farmers had good quality seeds, not the project beneficiaries per se. As the findings show, grantees ended up spending more or receiving less than they had anticipated or calculated. This caused distrust toward the project and has implications for their business plans. The issues were compounded by serious questions that arose around an approval and procurement process that resulted in grantees receiving different quality or quantity of in-kind grant machinery than that which they had agreed to, or not receiving machinery at all. Although grant applicants had to show how they were filling a value chain gap, the grants model was not tailored to the specific needs of local farmers. In most cases, grants (machinery, labs) don’t address the value chain gaps as prioritized by farmers, who emphasized the importance of higher-quality inputs and support for post-harvest and marketing. The issues that arose throughout this process point to problems with execution and late timing, rather than with the concept of an in-kind grants model. The project’s approach of engaging the private sector to address value chain gaps is well justified, given the generally weak capacity of associations and shrinking role of government in the agriculture sector. RECOMMENDATIONS • Focus on building linkages between agribusinesses, farmers associations, financial institutions and the private sector from the start of the project. Develop a grants model that is oriented toward a partnership approach, with a focus on project results and ultimate beneficiaries. Before proposing a new model, collaborate closely with beneficiaries/farmers at the local level to assess the value chain gaps faced by farmers living in the area who will be served by the grantee. [USAID, IP] • Use a community mapping approach to assess specific needs of communities where the grantees provide services, covering production resources, post-harvest and marketing to maximize the potential benefits of the grant to smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] • Work more openly and communicate better with grantees. Specifically, make the following changes to the grants manual23: 1) only change contract terms (e.g., cost-share amount, machinery specifications) with a written agreement and in cooperation with the grantee; 2) allow the grantee to sit on the procurement committee and evaluate bids; 3) if equipment specifications change, give the grantee the option of canceling that portion of the in-kind grant and either reallocate their contribution or withdraw it; 4) provide the grantee with the papers, receipts and warranties for the delivered equipment; and 5) respond to grantee complaints and include a mechanism to resolve them. [IP] • To the extent feasible and allowed by procurement rules, USAID should identify ways of streamlining the procurement process or reducing the timing between the procurement steps, to avoid excessive delays and avoid late delivery of in-kind grants. [USAID] 23 The grants manual section on ethics is focused on implementation of project, but section related to issues of selection, concerning participation, transparency, etc. should be added. 15 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • Begin grant process early in project and allow for at least one year of monitoring post-grant delivery before project ends, to allow for iterative learning and follow-up on whether and how smallholder farmers are benefiting. [IP] • Encourage a broader pool of entrepreneurs, including social enterprises, to apply for grants, and design the application, selection criteria, and advertising accordingly. [IP] EVALUATION QUESTION 1B How successful have the grantees been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? FINDINGS Overview Given the delivery of the grants late in the life of the project, sustainability could not be assessed. No grantee had a strong focus on helping farmers access markets to give them fair prices, a key value chain gap identified by the FAS project and by farmers themselves. As a pomegranate farmer from an association for community development in Assiut said, “We are a small drop in the ocean, USAID has the connections to push and help us get to contracts, otherwise we are left to the monopoly of the dealers.” [Farmer GDs] Grantees were unable to describe a business plan (whether sustainable or not) of how smallholder farmers would benefit. A review of the grant proposals and other documents found that they included no clear operational cost, clear pricing strategy, cash flow projection or break-even analysis. That is, basic business planning elements were missing. The in-kind grant machinery was not for the purpose of improving inputs or post-production/marketing, but rather for introducing new lines of business in the area of production. Two grantees included greenhouses in the application, which one described as part of their plan for sustaining activities after project close. However, in both cases the FAS Project canceled them, explaining that the project had run out of time. [Grantee KIIs] The FAS IP noted that in one case the grantee did not meet the cost share, and in the other, its preferences changed repeatedly until there was insufficient time left for procurement.24 Within the context of the grants component, the project did not take full advantage of working with private sector firms in Upper Egypt who already had a business model covering the value chain segment, which farmers prioritized. The firms that applied for the in-kind grants were mostly moving into new areas (e.g., the seven farm supply stores branching into machinery rentals through the project). This appears to be a missed opportunity by the project to scale up the existing business model through the grant component, especially if was going to fill a value chain gap. Three grantees interviewed already have a working model partnering with farmers through provision of inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizers, etc.), technical support via agronomists and financing options (e.g., down payment for land preparation). Through the grants they expanded their (already viable) business operations. While some grantees received training on the equipment, no planning or follow-up mechanism was in place for the post-project period to reduce risks of smallholder farmers not benefitting. 24 FAS IP written communication, January 8, 2021. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16 Neither the farmers participating in the GDs (n=22) nor the associations interviewed (Association KIIs)25 reported having any communication with the grantees or awareness of the services to be provided through the grant. One grantee from Minya was even surprised to hear of the project’s scope, saying: “For the first time, we find that a project has four components that have nothing to do with each other.” [Association KII]. An association from Assiut said they had not heard of a particular grantee focused on seedlings and added that it would have been better and cheaper to get the seedlings from Cairo. Grantees are under no obligation to provide services for smallholder farmers once they have received the grant, as pointed out by three grantees. [Grantee KIIs] While the grantees, who contributed 50 percent or more toward the machinery, are expected to generate new income streams, there is no way of ensuring that their customers—at least not smallholder farmers at the lower end of the socio-economic scale—will benefit. CONCLUSIONS It is concerning that grantees had not thought through how their grants would be part of a sustainable business model. The reason for focusing on machinery appears to have been because it represented the most expensive investment and the one for which financial support was most needed. The use of grant machinery was not linked to the main line of the grantees’ business and they were unable to clearly articulate how it would affect or enhance their business. Although a linkage with smallholder farmers may be described in the grant applications, this doesn’t mean that there is a clear mechanism to benefit them, or that it will be implemented. Nonetheless, the high cost-share of investment, of at least 50 percent, increases the probability that production support will continue after project close and thus will be sustainable. Project activities are likely to be more sustainable when linked to stakeholders (government, private sector) that remain after the project implementer leaves. Yet at the same time, from a business perspective, cost share is irrelevant to who the client target is. If grantees see smallholder farmers as profitable clients, they will target them. More time could have been spent working with very poor smallholder farmers and grantees to increase likelihood the latter will benefit RECOMMENDATIONS • Create a framework for the post-project period to ensure use of the grants model for the benefit of the users after project close through strengthened formal and sustainable linkages with farmers associations and smallholder farmers, the ultimate beneficiaries. Integrating the grants component more firmly with other components will help in this regard. [IP] • To increase chances that the linkages will develop and be sustained, facilitate partnerships between grantees and associations, and promote grantee engagement with farmers to foster a relationship. This could be facilitated through the associations. [IP] • Go beyond a purely market-based approach. Focus on building capacity of firms that need help, and that will work with poor farmers, rather than taking the easy route of working with the best firms. Include the following features in the grant process: 25 Two of the 14 interviewed associations were also grantees. 17 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV i. Prior to accepting applications, engage in an outreach campaign that advertises the in-kind grants program to firms less likely to participate (i.e. less likely to look for or come across application announcements), such as women-owned firms, smaller private firms. This would broaden the opportunities to a wider group of firms, including those that might have a social as well as a for-profit mandate. ii. When determining criteria grant winners, give weight to potential for successfully supporting small farmers, and existing linkages with poor and marginalized farmers iii. After delivery of grants, allow for a follow-up period to help ensure that the component is working as intended and benefiting small farmers, and to allow for adjustments. • Begin the grants component early in the project, taking into account long procurement processes. Delivering equipment several years before the project is over would allow the effect on smallholder farmers to be measured and assessed, building in enough time for learning and improvement. [IP] • Provide technical assistance that extends beyond grant disbursement in the early phase of the project. [IP] EVALUATION QUESTION 2 In what ways did the FAS approach to building the capacities of the partner associations and to adopting successful sustainable business models result in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? FINDINGS Overview The FAS Project provided a range of capacity building support to associations, including training, farm￾based services and marketing support. Ninety percent of associations reported receiving support and they rated it highly. They noted that their performance improved, and farmers corroborated this, although they reported performance improvements in their association even in cases where it had received no support from FAS. [Association questionnaire, n = 59; farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Associations reported that their total membership increased by 18.6 percent over the duration of the project. 26 The reported that the quantity of crops produced in tons increased by 68 percent. More than half (52.2 percent) of associations reported that the number of sales contracts increased and the total value of contract amounts increased by more than 103 percent. 27 The mean number of contracts reported by associations increased from 29 before FAS to 73 post-project, and the total number of contracts increased from 214 to 628. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Considering only associations that received capacity building, the analysis reveals low correlations between farmers’ positive ratings of their association’s performance and a change in crop productivity 26 At agricultural cooperatives, the number of beneficiaries changes only through death and inheritance by multiple heirs or in the rare occasion of land being sold to multiple buyers (i.e., land being split up). Thus, the project would not have been expected to have affected the number of association members. In the case of the associations (not agriculture-focused), the number of beneficiaries may increase, e.g., as a result of expanding their outreach. 27 Inflation was more than 10 percent for most of the project life until mid-2019; it topped 30 percent in 2017. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18 or sales returns, as Table 6 shows. 28 Almost the same share of farmers rated their association positively regardless of whether their crop productivity had increased. Clearly most farmers do not expect the association to have an influence on this area. Correlating satisfaction with associations and sales returns yielded similar outcomes. TABLE 6. CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE OF ASSOCIATIONS (BY FARMERS) AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY CHANGE IN CROP PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED CONSTANT N % N % 8B. Has the performance level of the association changed over the past three years? Yes 205 84% 72 81% No 37 15% 12 13% Don’t Know 3 1% 5 6% Total 245 100% 89 100% 1. Responsiveness to Needs 111 54% 43 60% 2. Availability of support 115 56% 38 53% 3. Quality of services 91 44% 20 28% 4. Establishing linkages between buyers and suppliers 27 13% 11 15% 5. Facilitating marketing processes 37 18% 13 18% Source: Farmer questionnaire Furthermore, the evaluation found no evidence that the capacity of associations to adopt sustainable business models increased, or that they played a role. In KIIs, associations could not explain the business model concept [Association KIIs]. This is not surprising, as the FAS project did not produce a document or train associations to adopt a new business model. Farmers continue to see associations mainly as suppliers of (subsidized) inputs and view them as lacking capacity. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] Three in four farmers said they benefited from the project, but those who did attributed improvements in production primarily to the training and extension services they received. FAS IP staff facilitated contracts, rather than that stemming from association efforts. Support Provided Core elements of the FAS IP approach included providing support at the institutional level as well as trainings and technical assistance to farmers, including on market access and facilitation. [FAS IP written communication] The FAS project provided direct assistance in the form of training and equipment to 77 of the 233 associations located in the seven project governorates in Upper Egypt. The project worked with two types of associations—agriculture cooperative associations and community development associations—that cover a broader range of services. (See text box for descriptions.) 28 Phi, Cramer's V, Contingency Coefficient was between 0.127 - 0.128 19 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Selection was based on a capacity assessment the FAS IP conducted in 2018 for which associations were rated according to whether they a) had relatively high potential to sustain project activities, b) had less potential or c) had low potential. The first two groups became the focus of capacity building (CB) assistance. [FAS IP KII] For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as “CB associations” in this report. Following the assessment, the FAS IP conducted 15 workshops for 69 associations (on governance), and distributed computers, data show (projectors), printers and (accounting) software to those associations participating in the workshops. It also administered 14 training workshops on digital management and use of accounting software. The last capacity reported building took place in Q4 FY2020, after the evaluation data collection was completed. A government representative noted a lack of coordination with the government on the selection of associations, arguing that the FAS team members were not technical specialists and did not have sufficient knowledge. [Government representative KII] Expressing dissatisfaction with MALR involvement with the FAS project another Government representative believed that the Ministry should have been part of the selection process. It was a good project but I wished that the management of FAS had cooperated with the directorate rather than working directly with the cooperatives - Government representative #1 KII There was no constant contact with the Directorate - the coops just informed us that they are working with the FAS. Someone from the Extension Department should have worked with them and accompanied them in the process – but they did not – they worked directly with the coops and the farmers - Government representative #2 KII TYPES OF ASSOCIATIONS IN EGYPT Agriculture Cooperative Association: A non-governmental organization (NGO) that registered at the Ministry of Agriculture (under the regulations of Law No. 122/year 1980 and modified by Law No. 204/Year 2014). The association is managed by a board of directors (elected by the association’s general assembly) and its staff is hired by the government. Cooperative associations are intended to serve the farm community in aspects including land tenure/ownership arrangements, inputs supply, credits and more. Villages cannot have more than one farmer association. Community Development Association: A nonprofit NGO that registered at the Ministry of Social Solidarity (under the regulations of Law No. 149/year 2020). The association is managed by a board of directors elected by the association’s general assembly. CDAs serve the whole community in areas such as health, education, social solidarity, socio-economic development and others. Every village has an agricultural cooperative. Sources: Law 149/2019 for non-governmental associations registered with the Ministry of Social Solidarity; and Law 122/1980 for agricultural cooperative associations registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation. In some governorates, few associations met the criteria for receiving CB. As Table 6 shows, only four of 24 in Sohag (16.7 percent) complied, compared to more than half in Aswan. [FAS IP database] TABLE 7. SHARE OF ASSOCIATIONS RECEIVING PROJECT SUPPORT THROUGH CAPACITY BUILDING GOVERNORATE ASSOCIATIONS RECEIVED CB ALL SHARE THAT RECEIVED CB N N % Aswan 24 47 51.1% Minya 7 40 17.5% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20 GOVERNORATE ASSOCIATIONS RECEIVED CB ALL SHARE THAT RECEIVED CB N N % Luxor 10 33 30.3% Assiut 8 30 26.7% Beni Suef 14 30 46.7% Sohag 10 29 34.5% Qena 4 24 16.7% Total 77 233 33.0% Source: FAS Project data Associations received more than 30 types of CB services, which fall into three categories: 1) training (focused on institutional issues) (four): 2) farmers-based services (15); and 3) community awareness and marketing (11). Of the associations that responded to the telephone questionnaire, 91.5 percent said they received at least one service. More than 75 percent of CB associations received at least seven types of services and more than 50 percent received 21 services. [Associations questionnaire, n = 59] All four capacity building areas covering institutional strengthening fall in the top 10 services received by associations from FAS. [Associations questionnaire, n = 59] In interviews conducted as part of data collection, association staff mentioned only institutional training (governance, financial management and gender) and did not refer to the farmer-based services or community awareness and marketing, although these were part of the project and tracked in quarterly and annual project reports (n = 22). TABLE 8. THE 10 MOST-FREQUENTLY MENTIONED FAS-PROVIDED SERVICES TO ASSOCIATIONS TYPE OF SERVICE CATEGORY ASSOCIATIONS RECEIVING RATING N % 1. Good governance Capacity building services 52 96.3 8.8 2. Marketing management Farmer-based services 51 92.7 8.2 3. Proposal writing workshops Capacity building services 49 94.2 8.4 4. Receive a computer, projector Farmer-based services 49 92.5 9.5 5. Field / study visits Community awareness and marketing 49 90.7 9.1 6. Result management Capacity building services 48 90.6 8.4 7. Financial management Capacity building services 48 87.3 8.4 8. Exhibitions Community awareness and marketing 45 86.5 8.9 9. Marketing materials (posters / instructions about food safety) Community awareness and marketing 43 89.6 8.9 10. Instruction book for crops Community awareness and marketing 43 89.6 9.1 Source: Associations questionnaire (n = 59). Rating is on a 10-point scale. 21 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FAS was especially well-regarded for its field and study visits, and for taking association members to fairs and exhibitions; 88.6 percent of associations confirmed receiving both types of service. [Association questionnaire, n=59]. Support varied across associations. Although not part of the capacity building activity, none of the associations the evaluation team met with in Assiut reported receiving a pH/EC meter, although 30.5 percent of CB associations received them (n=59). In Beni Suef, Minya and Assiut governorates, 2,310 smallholder farmers were reportedly using the pH / EC meter. [Quarterly report Q2 2020]. In general, marketing services were less common but in greater demand among farmers, who frequently mentioned the need for assistance with marketing support (obtaining good prices for their products) in 19 GDs [n=22]. The least commonly reported services were access to cold transportation and support for certification. Performance Improvement Perceptions Associations perceive FAS project assistance to be beneficial. The average rating given to services was 8.1 (of 10), and 87.9 percent of associations responding to the questionnaire reported performance enhancement because the services they received. [Associations questionnaire, n=59] Farmers supported this finding, also reporting that their associations had improved in performance. More than half of farmers perceived the availability of support (55 percent) and responsiveness to needs (50.3 percent) as key factors to the improvement of their association’s performance. [Farmer questionnaire, n=528] Farmer responses indicated satisfaction levels with association performance, on average giving them a rating of 7.5 of 10. Associations that received capacity building were rated 7.9, compared to 6.4 for those that did not. Cooperatives were also rated more highly than associations, as Figure 3 shows. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Farmers belonging to associations that received CB support from the FAS project reported seeing significant improvements, but so did those in associations that did not receive FAS capacity building. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] FIGURE 3. MEAN SCALE OF SATISFACTION WITH ASSOCIATION'S OVERALL PERFORMANCE Differences are statistically significant at p<.01. Source: Farmer questionnaire, n=528, 10-point scale. Associations have gotten better over time; 84.4 percent of farmers in FAS-supported associations saw a performance change, compared with 58 percent in non-FAS-supported associations. [Farmer 7.5 7.9 6.4 7.9 7.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 Total CB association non-CB association Co-op Farmer Association USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22 questionnaire, n = 528] However, the perceived level of improvement was greater for FAS associations.29 It should not be a surprise that non-CB associations also saw improvements; the USAID FAS Project is one of many programs that have been supporting farmers associations. Associations’ staff mentioned that they received capacity building assistance from: USAID/Care/Shams, USAID/ Egypt Rural Agribusiness Strengthening (ERAS), ILO, IOM, Plan International, Misr El-Kheir Foundation and UNDP, among others. [Association KIIs]. An association from Sohag directly stated that the real impact of capacity building was not from FAS, but from another program, run by CARE, with whom they had started working “long ago.” [Association KIIs] The specific areas of performance improvement are shown in Figure 4. FIGURE 4. TYPE OF PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT AMONG FARMERS WHO SAW PERFORMANCE IMPROVE Source: Farmer questionnaire (n = 528) The positive feedback on capacity building training could not be correlated with objectively measured improvements, as the project did not assess training impacts. Government officials expressed skepticism about the impact of FAS trainings, saying: “Training are fine, but we need something with a stamp that will leave an impact, it is investment.” Another official observed: “There are a lot of trainings but there is no [assessment of the] impact of the training and its effect.” Others noted the importance of conducting pre- and post-training studies. [Government KII] In part, the issue concerns timing, since training was rolled out over last 7 quarters of the project. However, the IP was not focused on building capacity of associations to provide technical assistance to farmers. [FAS IP] The FAS project did conduct an Agricultural Cooperatives and Farmer’s Associations Capacity Assessment, but this was only finalized in December 2019. Based on association feedback, it appears that it was too late to apply its lessons in the field, since the season had ended. [Associations KIIs] However, the FAS IP notes that the assessment informed the need to provide governance training, which was delivered later in FY20 to those producer organizations who were deemed to be able to benefit from it.30 29 Coefficients for Phi and Cramer’s V were both 0.292, a significant moderate correlation between the variables “improved” and “CB association.” 30 FAS IP written communication, January 8, 2021. 12.2% 16.4% 40.1% 52.9% 55.9% 5.8% 1.4% 30.4% 65.2% 23.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Establishing linkages between buyers and suppliers Facilitating marketing processes Quality of services Availability of support Responsiveness to Needs non-CB CB 23 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Production Improvements Many farmers reported multiple benefits linked to the project: three-quarters of respondents (74.6 percent) reported an increased yield and almost as many (72.9 percent) reported improved quality of production, while 42.8 percent reported using fewer chemicals. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] But these changes are not attributable to association performance; further discussion on this will follow. All associations reported an increase in the number of contracts/deals as a result of FAS facilitating connections between private sector firms and farmers, from 213 before the project to 669 at the time of data collection. Twenty-one reported getting new contracts/deals for their members through the FAS Project. Among associations responding to the questionnaire, the total contract amounts increased by 103 percent in nominal terms, from 6,573,983 EGP before FAS to 13,361,431 EGP (from USD 839,278 to USD 850,39731) by the end of 2020. As noted, high inflation during the project years would have eaten away at farmers’ earnings, and farmers confirmed increases in prices and costs. [Association questionnaire, [n= 59] These impacts can be attributed to support provided by the FAS IP through farmer extension services, rather than associations changing the way they operate. FIGURE 5. NUMBER OF FARMER CONTRACTS AND DEALS REPORTED BY ASSOCIATIONS Source: Associations questionnaire, n = 59 Associations also reported a substantial increase in crop production after FAS: 68 percent, from 89,168 to 149,864 tons. [Associations questionnaire] As Table 9 demonstrates, many farmers received a significant amount of support from the project, and the project was perceived to make a difference to their production. However, the sources of support are related almost entirely to three areas: inputs, training and technical assistance (blue) and hardly at all from areas related to post-harvest, tool and technologies, marketing, etc. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] As a Minya association representative described it, “We have a problem in marketing—I wanted the project to help farmers in this regard. The problem of marketing is still continuing. We did not how to solve it, the project did not know how to solve it, the government even can’t.” [Association KII] These improvements can be attributed to direct FAS assistance to farmers, but not necessarily to association capacity building. Only 13.8 percent of farmers mentioned that their associations facilitate marketing processes and even fewer (11.1 percent) mentioned that associations are establishing linkages with buyers. [Farmer GDs, n = 22; farmer questionnaire, n = 528]. 31 Based on the December 2015 USD/EGP exchange rate of 7.83 and December 2020 rate of 15.71. 0 1 49 1 88 42 33 23 1 73 203 266 62 41 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Beni Suef Minua Assiut Sohag Qena Luxor Aswan Before FAS After FAS USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 24 Table 9 indicates that few farmers (per the questionnaire) attributed changes in production to this type of FAS support: just 8.2 percent cited the impact of marketing on better prices. TABLE 9. FARMERS REPORTING ON CONTRIBUTION OF FAS SERVICES (%) QUESTION: FAS SERVICES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR GAINING BENEFITS BENEFITED INPUTS TRAINING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRODUCTION AND MECHANIZATION SUPPORT HARVEST SUPPORT POST-HARVEST SUPPORT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATION SUPPORT MARKETING SUPPORT SALES AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 1. Increased yield 74.6 23.6 45.9 70.3 0.8 1.8 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Improved quality of production 72.9 26.8 37.1 74.3 2.1 1.0 2.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Reduced use of chemicals and pesticides 42.8 15.9 40.7 75.7 1.8 3.1 2.2 1.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. Reduced harvest loss 37.3 20.8 37.6 68.0 4.1 4.1 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5. Higher quality of inputs 33.9 36.9 35.8 69.8 0.6 1.7 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Accelerated production processes 33.5 30.5 42.9 70.1 2.3 3.4 2.8 2.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. Better prices for harvest 32.4 14.6 32.7 66.7 2.9 4.7 3.5 1.2 0.6 8.2 4.1 0.6 4. Reduced cost of inputs 31.6 18.6 33.5 74.3 1.2 3.6 3.6 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 8. Increased connection to markets 12.7 11.9 37.3 58.2 3.0 6.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0 1.5 11. No benefits gained 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. Ability to export 8.0 40.5 16.7 52.4 4.8 7.1 7.1 7.1 4.8 9.5 11.9 0.0 On the post-harvest side, the FAS project also worked with associations on collection tents32 and in Aswan (for dates) and Sohag (for onions). While collection tents were highlighted as a project success [FAS Project Highlights & Achievements July 2018–March 2], this was a recently undertaken activity; in the case of at least two associations, they had not been delivered. An association member from Sohag reported that there “had been some talk” about collection tents but then the project ended and nothing was done. An Assiut association member noted they had been asked to submit an application for collection tents in 2019, but then received nothing. This feedback from associations is similar to that of grantees about the project not delivering what was agreed on, whether because time had run out or some other reason. [Associations KIIs; grantee 32 Collection tents are equipped areas that can house harvested fruits, protecting the quality when bringing it to market, as well as reduce post-harvest waste between the point of harvest and packing. The National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) newly requires packing of certain crops to take place in a registered environment. 25 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KIIs] The main FAS IP, CNFA, applied for a cost extension to further build out these private sector linkages with association-owned packhouse suppliers, but did not receive it. CNFA regards this as a promising area for USAID’s future consideration. [FAS IP written communication] On the need for post-harvest support, an association member from Sohag noted that the governorate is well known for its onion production, with yields of 18 to 20 tons per feddan.33 But they noted that the governorate has no post-harvest or sorting facility. The onions are shipped up north to Lower Egypt, but transportation costs and crop loss are high. The crops then come back to Hurghada Port Safaga for export, which the association described as “without any sense, since Sohag is closer to the port.” [Association KII] Business Model Associations did not report awareness of the business model concept, where they would provide expanded farm services to their members in a sustainable manner. They could not explain the model to the evaluation team, even when asked about how the equipment they received from the project (computers, printers and various technologies such as red palm weevil devices) would help farmers. [Association KII] The lack of impact on associations’ way of doing business is supported by feedback from the private sector and government and field observations by the evaluation team. A private sector key informant argued, “You have to change the whole staff of cooperatives and associations. You have to change their whole culture—they are employees taking their salary so not motivated—if it is not enforced by higher [management levels], they won’t do anything.” [Private sector KII] CONCLUSIONS The FAS Project clearly contributed to improvements in on-farm production, but this was the largely result of FAS working directly with farmers, rather than an increase in association capacity or a change in the way they operate and engage with farmers. It cannot be said that it was the result of a new business model. The fact that almost the same share of farmers outside CB associations received benefits and saw their association’s performance improve is a strong indicator that the project’s capacity building activities were not a key factor in delivering services. In other words, the reported improvements in the value/volume of crops and number of contracts/deals is attributable not to association efforts, but to FAS Project technical assistance. Associations reported that capacity building was useful, the support was appreciated and enhanced performance and production improved, and all this was linked to the project. Yet, despite these positive changes, the evaluation team cannot conclude that the associations established sustainable business models, or that farmers are seeing production benefits because of the work of associations. This should be surprising, given that the FAS IP did not aim to change the approach of the associations. The FAS IP noted that “not to help them establish a new way doing business, but rather to support them to become functioning value chain actors from whom smallholder farmers could both source 33 A feddan is a measure of land equivalent to 1.03 acres. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 26 improved inputs and also enjoy access to wider markets and improved bargaining power during sales.”34 The training activities benefited associations focused on the institutional level, but a connection to a new way of doing business to serve farmers was not made. The role of associations as sustainable, local service providers for smallholder farmers was not developed. The first step (training and capacity building) occurred, but next steps (putting knowledge into practice, promoting sustainable outcomes and embedding institutional change) were not. This is because there is little evidence that the project’s capacity building that went to associations translated into project goals of associations delivering more services to farmers using a new business model. This should not be surprising; institutional change requires many years and ongoing support. Farmers received services from FAS, not their associations: after the project ends, it is unclear what will replace it. This is where a new way of doing business on the part of associations could have increased sustainability. RECOMMENDATIONS • To better support smallholder farmers, develop a results-based capacity building approach that targets both the institutional and technical capacity of associations, enabling them to apply what they have learned through an action plan. [IP] • Beyond delivering training, the strategy should assess whether it is being applied and why or why not. The project would address issues through tailored support. Use a structured approach to association capacity building that includes continuing assessment and adaptation of CB progress. This would enable better measurement of the progress and sustainability of capacity building in line with the new USAID Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR) strategy. This should then be reflected in the project M&E system. [USAID, IP] • Incorporate the above recommendation as qualitative learning outcomes in project indicators—in addition to quantitative indicators such as capacity or knowledge building— to track the effect of association capacity building on smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] • If capacity building is to yield results, it should begin earlier in the project and be accompanied by practical, follow-up steps and an iterative learning process: pilot the capacity building activities in the field and then, building on lessons learned related to adoption, tailor the model to the specific association and scale it up. Beyond classroom training, different methods should be tested, including peer-to-peer review, on the job training, and mentoring. [IP] • Incorporate capacity building into a broader support package that links to other components (e.g., for in-kind grants) so that it leads to tangible outcomes that associations can apply with their members, such as business plans, feasibility studies, etc. [IP] • Deliver more technical training to associations to support farmers (e.g., with targeted extension services, machinery, etc.) to address value chain gaps. [IP] • Provide each association with tailored capacity building, based on a capacity assessment related to the its ability to deliver technical assistance to farmers, taking into account its resources, priority areas, role, project objectives, etc. [IP] Related to this, reduce the chance 34 FAS IP written communication, January 8, 2021 27 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV that support benefits only associations with the most capacity by including a strategy to assist weaker entities as well. • Develop and embed follow-up support and monitoring mechanisms for the post-project period, so that the results are sustained [IP]. This would include fostering linkages between grantees, associations, government, and ensuring that associations are well-trained, and have a business model. EVALUATION QUESTION 3. Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? FINDINGS Tools and Technologies Introduced In addition to the services and training that the project delivered through associations, it introduced a range of innovations technologies to promote higher and improved production, targeting specific crops. Some were devices (e.g., for measuring grape sizes; for measuring sugar levels; for red date palm weevil treatment; for more efficient irrigation; for measuring soil and water salinity) and some were in the form of techniques and supplies (e.g., for safe use of pesticides; for use of micronutrients to increase plant resistance to fungal infection). The project plan [FAS Year 5 Work Plan, 2019] mentions plans to introduce solar irrigation pumps, but this was not implemented. The technologies were sometimes given to associations, and sometimes to farmers directly, although associations the project met with were usually unable to answer questions on this topic because they either were not aware or didn’t receive any technology. Associations would, in theory, manage their use and rotation among their farmer members. Almost half of farmers responding to the questionnaire—242 (46 percent)—said they used a FAS technology. In all, they used 506 FAS technologies, just over two per farmer on average. (Farmer questionnaire, n = 528) This was only half of the project’s target of reaching 90 percent of farmers. [FAS Project PIRS No. 3]35 This would represent almost 8,000 project farmers, assuming that the evaluation sample is fully representative of all farmers in the program. The FAS target was 6,200 “individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance.” The FAS IP reported reaching 5,218. (although assessing this achievement was not part of the evaluation scope of work) Not belonging to a CB association did not prevent farmers from receiving project assistance. The project did not “penalize” farmers for their association’s lack of effectiveness; they still provided innovations and technologies. [FAS team KII] Thus, approximately the same share of farmers in CB (46.5 percent) and non-CB (43.7 percent) associations received some type of innovation and technology from the project. 35 According to FAS Project documents: “Rationale for Targets (optional): The indicator targets are based on the projected number of farmers participating in the FAS crop production training program, the number of managers of firms receiving FAS grants and the expected rate of uptake (100 percent for association managers and firms, 90 percent for farmers based on interim FAS results of farmer uptake).” Uptake is assumed to refer to adoption, not delivery of a technology. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 28 Of the eight technologies assessed through the farmer questionnaire and through group discussions, the most common type of support mentioned was safe use of pesticides (27.3 percent), followed by improved water-use efficiency (19.7 percent), and the red date palm weevil device (17.6 percent). FIGURE 6. RESPONDENTS REPORTING USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES Distribution of Technology The distribution of the floppy irrigation model to FSCs for their demonstration plots was one of the more positively mentioned technologies. Referring to the accompanying technical assistance, a farmer from an association in Minya said that, in addition to fertilizer support, “The best thing is … the accurate irrigation. This was the most helpful. Yes, the irrigation information was very important for all of us.”36 However, irrigation technology was introduced late in the project, limiting its potential benefits since FAS Project staff will not follow up. Tellingly, a project note on “Innovations in Irrigation” highlights the potential benefits of floppy irrigation, but does not point to outcomes, quoting one company as saying: “We are still waiting on the results, but we expect up to 30 percent increased yield of alfalfa next month,” and noting “a great deal of interest in the floppy sprinklers” among its customer. (FAS Project “Innovations in Irrigation – Winrock Success Story”). As Figure 6 shows, only about one in five farmers reported using an improved water efficiency device. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Sometimes a technology was promised but not delivered, as in the case of a red date palm weevil device for an Aswan association: “[FAS Project personnel] talked to us about the palm pest—it was mostly production support related—the palms and the mangoes were already grown.” [Farmer GD, agricultural cooperative association, Aswan] Feedback from KIIs pointed to various shortcomings. An association in Qena said they received a small trimming tool for the mango trees but described it as not very efficient, and did not really consider it to be “technology.” [Association KII]. During a group discussion with farmers at an association in Luxor governorate, two of five participants reported being unaware that the association had the red date palm weevil device and that they could use it. [Farmer GD, n=22] 36 Irrigation technology was installed at the eight FSCs, according to the FAS Project Q4 2020 report. 0.4% 5.9% 6.1% 8.0% 11.0% 17.6% 19.7% 27.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Onion artificial curing Land levelling pH, EC meter devices Use of micro-elements to increase plant resistance to fungal infection Colorimetric insect sticker traps Red palm weevil device Improved water-use efficiency Safe use of pesticides 29 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Inadequate planning appears to have prevented the project from distributing innovations and technologies more widely. They included cases, such as pH meters, where the device was distributed in the last days of the project, as well as outreach and uneven geographic coverage. [Farmer GD, n = 22; association KIIs] A consequence of the late delivery of technology was that a systematic assessment of how the technologies affected production was not possible. Among farmers who received technology support, feedback was positive, from an average of 7.7 (for use of micronutrients) to an average 8.5 (red date palm weevil device). 37 The overall average rating was 8.3, higher for farmers in CB associations (8.4) than non-CB associations (7.6). [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Technology and Tools Contribution Although yield and quality of production increased for the majority of farmers, technologies and tools had only a marginal influence, if any, per both the questionnaire responses and the GDs. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528; farmer GDs, n = 22] Finally, a clear implementation strategy was absent. FAS did not undertake a study on how the project would distribute these tools and technologies to the governorates and districts. Such a plan would be based on an assessment or an existing need, and rely on evidence. As Figure 7 shows, when asked about the main factors influencing increased production, less than 1 percent cited tools and technology. Farmers received a significant amount of support, and the project was perceived to make a difference to their production. However, the reasons are related almost entirely to three areas: inputs, training and technical assistance. FIGURE 7. FAS SERVICES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO INCREASED YIELD Source: Farmer questionnaire, responses by the 394 farmers who reported benefits, n = 528 Tools and technologies had a consistently low impact across types of benefits: improved quality of production (1.0 percent contribution); reduced use of chemicals and pesticides (1.8 percent contribution); and reduced harvest loss (1.5 percent contribution). The area where tools and technologies contributed most (just 7.0 percent) was in ability to export, but just one in 12 farmer respondents cited this. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] 37 Onion artificial curing was rated 9.0, but only two respondents used it 23.6% 45.9% 70.3% 0.8% 1.8% 2.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Inputs Training Technical Assistance Production and Machination Support Harvest Support Post-harvest Support Tools and Technologies Certification Support USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 30 Marketing Technologies did not sufficiently address farmers’ marketing needs. When asked in GDs what they needed, 19 of 22 GDs selected marketing. For most farmers, marketing refers to being able to get better prices for their production. They are often at the mercy of traders, who can set prices that farmers have little choice but to accept. “Monopoly is the real issue, as well bad marketing,” according to an association representative in Assiut. [Association KII] Referring to the grape crop, a farmer from Minya explained the need for guidance in marketing: “We need to know the level of glucose, for example, or the specifications needed for better prices.” [Farmer GD] At another Minya GD, when discussing the minimal FAS assistance, they had received, a participant said: “We needed them to focus on marketing. … They promised things and didn’t do it. They said they will establish a post-harvest unit and that they will bring us contracts, and then they didn’t.” [Farmer GD] Distribution of technologies was uneven. Minya and Aswan farmers received more than their counterparts in the south. Only 26.5 percent of farmers in Minya and 29.5 percent in Aswan said they had not received new technologies, while more than 80 percent of the sample from Luxor, Suhag and Beni Suef governorates did not receive any.38 [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] The evaluation did not assess extension services, but the way farmers described them is instructive. As reported, the form of extension, the number of extension visits and the method of outreach varied wildly across governorates and communities. For example, in Beni Suef, the agronomist implementing the extension visits was highly commended, with farmers reporting repeated visits to lands, provision of sound advice from their perspective and high responsiveness. In Minya, farmers said they received only one or two visits throughout the project lifetime, even if the guidance provided was regarded as beneficial. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] A limited number of participating farmers in Minya said they did not receive any visits. Although the FAS IP reported that it provided comprehensive trainings on the use of innovative technologies, including a focus on the value of using the equipment to reduce costs, boost productivity, reduce labor or any combination of the three, the evaluation could not confirm this. For example, no associations reported receiving training on delivered devices such as the pH meter (n=14). One association reported keeping it in the box as they did not have anyone to operate it. Another didn’t see the purpose of using it because the farmers do not know how. [Associations KIIs, n = 22] ICT Many farmers did not benefit from ICT support in the form of either a platform that generates SMS (introduced early in the project) or a WhatsApp extension service introduced to mitigate risks related to COVID-19. Only 10.8% of farmers interviewed said they had received ICT services. This was in part because of weak internet and low smartphone use (14 percent of farmers were illiterate based on the Farmer questionnaire). Farmers in a GD in Luxor reported hearing about ICT but said they didn’t see anything. [Farmer questionnaire, Farmer GDs] In cases where farmers were either illiterate or lacked ICT devices, FAS put greater efforts into providing face-to-face trainings and on-farm technical assistance. [FAS IP written communication] Face￾38 As noted under the EQ3 findings, most project farmers received some type of support from the project in the form of extension services. 31 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV to-face technical assistance and training were the most frequently mentioned services, mostly reported as causing increased yield and improved quality, despite the inconsistency of delivery. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] When asked about all the support they received, only 2.5 percent of farmers cited tools/technology; see Figure 8. [Farmer questionnaire, n=528). FIGURE 8. THE FIVE MOST- AND LEAST-MENTIONED SERVICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS Success Stories While these findings highlight the low value added by technology to the project’s overall impact, the evaluation team did identify several successful examples: • Coding and certification (for pomegranates) was a major project support provided to farmers and traders in Assiut. The FAS Project worked with pomegranate traders in the governorate who already owned processing collection tents, adding a bathroom and helping them obtain NFSA certification, which allows them to export to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Europe. [Farmer GD; association KIIs; FAS Quarterly Report Q4 2020] The project switched from the expensive GLOBALG.A.P. certification criteria to NFSA, which was affordable.39 [Associations KIIs] • Professional-grade mango boxes kept the fruit in better condition and directly improved profits. This raised the sales price by 10 percent in one case. A farmer at a Qena GD who benefited from this noted that training on packing and pest control and “how to present their produce in the boxes” was “very beneficial.” Another farmer in the same GD reported that mangoes sold directly from trees earned him 5 to 6 EGP, while fruit in boxes could bring him 10 EGP. [Farmer GD] 39 GLOBALG.A.P. is a private sector entity that offers 40 standards and provides food safety certification all over the world: www.globalgap.org. The National Food Safety Authority was established by the Egyptian Parliament in 2017 to ensure that food products consumed, distributed, marketed or produced in Egypt meet the highest standards of food safety and hygiene, and to allow for export to Saudi Arabia. FAO Egypt. 2019. Egypt, Establishment of the National Food Safety Authority. GAIN Report Number: EG-19010. 1.3% 1.3% 2.5% 2.7% 3.0% 16.3% 18.8% 25.6% 37.3% 74.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 21. Access to cold transportation 20. Support for Certification 19. Tools/technology 18. Facilitating forward contracting 17. Transporting to market points 5. Inputs – Pesticides 4. Training – Marketing 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 2. Training – Farming Practices 1. Technical assistance / Extension USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 32 CONCLUSIONS Farmers benefited in measurable ways from the project support, but innovations and technologies had a marginal impact, if any. The project succeeded in delivering innovations and technologies among many farmers. Although this is not the same as promoting their use, farmers rated them positively, indicating that they were welcome. While the yield and quality of production increased for the majority of farmers, they did not attribute this to the technologies and tools, which had only a marginal influence, if any. It is possible that technologies’ and tools’ low level of contribution to production resulted from being delivered late; a follow-up assessment following the next season might show different results. Given that associations are not applying a business model, the technical capacity to use innovations and technologies and their sustainability as solutions are uncertain. Two success factors can be highlighted. 1) The use of a demand-driven approach—the project delivered innovations / technologies to associations whose farmers grew crops where the innovation/technology was appropriate and needed. 2) In the case of coding and certification, the project linked to existing institutions and their mandates. Several hindrances prevented technologies from having a noticeable impact: 1) Distribution of technologies came near project end (computers, pH monitors, cold chain app). 2) The distribution approach was not accompanied by a clear implementation strategy. Even though technology was not given out where there was no need for it, planning based on data analysis was minimal. This would have taken into account timing (around the growing/harvest season), sufficient follow-up and technical assistance on use, or an operational plan for the tool usage and maintenance. 3) Operational issues (delays, outreach, geographical coverage) prevented the project’s ability to disseminate and scale up. 4) In the case of ICT, farmer literacy levels and poor internet access limited the benefits of the WhatsApp extension service. RECOMMENDATIONS • Deliver innovations / technologies at the beginning of projects rather than at the end. This is necessary to allow time to monitor outcomes, identify weaknesses in the process and provide technical support. • Develop a systematic distribution plan based on a needs assessment that maps the technologies to crop type, land requirements and geographical coverage. • Before introducing new technologies, conduct a cost-benefit analysis at the farm level on a sample of farms that would include physical land requirements, cost of operation, labor. Once the technologies are in use, assess and how and whether they respond to the priority 33 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV areas/needs of the farmers. For example, if labor is the highest cost for smallholder farmers, technology can focus on that and not packaging material. The plan would address questions such as how many infestations of the red weevil were in place and, based on the analysis, how many devices should be distributed to fill this demand. • Outline a clear role for associations to manage the use of technologies among their members and incorporate it into their business models. If there is a grants activity, link the technologies to it. If the project conducts community mapping for farmers’ needs and priorities, introduce technology to the association that directly responds to those demands. This could generate income for the association and sustain the model. • Facilitate linkages to financial institutions supporting tailored products for increasing smallholder farmers’ financial ability to apply new technologies that have been introduced. CROSSCUTTING ISSUE: GENDER FINDINGS Overview Project documents describe plans to give special consideration to women’s producer groups and groups with stronger female participation [FAS Project Year 4 Work Plan] and to support women entrepreneurs to “generate ideas and to promote their products.” [FAS Project Year 5 Work Plan] The project also employed a gender specialist who provided training and support on gender-sensitive issues. [FAS Project Quarterly report, Q4 2020] However, the evaluation did not see tangible results from these efforts. The project primarily benefited men, as only 2.1 percent of smallholder farmers are women. The FAS MEL Plan only referred to gender for disaggregation purpose without adding gender specific indicators. (Ideally, of course, gender indicators would focus not only target a certain number of women but cover other gender-specific dimensions.) Of the association staff supported, 59.6 percent were women. [FAS Project database] Grants Component For the grants component, applications listed the number of women who would benefit either through employment or as clients. For example, one grantee included a gender component in his greenhouse plan to employ 30 workers (10 permanent and 20 temporary). But when the project canceled that part of the grant, the grantee could not follow through. He noted, however, that he couldn’t hire women to operate a tractor (apparently a gender norms issue). Another grantee reported that of the 1,000 farmers they targeted to serve with machinery and seeds, 250 were women. [Grantee KIIs] The number of women hired by grantees was one of the evaluation criteria for proposals, and the project gender officer conducted visits to make sure grantees met the requirement and were applying the policy on women working on their premises. [FAS gender and entrepreneurship officer KII] The FAS IP developed a special women-owned business grant request for applications (RFA) ($1.75 million) to attract female grantees, and USAID approved the 14 female entrepreneurs who applied. However, the applicants were unable to provide land ownership documents during the due diligence process around issues related to land title, so no grants were disbursed. [FAS team KII] The short timeframe did not allow FAS to reach a larger group of women as potential grantees. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 34 Association Capacity Building Associations received training on gender, covering the role of women, female-headed households and women’s role in agriculture. Some associations were used as a venue to deliver entrepreneurship training especially for women directly by FAS, but the associations’ role was not clear. [FAS gender and entrepreneurship officer] However, this issue is normally the NGO’s area of focus, not that of agricultural cooperatives, and the training did not translate into changes in practice by incorporating a gender lens or increasing women’s participation in their operations. Associations received training on gender, covering gender and inclusion, female-headed households and women’s role in agriculture. As with other types of training, changes in how associations managed themselves or worked with farmers were apparent. Some community development associations were already providing parallel women-focused services (e.g., El Rouby Association, Minya). Only two cases of associations employing female agronomists were reported. [Associations KII] Although the evaluation team met with associations that had women on their board of directors (e.g., an association in Qena producing dates and mangoes) and among their staff, the project did not target women-led associations with tailored support on the basis of gender. The pomegranate post-harvest model supports women laborers, as most post-harvest centers have women in their associations. Packhouses traditionally employ women laborers. [Association KIIs; private sector KIIs] Other efforts attempted to support women as part of the project, but were largely unsuccessful. A private sector firm contributed technical support to a women-led initiative in 2018 (eight young women from Aswan on agricultural processes and rooftop gardening). It agreed to support two associations interested in drying tomatoes on rooftops, and the firm met with them, visited the rooftops and provided the technical support. Nonetheless, at the end, the associations could not apply the model, as it turned out to be overly complex and the firm did not receive any product from the initiative. [Private sector KII] CONCLUSIONS Although the activities evaluated included some gender elements (grant applications, association capacity building), they were not a core factor in the design and the evaluation did not observe or find evidence that it they had succeeded in empowering women. Training for associations on gender has not translated into visible results. Serving women clients and employing women is not the same as empowering women within the agricultural sector, or taking into account their specific needs and constraints, such as challenges with land ownership titles. (In Egypt, women formally own only 5.2 percent of land. In rural areas, inheritance customs favor men and inhibit women’s control over the land.40 Land owned by women is usually cultivated by a male relative, who then receives the input supplies from the cooperative.) Women in Egypt traditionally work in production lines and packhouses, and it is unclear that enumerating their presence in such jobs would contribute to their empowerment. The project’s gender focus was weighted heavily to the nutrition component (not covered by the evaluation), but while it may be a sound strategy to target women in this area, it also emphasizes 40 FAO. Gender and Land Rights Database, Food and Agricultural Organization 35 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV existing gender norms, limiting the role of women to family nutrition and similar household functions, not necessarily contributing to the project’s goal of increasing income for smallholder farmers. RECOMMENDATIONS • Conduct a gender analysis at the beginning of the project, across components, to identify the distinctive needs of men and women farmers under each component. Based on the analysis, introduce gender-responsive activities and interventions. [IP] • Develop a strategy that goes beyond target numbers related to employment positions and takes into account the constraints and conditions that women face. Develop tailored interventions and support that focuses on women’s empowerment. Include gender target numbers for indicators in the project M&E system. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 36 ANNEXES 37 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this final evaluation is to provide USAID/Egypt with an external evaluation of the performance of the USAID project, Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) starting from its third year of performance (July 2017) (given the slow startup of the first two years) to the end of performance period on November 2020, including a five month no cost extension (NCE). To do so, the evaluation will assist the Mission and USAID/Washington in informing decisions regarding: 1) the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of interventions, 2) the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri￾business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular; and 3) the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. The primary audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Egypt and mission management. Secondary audiences include the implementing partner of FAS, other implementing partners, FAS stakeholders, the Government of Egypt (GOE), relevant donor groups, and the private sector. Findings and recommendations of this evaluation will be used by USAID/Egypt to reach a direct decision about future interventions for the agriculture sector. 1. SUMMARY INFORMATION PROJECT NAME EGYPT FOOD SECURITY AND AGRIBUSINESS SUPPORT Implementer Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) Bilateral Agreement # Cooperative Agreement # BA# 263-299 CA# AID-263-A-15-00022 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project (TEC) $23,000,000 Life of Project July 2015 – November 2020 (including five month NCE) Active Geographic Regions Upper Egypt Development Objective(s) (DOs) Egyptian Economy is More Competitive and Inclusive USAID Office Economic Growth Office 2. BACKGROUND CONTEXT, HISTORY, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, CURRENT STATUS OF THE ACTIVITY/PROJECT Agriculture is the largest employer of all economic sectors in Egypt, providing more than 24% of total employment and 40% of total female employment in 2015 according to Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). Accordingly, agriculture is the most important source of income and employment to the rural poor. The agriculture sector continues to face many challenges, such as poor access to inputs, insufficient water management systems, inadequate extension services, lack of skilled labor, inefficient food safety standard system, and the absence of quality market access, both international and domestic. Egyptian farmers are struggling to overcome these challenges on their own. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 38 Increasing smallholder farmers’ productivity and income is a critical need if agriculture is to reach its full potential. The vast majority of Egyptian smallholder farmers follow traditional cropping patterns that have been used for decades and remain focused on local food crop production. In recent years, substantial USAID/Egypt resources have been allocated toward increasing the volume of high value horticultural crop production for both the local and export markets. The demand for seasonal fresh fruits and vegetables is growing in both the local and export markets. According to the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), international trade in high value horticultural products is also increasing at an average of 6.6% per annum to replace traditional agricultural export commodities. Consumers are also becoming more demanding for product quality and safety. Despite high comparative advantage, Upper Egypt has been slow in exploiting these demands. Poor agricultural practices, fragmented supply chains, inefficient transport and unfavorable production financing were all factors hindering the shift to growing high value cash crops. In view of the problems defined above, the FAS Project supported the delivery of technical assistance for small farmers across the different value chain activities: production, post-harvest, and marketing. EGYPT FOOD SECURITY AND AGRIBUSINESS SUPPORT A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis(es), and Theory of Change The FAS project is funded from the Agribusiness for Rural Development and Increasing Incomes (ARDII) bilateral agreement. The ARDII aims to increase incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through sustainably intensifying agricultural productivity, increasing the efficiency of post-harvest processes, improving the marketing of these goods, and improving the nutritional status of women and children. The ARDII focuses on bringing targeted beneficiaries into environmentally appropriate high value commercial horticulture value chains. At the same time, work will be undertaken to address complementary, cross-cutting sector support such as extension services, irrigation infrastructure (delivery), and irrigation efficiency. In five years, smallholder beneficiaries should exhibit significantly higher sustained incomes in comparison to the baseline data of farmers who grow more traditional, natural resource exploitive, crops. The development hypothesis asserts that shifting from traditional crops to high value horticultural crops and strengthening the links between farmers and the local and international markets is expected to increase farmers’ income. FAS’s overarching programmatic goals link to USAID/Egypt’s mission objective of inclusive agriculture sector growth. FAS operates under the theory of change that if we increase the efficiency of post￾harvest processes, improve the marketing of these goods, and improve the nutritional status of women and children, the farmers will produce better quality products and be able to sell the products at higher prices and hence increase their incomes. This will be supported either directly, through direct support services, training sessions, capacity building activities and coordination of networking activities, or indirectly, when partnering with private firms and resource partners. The following are the expected results from FAS project: increased incomes (a minimum of 12%) for at least 14,000 smallholders farmers; increased small holders production levels of horticultural crops by 15-50%; improved extension and advisory service systems using ICT to reach 36000 farmers; increased irrigation efficiency by 65% of beneficiaries. 39 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV B. Results Frameworks The conceptual framework for the FAS projects’ activities and interventions is presented in Figure 1, FAS Results Framework. This figure shows the training, technical assistance and grants delivered through the FAS work plan activities (shown at the bottom of the hierarchy) leading to each of the higher-level results. For Intermediate Result (IR) 1, Improved On-Farm Production, there are two Sub￾Intermediate results that together will be achieved to achieve this IR. The other IR do not have lower level results. When IRs 1 - 4 are achieved, they will together contribute to the achievement of the FAS objective. FIGURE 1, FAS RESULTS FRAMEWORK C. Summary Project FAS started in June 2015 with a total estimated cost of $23,000,000. The project's original end date was June 2020 and was extended for another five months to end on November 30, 2020. The goal of FAS is to increase agriculture-related incomes of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt through a market-driven approach that facilitates sustainable, pro-poor value chain development and helps smallholders increase access to domestic and export markets. The market-driven approach comprises four interrelated components: 1) Improved on-farm production, 2) More efficient post-harvest processes, 3) Improved marketing of agriculture crops and products, and 4) Improved nutritional status, especially for women and children. The FAS project is supported by guiding principles and cross-cutting themes: systems strengthening for input suppliers; agriculture processors and support services; a focus on end markets and demand; an understanding of the role of value chain governance; a market systems perspective; recognition of USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 40 the importance of inter-firm relationships and stakeholder participation; policy and enabling environment; gender inclusivity; and leveraging proven ICT capabilities to bring interventions to scale. PROJECT DESIGN FRAMEWORK Overall Goal: Increase Agriculture-related Incomes of Smallholder Farmers in Upper Egypt Component 1: Improved on-farm productivity and income for smallholder farmers Activity 1.1: Associations and cooperative strengthening Activity 1.2: On-farm training to improve volumes and quality Activity 1.3: Promotion of innovative tools and technology Activity 1.4: ICT solutions for extension and irrigation Activity 1.5: Strengthening input suppliers (agro dealers) Activity 1.6: Preparation for successful post-harvest handling Component 2: More efficient post-harvest processes Activity 2.1: Vertical integration of farmer groups Activity 2.2: Post-harvest facility operator capacity building Activity 2.3: Agro-processing enterprise development Activity 2.4: ICT solutions for post-harvest processes Component 3: Improved marketing of agriculture crops and products Activity 3.1: Forward contracting between suppliers and buyers Activity 3.2: Trade show attendance Activity 3.3: ICT solutions for marketing Activity 3.4: Buyer Visits Activity 3.5: Expanding certification of farmer groups 41 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Component 4: Improved nutritional status especially for women and children Activity 4.1: Targeted ICT nutrition messaging Activity 4.2: Community Nutrition Mobilizers Activity 4.3: Nutrition messaging targeted to women in the agro-processing workforce The project is working across seven governorates in Upper Egypt and is currently working in around 15 value chains. These are mainly: Tomatoes, Onions, Sweet Potatoes, Peppers, Green Beans, Table Grapes, Mangoes, Coriander, Cumin, Pomegranates, Garlic, and Anise. The project is working with around 117 associations and cooperatives across the seven governorates. Although this is the total number of partner associations/cooperatives, the project categorized them according to their activity with the project. Out of this number only 77 are considered active ones that deal regularly and benefit from the project technical assistance. The project also developed assessment tools to assess the capacities of the 77 active associations with the aim to provide tailored capacity building programs based on actual needs for the associations/cooperatives. The list of associations/cooperatives by governorates is included in Annex 1. Aswan: 37 Assuit: 10 Beni Sueif: 20 Luxor: 13 Minyia: 15 Qena: 8 Sohag: 14 As for the grant component, it targets the entire horticultural value chain segments including inputs suppliers, farming operations, post-harvesting, processing, and marketing. The grant target groups are the private sector, farmer associations and cooperatives operating at any of the value chain various segments. The grant application process encourages and supports grant applicants to demonstrate their action plans to contribute in achieving the project results. Grants component is independent from capacity building. They could be overlap as they are working on the same universe, some of them may be taking capacity building of the project. The grant applications evaluation criteria as well score the grant applicants based on their capacity to contribute achieving the project results. The FAS project has originally a $5.75 million grants fund used to refurbish and develop productive infrastructure, catalyze innovation, stimulate investment, and support the development of critical value chain segments. The grant fund will also leverage private sector investment by the end of the project. Due to delays in implementation, the FAS was only able to provide grants to 12 grantees with a total amount equivalent to $2.4 million. The list of grantees and updated information about each grant, as per FY2020, quarter 2 is presented in Annex 2. The achievements of the project from March 2018 until March 2020 is presented as Annex 3 The FAS award had gone through nine modifications. Below is a summary list of these modifications: USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 42 • Modification One-Dated August 4, 2015: The purpose was to revise several sections (schedule, program description, substantial involvement) in the agreement, and others). It is a 4- pages modification. • Modification Two-Dated August 28, 2018: The purpose was to incrementally fund the award by $2,700,000. • Modification Three-Dated September 4, 2018: The purpose was to change the name of the AOR. • Modification Four-Dated February 20, 2019: The purpose was to change the name of the implementer from Vega to CNFA, incrementally fund the award by $740,000, and to modify the indirect cost to reflect the new NICRA. • Modification Five-Dated April 22, 2019: The purpose was to incrementally fund the award by $1,479,000. • Modification Six-Dated September 4, 2019: The purpose was to incrementally fund the award by $2,639,678. • Modification Seven-Dated February 3, 2020: The purpose was to incrementally fund the award by $800,000. • Modification Eight-Dated April 1, 2020: The purpose was to incrementally fund the award by $3,652,102. • Modification Nine-Dated June 30, 2020: The purpose was to incrementally fund the award by $1,389,220 and extend the project for 5 months. D. Summary of the FAS Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan: The MEL plan includes a set of indicators to measure results at different implementation levels (e.g. Intermediate Results, Sub Intermediate Result and Output) including the Feed the Future standard indicators and custom indicators. Performance indicator results will provide both USAID/Egypt and CNFA with data to measure the impact of the program and the increase in incomes and food security of smallholder farmers in Upper Egypt. The FAS project has selected a set of indicators to measure the intended results, as shown in Figure 1 FAS Results Framework. Indicators are selected to serve two main purposes: (1) to accurately measure impact on end-beneficiaries, and (2) to effectively guide FAS managers in making timely and informed decisions about and adjustments to implementation strategy. Outcome indicators are used to measure the higher-level results, and output indicators to measure the lower level results. Most of the indicators are drawn from the set of standard Feed the Future (FTF) indicators, along with custom indicators that are aligned with the USAID/Egypt mission performance monitoring plan (PMP). A copy of the project MEL plan is included in Annex 4. 3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation will answer the following questions to assess the performance of the USAID FAS project during its last three years of implementation: 43 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1- To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) a. How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post￾harvest, and marketing? 2- In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? 3- Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? 4. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The Evaluation Team should provide Plan A “normal with precautions “ to include combined methodologies for both face to face and virtual meetings but with field data collection. The evaluation team should propose a Plan b to move to fully remote data collection. Field work would be carried out while strictly observing procedures and protection in response to COVID -19. EVALUATION DESIGN This is an end of project performance evaluation and is intended to focus on how the activities have been implemented, what they have achieved, whether expected results have occurred according to the projects’ design and in relation to the development hypothesis and how activities are perceived, valued, and sustained in activities related to the three evaluation questions. Evaluators will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to generate answers. The evaluation must follow the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (Updated October 2016): https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf 1. Data collection methodology and corresponding data sources: The Evaluation Team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information which is required to assess the evaluation objectives. The evaluation team shall share data collection tools, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The survey /questionnaire tools should draw upon both subjective and objective input of the programs’ stakeholders and should be disaggregated to the relevant level along the value chain. Illustrative disaggregation and program areas for the surveys of the respective clients should consider geographical coverage, type of crops, participation time at the program, gender, processing facility type, size of businesses and schools, and other factors, as applicable. The data collection methodology will include a mix of tools appropriate to the evaluation questions and include document review, in-depth interview with the key stakeholders, surveys and focus group discussions with beneficiaries. USAID/Egypt will provide the evaluation team with electronic access USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 44 to key project-related documents prior to the start of the in-country work. All team members shall review these documents in preparation for the initial team planning meeting. Relevant documents to the evaluators include: • ARDII bilateral agreement and amendments, • FAS cooperative agreement and its modifications, • FAS work plans for the period of evaluation, • FAS quarterly and annual reports, • Monitoring and evaluation plan and results, • Value chain assessment, • Grant manual, and • Other relevant technical reports. In addition to the above list, the evaluator document review shall consider other secondary literature determined relevant by the evaluation team. The evaluation team should propose a methodology that takes into consideration that FAS does not have baseline data for incomes and sales. The evaluation team will complete site visits to the 7 governorates in which FAS implement its activities. Surveys, key informants interviews, and focus group discussions will be conducted with counterparts, stakeholders, and beneficiaries according to a representative sample size to be discussed and approved by USAID. 2. Interviews, and site visits: The Evaluation Team will conduct in-depth interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions, at a minimum, with the following organizations/staff: • Ministry of Agriculture and Land reclamation (MOALR) representatives in different governorates, • Representatives of the associations and cooperatives, • Representatives of the private sector participants, • Grantees of FAS, • Selective USAID Staff including AOR, and • Smallholder farmers (project beneficiaries in selected governorates). 3. Data analysis plan: Prior to the start date of data collection, the evaluation team must develop and present, for USAID/Egypt review and approval, a data analysis plan that details how focus groups and key informant interviews will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative and quantitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from performance indicators and the activity performance monitoring records to reach conclusions about the areas of this evaluation. 45 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The table below suggests data sources, collection and analysis methods for each of the evaluation question. The evaluation team should submit a complete table with proposed data collection and analyses methods, as convenient. QUESTIONS SUGGESTED DATA SOURCE SUGGESTED DATA COLLECTION METHOD SUGGESTED DATA ANALYSIS METHOD Grants: 1- To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers￾packhouses- private sector processors￾associations) a. How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post￾harvest, and marketing? Interview FAS grantees and small farmers , and other stakeholders such as input suppliers, packhouses or private sector processors benefiting from these grants/Project documents and work plans/secondary data Individual interviews, surveys, and focus group discussion (FGD) Analyze results of survey and key informant interviews Associations: 2-In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Sample of associations and farmers across the 7 governorates and the value chains. reports, sales contract, delivery documents, association manuals. Individual interview and focus groups discussions Interpretation and participants observation. The evaluation team must describe the criteria used to define sustainable business model or propose one in the team planning meeting Innovation and technology tools: Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Surveys farmers and other stakeholders Surveys/questionnaires and Key Informant interviews Analyze results of survey and key informant interviews. To the extent possible, data and information need to be disaggregated by gender, landholding size, value chain and location 5. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS USAID TEAM PLANNING MEETING: • Work Plan: During the team planning meeting, the team will prepare a detailed work plan which will include the methodologies to be used in the evaluation, timeline, and detailed Gantt chart. The work plan will be submitted to the evaluation program manager at USAID/Egypt for approval no later than the 7thrd day of work. • Methodology Plan: A written methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps and detail, and operational work plan will be prepared during the team planning meeting and discussed with and approved by USAID prior to implementation. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 46 • List of Interviewees and Schedule: USAID will provide the evaluation team an initial list of interviewees, from which the evaluation team can work to create a more comprehensive list. Prior to starting data collection, the Evaluation Team will provide USAID with a list of interviewees and a schedule for conducting the interviews. The Evaluation Team will continue to share updated lists of interviewees and schedules as meetings/interviews take place and stakeholders are added to/deleted from the schedule. • Data Collection Tools: Prior to starting fieldwork, the evaluation team will share the data collection tools with the USAID evaluation program manager for review, feedback and/or discussion and approval. STAKEHOLDER DEBRIEF MEETINGS: • Validation Workshop with IPs: To validate/clarify preliminary findings and provide a venue for clarification of data collection and findings as a result of the field work. • Discussion of Preliminary Draft Evaluation Report: The Evaluation Team will submit a preliminary draft of the report to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager, who will provide preliminary comments prior to final Mission debriefing. This will facilitate preparation of a more final draft report that will be left with the Mission upon the evaluation team’s departure. • Debriefing with USAID: The team will present the major findings of the evaluation to USAID/Egypt through a PowerPoint presentation after submission of the draft report and before the team’s departure from country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as recommendations for the future activities designs and implementation. The team will consider USAID/Egypt comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. • Debriefing with Partners: The team will present the major finding of the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint presentation prior to the team’s departure from country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and activities and will incorporate partners’ comments accordingly, as appropriate. DELIVERABLES: • Draft Evaluation Report: A draft report of the findings and recommendations should be submitted to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager prior to the Team’s departure from Egypt. The written report should clearly describe findings, conclusions and recommendations for future programming. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, it must undergo a peer review and the Mission will have 7-10 business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft using the checklist for assessing evaluation reports. After this point, the Evaluation Manager will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. • Final Report: The Evaluation Team will submit a final report that incorporates responses to Mission comments and suggestions no later than 10working days after USAID/Egypt provides written comments on the Team’s draft evaluation report (see above). If USAID/Egypt determines that there are still content issues to be addressed or that previous feedback has not been satisfactorily addressed, the final unedited report will be considered second draft and further feedback will be given to the team no later than 5 days of receipt of the second draft. If USAID/Egypt determines that there is no need for further changes, the report will be considered final unedited draft and no further feedback will be given. All sources of information should be properly identified and listed. 47 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • Data Sets: All data instruments, data sets, presentations, meeting notes and final report for this evaluation will be presented to USAID on three flash drives to the evaluation program manager. Data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or evaluation. All data on the flash drive will be in an unlocked, editable format. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of USAID. The proposed format for the final evaluation report, to be provided in English, should be organized as follows: • Acronyms, • Table of Content, • Executive Summary, • Introduction, • Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions, • Project Background, • Evaluation Methodology, • A summary table including the Conclusion ,Finding, Data Source, and Recommendation for each question, • Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations, • References, and • Annexes, including the following: o The evaluation SOW, o Any “statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team, o Data collection and analysis tools used such as questionnaires, checklists, survey instruments, and discussion guides, and o Bios and summary info about the evaluation team members. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not including appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The report must be submitted initially in English, electronically, and later, an Arabic translation of the Executive Summary must be submitted within ten business days. At the time of submission, the final English language report, the survey instruments, interviews and data sets must be submitted on a flash drive to the evaluation program manager. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine- readable, non-proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The anonymized data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the activity or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 48 • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence and linked in a table to the sources of data. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. 6. TEAM COMPOSITION The team shall include the following personnel, and all attempts should be made for the team to be composed of an equal number of male and female members. The Evaluation Team may propose another team structure to be able to carry out the work. • Team Leader: This international or local individual shall have a minimum of a Master’s degree in agriculture economics or related fields with ten years’ experience, preferably in the monitoring, evaluation and analysis of agricultural development projects. Experience in designing surveys and development assistance program monitoring systems is required. Advanced English writing skills are also required. • Senior Technical Advisor - Agriculture: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Agriculture Technical Advisor in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic language, agricultural extension, value chain, agri-business development, marketing, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive field experience in Egypt or the region, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. A minimum of ten years of experience is required. • M&E specialist: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the M&E specialist in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic language, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive experience in Egypt or the region, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. A minimum of ten years of experience is required. 49 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV • Local Surveyors: It is strongly recommended that the following characteristics be reflected in the Local Surveyors in order to maximize use of time and effectiveness of the survey: Arabic and English language, monitoring and evaluation of development projects, extensive field experience in Egypt, strong written and verbal communication skills and logistics. The applicant may propose another evaluation team composition plan that has a complete listing of personnel with position descriptions. The offeror will discuss the assigned levels of skill within the categories of personnel, as they relate to carrying out the evaluation applicable (including proposed use of local counterpart organizations and sub- contractors if applicable). The offeror will demonstrate the extent to which the staffing plan maximizes the utilization of local and other (Expat) expertise and demonstrates the offeror’s ability to conduct the evaluation and the proposed technical approach proposed. The evaluation team composition plan should clearly indicate key personnel; their qualifications, depth, and breadth of their experience; the complementary of skills; and relevance to the offerors approach for conducting a high-quality evaluation. Resumes of proposed key personnel (five pages maximum per position) and other proposed staff (three pages maximum per position) is to be included in an annex. Each resume should include three recent (within the past three years) references including current telephone numbers and email addresses for the contacts. Letters of commitment are required for all key personnel and should be included in an annex, indicating his/her (a) availability to serve in the stated position, in terms of days after award; and (b) intention to serve for a stated term of the service. The Evaluation Team Members are required to provide a written disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) and key personnel must submit their COI disclosure with the proposal. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 201. 7. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT LOGISTICAL SUPPORT USAID/Egypt will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. USAID/Egypt will identify key stakeholders prior to the initiation of field work. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging vehicle rental and drivers as needed for their site visits around Cairo and in the specified governorates (including air travel when/if necessary). They will also need to arrange their own hotel arrangements if necessary and procure their own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing and photocopying. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own payments. USAID/Egypt personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. The evaluation team is responsible for obtaining any approval from the GOE that might be necessary to perform the activities contemplated in this Statement of Work. 1. Period of Performance Work will be carried out over a period of ten weeks- 15 weeks, beginning (o/a) End of September 2020. Within three months of issuing the final report it should be submitted to the USAID DEC. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 50 The following is the time and activities allocations expected for this evaluation: ACTIVITY TIME Team planning, introductory meetings, background meetings, report reading, survey preparation in preparation for site visits, training of survey administrators (in-country) 3 Weeks Site Visits (two weeks) 4 Weeks Data analysis, validation meeting with IP, presentation to the mission, first draft, review and feedback and final report 6 Weeks 2. Estimated LOE TASK/DELIVERABLE TEAM LEADER TECHNICAL ADVISOR M&E SPECIALIST SURVEYORS (6) Travel to Egypt 2 days N/A N/A N/A Review background documents, draft work plan, methodology and data collection tools, training of local surveyors 8 days 8 days 8 days 3 days x 6 Team Planning meeting and meeting with USAID/Egypt 10 days 10 days 10 days 3 days x6 I Information and data collection. Includes interviews with key stakeholders (stakeholders and USAID staff) and site visits 20 days 20 days 20 days 20 days x 6 Discussion, analysis, and draft evaluation report in country 16 days 16 days 16 days 2 days x 6 Debrief meeting with USAID and key stakeholders (preliminary report due to USAID); and presentation to Mission 7 days 7 days 7 days N/A Depart Egypt/travel to US 1 day N/A N/A N/A Team revises draft report and submits final to USAID 11 days 11 days 11 days N/A Submission of the final report to the USAID DEC 2 days 2 days N/A N/A Submission of the Arabic Translated version N/A 7 days 7 days N/A Total Estimated LOE 77 81 79 28 days x 6 51 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX 2: LIST OF CONSULTED STAKEHOLDERS GOVERNORATE ORGANIZATION POSITION Cairo Ministry of Agriculture Central Administration for External Agricultural Relations Central Administration for External Agricultural Relations National Authority Food Saftey NFSA Control Department of Post-Harvest facilities, and collection Centers Inspectors team Online CNFA Grants team CNFA Gender and Entrepreneurship team CNFA BDS team CNFA Marketing team CNFA Technical Advisors CNFA Post-Harvest team CNFA Program team USAID FAS COR Egypt Italy for Agri-Business and Trade Company (EIAT) Management team JANA For Agriculture Management Pharaonic Bio Herb Management team Cairo Green Egypt Company Management team Online WINROCK Energy and operations experts Senior Program Associates – Water Unit WFLO Senior Directors, International Projects USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 52 GOVERNORATE ORGANIZATION POSITION Qena Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Senior Official Development Project and NCCM representative Agriculture Cooperation in Abnoud Former Management Management Group Discussion with 7 Male farmers Awlad Negm Qebly Association in Nagaa Qebly Group Discussion with 5 Male farmers Al Shorouq Association for the Development Rural Woman in Daraw Board of directors Al Shorouq Association for the Development Rural Woman in Daraw Group Discussion with 3 Male farmers and 2 female farmers Al-Khair and Al Baraka FSC Senior Management Agriculture Consultant Laboratory 2 additional Male staff and 2 Female Staff Luxor Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Senior Official Family Development Association in Aramant El Heit Group Discussion with 5 Male farmers Community Development Association in Al-Ezbah Jeem Thomas 3 Group Discussion with 4 Male farmers Community Development Association in Al-Ezbah Jeem Thomas 4 Management Silver Moon for Agricultural Services Sales Manager Senior Management Assiut Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Senior Official Management, Secretary General Office/Field Office Supervision Extension services Management Senior Management 53 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE ORGANIZATION POSITION Association for Community Development and Agriculture in El Dowair Board Member Abnaa El Sherif FSC Senior Management Collection Tent trader and farmer Collection Tent Additional male trader Youth Association for Improvement and Development Manager House Group Discussion with 3 Male farmers El Esraa Association for Community Development in Beni Mohammediyat Group Discussion with 6 Male farmers El Esraa Association for Community Development in Beni Mohammediyat Senior Management El Esraa Association for Community Development in Beni Mohammediyat Management El Esraa Association for Community Development in Beni Mohammediyat Post Harvest Center Sohag Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Senior Official Community Development and Agricultural Services in El Shoraneyah Group Discussion with 5 Male farmers Community Development and Agricultural Services in El Shoraneyah Senior Management Agricultural Cooperative Association in West Juhaynah Senior Management Former Management Management Board Member Group Discussion with 3 Male farmers Agriculture Cooperative in El Shoraneyah Group Discussion with 6 Male farmers Agricultural Cooperative Association in Idfa Group Discussion with 3 Male farmers Senior Management 1. Beni Suef Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Directorate of Agriculture in Beni Suef USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 54 GOVERNORATE ORGANIZATION POSITION Agricultural Cooperative in Bedahl Management Extension Officers Extension Officers Agricultural Cooperative in Mazoura Senior Management Board of Directors Private Sector - Al - Fouad for IMP&EXP Management Grantee - Al Faraena for Agricultural Waste Recycling and Organic Fertilizer Production Senior Management Grantee - Stars of Export - Tansa El Malaq Senior Management Grantee - Gezeret Al Arab - Modern Irrigation Requirements and Fertilizers Management Private Sector - Green field for exporting agriculture products Management 2. Minya KII - Directorate of Agriculture in Minya Directorate of Agriculture in Aswan Agricultural Community Development Association in Baiaho Financial Management Grantee - Agricultural Community Development Association in Baiaho Post-Harvest Center KII - Grantee - Al-Firdaws for Agricultural Services Senior Management KII - Grantee - Abna'a Abdulhamid Abu Lebdah for Agricultural Seeds Senior Management Senior Management KII - The Islamic Charity Association for Community Development in "Dafash" Senior Management Senior Management KII - Shabab El Roby Community Development Association Senior Management Board Administration 55 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE ORGANIZATION POSITION Association Coordinators 3. Aswan Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Directorate of Agriculture in Aswan KII - Agricultural Cooperative Association in El Raghamah El Balad Board Member Board – FAS Committee Association Management Board Member KII - Agricultural Cooperative Association in Selwah Bahary Association Management Financial Management Technician volunteer KII - Grantee - Al-Modather Company for Agricultural Development Management USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 56 ANNEX 3: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS OVERVIEW Data collection was conducted using five methods, described below, to validate results and data reliability. Ten quantitative and qualitative data collection tools developed for the evaluation, one for each project stakeholder type, except in the case of farmers and associations41, with whom both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools were used. DOCUMENT REVIEW 1. Desk review – FAS reports and other relevant documents were reviewed to help the evaluation team understand the project and ensured that robust secondary research augmented and informed the primary data collection. The reviewed documents included; project quarterly reports from October 2016 to June 2020; Value Chain Assessment report, End market report, Project work plans (years 3, 4 and 5); MEL plan; Indicator PIRS tables, Data Quality Assessment, Cooperative and Associations Governance Assessment report; Baseline cost benefit analysis: FAS highlights and achievements report; lists of cooperatives and associations; FAS agreements and modifications; Grantee proposals; Grant agreements; and FAS Outcome study. (See Annex QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 2. Face to face questionnaire administration. Farmers were invited to fill out pencil and paper questionnaires with closed-ended questions, as the primary quantitative data source. This method ensured data that could be analyzed using statistical methods was captured alongside qualitative, less structured group discussion sessions, which were held with farmers as well (although not the same farmers). The questionnaires were administered to farmers in groups by the enumerators, who read out questions while the farmers responded to them. Farmers who were illiterate were read the questions on a one-to-one basis. Farmers were contacted and invited for participation in the evaluation via the Associations to which they belonged in advance. A modest allowance, of 75 EGP (approx. USD 5.00) was provided to each farmer for travel of to the Association headquarters (to meet with evaluation teams). 3. Telephone questionnaire – A telephone questionnaire was administered to the 59 associations who received capacity building activities from FAS (census approach). The other 18 were unreachable or did not respond to the call. The telephone questionnaire replaced an online questionnaire, sent to the smartphones of association members, after pilot testing results showed that it was difficult for respondents to use. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 4. Group discussions (GDs) – Farmers were invited for group discussions, facilitated by evaluators who acted as moderators to ensure all present were encouraged to participate, avoiding one or two strong personalities from dominating. On average, just over 5 farmers were part of each group, with 118 farmers participating in 22 GDs held at the associations in the seven targeted governorates. The 41 For the purposes of simplicity, the term “association” is applied to both associations and cooperatives, in line with the evaluation questions. 57 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV group discussion protocol was a small subset of qualitative questions drawn from the farmer’s questionnaire. 5. Key informant interviews (KIIs) – Face to face KIIs were held with government representatives, private sector representatives, grantees, FAS partners,42 NFSA, FAS IP, and USAID. This approach allowed for in-depth discussions, probing questions and nuances which are more difficult using other forms of data collection. KIIs were held in different regions to ensure broad coverage, including: the seven targeted governorates and Greater Cairo. Some interviews were conducted by telephone, either because of time constraints or COVID-19 concerns. For the telephone KII sessions, the evaluation used the Zoom video conference online software. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS Ten data collection tools were used to target eight distinct respondent groups. TABLE A. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS AND SAMPLING INFORMANTS (CORE BENEFICIARIES) POPULATION FRAME TARGET SAMPLE SIZE ACTUAL SAMPLE Farmers, Quantitative 17,078 1,004 529 Farmers, Qualitative 168 participants (in 24 GDs) 118 participants (in 22 GDs) Associations, Quantitative 77 77 59 Associations, Qualitative 14 31 participants (14 associations) Grantees 12 11 11 Key Stakeholders Government representatives 8 8 9 Private sector representatives 49 7 7 FAS implementing partners 4 4 2 USAID Program Offices 2 2 1 FAS team (current and former staff) 58 4 7 Total 17230 1,285 Less than 774* Note: Some persons were interviewed twice because they belonged to an association that was also a grantee, or they were administered a Farmer questionnaire, and then participated in a GD. A total of 529 farmers completed questionnaires, and 59 associations that received capacity building completed the phone survey (out of 77). A total of 51 KII informant interviews were conducted with representatives of associations, grantees, government representatives, private sector representatives, FAS implementing partners, and the USAID program office and 22 GD were conducted with farmers. 42 FAS partners are Blue Moon, National Food Safety Authority, Souktel, Winrock International, and WFLO. Only Winrock International and WFLO accepted the evaluation team’s invitation to KIIs USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 58 Using a stratified, cluster sampling method, a total of 1,450 farmers was targeted for the questionnaire, to achieve a sample of 1,004. Because of response rates far lower than anticipated, the number of targeted farmers was increased beyond this. In the end, the of observations collected was only 529, representing 52.6% of the initial target (with a single observation removed from the analysis due to missing/incomplete answers). The original sample size target was determined by calculations based on a 95% confidence interval, with a 3% margin of error. The actual sample size represents a 95% confidence interval, and a 4.2% margin of error. Given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, findings can only be generalized at the project level and some, but not all, governorates: for Aswan, Qena, Beni Suef and Suhag. The results are not representative at the crop level. For the associations survey, all 77 of associations which received capacity building services were targeted, and 59 of responded (76.6% response rate). The margin of error is 6.3% margin at a 95% confidence interval. The results are representative of all 77 associations. DATA ANALYSIS Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the two sets of quantitative data (farmer questionnaires and association questionnaires) using SPSS software. A first round of analysis produced frequency tables for each response (variable) and analyzed for patterns to help address the evaluation questions. Further analysis using cross-tabulations was then carried out The qualitative data analysis software application Taguette was used to code and analyze qualitative data. All 73 KII and GD notes were coded by team members and uploaded to Taguette, after a coding tree was developed with 109 themes. After this, queries for run to explore the qualitative data by theme. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE All identified issues affecting validity were discussed and documented. The interpretation of findings, conclusions, and recommendations took into consideration data limitations. KEY QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES UNDERTAKEN BY THE EVALUATION TEAM: 1. All interview protocols and questionnaires were piloted before use in the field and were made available in both English and Arabic. 2. The Egyptian evaluation team members were seasoned professionals, field-experienced, and highly proficient in spoken English. All were capable of exchanging ideas and articulating the interpretation of data to the international consultant/team leader during the team planning workshop, data collection period, data analysis workshop, debrief preparations, and report writing exercises throughout the task order performance period. 3. For the telephone interviews, the following measures were taken: i) training of enumerators that included rotational roleplay; ii) pre-testing the tool in the field using face-t-face interviewing; iii) supervision of administration for the first batch (approximately 20% of the total number of questionnaires, and supervision of data entry on the survey monkey; iv) enumerators cross reviewed the entry in survey monkey, with random cross checking of entry from evaluators; and v) daily review of completed questionnaires with enumerators. 4. Raw data transmittal for digitization and upload occurred to enable ongoing review and analysis. 59 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 5. Data entry was supervised by the evaluation team’s statistician with sub-routines checking for internal consistency and data cleaning using CSPRO. The team followed all the safety requirements during the data collection and used double data entry to control/correct possible transcription errors. The statistician verified the quality of the consolidated primary and secondary data and conducted statistical analyses using SPSS software when opportunities for rigorous statistical analyses were observed. He also trained the data entry personnel prior to the fieldwork. 6. A data analysis planning session, was held during the collection phase, led by the international consultant/team leader and attended by all team members. Upon completion of all data collection, a data analysis workshop was conducted by the evaluation team to analyze findings, draw conclusions, and develop actionable recommendations in preparation for debriefing and report writing. 7. All major deliverables were reviewed by SIMPLE’s Senior M&E Advisor and a QED Home Office M&E Specialist. LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LIMITATIONS SAMPLING LIMITATIONS. Due to budget and time constraints, the evaluation team could not cover the whole region using a random sampling approach. Instead, at the governorate level, purposive sampling was used to select one or two nearby districts per governorate. Given the limitations of the resulting sample sizes, results can only be generalized at the project level and some, not all, governorates. For the same reasons, the sample is not representative at the level of crops. Data collection limitations. Several limitations and challenges were encountered during data collection: 1. Some associations did not want to participate in the evaluation. 2. Some associations did not reach out to farmers. 3. Associations managers did not recognize most farmer names on the list provided to them 4. Farmers did not respond to requests to be interviewed (~30% vs. projected 63%), either as part of GDs or to fill out questionnaires. The reasons included: a. Phone number unreachable (either unavailable or no network connection, while 7.6% of cases, it was a wrong number.) b. Some farmers had received USAID assistance, but their names were not in the database c. Some ID numbers were wrong (did not match the FAS database) d. Majority of farmer phone numbers do not work or are missing e. Majority of farmers who confirmed they would come do not actually come (38.7% of total called farmers confirmed over the phone, while only 27.5% showed up) f. Some farmers on the list did not own land g. Farmers too busy because of harvest time (3.8% of the farmers called) h. Distance to travel to association site was too far for some (in some cases 1.5 hours); i. Did not receive assistance from association j. Irregular or weak communication with the association USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 60 k. Did not receive assistance from project (0.7% of the farmers called) l. No incentive (initially) for association to help FAS evaluation team m. Internal conflicts in a village (family feud) meant its farmers were unwilling to gather n. Some farmers were located in other governorate or outside of country (17% of cases, when called the farmers said they were living in another community/governorate, not within the association area) o. Deceased (1% of the sample reached) Telephone survey limitations. The following limitations were encountered with the telephone survey of associations: i) because of the inaccuracy of contact information, the team could only reach 59 of the 77 associations, ii) the need for repeated calls to respondents to find a suitable time for their participation, iv) in some cases, repeated interruptions to the calls, iv) in some cases, respondents requested callbacks to review the data in their records and provide responses – the limitation in this case was related to the increased time dedicated to complete one call (with repeated instances). Analysis limitations. The recent implementation of some project elements (distribution of grants, and some tools and technologies) limited the ability to assess their effectiveness. FAS IP was still adding new project participants to database while evaluation team in the field collecting data. For example, Assiut governorate alone saw the numbers increase by 666 after new contacts were added. In addition, at the time of writing, it was too early to assess the benefits which the grants component may deliver to smallholder farmers, given that the machinery and other equipment was not yet in use. Implementation limitations. Data collection during time of COVID-19 required use of safety precautions (personal protective equipment, social distancing) which increased preparation time, and created additional challenges. In addition, the team leader (based in Washington, DC) did not travel to Egypt and only participated remotely. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The team focused on associations that match the geographical and value chain targeting and their served farmers to enhance the data collection process efficiency and ensure fair representation of target groups. 2. The team requested FAS support in providing introductions to the associations and confirming the associations recipient of the questionnaire. 3. The team communicated ahead of the time with the targeted associations checking the data collection dates and provided allowance to cover the farmer’s transportation costs as an incentive to participate. 4. Six associations were changed during the data collection, mainly because they did not receive in￾kind support (e.g., PC and projector) from the project or for other reasons were unwilling or unable to cooperate. 5. When difficulties in reaching farmers and having a sufficient number of respondents for the sample was encountered, the evaluation team used different approaches to encourage farmers to come in to the association for data collection. They included: a. Contacting associations several days ahead of time to prepare them b. Calling farmers multiple times several days before and day before 61 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV c. Expanding the sample by increasing the number of targeted farmers d. Giving farmers options when to show up (different times slots) e. Second visit to association f. Using WhatsApp messages to contact farmers g. Working through lead farmers to contact farmers h. Providing payments to the association to rent chairs to host the farmers, between 150-300 EGP (approx. USD 10-20) 6. The team followed all the safety requirements during the data collection phase to ensure the team and participants safety. a. All evaluation team members wore masks and face shields in the field. b. The evaluation team members used sanitizer frequently to disinfect all material used in the field and made sure that they wash their hands frequently. c. The evaluation team distributed masks to all farmers and other participants they met. d. The evaluation team gave each farmer a pen to fill the questionnaire and to keep afterwards to minimize contact with farmers. e. The evaluation team made sure that all participants in the evaluation maintained social distancing during filling the surveys and conducting FGDs. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 62 ANNEX 4A: FAS SET OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR) Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation EVALUATION QUESTION 1A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors / segments / input suppliers-pack houses- private sector processors-associations) The investment grants component has not yet succeeded in filling gaps in the value chain. No impact could be measured (and there was zero or minimal impact) given that insufficient time had passed since delivery, or the in-kind grant (machinery, lab equipment or processing line) was not in use yet. Even if the grants had been delivered earlier in the project, it is unclear that they would have successfully filled the value chain gaps: 1) The machinery procured addressed value chain gaps (grantees had to justify their applications on this basis) in only limited segments of the value chain (production, in eight of 11 cases), which were A challenge faced by the evaluation concerned late implementation of the grants component. In some cases, in-kind grants were delivered only in the final quarter of the project’s life. Since the equipment had not been put to use yet, it was not possible to answer questions about effectiveness. Quarterly Reports KII Grantees (n=11) • Focus on building linkages between agribusinesses, farmers associations, financial institutions and the private sector from the start of the project. Develop a grants model that is oriented toward a partnership approach, with a focus on project results and ultimate beneficiaries. Before proposing a new model, collaborate closely with beneficiaries/farmers at the local level to assess the value chain gaps faced by farmers living in the area who will be served by the grantee. • Use a community mapping approach to assess specific needs of communities where the grantees provide services, covering production resources, post￾Twelve grants were awarded and 11 were distributed. One grant was cancelled after failing to meet the cost￾share requirement. (See Table 5.) Most grants went to input suppliers (agriculture supply stores) and only three to post-harvest. Even when in-kind grants were given to input-suppliers were production related (not input-related). The tractors, etc. were related to improving input. In the former case, these were primarily in the form of tractors, attachments and labs, all of which are production-oriented. Quarterly Reports Preparation of the grant component began in 2017, two years into the life of the project, with delivery of in- [Grantee KIIs, n=11, FAS 63 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation not what the farmers emphasized as important to them (post-harvest and marketing). 2) The combination of weak planning, weak implementation and limited, if any, follow-up (given that the project closed shortly after in-kind grants were delivered) raises concerns about whether the benefits of the grants program will go to smallholder farmers. There is no guarantee that smallholder farmers will be able to benefit, since grantees did not have to produce a plan aimed at supporting these farmers. Many farmers may be left out. 3) The grant component was not strongly integrated with other activities focused on production, post-harvest and marketing. It was implemented late, which is likely to impede its ability to contribute to project results. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the impact of the post-harvest kind grants three years later. The slow process was compounded by a long application period—two years between submitting, signing and starting. quarterly reports for Q4 2020 and Q3 2020] harvest and marketing to maximize the potential benefits of the grant to smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] • Work more openly and communicate better with grantees. Specifically, make the following changes to the grants manual: 1) only change contract terms (e.g., cost-share amount, machinery specifications) with a written agreement and in cooperation with the grantee; 2) allow the grantee to sit on the procurement committee and evaluate bids; 3) if equipment specifications change, the grantee the option of cancelling that portion of the in-kind grant and either reallocate their contribution or withdraw it; 4) provide the grantee with the papers, receipts and warranties for the delivered equipment; and 5) respond to grantee complaints and include a mechanism to resolve them [IP] Issues around technical expertise, changes in specifications, and USAID rules and regulations on procurement led to approvals in late 2018/early 2019. [Grantee KIIs, n=11 FAS IP KIIs] The delays caused problems for three grantees as they incurred unnecessary costs related to rent, operations and staff salaries. For example, one had rented land and hired operators, then had to let them go after several months because the tractors and other machinery had not arrived. Another rented land to build a greenhouse, which was canceled. Another incorporated the in-kind grant into their business plan, which was negatively affected because the equipment was not delivered. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 Some grants or parts of grants were cancelled. In one instance, a grant applicant was unable to meet their share of the contribution. Grants totaling $1.75 million that would have gone to women entrepreneurs were cancelled (see the section titled Crosscutting Issue: Gender). [FAS team KII] For these and other reasons, only $2.4 million of the project’s grant allocation budget of $5.6 million was disbursed. [USAID] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 64 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation grantees on the value chain: one was not working yet because the season had not started. Another reported that they were working with whatever farmers had good quality seeds, not the project beneficiaries per se. As the findings show, grantees ended up spending more or receiving less than they had anticipated or calculated. This caused distrust toward the project and has implications for their business plans. The issues were compounded by serious questions that arose around an approval and procurement process that resulted in grantees receiving different quality or quantity of in-kind grant machinery than that which they had agreed to, or not receiving machinery at all. Although grant applicants had to show how they were filling a value chain gap, the grants model was not tailored to the specific needs of local farmers. In most cases, grants (machinery, labs) don’t address the value chain gaps as prioritized by farmers, who emphasized the importance of higher-quality inputs Distribution of the in-kind grants began only in 2020, and was continuing through the end of the project, at the time the evaluation team was collecting data in the field in November 2020. [Grantee KIIs (n=11); FAS quarterly reports for Q4 2020 and Q3 2020] • To the extent feasible and allowed by procurement rules, USAID should identify ways of streamlining the procurement process or reducing the timing between the procurement steps, to avoid excessive delays and avoid late delivery of in-kind grants. [USAID] • Begin grant process early in project, and allow for at least one year of monitoring post-grant delivery before project ends, to allow for iterative learning process and follow-up on whether and how smallholder farmers are benefiting. [IP] • Encourage a broader pool of entrepreneurs, including social enterprises, to apply for grants, and design the application, selection criteria, and advertising accordingly. [IP] Tractors, cold storage equipment, labs and other machinery were delivered in Q3 of 2020 or later. When the machinery did arrive, some grantees complained that they did not have the opportunity to inspect it on arrival. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 Aside from the slow process, issues related to equipment specifications led to grantees receiving equipment that differed from their agreement. Issues with in-kind procurement can arise in the procurement process related to different vendors, specifications, and sources. One grantee was unhappy with the tractor the FAS project purchased under the grant agreement; it came from a domestic vendor and had much lower horsepower than the grantee requested. This rendered it incompatible with the attachments that came with it, such as for laser levelling work, especially in new reclaimed/desert hilly area. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 One grantee expected to receive a processing line made in the U.S., but received a cheaper line made in Turkey. The received line was of lower quality and capacity, impeding production efficiency. Another grantee reported agreeing to equipment valued at $300,025, but received cheaper models valued at [Grantee KIIs], n=11 65 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation and support for post-harvest and marketing. The issues that arose throughout this process point to problems with execution, rather than with the concept of an in-kind grants model. The project’s approach of engaging the private sector to address value chain gaps is well justified, given the generally weak capacity of associations and shrinking role of government in the agriculture sector. $195,000. This also effectively increased the grantee’s in-kind contribution well beyond the agreed 25 percent. The grantee described being “stuck with this equipment they didn’t agree on.” Both a grantee and the FAS IP noted that FAS lacked technical experts in procurement. Partly related to the changes in specifications (which in at least three cases were not included in the grant agreements) and partly to non-delivery, grantees received less than what they had agreed to. One grantee noted that the value was less than what FAS was responsible for paying, and the difference was not made up with additional equipment. Another did not receive $38,000 worth of equipment included in the agreement and ended up paying for it himself. Yet another reported that the value of the equipment was worth 1 million EGP (approximately USD $64,645) less than in the agreement. [Grantee KIIs] The change in value had an impact on the grantee’s contribution level: in cases where the value of the grant was less than agreed, this meant that the contribution exceeded the 50 percent level (or 25 percent in case of associations). [Grantee KIIs], n=11 Issues over the cost-share agreement came up repeatedly, including over how much the grantee had contributed to it, what an acceptable cost-share was and whether it had to be applied to the same business [Grantee KIIs], n=11 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 66 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation activity as the one the grant was funding. A grantee said that if he had known the cost-share had to be for the same activity, he would have bought a greenhouse and seedlings instead of machinery. Except in one case, all grantees met their contribution requirements, and thereby demonstrated their commitment. The issue was on the changes in cost of machinery (due to change in specification). After the contracts were signed, grantees learned that some of their contributions were not eligible, decreasing the value of the contribution below 50%, and therefore the value of the in-kind contribution was also decreased, to match the 50%, based on the revised eligibility criteria Quarterly Reports [Grantee KIIs], n=11 Grantees were not able to participate in the technical/purchasing committees (for evaluating bids for the equipment). A grantee complained that the procurement process “wasn’t participatory at all.” Another agreed that the process was not participatory, noting that no one asked for grantees’ opinion before choosing the machines. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 Eight grantees said that they did not receive registration papers or receipts for the equipment, which creates problems for them. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 67 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation For various reasons, several grantees reported that they had not used the new machinery yet: not all of the equipment (e.g., tractor attachments) had arrived; the harvest seasons had passed; or insufficient time had passed for the new grant to make a difference in sales. In the case of greenhouses, although their construction was included in some grantee proposals, in the end FAS cancelled its support and construction work was not finished. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 The appropriateness and applicability of the in-kind grants to the conditions and needs of farmers was not always clear. Farmers prioritized high-quality seeds and pesticides, but these concerns were not fully reflected in or addressed by the project. FAS provision of machinery to input suppliers (seven out of eleven) did not respond to farmers’ high priority needs. No farmers mentioned machinery as a need, while the need for marketing came up repeatedly in all farmer groups. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] For example, one grant included a tractor with laser levelling technology, although this was not suitable for the terrain where it was stationed. In another case, a floppy irrigation system (given as part of the grant to an FSC) was being used for an inappropriate crop (potatoes instead of pomegranates. [Grantee KIIs], n=11 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 68 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation The FAS Project’s value chain (VC) assessment identified a host of issues that included input constraints (fertilizers and pesticides are overpriced / seed quality is low / climate change is having a negative impact); production constraints (extension services are inefficient / irrigation is in short supply and comes at a high cost / diseases and infections are taking a toll); and marketing constraints (farm gate prices are fluctuating / traders are taking monopolistic actions / financing is lacking / infrastructure is poor / domestic and export market information is lacking). Farmers confirmed these as issues they continued to face, and almost never mentioned machinery as a production service they received.). [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528; Farmer GDs, n = 22]. The services that farmers reported needing most— such as higher-quality and more affordable inputs (e.g., effective pesticides and good-quality seed), post￾harvest services, access to fair markets and financial services—were generally not part of the FSC services offered. This essentially added a machinery rental service to their core business of input suppliers. Two grantees reported that it would have been impossible for a single private entity to provide everything, because each service required its own set of permits from different government entities, depending on the nature of the service and its requirements. [Grantee KIIs; n=11] 69 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation The grants addressed only limited segments of the value chain (production and limited post-harvest services, but not higher-quality inputs or marketing) with eight of 11 focusing on production and the remaining three on post-harvest process. Of the 11 grants distributed, eight went to input suppliers (farm supply centers selling fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, etc.), who added a new business line—renting out tractors and equipment financed with the grants. One grantee noted, “Most of the grantees are actually traditional— just shops selling inputs traditionally. The ad [FAS Project announcing the grants] focused on innovation and there are many people that have innovative ideas and innovative ways of working.” Quarterly Reports [Grantee KIIs; n=11] The result was an emphasis on a single value chain segment, or uneven coverage of the value chain gaps identified by the project [FAS Egypt Value Chain Report Final: Value Chain and End Market Studies, Volume II]. One grantee had no previous expertise in agriculture projects and may lack the expertise, complementary resources and network to manage their new business line. The grantee’s good reputation in the field may enable faster integration but is likely to be hindered by the normal learning period for new projects. [Grantee KIIs; n=11] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 70 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation How or whether a particular applicant would fill the identified value chain gap was a major criterion in the selection process, according to an FAS IP key informant. [FAS IP KII] However, the grants addressed only a limited number of value chain gaps identified by the grantees and were not necessarily related to farmer priorities. No community mapping was conducted to assess farmers’ specific needs or existing resources in a given location. Instead, the grant recipient was asked to apply a specific service or technology based on its application. Quarterly Reports With respect to geographical coverage, the distribution of grantees was uneven. Eight grantees were clustered in the three northern governorates, but the four middle and southern governorates were home to only three grantees. Quarterly Reports Grant Proposals and Grant Schedules 71 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation EVALUATION QUESTION 1B How successful have the grantees been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? It is concerning that grantees had not thought through how their grants would be part of a sustainable business model. The reason for focusing on machinery appears to have been because it represented the most expensive investment and the one for which financial support was most needed. The use of grant machinery was not linked to the main line of the grantees’ business and they were unable to clearly articulate how it would affect or enhance their business. Although a linkage with smallholder farmers may be described in the grant applications, this doesn’t mean that there is a clear mechanism to benefit them, or that it will be implemented. Nonetheless, the high cost-share of investment, of at least 50 percent, increases the probability that production support will continue after project close and thus will be sustainable. Project activities are likely to be more sustainable when linked to stakeholders No grantee had a strong focus on helping farmers access markets to give them fair prices, a key value chain gap identified by the FAS project and by farmers themselves. Farmer GDs, (n=22) • Create a framework for the post￾project period to ensure use of the grants model for the benefit of the users after project close through strengthened formal and sustainable linkages with farmers associations and smallholder farmers, the ultimate beneficiaries. Integrating the grants component more firmly with other components will help in this regard. [IP] • To increase chances that the linkages will develop and be sustained, facilitate partnerships between grantees and associations, and promote grantee engagement with farmers to foster a relationship. This could be facilitated through the associations. [IP] • Go beyond a purely market-based approach. Focus on building capacity of firms that need help, and that will work with poor farmers, rather than taking the easy route of working with the Grantees were unable to describe a business plan (whether sustainable or not) of how smallholder farmers would benefit. Grantees KII, n=11 A review of the grant proposals and other documents found that they included no clear operational cost, clear pricing strategy, cash flow projection or break￾even analysis. That is, basic business planning elements were missing. The in-kind grant machinery was not for the purpose of improving inputs or post￾production/marketing, but rather for introducing new lines of business in the area of production. Grant Proposals Two grantees included greenhouses in the application, which one described as part of their plan for sustaining activities after project close. However, in both cases the FAS Project cancelled them, explaining that the project had run out of time. The FAS IP noted that in one case the grantee did not meet the cost share, and in the other, its preferences changed repeatedly until there was insufficient time left for procurement. [Grantee KIIs, n=11] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 72 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation (government, private sector) that remain after the project implementer leaves. Yet at the same time, from a business perspective, cost share is irrelevant to who the client target is. If grantees see smallholder farmers as profitable clients, they will target them. More time could have been spent working with very poor smallholder farmers and grantees to increase likelihood the latter will benefit The project did not take advantage of working with private sector firms in Upper Egypt who already had a business model covering the value chain segment, which farmers prioritized. The firms that applied for the in-kind grants were mostly moving into new areas (e.g., the seven farm supply stores branching into machinery rentals through the project). This appears to be a missed opportunity by the project to scale up the existing business model through the grant component, especially if was going to fill a value chain gap. Three grantees interviewed already have a working model partnering with farmers through provision of inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizers, etc.), technical support via agronomists and financing options (e.g., down payment for land preparation). Through the grants they expanded their (already viable) business operations. Through the grants they expanded their (already viable) business operations. Grant Proposals Quarterly Reports best firms. Include the following features in the grant process iv. Prior to accepting applications, engage in an outreach campaign that advertises the in-kind grants program to firms less likely to participate (i.e. less likely to look for or come across application announcements), such as women-owned firms, smaller private firms. This would broaden the opportunities to a wider group of firms, including those that might have a social as well as a for-profit mandate. v. When determining criteria grant winners, give weight to potential for successfully supporting small farmers, and existing linkages with poor and marginalized farmers vi. After delivery of grants, allow for a follow-up period to help ensure that the component is working as intended and benefiting While some grantees received training on the equipment, no planning or follow-up mechanism was in place for the post-project period to reduce risks of smallholder farmers not benefitting. Quarterly Reports Grantee KIIs, n=11 Neither the farmers participating in the GDs (n=22) nor the associations interviewed (Association KIIs) reported having any communication with the grantees or awareness of the services to be provided through the grant. One grantee from Minya was even surprised Grantee KIIs, n=11 Association KII, n=14 73 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation to hear of the project’s scope, saying: “For the first time, we find that a project has four components that have nothing to do with each other.” An association from Assiut said they had not heard of a particular grantee focused on seedlings and added that it would have been better and cheaper to get the seedlings from Cairo. Farmer GDs, (n=22) small farmers, and to allow for adjustments. • Begin the grants component early in the project, taking into account long procurement processes. Delivering equipment several years before the project is over would allow the effect on smallholder farmers to be measured and assessed, building in enough time for learning and improvement. [IP] • Provide technical assistance that extends beyond grant disbursement in the early phase of the project. [IP] Grantees are under no obligation to provide services for smallholder farmers once they have received the grant, as pointed out by three grantees. While the grantees, who contributed 50 percent or more toward the machinery, are expected to generate new income streams, there is no way of ensuring that their customers—at least not smallholder farmers at the lower end of the socio-economic scale—will benefit. Grantee Proposals Grantee KII, n=11 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 74 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation EVALUATION QUESTION 2 In what ways did the FAS approach to building the capacities of the partner associations and to adopting successful sustainable business models result in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? The FAS Project clearly contributed to improvements in on-farm production, but this was the largely result of FAS working directly with farmers, rather than an increase in association capacity or a change in the way they operate and engage with farmers. It cannot be said that it was the result of a new business model. The fact that almost the same share of farmers outside CB associations received benefits and saw their association’s performance improve is a strong indicator that the project’s capacity building activities were not a key factor in delivering services. In other words, the reported improvements in the value/volume of crops and The FAS Project provided a range of capacity building support to associations, including training, farm-based services and marketing support. Ninety percent of associations reported receiving support and they rated it highly. They noted that their performance improved, and farmers corroborated this, although they reported performance improvements in their association even in cases where it had received no support from FAS. [Association questionnaire, n = 5] [farmer questionnaire, n = 528] • To better support smallholder farmers, develop a results￾based capacity building approach that targets both the institutional and technical capacity of associations, enabling them to apply what they have learned through an actionable plan. [IP] • Beyond delivering training, the strategy should assess whether it is being applied and why or why not. The project would address issues through tailored support. Use a structured approach to association capacity building that includes continuing assessment and adaptation of CB progress. This would enable better measurement of the progress and sustainability of capacity building in line with the new Associations reported that their total membership increased by 18.6 percent over the duration of the project. The reported that the quantity of crops produced in tons increased by 68 percent. More than half (52.2 percent) of associations reported that the number of sales contracts increased and the total value of contract amounts increased by more than 103 percent. The mean number of contracts reported by associations increased from 29 before FAS to 73 post-project, and the total number of contracts increased from 214 to 628. Association questionnaire, n = 59; farmer questionnaire, n = 528] 75 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation number of contracts/deals is attributable not to association efforts, but to FAS Project technical assistance. Associations reported that capacity building was useful, the support was appreciated and enhanced performance and production improved, and all this was linked to the project. Yet, despite these positive changes, the evaluation team cannot conclude that the associations established sustainable business models, or that farmers are seeing production benefits because of the work of associations. This should be surprising, given that the FAS IP did not aim to change the approach of the associations. The FAS IP noted that “not to help them establish a new way doing business, but rather to support them to USAID Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR) strategy. This should then be reflected in the project M&E system. [USAID, IP] • Incorporate the above recommendation as qualitative learning outcomes in project indicators—in addition to quantitative indicators such as capacity or knowledge building—to track the effect of association capacity building on smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] • If capacity building is to yield results, it should begin earlier in the project and be accompanied by practical, follow-up steps and an iterative learning process: pilot the capacity building activities in the field and then, building on lessons learned related to adoption, tailor the model to the specific association and scale it up. Beyond classroom Considering only associations that received capacity building, the analysis reveals low correlations between farmers’ positive ratings of their association’s performance and a change in crop productivity or sales returns, as Table 6 shows. Almost the same share of farmers rated their association positively regardless of whether their crop productivity had increased. Clearly most farmers do not expect the association to have an influence on this area. Correlating satisfaction with associations and sales returns yielded similar outcomes. Content Analysis Comparative Analysis Furthermore, the evaluation found no evidence that the capacity of associations to adopt sustainable business models increased, or that they played a role. In KIIs, associations could not explain the business model concept This is not surprising, as the FAS project did not produce a document or train associations to adopt a new business model. Farmers continue to see associations mainly as suppliers of (subsidized) inputs and view them as lacking capacity. [Association KIIs, n=14 ]. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 76 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation become functioning value chain actors from whom smallholder farmers could both source improved inputs and also enjoy access to wider markets and improved bargaining power during sales. The training activities benefited associations focused on the institutional level, but a connection to a new way of doing business to serve farmers was not made. The role of associations as sustainable, local service providers for smallholder farmers was not developed. The first step (training and capacity building) occurred, but next steps (putting knowledge into practice, promoting sustainable outcomes and embedding institutional change) were not. This is because there is little evidence that the project’s capacity building that went to associations translated into project goals of associations Three in four farmers said they benefited from the project, but those who did attributed improvements in production primarily to the training and extension services they received. FAS IP staff facilitated contracts, rather than that stemming from association efforts. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] training, different methods should be tested, including peer-to-peer review, on the job training, and mentoring. [IP] • Incorporate capacity building into a broader support package that links to other components (e.g., for in-kind grants) so that it leads to tangible outcomes that associations can apply with their members, such as business plans, feasibility studies, etc. [IP] • Deliver more technical training to associations to support farmers (e.g., with targeted extension services, machinery, etc.) to address value chain gaps. [IP] • Provide each association with tailored capacity building, based on an organizational capacity assessment, taking into account its resources, priority areas, role, project objectives, etc. [IP] Related to this, reduce the chance that support benefits only associations with the most Core elements of the FAS IP approach included providing support at the institutional level as well as trainings and technical assistance to farmers, including on market access and facilitation. The FAS project provided direct assistance in the form of training and equipment to 77 of the 233 associations located in the seven project governorates in Upper Egypt. The project worked with two types of associations—agriculture cooperative associations and community development associations—that cover a broader range of services. [FAS IP written communication] FAS Quarterly Reports Capacity Assessment Selection was based on a capacity assessment the FAS IP conducted in 2018 for which associations were rated according to whether they a) had relatively high potential to sustain project activities, b) had less potential or c) had low potential. The first two groups became the focus [FAS IP KII] Quarterly Reports 77 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation delivering more services to farmers using a new business model. This should not be surprising; institutional change requires many years and ongoing support. Farmers received services from FAS, not their associations: after the project ends, it is unclear what will replace it. This is where a new way of doing business on the part of associations could have increased sustainability. of capacity building (CB) assistance. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as “CB associations” in this report. Following the assessment, the FAS IP conducted 15 workshops for 69 associations (on governance), and distributed computers, data show (projectors), printers and (accounting) software to those associations participating in the workshops. It also administered 14 training workshops on digital management and use of accounting software. The last capacity reported building took place in Q4 FY2020, after the evaluation data collection was completed. capacity by including a strategy to assist weaker entities as well. • Develop and embed follow-up support and monitoring mechanisms for the post￾project period, so that the results are sustained [IP]. This would include fostering linkages between grantees, associations, government, and ensuring that associations are well-trained, and have a business model. • A government representative noted a lack of coordination with the government on the selection of associations, arguing that the FAS team members were not technical specialists and did not have sufficient knowledge. [Government representative KII, =7] In some governorates, few associations met the criteria for receiving CB. As Table 6 shows, only four of 24 in Sohag (16.7 percent) complied, compared to more than half in Aswan. [FAS IP database] Associations received more than 30 types of CB services, which fall into three categories: 1) training (focused on institutional issues) (four): 2) [Associations questionnaire, n = 59] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 78 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation farmers-based services (15); and 3) community awareness and marketing (11). Of the associations that responded to the telephone questionnaire, 91.5 percent said they received at least one service. More than 75 percent of CB associations received at least seven types of services and more than 50 percent received 21 services. All four capacity building areas covering institutional strengthening fall in the top 10 services received by associations from FAS. [Associations questionnaire, n = 59] In interviews conducted as part of data collection, association staff mentioned only institutional training (governance, financial management and gender) and did not refer to the farmer-based services or community awareness and marketing, although these were part of the project and tracked in quarterly and annual project reports [Farmer GDs, n = 22] FAS was especially well-regarded for its field and study visits, and for taking association members to fairs and exhibitions; 88.6 percent of associations confirmed receiving both types of service. [Association questionnaire, n=59]. 79 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation Support varied across associations. Although not part of the capacity building activity, none of the associations the evaluation team met with in Assiut reported receiving a pH/EC meter, although 30.5 percent of CB associations received them. [Association questionnaire, n=59]. In Beni Suef, Minya and Assiut governorates, 2,310 smallholder farmers were reportedly using the pH / EC meter. [Quarterly report Q2 2020]. In general, marketing services were less common but in greater demand among farmers, who frequently mentioned the need for assistance with marketing support (obtaining good prices for their products) in 19 GDs. The least commonly reported services were access to cold transportation and support for certification. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] Associations perceive FAS project assistance to be beneficial. The average rating given to services was 8.1 (of 10), and 87.9 percent of associations responding to the questionnaire reported performance enhancement because the services they received. [Association questionnaire, n=59]. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 80 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation Farmers supported this finding, also reporting that their associations had improved in performance. More than half of farmers perceived the availability of support (55 percent) and responsiveness to needs (50.3 percent) as key factors to the improvement of their association’s performance. [Farmer questionnaire, n=528] Farmer responses indicated satisfaction levels with association performance, on average giving them a rating of 7.5 of 10. Associations that received capacity building were rated 7.9, compared to 6.4 for those that did not. Cooperatives were also rated more highly than associations, as Figure 3 shows. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Farmers belonging to associations that received CB support from the FAS project reported seeing significant improvements, but so did those in associations that did not receive FAS capacity building. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Associations have gotten better over time; 84.4 percent of farmers in FAS-supported associations saw a performance change, compared with 58 percent in non-FAS-supported associations. However, the perceived level of improvement was greater for FAS associations. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] 81 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation It should not be a surprise that non-CB associations also saw improvements; the USAID FAS Project is one of many programs that have been supporting farmers associations. Associations’ staff mentioned that they received capacity building assistance from: USAID/Care/Shams, USAID/ Egypt Rural Agribusiness Strengthening (ERAS), ILO, IOM, Plan International, Misr El-Kheir Foundation and UNDP, among others. [Association KIIs]. An association from Sohag directly stated that the real impact of capacity building was not from FAS, but from another program, run by CARE, with whom they had started working “long ago.” [Association KIIs, n=14] The positive feedback on capacity building training could not be correlated with objectively measured improvements, as the project did not assess training impacts. Government officials expressed skepticism about the impact of FAS trainings, saying: “Training are fine, but we need something with a stamp that will leave an impact, it is investment.” Another official observed: “There are a lot of trainings but there is no [assessment of the] impact of the training and its effect.” Others noted the importance of conducting pre- and post-training studies. In part, the issue concerns timing, since training was rolled out over last 7 quarters of the project. [Government KII, n=7] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 82 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation However, the IP was not focused on building capacity of associations to provide technical assistance to farmers. [FAS IP] The FAS project did conduct an Agricultural Cooperatives and Farmer’s Associations Capacity Assessment, but this was only finalized in December 2019. Based on association feedback, it appears that it was too late to apply its lessons in the field, since the season had ended. [Associations KIIs] However, the FAS IP notes that the assessment informed the need to provide governance training, which was delivered later in FY20 to those producer organizations who were deemed to be able to benefit from it. [FAS IP] [Association KIIs, n=14] Many farmers reported multiple benefits linked to the project: three-quarters of respondents (74.6 percent) reported an increased yield and almost as many (72.9 percent) reported improved quality of production, while 42.8 percent reported using fewer chemicals. But these changes are not attributable to association performance; further discussion on this will follow. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] All associations reported an increase in the number of contracts/deals as a result of FAS facilitating connections between private sector [Association KIIs, n=14] 83 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation firms and farmers, from 213 before the project to 669 at the time of data collection. Twenty-one reported getting new contracts/deals for their members through the FAS Project. Among associations responding to the questionnaire, the total contract amounts increased by 103 percent in nominal terms, from 6,573,983 EGP before FAS to 13,361,431 EGP (from USD 839,278 to USD 850,397) by the end of 2020. As noted, high inflation during the project years would have eaten away at farmers’ earnings, and farmers confirmed increases in prices and costs. [Association questionnaire, [n= 59] These impacts can be attributed to support provided by the FAS IP through farmer extension services, rather than associations changing the way they operate. [Association questionnaire, n=59]. As Table 9 demonstrates, many farmers received a significant amount of support from the project, and the project was perceived to make a difference to their production. However, the sources of support are related almost entirely to three areas: inputs, training and technical assistance (blue) and hardly at all from areas related to post-harvest, tool and technologies, marketing, etc. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 84 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation As a Minya association representative described it, “We have a problem in marketing—I wanted the project to help farmers in this regard. The problem of marketing is still continuing. We did not how to solve it, the project did not know how to solve it, the government even can’t.” [Association KII, n=14] Associations also reported a substantial increase in crop production after FAS: 68 percent, from 89,168 to 149,864 tons. [Associations questionnaire, n=59] These improvements can be attributed to direct FAS assistance to farmers, but not necessarily to association capacity building. Only 13.8 percent of farmers mentioned that their associations facilitate marketing processes and even fewer (11.1 percent) mentioned that associations are establishing linkages with buyers. [Farmer GDs, n = 22; farmer questionnaire, n = 528]. On the post-harvest side, the FAS project also worked with associations on collection tents and in Aswan (for dates) and Sohag (for onions). While collection tents were highlighted as a project success 2 this was a recently undertaken activity; in the case of at least two associations, [FAS Project Highlights & Achievements July 2018– March] 85 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation they had not 020], been delivered. An association member from Sohag reported that there “had been some talk” about collection tents but then the project ended and nothing was done. An Assiut association member noted they had been asked to submit an application for collection tents in 2019, but then received nothing. Associations KII, n=14 This feedback from associations is similar to that of grantees about the project not delivering what was agreed on, whether because time had run out or some other reason. The main FAS IP, CNFA, applied for a cost extension to further build out these private sector linkages with association￾owned packhouse suppliers, but did not receive it. CNFA regards this as a promising area for USAID’s future consideration. [FAS IP written communication] [Associations KIIs, n=14] [Grantee KIIs, n=11] On the need for post-harvest support, an association member from Sohag noted that the governorate is well known for its onion production, with yields of 18 to 20 tons per feddan. But they noted that the governorate has no post-harvest or sorting facility. The onions are shipped up north to Lower Egypt, but transportation costs and crop loss are high. The crops then come back to Hurghada Port Safaga [Association KII, n=14] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 86 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation for export, which the association described as “without any sense, since Sohag is closer to the port.” Associations did not report awareness of the business model concept, where they would provide expanded farm services to their members in a sustainable manner. They could not explain the model to the evaluation team, even when asked about how the equipment they received from the project (computers, printers and various technologies such as red palm weevil devices) would help farmers. [Association KII, n=14] The lack of impact on associations’ way of doing business is supported by feedback from the private sector and government and field observations by the evaluation team. A private sector key informant argued, “You have to change the whole staff of cooperatives and associations. You have to change their whole culture—they are employees taking their salary so not motivated— if it is not enforced by higher [management levels], they won’t do anything.” [Private sector KII] 87 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation EVALUATION QUESTION 3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Farmers benefited in measurable ways from the project support, but innovations and technologies had a marginal impact, if any. The project succeeded in delivering innovations and technologies among many farmers. Although this is not the same as promoting their use, farmers rated them positively, indicating that they were welcome. While the yield and quality of production increased for the majority of farmers, they did not attribute this to the technologies and tools, which had only a marginal influence, if any. It is possible that technologies’ and tools’ low level of contribution to production resulted from being delivered late; a follow-up assessment following the next season might show different results. Given that associations are not applying a business model, the technical capacity to use In addition to the services and training that the project delivered through associations, it introduced a range of innovations technologies to promote higher and improved production, targeting specific crops. Some were devices (e.g., for measuring grape sizes; for measuring sugar levels; for red date palm weevil treatment; for more efficient irrigation; for measuring soil and water salinity) and some were in the form of techniques and supplies (e.g., for safe use of pesticides; for use of micronutrients to increase plant resistance to fungal infection). The project plan mentions plans to introduce solar irrigation pumps, but this was not implemented. [FAS Year 5 Work Plan, 2019] • Deliver innovations / technologies at the beginning of projects rather than at the end. This is necessary to allow time to monitor outcomes, identify weaknesses in the process and provide technical support. • Develop a systematic distribution plan based on a needs assessment that maps the technologies to crop type, land requirements and geographical coverage. • Before introducing new technologies, conduct a cost￾benefit analysis at the farm level on a sample of farms that would include physical land requirements, cost of operation, labor. Once the technologies are in use, assess and how and whether they respond to the priority areas/needs of the farmers. For example, if labor is the highest cost for smallholder farmers, technology can focus on that and not packaging material. The plan would address questions The technologies were sometimes given to associations, and sometimes to farmers directly, although associations the project met with were usually unable to answer questions on this topic because they either were not aware or didn’t receive any technology. Associations would, in theory, manage their use and rotation among their farmer members. Associations KII, n=14 Almost half of farmers responding to the questionnaire—242 (46 percent)—said they used a FAS technology. In all, they used 506 FAS technologies, just over two per farmer on average. This was only half (Farmer questionnaire, n = 528) USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 88 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation innovations and technologies and their sustainability as solutions are uncertain. Two success factors can be highlighted. 3) The use of a demand￾driven approach—the project delivered innovations / technologies to associations whose farmers grew crops where the innovation/technology was appropriate and needed. 4) In the case of coding and certification, the project linked to existing institutions and their mandates. Several hindrances prevented technologies from having a noticeable impact: 5) Distribution of technologies came near project end (computers, pH monitors, cold chain app). 6) The distribution approach was not accompanied by a clear implementation strategy. Even though technology was not given of the project’s target of reaching 90 percent of farmers. Although this was not the intended target for share of farmers being introduced to and/or adopting new technologies. The target was for 6,200 beneficiaries applying improved management practices or technologies due to FAS assistance, and the FAS IP reported reaching 5,218 (although assessing this achievement was not part of the evaluation scope of work). [FAS Project PIRS No. 3] such as how many infestations of the red weevil were in place and, based on the analysis, how many devices should be distributed to fill this demand. • Outline a clear role for associations to manage the use of technologies among their members and incorporate it into their business models. If there is a grants activity, link the technologies to it. If the project conducts community mapping for farmers’ needs and priorities, introduce technology to the association that directly responds to those demands. This could generate income for the association and sustain the model. • Facilitate linkages to financial institutions supporting tailored products for increasing smallholder farmers’ financial ability to apply new technologies that have been introduced. • Not belonging to a CB association did not prevent farmers from receiving project assistance. The project did not “penalize” farmers for their association’s lack of effectiveness; they still provided innovations and technologies. Thus, approximately the same share of farmers in CB (46.5 percent) and non-CB (43.7 percent) associations received some type of innovation and technology from the project. [FAS team KII] (Farmer questionnaire, n = 528) Of the eight technologies assessed through the farmer questionnaire and through group discussions, the most common type of support mentioned was safe use of pesticides (27.3 percent), followed by improved water￾use efficiency (19.7 percent), and the red date palm weevil device (17.6 percent). (Farmer questionnaire, n = 528) The distribution of the floppy irrigation model to FSCs for their demonstration plots was one of the more positively mentioned technologies. Referring to the accompanying technical assistance, a farmer from an association in Minya said that, in addition to fertilizer (FAS Project “Innovations in Irrigation – Winrock Success Story”) 89 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation out where there was no need for it, planning based on data analysis was minimal. This would have taken into account timing (around the growing/harvest season), sufficient follow-up and technical assistance on use, or an operational plan for the tool usage and maintenance 7) Operational issues (delays, outreach, geographical coverage) prevented the project’s ability to disseminate and scale up. 8) In the case of ICT, farmer literacy levels and poor internet access limited the benefits of the WhatsApp extension service. support, “The best thing is … the accurate irrigation. This was the most helpful. Yes, the irrigation information was very important for all of us.” However, irrigation technology was introduced late in the project, limiting its potential benefits since FAS Project staff will not follow up. Tellingly, a project note on “Innovations in Irrigation” highlights the potential benefits of floppy irrigation, but does not point to outcomes, quoting one company as saying: “We are still waiting on the results, but we expect up to 30 percent increased yield of alfalfa next month,” and noting “a great deal of interest in the floppy sprinklers” among its customer.. Only about one in five farmers reported using an improved water efficiency device. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Sometimes a technology was promised but not delivered, as in the case of a red date palm weevil device for an Aswan association: “[FAS Project personnel]talked to us about the palm pest—it was mostly production support related—the palms and the mangoes were already grown.” “[FAS Project Staff KII] [Farmer GD, n=22] Association KIIs, n=14] Feedback from KIIs pointed to various shortcomings. An association in Qena said they received a small trimming tool for the mango trees but described it as not very efficient, and did not really consider it to be “technology.” [Association KII]. During a group discussion with farmers at an association in Luxor governorate, two of five participants reported being unaware that the association had the red date palm weevil device and that they could use it. [Farmer GD, n=22] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 90 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation Inadequate planning appears to have prevented the project from distributing innovations and technologies more widely. They included cases, such as pH meters, where the device was distributed in the last days of the project, as well as outreach and uneven geographic coverage. A consequence of the late delivery of technology was that a systematic assessment of how the technologies affected production was not possible. [Farmer GD, n = 22] [Association KIIs, n=14] Among farmers who received technology support, feedback was positive, from an average of 7.7 (for use of micronutrients) to an average 8.5 (red date palm weevil device). The overall average rating was 8.3, higher for farmers in CB associations (8.4) than non￾CB associations (7.6). [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Although yield and quality of production increased for the majority of farmers, technologies and tools had only a marginal influence, if any, per both the questionnaire responses and the GDs. Finally, a clear implementation strategy was absent. FAS did not undertake a study on how the project would distribute these tools and technologies to the governorates and districts. Such a plan would be based on an assessment or an existing need, and rely on evidence. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] [Farmer GDs, n = 22] When asked about the main factors influencing increased production, less than 1 percent cited tools and technology. Farmers received a significant amount of support, and the project was perceived to make a [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] 91 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation difference to their production. However, the reasons are related almost entirely to three areas: inputs, training and technical assistance. Tools and technologies had a consistently low impact across types of benefits: improved quality of production (1.0 percent contribution); reduced use of chemicals and pesticides (1.8 percent contribution); and reduced harvest loss (1.5 percent contribution). The area where tools and technologies contributed most (just 7.0 percent) was in ability to export, but just one in 12 farmer respondents cited this. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] Technologies did not sufficiently address farmers’ marketing needs. When asked in GDs what they needed, 19 of 22 GDs selected marketing. For most farmers, marketing refers to being able to get better prices for their production. They are often at the mercy of traders, who can set prices that farmers have little choice but to accept. “Monopoly is the real issue, as well bad marketing,” according to an association representative in Assiut. [Association KII, n=14] Referring to the grape crop, a farmer from Minya explained the need for guidance in marketing: “We need to know the level of glucose, for example, or the specifications needed for better prices.” At another Minya GD, when discussing the minimal FAS assistance they had received, a participant said: “We needed them to focus on marketing. … They promised things and didn’t do it. They said they will establish a post-harvest [Farmer GD, n=22] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 92 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation unit and that they will bring us contracts, and then they didn’t.” [Farmer GD] Distribution of technologies was uneven. Minya and Aswan farmers received more than their counterparts in the south. Only 26.5 percent of farmers in Minya and 29.5 percent in Aswan said they had not received new technologies, while more than 80 percent of the sample from Luxor, Suhag and Beni Suef governorates did not receive any. [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] The evaluation did not assess extension services, but the way farmers described them is instructive. As reported, the form of extension, the number of extension visits and the method of outreach varied wildly across governorates and communities. For example, in Beni Suef, the agronomist implementing the extension visits was highly commended, with farmers reporting repeated visits to lands, provision of sound advice from their perspective and high responsiveness. In Minya, farmers said they received only one or two visits throughout the project lifetime, even if the guidance provided was regarded as beneficial. A limited number of participating farmers in Minya said they did not receive any visits. [Farmer GDs, n = 22] Although the FAS IP reported that it provided comprehensive trainings on the use of innovative technologies, including a focus on the value of using the equipment to reduce costs, boost productivity, reduce labor or any combination of the three, the evaluation Associations KII, n=14 93 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation could not confirm this. For example, no associations reported receiving training on delivered devices such as the pH meter (n=14). One association reported keeping it in the box as they did not have anyone to operate it. Another didn’t see the purpose of using it because the farmers do not know how. [Associations KIIs, n = 14] Many farmers did not benefit from ICT support in the form of either a platform that generates SMS (introduced early in the project) or a WhatsApp extension service introduced to mitigate risks related to COVID-19. This was in part because of weak internet and low smartphone use (14 percent of farmers were illiterate based on the Farmer questionnaire). Farmers in a GD in Luxor reported hearing about ICT but said they didn’t see anything. [Farmer questionnaire, n=529] [Farmer GDs, n=22] In cases where farmers were either illiterate or lacked ICT devices, FAS put greater efforts into providing face-to-face trainings and on-farm technical assistance. [FAS IP written communication] Face-to-face technical assistance and training were the most frequently mentioned services, mostly reported as causing increased yield and improved quality, despite the inconsistency of delivery [Farmer questionnaire, n = 528] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 94 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation When asked about all the support they received, only 2.5 percent of farmers cited tools/technology; see Figure 8. [Farmer questionnaire, n=528). While these findings highlight the low value added by technology to the project’s overall impact, the evaluation team did identify several successful examples: • Coding and certification (for pomegranates) was a major project support provided to farmers and traders in Assiut. The FAS Project worked with pomegranate traders in the governorate who already owned processing collection tents, adding a bathroom and helping them obtain NFSA certification, which allows them to export to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Europe. [Farmer GD; association KIIs; FAS Quarterly Report Q4 2020] The project switched from the expensive GLOBALG.A.P. certification criteria to NFSA, which was affordable. [Associations KIIs, n=14] • Professional-grade mango boxes kept the fruit in better condition and directly improved profits. This raised the sales price by 10 percent in one case. A farmer at a Qena GD who benefited from this noted that training on packing and pest control and “how to present their produce in the boxes” was “very beneficial.” Another farmer in the same GD reported that mangoes sold directly from trees earned him 5 to 6 EGP, while fruit in boxes could bring him 10 EGP. [Farmer GD, n=22] 95 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation CROSSCUTTING ISSUE: GENDER Although the activities evaluated included some gender elements (grant applications, association capacity building), they were not a core factor in the design and the evaluation did not observe or find evidence that it they had succeeded in empowering women. Training for associations on gender has not translated into visible results. Serving women clients and employing women is not the same as empowering women within the agricultural sector, or taking into account their specific needs and constraints, such as challenges with land ownership titles. (In Egypt, women formally own only 5.2 percent of land. In rural areas, inheritance customs favor men and inhibit women’s control over the land. Land owned by women is usually cultivated by a male relative, who then receives the input supplies from the cooperative.) Women in Egypt traditionally work in production lines and packhouses, and it is unclear that enumerating Project documents describe plans to give special consideration to women’s producer groups and groups with stronger female participation and to support women entrepreneurs to “generate ideas and to promote their products.” The project also employed a gender specialist who provided training and support on gender-sensitive issues. However, the evaluation did not see tangible results from these efforts. [FAS Project Year 4 Work Plan] [FAS Project Year 5 Work Plan] [FAS Project Quarterly report, Q4 2020] • Conduct a gender analysis at the beginning of the project, across components, to identify the distinctive needs of men and women farmers under each component. Based on the analysis, introduce gender-responsive activities and interventions. [IP] • Develop a strategy that goes beyond target numbers related to employment positions and takes into account the constraints and conditions that women face. Develop tailored interventions and support that focuses on women’s empowerment. Include gender target numbers for indicators in the project M&E system. The project primarily benefited men, as only 2.1 percent of smallholder farmers are women. Of the association staff supported, 59.6 percent were women. [FAS Project database] For the grants component, applications listed the number of women who would benefit either through employment or as clients. For example, one grantee included a gender component in his greenhouse plan to employ 30 workers (10 permanent and 20 temporary). But when the project cancelled that part of the grant, the grantee could not follow through. He noted, however, that he couldn’t hire women to operate a tractor (apparently a gender norms issue). Another grantee reported that of the 1,000 farmers they targeted to serve with machinery and seeds, 250 were women. [Grantee KIIs, n=11] The number of women hired by grantees was one of the evaluation criteria for proposals, and the project gender officer conducted visits to make sure grantees met the [FAS gender and entrepreneurship officer KII] USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 96 Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation their presence in such jobs would contribute to their empowerment. The project’s gender focus was weighted heavily to the nutrition component (not covered by the evaluation), but while it may be a sound strategy to target women in this area, it also emphasizes existing gender norms, limiting the role of women to family nutrition and similar household functions, not necessarily contributing to the project’s goal of increasing income for smallholder farmers. requirement and were applying the policy on women working on their premises. The FAS IP developed a special women-owned business grant request for applications (RFA) ($1.75 million) to attract female grantees, and USAID approved the 14 female entrepreneurs who applied. However, the applicants were unable to provide land ownership documents during the due diligence process around issues related to land title, so no grants were disbursed. The short timeframe did not allow FAS to reach a larger group of women as potential grantees. [FAS team KII] Associations received training on gender, covering the role of women, female-headed households and women’s role in agriculture. Some associations were used as a venue to deliver entrepreneurship training especially for women directly by FAS, but the associations’ role was not clear. However, this issue is normally the NGO’s area of focus, not that of agricultural cooperatives, and the training did not translate into changes in practice by incorporating a gender lens or increasing women’s participation in their operations. Associations KII, n=14 [FAS gender and entrepreneurship officer KII] Associations received training on gender, covering gender and inclusion, female-headed households and women’s role in agriculture. As with other types of training, changes in how associations managed themselves or worked with farmers were apparent. Some community development associations were already providing parallel women￾focused services (e.g., El Rouby Association, Minya). Only [Associations KII, n=14] 97 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conclusion Findings Data Sources with sample size and selection methodology Recommendation two cases of associations employing female agronomists were reported. Although the evaluation team met with associations that had women on their board of directors (e.g., an association in Qena producing dates and mangoes) and among their staff, the project did not target women-led associations with tailored support on the basis of gender. The pomegranate post-harvest model supports women laborers, as most post-harvest centers have women in their associations. Packhouses traditionally employ women laborers. [Association KIIs, n=14] [Private sector KIIs] Other efforts attempted to support women as part of the project, but were largely unsuccessful. A private sector firm contributed technical support to a women-led initiative in 2018 (eight young women from Aswan on agricultural processes and rooftop gardening). It agreed to support two associations interested in drying tomatoes on rooftops, and the firm met with them, visited the rooftops and provided the technical support. Nonetheless, at the end, the associations could not apply the model, as it turned out to be overly complex and the firm did not receive any product from the initiative. [Private sector KII] Associations KII, n=14 Quarterly Reports USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 98 ANNEX 4B: RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE High Impact of Change Lower Impact of Change Short-term EQ 1A • Work more openly and communicate better with grantees. Specifically, make the following changes to the grants manual43: 1) only change contract terms (e.g., cost￾share amount, machinery specifications) with a written agreement and in cooperation with the grantee; 2) allow the grantee to sit on the procurement committee and evaluate bids; 3) if equipment specifications change, the grantee the option of canceling that portion of the in-kind grant and either reallocate their contribution or withdraw it; 4) provide the grantee with the papers, receipts and warranties for the delivered equipment; and 5) respond to grantee complaints and include a mechanism to resolve them [IP] • Encourage a broader pool of entrepreneurs, including social enterprises, to apply for grants, and design the application, selection criteria, and advertising accordingly. [IP] EQ 1B 1. Create a framework for the post-project period to ensure use of the grants model for the benefit of the users after project close through strengthened formal and sustainable linkages with farmers associations and smallholder farmers, the ultimate beneficiaries. Integrating the grants component more firmly with other components will help in this regard. [IP] 43 The grants manual section on ethics is focused on implementation of project, but section related to issues of selection, concerning participation, transparency, etc. 99 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV High Impact of Change Lower Impact of Change Longer￾term EQ 1A 1. Focus on building linkages between agribusinesses, farmers associations, financial institutions and the private sector from the start of the project. Develop a grants model that is oriented toward a partnership approach, with a focus on project results and ultimate beneficiaries. Before proposing a new model, collaborate closely with beneficiaries/farmers at the local level to assess the value chain gaps faced by farmers living in the area who will be served by the grantee. [USAID, IP] EQ 1B 2. Go beyond a purely market-based approach. Focus on building capacity of firms that need help, and that will work with poor farmers, rather than taking the easy route of working with the best firms. Include the following features in the grant process vii. Prior to accepting applications, engage in an outreach campaign that advertises the in-kind grants program to firms less likely to participate (i.e. less likely to look for or come across application announcements), such as women-owned firms, smaller private firms. This would broaden the opportunities to a wider group of firms, including those that might have a social as well as a for-profit mandate. viii. When determining criteria grant winners, give weight to potential for successfully supporting small farmers, and existing linkages with poor and marginalized farmers ix. After delivery of grants, allow for a follow-up period to help ensure that the component is working as intended and benefiting small farmers, and to allow for adjustments. 3. Begin the grants component early in the project, taking into account long procurement processes. Delivering equipment several years before the project is over would allow the effect on smallholder farmers to be measured and assessed, building in enough time for learning and improvement. [IP] EQ 1A 1. Use a community mapping approach to assess specific needs of communities where the grantees provide services, covering production resources, post-harvest and marketing to maximize the potential benefits of the grant to smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] 2. To the extent feasible and allowed by procurement rules, USAID should identify ways of streamlining the procurement process or reducing the timing between the procurement steps, to avoid excessive delays and avoid late delivery of in-kind grants. [USAID] 3. Begin grant process early in project, and allow for at least one year of monitoring post-grant delivery before project ends, to allow for iterative learning process and follow-up on whether and how smallholder farmers are benefiting. [IP] EQ 1B 1. Provide technical assistance that extends beyond grant disbursement in the early phase of the project. [IP] EQ 2: USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 100 High Impact of Change Lower Impact of Change EQ 2: 4. To better support smallholder farmers, develop a results-based capacity building approach that targets both the institutional and technical capacity of associations, enabling them to apply what they have learned through an actionable plan. [IP] 5. Beyond delivering training, the strategy should assess whether it is being applied and why or why not. The project would address issues through tailored support. Use a structured approach to association capacity building that includes continuing assessment and adaptation of CB progress. This would enable better measurement of the progress and sustainability of capacity building in line with the new USAID Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR) strategy. This should then be reflected in the project M&E system. [USAID, IP] 6. Incorporate the above recommendation as qualitative learning outcomes in project indicators—in addition to quantitative indicators such as capacity or knowledge building—to track the effect of association capacity building on smallholder farmers. [USAID, IP] 7. Provide each association with tailored capacity building, based on an organizational capacity assessment, taking into account its resources, priority areas, role, project objectives, etc. [IP] Related to this, reduce the chance that support benefits only associations with the most capacity by including a strategy to assist weaker entities as well. 8. Develop and embed follow-up support and monitoring mechanisms for the post￾project period, so that the results are sustained [IP]. This would include fostering linkages between grantees, associations, government, and ensuring that associations are well-trained, and have a business model. EQ 3: 2. If capacity building is to yield results, it should begin earlier in the project and be accompanied by practical, follow-up steps and an iterative learning process: pilot the capacity building activities in the field and then, building on lessons learned related to adoption, tailor the model to the specific association and scale it up. Beyond classroom training, different methods should be tested, including peer-to-peer review, on the job training, and mentoring. [IP] 3. Incorporate capacity building into a broader support package that links to other components (e.g., for in-kind grants) so that it leads to tangible outcomes that associations can apply with their members, such as business plans, feasibility studies, etc. [IP] 4. Deliver more technical training to associations to support farmers (e.g., with targeted extension services, machinery, etc.) to address value chain gaps. [IP] EQ 3: 5. Outline a clear role for associations to manage the use of technologies among their members and incorporate it into their business models. If there is a grants activity, link the technologies to it. If the project conducts community mapping for farmers’ needs and priorities, introduce technology to the association that directly responds to those demands. 101 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV High Impact of Change Lower Impact of Change 9. Deliver innovations / technologies at the beginning of projects rather than at the end. This is necessary to allow time to monitor outcomes, identify weaknesses in the process and provide technical support. 10. Develop a systematic distribution plan based on a needs assessment that maps the technologies to crop type, land requirements and geographical coverage. 11. Before introducing new technologies, conduct a cost-benefit analysis at the farm level on a sample of farms that would include physical land requirements, cost of operation, labor. Once the technologies are in use, assess and how and whether they respond to the priority areas/needs of the farmers. For example, if labor is the highest cost for smallholder farmers, technology can focus on that and not packaging material. The plan would address questions such as how many infestations of the red weevil were in place and, based on the analysis, how many devices should be distributed to fill this demand. Cross cutting: 12. Conduct a gender analysis at the beginning of the project, across components, to identify the distinctive needs of men and women farmers under each component. Based on the analysis, introduce gender-responsive activities and interventions. [IP] 13. Develop a strategy that goes beyond target numbers related to employment positions and takes into account the constraints and conditions that women face. Develop tailored interventions and support that focuses on women’s empowerment. Include gender target numbers for indicators in the project M&E system. This could generate income for the association and sustain the model. 6. Facilitate linkages to financial institutions supporting tailored products for increasing smallholder farmers’ financial ability to apply new technologies that have been introduced. USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 102 ANNEX 5: DATA ANALYSIS CHARTS AND TABLES PART A: FARMERS QUESTIONNAIRE TABLE A-1. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATE, TYPE OF ASSOCIATION, CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION, YEAR JOINED THE FAS PROJECT, GENDER, AGE, EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND WHETHER THEY ARE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR NOT CHARACTERISTICS N % Governorate Beni Suef 56 10.6% Minia 68 12.9% Assiut 34 6.4% Sohag 95 18.0% Qena 56 10.6% Luxor 57 10.8% Aswan 162 30.7% Type of Association 1. Farmer’s Association 210 39.8% 2. Agricultural Co-op 318 60.2% Category of Association 1. CB Association 409 77.5% 2. Non-CB Association 119 22.5% Year joined the FAS project Don't Know 2 0.4% 2015 47 9.0% 2016 57 10.9% 2017 113 21.6% 2018 150 28.7% 2019 145 27.7% 2020 9 1.7% Age <25 13 2.5% 25-34 59 11.2% 35-44 90 17.0% 45-54 142 26.9% 55-64 147 27.8% 65+ 77 14.6% Mean 50.8 Gender Male 516 97.7% 103 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CHARACTERISTICS N % Female 12 2.3% Head of Household Yes 507 96.0% No 21 4.0% Educational Level 1. Illiterate 78 14.8% 2. Incomplete School Education 41 7.8% 3. Literacy Programs 12 2.3% 4. Primary Education 63 11.9% 5. Preparatory Education 34 6.4% 6. Secondary School 15 2.8% 7. Technical School 222 42.0% 8. University degree 52 9.8% 9. Post graduate degree 7 1.3% Other 4 0.8% Total 528 100.0% TABLE A-2. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY GENDER AND AGE GENDER TOTAL MALE FEMALE N % N % N % Age Group <25 13 2.50% 12 2.30% 1 8.30% 25-34 59 11.20% 57 11.00% 2 16.70% 35-44 90 17.00% 87 16.90% 3 25.00% 45-54 142 26.90% 139 26.90% 3 25.00% 55-64 147 27.80% 145 28.10% 2 16.70% 65+ 77 14.60% 76 14.70% 1 8.30% Total 528 100.00% 516 100.00% 12 100.00% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 104 FIGURE A-1. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY GOVERNORATE FIGURE A-2. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE ASSOCIATION BY TYPE FIGURE A-3. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE ASSOCIATION BY CATEGORY Beni Suef 10% Minia 13% Assiut 6% Sohag Qena 18% 11% Luxor 11% Aswan 31% 40% 60% 1. Farmers' Association 2. Agricultural Co-op 77% 23% 1. CB Association 2. Non-CB Association 105 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE A-4. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY YEAR JOINING FAS FIGURE A-5. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY THIER AGE Don't Know 0.4% 2015 9.0% 2016 10.9% 2017 21.6% 2018 28.7% 2019 27.7% 2020 1.7% <25 2.5% 25-34 11.2% 35-44 17.0% 45-54 26.9% 55-64 27.8% 65+ 14.6% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 106 FIGURE A-6. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY THIER GENDER FIGURE A-7. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS DISAGGREGATED IF THEY ARE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR NOT Male 97.7% Female 2.3% Yes 96.0% No 4.0% 107 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE A-8. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY THIER EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 14.8% 7.8% 2.3% 11.9% 6.4% 2.8% 42.0% 9.8% 1.3% Illiterate Incomplete School Education Literacy Programs Primary Education Preparatory Education Secondary School Technical School University degree Post graduate degree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Educational Level Percent USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 108 TABLE A-3. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF ASSOCIATION, CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION, YEAR JOINED THE FAS PROJECT, GENDER, AGE, EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND WHETHER THEY ARE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR NOT ACCORDING TO EACH GOVERNORATE CHARACTERISTICS BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % TYPE OF ASSOCIATION 1. Farmer’s Association 0 0.0% 62 91.2% 34 100.0% 36 37.9% 21 37.5% 57 100.0% 0 0.0% 2. Agricultural Co-op 56 100.0% 6 8.8% 0 0.0% 59 62.1% 35 62.5% 0 0.0% 162 100.0% CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION 1. CB Association 37 66.1% 62 91.2% 34 100.0% 95 100.0% 56 100.0% 57 100.0% 68 42.0% 2. Non-CB Association 19 33.9% 6 8.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 94 58.0% YEAR JOINED THE FAS PROJECT Don't Know 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.6% 2015 10 17.9% 2 2.9% 2 6.1% 16 16.8% 7 12.7% 6 10.7% 4 2.5% 2016 5 8.9% 8 11.8% 3 9.1% 12 12.6% 14 25.5% 1 1.8% 14 8.8% 2017 27 48.2% 11 16.2% 2 6.1% 19 20.0% 0 0.0% 9 16.1% 45 28.1% 2018 7 12.5% 37 54.4% 12 36.4% 32 33.7% 6 10.9% 10 17.9% 46 28.8% 2019 7 12.5% 10 14.7% 9 27.3% 14 14.7% 27 49.1% 30 53.6% 48 30.0% 2020 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 12.1% 2 2.1% 1 1.8% 0 0.0% 2 1.3% AGE <25 1 1.8% 1 1.5% 3 8.8% 1 1.1% 1 1.8% 2 3.5% 4 2.5% 25-34 16 28.6% 8 11.8% 3 8.8% 7 7.4% 6 10.7% 8 14.0% 11 6.8% 35-44 16 28.6% 19 27.9% 7 20.6% 11 11.6% 11 19.6% 10 17.5% 16 9.9% 45-54 10 17.9% 18 26.5% 8 23.5% 30 31.6% 10 17.9% 22 38.6% 44 27.2% 55-64 9 16.1% 12 17.6% 10 29.4% 29 30.5% 23 41.1% 9 15.8% 55 34.0% 65+ 4 7.1% 10 14.7% 3 8.8% 17 17.9% 5 8.9% 6 10.5% 32 19.8% 109 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CHARACTERISTICS BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Mean 43.9 49.0 47.5 53.4 51.1 47.1 54.3 GENDER Male 56 100.0% 67 98.5% 33 97.1% 93 97.9% 48 85.7% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% Female 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 1 2.9% 2 2.1% 8 14.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD Yes 55 98.2% 64 94.1% 31 91.2% 95 100.0% 48 85.7% 52 91.2% 162 100.0% No 1 1.8% 4 5.9% 3 8.8% 0 0.0% 8 14.3% 5 8.8% 0 0.0% EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 1. Illiterate 10 17.9% 5 7.4% 1 2.9% 34 35.8% 5 8.9% 10 17.5% 13 8.0% 2. Incomplete School Education 9 16.1% 6 8.8% 3 8.8% 0 0.0% 4 7.1% 4 7.0% 15 9.3% 3. Literacy Programs 2 3.6% 4 5.9% 1 2.9% 1 1.1% 2 3.6% 0 0.0% 2 1.2% 4. Primary Education 6 10.7% 7 10.3% 3 8.8% 18 18.9% 9 16.1% 3 5.3% 17 10.5% 5. Preparatory Education 5 8.9% 3 4.4% 3 8.8% 3 3.2% 2 3.6% 5 8.8% 13 8.0% 6. Secondary School 1 1.8% 3 4.4% 2 5.9% 1 1.1% 1 1.8% 2 3.5% 5 3.1% 7. Technical School 23 41.1% 29 42.6% 15 44.1% 33 34.7% 22 39.3% 18 31.6% 82 50.6% 8. University degree 0 0 7 10.3% 6 17.6% 5 5.3% 9 16.1% 12 21.1% 13 8.0% 9. Post graduate degree 0 0 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.8% 3 5.3% 1 0.6% Other 0 0.0% 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.8% 0 0.0% 1 0.6% TOTAL 56 100.0% 68 100.0% 34 100.0% 95 100.0% 56 100.0% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 110 TABLE A-4.a DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR LAND OWNERSHIP, RENTALS, AND THEIR LAND SIZES ACCORDING TO EACH GOVERNORATE GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % OWN LAND Yes 417 79.0% 27 48.2% 43 63.2% 31 91.2% 76 80.0% 51 91.1% 47 82.5% 142 87.7% No 110 20.8% 29 51.8% 25 36.8% 2 5.9% 19 20.0% 5 8.9% 10 17.5% 20 12.3% Don't Know 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 528 100.0% 56 100.0% 68 100.0% 34 100.0% 95 100.0% 56 100.0% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% TOTAL SIZE OF OWNED LAND <1 Feddan 112 27.1% 4 14.8% 13 30.2% 1 3.2% 29 38.2% 13 27.1% 13 27.7% 39 27.5% 1 - 2 Feddans 108 26.1% 8 29.6% 13 30.2% 7 22.6% 16 21.1% 16 33.3% 11 23.4% 37 26.1% 2 - 3 Feddans 67 16.2% 5 18.5% 4 9.3% 5 16.1% 10 13.2% 9 18.8% 12 25.5% 22 15.5% 3 - 4 Feddans 30 7.2% 2 7.4% 4 9.3% 10 32.3% 3 3.9% 3 6.3% 4 8.5% 4 2.8% 4 - 5 Feddans 13 3.1% 1 3.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.6% 4 8.3% 2 4.3% 4 2.8% 5+ Feddans 84 20.3% 7 25.9% 9 20.9% 8 25.8% 16 21.1% 3 6.3% 5 10.6% 36 25.4% Mean 2.7 4.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 Total 414 100.0% 27 100.0% 43 100.0% 31 100.0% 76 100.0% 48 100.0% 47 100.0% 142 100.0% RENT LAND Yes 236 45.0% 47 83.9% 43 63.2% 14 41.2% 39 41.1% 7 13.5% 28 49.1% 58 35.8% No 287 54.8% 9 16.1% 25 36.8% 19 55.9% 56 58.9% 45 86.5% 29 50.9% 104 64.2% Don't Know 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 111 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Total 524 100.0% 56 100.0% 68 100.0% 34 100.0% 95 100.0% 52 100.0% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% TOTAL SIZE OF RENTED LAND <1 Feddan 68 28.9% 7 14.9% 6 14.0% 2 14.3% 24 61.5% 2 33.3% 4 14.3% 23 39.7% 1 - 2 Feddans 51 21.7% 6 12.8% 13 30.2% 1 7.1% 5 12.8% 2 33.3% 10 35.7% 14 24.1% 2 - 3 Feddans 26 11.1% 6 12.8% 8 18.6% 4 28.6% 2 5.1% 0 0.0% 2 7.1% 4 6.9% 3 - 4 Feddans 18 7.7% 4 8.5% 4 9.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 4 14.3% 5 8.6% 4 - 5 Feddans 10 4.3% 4 8.5% 2 4.7% 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 1 16.7% 1 3.6% 1 1.7% 5+ Feddans 62 26.4% 20 42.6% 10 23.3% 7 50.0% 7 17.9% 0 0.0% 7 25.0% 11 19.0% Mean 3.4 5.0 4.0 5.6 2.3 1.7 3.4 1.9 Total 235 100.0% 47 100.0% 43 100.0% 14 100.0% 39 100.0% 6 100.0% 28 100.0% 58 100.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 112 TABLE A-4.b DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR LANDHOLDING, AND TOTAL LAND SIZES ACCORDING TO EACH GOVERNORATE GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % LAND HOLDING STATUS Own only 288 55.0% 9 16.1% 25 36.8% 19 57.6% 56 58.9% 47 88.7% 28 49.1% 104 64.2% Rent Only 109 20.8% 29 51.8% 25 36.8% 2 6.1% 19 20.0% 4 7.5% 10 17.5% 20 12.3% Own and Rent 127 24.2% 18 32.1% 18 26.5% 12 36.4% 20 21.1% 2 3.8% 19 33.3% 38 23.5% Total 524 100.0% 56 100.0% 68 100.0% 33 100.0% 95 100.0% 53 100.0% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% TOTAL SIZE OF LAND HOLDING <1 Feddan 106 20.2% 0 0.0% 9 13.2% 1 3.0% 38 40.0% 15 28.3% 12 21.1% 31 19.1% 1 - 2 Feddans 138 26.3% 7 12.5% 23 33.8% 4 12.1% 19 20.0% 18 34.0% 16 28.1% 51 31.5% 2 - 3 Feddans 76 14.5% 14 25.0% 11 16.2% 3 9.1% 8 8.4% 9 17.0% 8 14.0% 23 14.2% 3 - 4 Feddans 37 7.1% 5 8.9% 5 7.4% 10 30.3% 4 4.2% 3 5.7% 4 7.0% 6 3.7% 4 - 5 Feddans 21 4.0% 5 8.9% 2 2.9% 1 3.0% 2 2.1% 4 7.5% 3 5.3% 4 2.5% 5+ Feddans 146 27.9% 25 44.6% 18 26.5% 14 42.4% 24 25.3% 4 7.5% 14 24.6% 47 29.0% Mean 3.6 6.1 3.6 5.5 3.8 1.8 3.5 2.8 Total 524 100.0% 56 100.0% 68 100.0% 33 100.0% 95 100.0% 53 100.0% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% 113 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-5. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR LANDHOLDING, AND TOTAL LAND SIZES ACCORDING TO LAND HOLDING RENT/OWN LAND HOLDING STATUS TOTAL OWN ONLY RENT ONLY OWN AND RENT N % N % N % N % TOTAL SIZE OF LAND HOLDING <1 Feddan 106 100.0% 68 64.2% 26 24.5% 12 11.3% 1 - 2 Feddans 138 100.0% 81 58.7% 25 18.1% 32 23.2% 2 - 3 Feddans 76 100.0% 50 65.8% 12 15.8% 14 18.4% 3 - 4 Feddans 37 100.0% 17 45.9% 9 24.3% 11 29.7% 4 - 5 Feddans 21 100.0% 10 47.6% 5 23.8% 6 28.6% 5+ Feddans 146 100.0% 62 42.5% 32 21.9% 52 35.6% Total 524 100.0% 288 55.0% 109 20.8% 127 24.2% FIGURE A-9. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY OWNED AND RENTED LAND BY LAND HOLDING SIZES 20.2% 26.3% 14.5% 7.1% 4.0% 27.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% <1 Feddan 1 - 2 Feddans 2 - 3 Feddans 3 - 4 Feddans 4 - 5 Feddans 5+ Feddans % Land Holding Size USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 114 FIGURE A-10. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS BY OWNED AND RENTED LAND BY LAND HOLDING SIZES 55.0% 20.8% 24.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Own only Rent Only Own and Rent 115 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-6. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST￾PROJECT N % % FROM TOTAL SAMPLE 1. Inputs – Nutrients 39 7.4% 8.0 20 51.3% 3.8% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 31 5.9% 8.1 22 71.0% 4.2% 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 135 25.6% 7.6 102 75.6% 19.3% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 86 16.3% 7.8 58 67.4% 11.0% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 391 74.1% 8.2 213 54.5% 40.3% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 57 10.8% 8.4 22 38.6% 4.2% 7. Training – Farming Practices 197 37.3% 8.0 96 48.7% 18.2% 8. Training – Marketing 99 18.8% 8.2 39 39.4% 7.4% 9. Production Support – Machination 32 6.1% 7.5 13 40.6% 2.5% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 66 12.5% 7.1 26 39.4% 4.9% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 18 3.4% 7.4 6 33.3% 1.1% 12. Harvest Support 39 7.4% 8.1 18 46.2% 3.4% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 24 4.5% 8.2 8 33.3% 1.5% 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 33 6.3% 8.3 10 30.3% 1.9% 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 26 4.9% 8.2 8 30.8% 1.5% 16. Tools/technology 13 2.5% 8.8 8 61.5% 1.5% 17. Transporting to market points 16 3.0% 7.9 8 50.0% 1.5% 18. Access to cold transportation 7 1.3% 7.9 2 28.6% 0.4% 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 19 3.6% 8.8 14 73.7% 2.7% 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 14 2.7% 8.2 9 64.3% 1.7% 21. Support for Certification 7 1.3% 7.9 1 14.3% 0.2% 22. Did not receive services 43 8.1% 6.1% Received Any of the above Services 483 91.5% Total 528 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 116 TABLE A-7. DISTRIBUTION OF BENI SUEF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 3 5.4% 8.7 3 100.0% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 0 0.0% 0 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 19 33.9% 8.9 13 68.4% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 3 5.4% 9.0 1 33.3% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 44 78.6% 8.6 28 63.6% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 1 1.8% 10.0 1 100.0% 7. Training – Farming Practices 16 28.6% 9.0 12 75.0% 8. Training – Marketing 3 5.4% 8.0 2 66.7% 9. Production Support – Machination 0 0.0% 0 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 3 5.4% 7.0 2 66.7% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 0 0.0% 0 12. Harvest Support 2 3.6% 9.0 2 100.0% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 0 0.0% 0 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 1 1.8% 6.0 0 0.0% 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 0 0.0% 0 16. Tools/technology 0 0.0% 0 17. Transporting to market points 0 0.0% 0 18. Access to cold transportation 0 0.0% 0 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 1 1.8% 8.0 0 0.0% 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 0 0.0% 0 21. Support for Certification 0 0.0% 0 22. Did not receive services 3 5.4% Received Any of the above Services 53 94.6% Total 56 117 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-8. DISTRIBUTION OF MINIA FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 4 5.9% 5.3 1 25.0% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 8 11.8% 7.5 5 62.5% 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 13 19.1% 6.7 8 61.5% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 6 8.8% 8.3 5 83.3% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 53 77.9% 7.9 37 69.8% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 3 4.4% 7.0 1 33.3% 7. Training – Farming Practices 30 44.1% 7.9 14 46.7% 8. Training – Marketing 27 39.7% 7.4 9 33.3% 9. Production Support – Machination 15 22.1% 7.1 4 26.7% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 21 30.9% 7.4 7 33.3% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 9 13.2% 6.6 3 33.3% 12. Harvest Support 12 17.6% 7.5 5 41.7% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 3 4.4% 5.7 1 33.3% 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 0 0.0% 0 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 1 1.5% 5.0 0 0.0% 16. Tools/technology 0 0.0% 0 17. Transporting to market points 0 0.0% 0 18. Access to cold transportation 0 0.0% 0 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 1 1.5% 10.0 1 100.0% 21. Support for Certification 1 1.5% 7.0 0 0.0% 22. Did not receive services 4 5.9% Received Any of the above Services 64 94.1% Total 68 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 118 TABLE A-9. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSUIT FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 2 5.9% 7.5 1 50.0% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 1 2.9% 10.0 1 100.0% 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 2 5.9% 8.0 2 100.0% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 4 11.8% 6.8 2 50.0% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 17 50.0% 7.5 7 41.2% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 3 8.8% 7.3 0 0.0% 7. Training – Farming Practices 11 32.4% 8.5 7 63.6% 8. Training – Marketing 5 14.7% 7.6 2 40.0% 9. Production Support – Machination 1 2.9% 7.0 1 100.0% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 1 2.9% 8.0 1 100.0% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 0 0.0% 0 12. Harvest Support 4 11.8% 7.3 1 25.0% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 3 8.8% 7.3 0 0.0% 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 5 14.7% 7.2 2 40.0% 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 4 11.8% 7.0 0 0.0% 16. Tools/technology 0 0.0% 0 17. Transporting to market points 2 5.9% 6.5 1 50.0% 18. Access to cold transportation 1 2.9% 8.0 0 0.0% 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 2 5.9% 8.0 1 50.0% 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 3 8.8% 7.7 2 66.7% 21. Support for Certification 2 5.9% 8.0 0 0.0% 22. Did not receive services 10 29.4% Received Any of the above Services 23 67.6% Total 34 119 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-10. DISTRIBUTION OF SOHAG FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 10 10.5% 8.3 1 10.0% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 3 3.2% 9.0 1 33.3% 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 7 7.4% 9.6 1 14.3% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 14 14.7% 8.9 2 14.3% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 82 86.3% 8.7 5 6.1% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 14 14.7% 8.2 0 0.0% 7. Training – Farming Practices 17 17.9% 9.1 1 5.9% 8. Training – Marketing 13 13.7% 8.8 0 0.0% 9. Production Support – Machination 2 2.1% 9.0 0 0.0% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 6 6.3% 9.2 0 0.0% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 1 1.1% 10.0 0 0.0% 12. Harvest Support 1 1.1% 10.0 0 0.0% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 3 3.2% 10.0 0 0.0% 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 6 6.3% 8.8 1 16.7% 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 1 1.1% 10.0 0 0.0% 16. Tools/technology 1 1.1% 10.0 0 0.0% 17. Transporting to market points 2 2.1% 9.0 0 0.0% 18. Access to cold transportation 0 0.0% 10.0 0 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 0 0.0% 0 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 0 0.0% 0 21. Support for Certification 0 0.0% 0 22. Did not receive services 3 3.2% Received Any of the above Services 92 96.8% Total 95 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 120 TABLE A-11. DISTRIBUTION OF QENA FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 6 10.7% 8.8 3 50.0% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 6 10.7% 8.2 4 66.7% 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 41 73.2% 6.7 35 85.4% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 24 42.9% 7.4 17 70.8% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 28 50.0% 8.5 21 75.0% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 12 21.4% 9.3 7 58.3% 7. Training – Farming Practices 13 23.2% 8.9 10 76.9% 8. Training – Marketing 15 26.8% 8.7 8 53.3% 9. Production Support – Machination 5 8.9% 6.8 2 40.0% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 8 14.3% 7.9 4 50.0% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 6 10.7% 8.3 2 33.3% 12. Harvest Support 8 14.3% 8.1 5 62.5% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 9 16.1% 9.0 6 66.7% 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 9 16.1% 8.7 4 44.4% 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 11 19.6% 9.3 4 36.4% 16. Tools/technology 7 12.5% 9.4 6 85.7% 17. Transporting to market points 6 10.7% 8.7 3 50.0% 18. Access to cold transportation 2 3.6% 7.0 0 0.0% 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 9 16.1% 9.4 8 88.9% 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 7 12.5% 9.0 6 85.7% 21. Support for Certification 3 5.4% 9.0 1 33.3% 22. Did not receive services 0 0.0% Received Any of the above Services 56 100.0% Total 56 121 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-12. DISTRIBUTION OF LUXOR FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 0 0.0% 0 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 0 0.0% 0 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 2 3.5% 9.0 1 50.0% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 10 17.5% 8.0 8 80.0% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 39 68.4% 8.6 13 33.3% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 3 5.3% 7.7 1 33.3% 7. Training – Farming Practices 13 22.8% 8.6 1 7.7% 8. Training – Marketing 7 12.3% 8.9 1 14.3% 9. Production Support – Machination 2 3.5% 9.0 0 0.0% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 2 3.5% 6.5 0 0.0% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 0 0.0% 0 12. Harvest Support 1 1.8% 8.0 0 0.0% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 0 0.0% 0 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 0 0.0% 0 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 0 0.0% 0 16. Tools/technology 0 0.0% 0 17. Transporting to market points 0 0.0% 0 18. Access to cold transportation 0 0.0% 0 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 0 0.0% 0 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 0 0.0% 0 21. Support for Certification 0 0.0% 0 22. Did not receive services 11 19.3% Received Any of the above Services 46 80.7% Total 57 USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 122 TABLE A-13. DISTRIBUTION OF ASWAN FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES AND MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION SERVICES RECEIVED FROM PROJECT/ASSOCIATION N % MEAN RATE BELIEVING SERVICES WILL CONTINUE POST-PROJECT N % 1. Inputs – Nutrients 14 8.6% 8.1 11 78.6% 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 13 8.0% 8.1 11 84.6% 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 51 31.5% 7.6 42 82.4% 4. Inputs – Pesticides 25 15.4% 7.4 23 92.0% 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 128 79.0% 7.7 102 79.7% 6. Technical assistance – ICT 21 13.0% 8.5 12 57.1% 7. Training – Farming Practices 97 59.9% 7.5 51 52.6% 8. Training – Marketing 29 17.9% 8.2 17 58.6% 9. Production Support – Machination 7 4.3% 8.0 6 85.7% 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 25 15.4% 6.2 12 48.0% 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 2 1.2% 7.5 1 50.0% 12. Harvest Support 11 6.8% 8.7 5 45.5% 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 6 3.7% 7.7 1 16.7% 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 12 7.4% 8.3 3 25.0% 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 9 5.6% 7.6 4 44.4% 16. Tools/technology 5 3.1% 7.8 2 40.0% 17. Transporting to market points 6 3.7% 7.3 4 66.7% 18. Access to cold transportation 4 2.5% 7.8 2 50.0% 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 6 3.7% 8.2 5 83.3% 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 3 1.9% 6.7 0 0.0% 21. Support for Certification 1 0.6% 4.0 0 0.0% 22. Did not receive services 12 7.4% Received Any of the above Services 149 92.0% Total 162 123 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-14. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR OPINION ON IMPROVED ASSOCIATION PERFORMANCE OVER THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND PERCEIVED FACTORS OF IMPROVEMENT ACCORDING TO TYPE OF ASSOCIATION THEY BELONG TOTAL TYPE OF ASSOCIATION CB NONCB N % N % N % PERFORMANCE LEVEL OF THE ASSOCIATION HAS CHANGED OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS YES 398 75.4% 329 80.4% 69 58.0% NO 110 20.8% 60 14.7% 50 42.0% DON’T KNOW 20 3.8% 20 4.9% 0 0.0% TOTAL 528 100.0% 409 100.0% 119 100.0% Factors of Improvement 1. Responsiveness to Needs 200 50.3% 184 55.9% 16 23.2% 2. Availability of support 219 55.0% 174 52.9% 45 65.2% 3. Quality of services 153 38.4% 132 40.1% 21 30.4% 4. Establishing linkages between buyers and suppliers 44 11.1% 40 12.2% 4 5.8% 5. Facilitating marketing processes 55 13.8% 54 16.4% 1 1.4% TABLE A-15. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR OPINION ON IMPROVED ASSOCIATION PERFORMANCE OVER THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND PERCEIVED FACTORS OF IMPROVEMENT ACCORDING TO LAND HOLDING OWN/RENT LAND HOLDING STATUS TOTAL OWN ONLY RENT ONLY OWN AND RENT N % N % N % N % Performance Level of the Association has Changed Over the Past Three years Yes 396 75.6% 223 77.4% 74 67.9% 99 77.9% No 109 20.8% 52 18.1% 32 29.4% 25 19.7% Don’t Know 19 3.6% 13 4.5% 3 2.7% 3 2.4% Total 524 100.0% 288 100.0% 109 100.0% 127 100.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 124 FIGURE A-11. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR OPINION ON IMPROVED ASSOCIATION PERFORMANCE OVER THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND PERCEIVED FACTORS OF IMPROVEMENT ACCORDING TO LAND HOLDING OWN/RENT TABLE A-16. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY THEIR OPINION ON IMPROVED ASSOCIATION PERFORMANCE OVER THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND PERCEIVED FACTORS OF IMPROVEMENT ACCORDING TO GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Performance Level of the Association has Changed Over the Past Three years Yes 33 58.9% 48 70.6% 25 73.5% 78 82.1% 48 85.7% 45 78.9% 121 74.7% No 23 41.1% 20 29.4% 5 14.7% 12 12.6% 8 14.3% 1 1.8% 41 25.3% Don’t Know 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 11.8% 5 5.3% 0 0.0% 11 19.3% 0 0.0% Total 56 100.0% 68 100.0% 34 100.0% 95 100.0% 56 100.0% 57 100.0% 162 100.0% Factors of Improvement 1. Responsiveness to Needs 5 15.2% 31 64.6% 16 64.0% 48 61.5% 28 58.3% 16 35.6% 56 46.3% 2. Availability of support 24 72.7% 10 20.8% 15 60.0% 44 56.4% 31 64.6% 15 33.3% 80 66.1% 3. Quality of services 7 21.2% 25 52.1% 9 36.0% 22 28.2% 15 31.3% 19 42.2% 56 46.3% 4. Establishing linkages between buyers and suppliers 0 0.0% 5 10.4% 3 12.0% 11 14.1% 8 16.7% 1 2.2% 16 13.2% 5. Facilitating marketing processes 1 3.0% 8 16.7% 3 12.0% 13 16.7% 6 12.5% 5 11.1% 19 15.7% 75.6% 77.4% 67.9% 78.0% 20.8% 18.1% 29.4% 19.7% 3.6% 4.5% 2.8% 2.4% TOTAL N=5 2 4 OWN ONLY N=2 8 8 RE NT ONLY N=1 0 9 OWN AND RE NT N=1 2 7 PERCENT LAND HOLDING Yes No Don’t Know 125 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-17. MEAN RATES OF ASSOCIATIONS’ OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION FROM THE FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVE GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN Mean Rate the association’s overall performance in service provision 7.5 6.0 7.7 6.9 7.9 7.7 8.4 7.6 FIGURE A-12. MEAN RATES OF ASSOCIATIONS’ OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION FROM THE FARMERS’ PERSPECTIVE TABLE A-18. COUNT DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY HOW THE SERVICES RECEIVED FROM FAS HAVE BENEFITED FARMERS. FAS BENEFITS YES FAS SERVICES INPUTS TRAINING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRODUCTION AND MACHINATION SUPPORT HARVEST SUPPORT POST-HARVEST SUPPORT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATION SUPPORT MARKETING SUPPORT SALES AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 1. Increased yield 394 93 181 277 3 7 10 3 3 0 0 0 2. Improved quality of production 385 103 143 286 8 4 9 4 2 0 0 0 3. Reduced use of chemicals and pesticides 226 36 92 171 4 7 5 4 2 0 0 0 7.5 6 7.7 6.9 7.9 7.7 8.4 7.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Beni Suef Minia Assiut Sohag Qena Luxor Aswan Mean Rate the association’s overall performance in service provision Governorates USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 126 FAS BENEFITS YES FAS SERVICES INPUTS TRAINING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRODUCTION AND MACHINATION SUPPORT HARVEST SUPPORT POST-HARVEST SUPPORT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATION SUPPORT MARKETING SUPPORT SALES AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 7. Reduced harvest loss 197 41 74 134 8 8 5 3 3 1 1 1 5. Higher quality of inputs 179 66 64 125 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 6. Accelerated production processes 177 54 76 124 4 6 5 5 2 0 0 0 9. Better prices for harvest 171 25 56 114 5 8 6 2 1 14 7 1 4. Reduced cost of inputs 167 31 56 124 2 6 6 3 2 1 1 1 8. Increased connection to markets 67 8 25 39 2 4 3 2 2 6 6 1 11. No benefits gained 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Ability to export 42 17 7 22 2 3 3 3 2 4 5 0 TABLE A-19. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY HOW THE SERVICES RECEIVED FROM FAS HAVE BENEFITED FARMERS AND THE SERVICES CONTRIBUTED THEY GAINED. FAS BENEFITS YES FAS SERVICES INPUTS TRAINING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRODUCTION AND MACHINATION SUPPORT HARVEST SUPPORT POST-HARVEST SUPPORT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATION SUPPORT MARKETING SUPPORT SALES AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 1. Increased yield 74.6% 23.6% 45.9% 70.3% 0.8% 1.8% 2.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2. Improved quality of production 72.9% 26.8% 37.1% 74.3% 2.1% 1.0% 2.3% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3. Reduced use of chemicals and pesticides 42.8% 15.9% 40.7% 75.7% 1.8% 3.1% 2.2% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7. Reduced harvest loss 37.3% 20.8% 37.6% 68.0% 4.1% 4.1% 2.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 5. Higher quality of inputs 33.9% 36.9% 35.8% 69.8% 0.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 127 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FAS BENEFITS YES FAS SERVICES INPUTS TRAINING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PRODUCTION AND MACHINATION SUPPORT HARVEST SUPPORT POST-HARVEST SUPPORT TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATION SUPPORT MARKETING SUPPORT SALES AND MARKETING CONTRACTS 6. Accelerated production processes 33.5% 30.5% 42.9% 70.1% 2.3% 3.4% 2.8% 2.8% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9. Better prices for harvest 32.4% 14.6% 32.7% 66.7% 2.9% 4.7% 3.5% 1.2% 0.6% 8.2% 4.1% 0.6% 4. Reduced cost of inputs 31.6% 18.6% 33.5% 74.3% 1.2% 3.6% 3.6% 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 8. Increased connection to markets 12.7% 11.9% 37.3% 58.2% 3.0% 6.0% 4.5% 3.0% 3.0% 9.0% 9.0% 1.5% 11. No benefits gained 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10. Ability to export 8.0% 40.5% 16.7% 52.4% 4.8% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 4.8% 9.5% 11.9% 0.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 128 TABLE A-20. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY HOW THE SERVICES RECEIVED FROM FAS HAVE BENEFITED FARMERS ACCORDING TO LAND HOLDING RENT/OWN. LAND HOLDING STATUS TOTAL OWN ONLY RENT ONLY OWN AND RENT N % N % N % N % 1. Increased yield 392 74.6% 216 55.1% 82 20.9% 94 24.0% 2. Improved quality of production 384 72.9% 205 53.4% 84 21.9% 95 24.7% 3. Reduced use of chemicals and pesticides 224 42.8% 127 56.7% 40 17.9% 57 25.4% 7. Reduced harvest loss 167 37.3% 90 53.9% 30 18.0% 47 28.1% 5. Higher quality of inputs 179 33.9% 91 50.8% 45 25.1% 43 24.0% 6. Accelerated production processes 177 33.5% 93 52.5% 39 22.0% 45 25.4% 9. Better prices for harvest 197 32.4% 101 51.3% 50 25.4% 46 23.4% 4. Reduced cost of inputs 67 31.6% 38 56.7% 13 19.4% 16 23.9% 8. Increased connection to markets 171 12.7% 93 54.4% 35 20.5% 43 25.1% 11. No benefits gained 42 11.0% 23 54.8% 9 21.4% 10 23.8% 10. Ability to export 57 8.0% 32 56.1% 9 15.8% 16 28.1% TABLE A-21. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF INNOVATIVE TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES THEY RECEIVED FROM THE PROJECT AND THE MEAN RATE OF SATISFACTION INNOVATIVE TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES N % MEAN RATE 1. pH, EC meter devices 32 6.1% 8.3 2. Red palm weevil device 93 17.6% 8.5 3. Colorimetric insect sticker traps 58 11.0% 8.3 4. Land levelling 31 5.9% 8.2 5. Onion artificial curing 2 0.4% 9.0 6. Use of micro-elements to increase plant resistance to fungal infection 42 8.0% 7.7 7. Safe use of pesticides 144 27.3% 8.3 8. Improved water-use efficiency 104 19.7% 8.1 9. None 286 54.2% 3.8 Total 528 100.0% 129 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE A-22. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY NUMBER OF ACCESSED SERVICES AND LEVEL OF ACCESS. LEVEL OF ACCESS NUMBER OF SERVICES NUMBER OF SERVICES N % Low Access to Services 0 45 8.5% 1 202 38.3% 2 90 17.0% 3 76 14.4% 4 48 9.1% 5 17 3.2% 6 13 2.5% 7 11 2.1% Total Low Access 502 95% Mid Access to Services 8 10 1.9% 9 2 0.4% 10 1 0.2% 11 1 0.2% 12 2 0.4% 13 2 0.4% 14 1 0.2% Total Mid Access 19 3.7% High Access to Services 15 1 0.2% 16 2 0.4% 17 1 0.2% 18 19 20 3 0.6% 21 Total High Access 7 1.3% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 130 FIGURE A-13. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY THEIR RATING CATEGORIES OF RECEIVED SERVICES BY CLUSTERED TYPE OF SERVICES (ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10) Note: ratings 1-3 = Low; 4-7 = Medium; 8 – 10 = High TABLE A-23. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY SCALE OF SATISFACTION WITH ASSOCIATION'S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION BY TYPE AND CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION BY ASSOCIATION’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION. SCALE TYPE OF ASSOCIATION CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION CB NONCB CO-OP FARMER ASSOCIATION N % N % N % N % 1-3 33 8.6% 23 20.9% 44 14.7% 12 6.2% 4-7 68 17.8% 35 31.8% 62 20.7% 41 21.1% 8-10 282 73.6% 52 47.3% 193 64.5% 141 72.7% Total 383 100.0% 110 100.0% 299 100.0% 194 100.0% TABLE A-24. MEAN SCALE OF SATISFACTION WITH ASSOCIATION'S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION BY TYPE AND CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION BY ASSOCIATION’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION. TOTAL TYPE OF ASSOCIATION CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION CB NONCB CO-OP FARMER ASSOCIATION Mean Scale of Satisfaction with Association's Overall Performance 7.5 7.9 6.4 7.9 7.3 *** Significant Differences (p<.01) *** Significant Differences (p<.01) 3.7% 3.3% 0.6% 4.2% 31.1% 26.2% 28.6% 25.0% 65.2% 70.5% 70.8% 70.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Inputs Post Harvest Marketing Cross Cutting Respondents Rating 1-3 Respondents Rating 4-7 Respondents Rating 8-10 131 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE A-14. MEAN SCALE OF SATISFACTION WITH ASSOCIATION'S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION BY TYPE AND CATEGORY OF ASSOCIATION BY ASSOCIATION’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE PROVISION. TABLE A-25. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY BENEFITS FREQUENCY OF MENTIONS NUMBER OF BENEFITS GAINED N % NONE 60 11.4% 1-3 232 43.9% 4-7 154 29.2% 8-10 82 15.5% Total 528 100.0% 7.5 7.9 6.4 7.9 7.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total CB nonCB Co-op Farmer Association Type of Association Category of Association Mean Scale of Satisfaction with Association's Overall Performance USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 132 FIGURE A-15. DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS DISAGGREGATED BY BENEFITS FREQUENCY OF MENTIONS None 11% 1 to 3 44% 4 to 7 29% 8 to 10 16% 133 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV PART B: CROPS INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FARMERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE TABLE B-1. DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES CROPS GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 1. Onion 83 11.4% 32 36.4% 9 11.1% 0 0.0% 19 19.4% 5 6.0% 18 21.4% 0 0.0% 2. Garlic 8 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 7 8.3% 0 0.0% 3. Tomatoes 56 7.7% 40 45.5% 4 4.9% 0 0.0% 2 2.0% 0 0.0% 10 11.9% 0 0.0% 4. Potatoes 3 0.4% 0 0.0% 3 3.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5. Okra 6 0.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 5 6.0% 0 0.0% 6. Green Beans 88 12.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 76 77.6% 12 14.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7. Pomegranate 22 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 22 64.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8. Dates 161 22.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16 19.0% 10 11.9% 135 51.7% 9. Grapes 24 3.3% 0 0.0% 23 28.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 10. Mangoes 197 27.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 37 44.0% 33 39.3% 126 48.3% 11.Parsley 1 0.1% 1 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12. Basil 26 3.6% 15 17.0% 0 0.0% 11 32.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13. Fennel 14 1.9% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 15.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14. Anise 38 5.2% 0 0.0% 38 46.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18. Cumin 3 0.4% 0 0.0% 3 3.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 730 100.0% 88 100.0% 81 100.0% 34 100.0% 98 100.0% 84 100.0% 84 100.0% 261 100.0% TABLE B-2. DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY YEAR OF JOINING FAS CROPS YEAR JOINED THE FAS PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 DON'T KNOW N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 1. Onion 17 20.5% 9 10.8% 18 21.7% 16 19.3% 22 26.5% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 2. Garlic 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 87.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3. Tomatoes 12 21.4% 5 8.9% 21 37.5% 6 10.7% 12 21.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4. Potatoes 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5. Okra 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6. Green Beans 13 14.9% 10 11.5% 16 18.4% 28 32.2% 18 20.7% 2 2.3% 0 0.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 134 CROPS YEAR JOINED THE FAS PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 DON'T KNOW N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 7. Pomegranate 1 4.8% 2 9.5% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% 9 42.9% 1 4.8% 0 0.0% 8. Dates 9 5.7% 20 12.6% 38 23.9% 39 24.5% 50 31.4% 2 1.3% 1 0.6% 9. Grapes 1 4.2% 3 12.5% 1 4.2% 13 54.2% 6 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10. Mangoes 13 6.7% 19 9.7% 47 24.1% 43 22.1% 71 36.4% 2 1.0% 0 0.0% 11.Parsley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12. Basil 1 3.8% 2 7.7% 10 38.5% 8 30.8% 2 7.7% 3 11.5% 0 0.0% 13. Fennel 0 0.0% 4 30.8% 0 0.0% 3 23.1% 6 46.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14. Anise 1 2.6% 6 15.8% 8 21.1% 21 55.3% 2 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18. Cumin 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 69 9.5% 80 11.1% 164 22.7% 188 26.0% 210 29.0% 11 1.5% 1 0.1% TABLE B-3. DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY FARMERS’ EDUCATIONAL LEVEL EDUCATIONAL LEVEL CROPS 1. ILLITERATE 2. INCOMPLETE SCHOOL EDUCATION 3. LITERACY PROGRAM S 4. PRIMARY EDUCATION 5. PREPARATORY EDUCATION 6. SECONDARY SCHOOL 7. TECHNICAL SCHOOL 8. UNIVERSITY DEGREE 9. POST GRADUATE DEGREE N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 1. Onion 10 10.5% 8 13.3% 3 16.7% 10 11.2% 8 16.7% 1 4.3% 32 10.3% 10 14.5% 1 10.0% 2. Garlic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 4.2% 0 0.0% 3 1.0% 3 4.3% 0 0.0% 3. Tomatoes 7 7.4% 10 16.7% 2 11.1% 8 9.0% 4 8.3% 2 8.7% 22 7.1% 1 1.4% 0 0.0% 4. Potatoes 1 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5. Okra 2 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 4.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.4% 1 10.0% 6. Green Beans 35 36.8% 2 3.3% 1 5.6% 18 20.2% 2 4.2% 1 4.3% 24 7.7% 5 7.2% 0 0.0% 7. Pomegranate 0 0.0% 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 2 2.2% 2 4.2% 2 8.7% 10 3.2% 5 7.2% 0 0.0% 8. Dates 14 14.7% 12 20.0% 3 16.7% 18 20.2% 12 25.0% 5 21.7% 78 25.0% 15 21.7% 2 20.0% 9. Grapes 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.6% 4 4.5% 1 2.1% 1 4.3% 11 3.5% 3 4.3% 1 10.0% 10. Mangoes 16 16.8% 16 26.7% 4 22.2% 20 22.5% 10 20.8% 7 30.4% 96 30.8% 22 31.9% 4 40.0% 11.Parsley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12. Basil 5 5.3% 2 3.3% 1 5.6% 3 3.4% 2 4.2% 1 4.3% 11 3.5% 1 1.4% 0 0.0% 135 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EDUCATIONAL LEVEL CROPS 1. ILLITERATE 2. INCOMPLETE SCHOOL EDUCATION 3. LITERACY PROGRAM S 4. PRIMARY EDUCATION 5. PREPARATORY EDUCATION 6. SECONDARY SCHOOL 7. TECHNICAL SCHOOL 8. UNIVERSITY DEGREE 9. POST GRADUATE DEGREE N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 13. Fennel 2 2.1% 3 5.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.4% 1 2.1% 1 4.3% 4 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14. Anise 3 3.2% 6 10.0% 2 11.1% 3 3.4% 2 4.2% 1 4.3% 17 5.4% 3 4.3% 1 10.0% 18. Cumin 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TABLE B-4. DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY FARMERS’ LANDHOLDING RENT/OWN CROPS LAND HOLDING STATUS TOTAL OWN ONLY RENT ONLY OWN AND RENT N % N % N % N % 1. Onion 83 11.4% 32 8.1% 32 21.1% 19 10.6% 2. Garlic 8 1.1% 4 1.0% 3 2.0% 1 0.6% 3. Tomatoes 56 7.7% 10 2.5% 30 19.7% 16 8.9% 4. Potatoes 3 0.4% 0 0.0% 2 1.3% 1 0.6% 5. Okra 6 0.8% 1 0.3% 2 1.3% 3 1.7% 6. Green Beans 87 12.0% 53 13.4% 17 11.2% 17 9.5% 7. Pomegranate 22 3.0% 11 2.8% 2 1.3% 9 5.0% 8. Dates 161 22.2% 104 26.3% 22 14.5% 35 19.6% 9. Grapes 24 3.3% 4 1.0% 11 7.2% 9 5.0% 10. Mangoes 195 26.9% 133 33.7% 20 13.2% 42 23.5% 11.Parsley 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.6% 12. Basil 26 3.6% 11 2.8% 1 0.7% 14 7.8% 13. Fennel 13 1.8% 10 2.5% 1 0.7% 2 1.1% 14. Anise 38 5.2% 20 5.1% 9 5.9% 9 5.0% 18. Cumin 3 0.4% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.6% Total 726 100.0% 395 100.0% 152 100.0% 179 100.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 136 TABLE B-5. DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY FARMERS’ TOTAL LANDHOLDING SIZE CROPS TOTAL SIZE OF LAND HOLDING <1 FEDDAN 1 - 2 FEDDANS 2 - 3 FEDDANS 3 - 4 FEDDANS 4 - 5 FEDDANS 5+ FEDDANS N % N % N % N % N % N % 1. Onion 32 19.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 4 25.0% 1 12.5% 12 15.4% 2. Garlic 3 1.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 3. Tomatoes 30 17.9% 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 3 18.8% 1 12.5% 11 14.1% 4. Potatoes 2 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 5. Okra 2 1.2% 2 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 6. Green Beans 22 13.1% 6 15.8% 0 0.0% 1 6.3% 0 0.0% 5 6.4% 7. Pomegranate 2 1.2% 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 10.3% 8. Dates 29 17.3% 7 18.4% 6 27.3% 2 12.5% 1 12.5% 12 15.4% 9. Grapes 11 6.5% 0 0.0% 2 9.1% 1 6.3% 0 0.0% 6 7.7% 10. Mangoes 24 14.3% 11 28.9% 6 27.3% 3 18.8% 2 25.0% 16 20.5% 11.Parsley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12. Basil 1 0.6% 6 15.8% 5 22.7% 2 12.5% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 13. Fennel 1 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.6% 14. Anise 9 5.4% 5 13.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 3 3.8% 18. Cumin 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.3% Total 168 100.0% 38 100.0% 22 100.0% 16 100.0% 8 100.0% 78 100.0% TABLE B-6. DISTRIBUTION OF CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY TOTAL CULTIVATED LAND SIZE TOTAL LAND CULTIVATED <1 FEDDAN 1 - 2 FEDDANS 2 - 3 FEDDANS 3 - 4 FEDDANS 4 - 5 FEDDANS 5+ FEDDANS N % N % N % N % N % N % 1. Onion 15 4.2% 28 14.2% 15 22.4% 10 28.6% 4 25.0% 11 19.3% 2. Garlic 7 2.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3. Tomatoes 4 1.1% 17 8.6% 9 13.4% 5 14.3% 6 37.5% 15 26.3% 4. Potatoes 0 0.0% 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 3.5% 5. Okra 5 1.4% 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6. Green Beans 62 17.6% 22 11.2% 3 4.5% 0 0.0% 1 6.3% 0 0.0% 7. Pomegranate 0 0.0% 5 2.5% 3 4.5% 4 11.4% 0 0.0% 10 17.5% 137 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TOTAL LAND CULTIVATED <1 FEDDAN 1 - 2 FEDDANS 2 - 3 FEDDANS 3 - 4 FEDDANS 4 - 5 FEDDANS 5+ FEDDANS N % N % N % N % N % N % 8. Dates 112 31.7% 43 21.8% 2 3.0% 2 5.7% 0 0.0% 1 1.8% 9. Grapes 3 0.8% 2 1.0% 5 7.5% 5 14.3% 2 12.5% 7 12.3% 10. Mangoes 110 31.2% 50 25.4% 18 26.9% 6 17.1% 2 12.5% 10 17.5% 11.Parsley 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12. Basil 9 2.5% 9 4.6% 4 6.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13. Fennel 5 1.4% 6 3.0% 3 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14. Anise 18 5.1% 12 6.1% 4 6.0% 2 5.7% 1 6.3% 1 1.8% 18. Cumin 2 0.6% 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 353 100.0% 197 100.0% 67 100.0% 35 100.0% 16 100.0% 57 100.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 138 TABLE B-7. DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AND SALES FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Total Area Cultivated <1 Feddan 353 48.7% 7 8.2% 23 28.4% 4 11.8% 56 57.1% 52 61.9% 54 64.3% 157 60.6% 1 - 2 Feddans 197 27.2% 28 32.9% 25 30.9% 9 26.5% 25 25.5% 23 27.4% 16 19.0% 71 27.4% 2 - 3 Feddans 67 9.2% 19 22.4% 9 11.1% 6 17.6% 5 5.1% 8 9.5% 6 7.1% 14 5.4% 3 - 4 Feddans 35 4.8% 11 12.9% 8 9.9% 5 14.7% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.6% 7 2.7% 4 - 5 Feddans 16 2.2% 7 8.2% 3 3.7% 0 0.0% 4 4.1% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.4% 5+ Feddans 57 7.9% 13 15.3% 13 16.0% 10 29.4% 7 7.1% 0 0.0% 5 6.0% 9 3.5% Mean 1.6 3.0 2.6 3.4 1.5 0.8 1.3 0.9 Grow this crop before joining the project Yes 705 96.58% 88 100.0% 80 98.8% 32 94.1% 93 94.9% 82 97.6% 70 83.3% 260 99.6% No 22 3.01% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 2 5.9% 5 5.1% 2 2.4% 11 13.1% 1 0.4% Don't Know 3 0.41% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.6% 0 0.0% Production Increased 509 77.95% 61 69.3% 68 89.5% 16 59.3% 34 36.6% 65 91.5% 59 89.4% 206 88.8% Equal 73 11.18% 9 10.2% 4 5.3% 6 22.2% 20 21.5% 2 2.8% 7 10.6% 25 10.8% Decreased 71 10.87% 18 20.5% 4 5.3% 5 18.5% 39 41.9% 4 5.6% 0 0.0% 1 0.4% Exported in the last season you participated in FAS Yes 15 2.1% 7 8.0% 1 1.2% 7 21.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% No 714 97.9% 81 92.0% 80 98.8% 26 78.8% 98 100.0% 84 100.0% 84 100.0% 261 100.0% Don't Know 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Yes 22 3.0% 7 8.0% 1 1.2% 11 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 2.4% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 139 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Export before participating in FAS No 707 97.0% 81 92.0% 80 98.8% 22 66.7% 98 100.0% 82 97.6% 83 98.8% 261 100.0% Don't Know 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TABLE B-8. EXPORT DETAILS FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Ever Exported Before Joining FAS Yes 15 2.1% 7 8.0% 1 1.2% 7 21.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% No 714 97.9% 81 92.0% 80 98.8% 26 78.8% 98 100.0% 84 100.0% 84 100.0% 261 100.0% Ever Exported After Joining FAS Yes 22 3.0% 7 8.0% 1 1.2% 11 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 2.4% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% No 707 97.0% 81 92.0% 80 98.8% 22 66.7% 98 100.0% 82 97.6% 83 98.8% 261 100.0% Export Increase Increased 11 73.3% 6 85.7% 0 0.0% 5 71.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Equal 3 20.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0% 2 28.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Decreased 1 6.7% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Export Price Increase Increased 8 53.3% 7 100.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Equal 2 13.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 28.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Decreased 5 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 71.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 140 TABLE B-9. LOCAL MARKET SALES FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % SELL IN LOCAL MARKET BEFORE JOINING FAS YES 701 98.2% 88 100.0% 80 100.0% 32 97.0% 98 100.0% 84 100.0% 74 93.7% 245 97.2% NO 13 1.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 6.3% 7 2.8% SELL IN LOCAL MARKET AFTER JOINING FAS YES 705 98.6% 88 100.0% 81 100.0% 33 100.0% 98 100.0% 84 100.0% 75 96.2% 246 97.2% NO 10 1.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.8% 7 2.8% LOCAL MARKET PRICE INCREASE INCREASED 597 86.1% 82 93.2% 70 88.6% 17 53.1% 80 83.3% 75 90.4% 65 91.5% 208 85.2% EQUAL 54 7.8% 5 5.7% 1 1.3% 3 9.4% 8 8.3% 8 9.6% 6 8.5% 23 9.4% DECREASED 42 6.1% 1 1.1% 8 10.1% 12 37.5% 8 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 5.3% TABLE B-10. NUMBER OF BUYERS FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Number of buyers None 24 3.3% 12 13.6% 6 7.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.6% 3 1.1% 1 453 62.3% 41 46.6% 36 44.4% 8 23.5% 82 83.7% 43 53.1% 42 50.0% 201 77.0% 2 98 13.5% 11 12.5% 17 21.0% 7 20.6% 3 3.1% 20 24.7% 15 17.9% 25 9.6% 3 53 7.3% 8 9.1% 5 6.2% 7 20.6% 12 12.2% 8 9.9% 5 6.0% 8 3.1% 4 27 3.7% 4 4.5% 2 2.5% 8 23.5% 0 0.0% 4 4.9% 2 2.4% 7 2.7% 5 20 2.8% 6 6.8% 2 2.5% 3 8.8% 0 0.0% 2 2.5% 2 2.4% 5 1.9% 141 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 6+ 19 2.6% 6 6.8% 3 3.7% 1 2.9% 1 1.0% 4 4.9% 2 2.4% 2 0.8% Don't Know 33 4.5% 0 0.0% 10 12.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 15.5% 10 3.8% TABLE B-11. NUMBER OF BUYERS FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY FARMERS’ TOTAL LAND HOLDING SIZE TOTAL LAND HOLDING TOTAL <1 FEDDAN 1 - 2 FEDDANS 2 - 3 FEDDANS 3 - 4 FEDDANS 4 - 5 FEDDANS 5+ FEDDANS N % N % N % N % N % N % N % NUMBER OF BUYERS 1 174 55.8% 87 55.8% 30 78.9% 15 68.2% 11 68.8% 3 50.0% 28 37.8% 2 41 13.1% 22 14.1% 3 7.9% 2 9.1% 1 6.3% 2 33.3% 11 14.9% 3 32 10.3% 15 9.6% 2 5.3% 2 9.1% 4 25.0% 0 0.0% 9 12.2% 4 15 4.8% 8 5.1% 1 2.6% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 6.8% 5 13 4.2% 4 2.6% 0 0.0% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 10.8% 6 + 14 4.5% 10 6.4% 1 2.6% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.7% DON'T KNOW 23 7.4% 10 6.4% 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 11 14.9% TOTAL 312 100.0% 156 100.0% 38 100.0% 22 100.0% 16 100.0% 6 100.0% 74 100.0% USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 142 TABLE B-12. TYPE OF BUYERS AND SALES METHOD FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY FARMERS’ TOTAL LAND HOLDING SIZE GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % TYPE OF BUYERS* ASSOCIATION 74 11.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 71 72.4% 1 1.2% 2 2.9% 0 0.0% BROKER 20 3.0% 6 7.9% 2 3.1% 1 2.9% 1 1.0% 3 3.7% 3 4.4% 4 1.6% TRADER 579 86.4% 76 100.0% 64 98.5% 26 76.5% 27 27.6% 77 95.1% 64 94.1% 245 98.8% EXPORTER 17 2.5% 4 5.3% 0 0.0% 6 17.6% 0 0.0% 3 3.7% 0 0.0% 4 1.6% PROCESSOR 8 1.2% 2 2.6% 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 4 1.6% SALES METHOD* DIRECT SALES PRIOR TO HARVEST 220 32.8% 2 2.6% 6 9.2% 2 5.9% 1 1.0% 13 16.0% 2 2.9% 194 78.2% FARM GATE 227 33.9% 68 89.5% 33 50.8% 13 38.2% 20 20.4% 26 32.1% 29 42.6% 38 15.3% BARTER SALE 4 0.6% 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 2 0.8% LOCAL MARKET SALE 160 23.9% 15 19.7% 33 50.8% 9 26.5% 7 7.1% 39 48.1% 37 54.4% 20 8.1% CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT 11 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 20.6% 1 1.0% 1 1.2% 2 2.9% 0 0.0% FORWARD CONTRACT 89 13.3% 13 17.1% 1 1.5% 5 14.7% 69 70.4% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% *Calculated for first buyer only and respondents reported at least one buyer 143 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE B-13. SAME BUYERS INFORMATION FOR CULTIVATED CROPS DISAGGREGATED BY FARMERS’ TOTAL LAND HOLDING SIZE GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Whether selling to same buyer more than once Yes 555 76.6% 70 79.5% 66 81.5% 31 91.2% 88 90.7% 49 61.3% 42 50.0% 209 80.1% No 163 22.5% 16 18.2% 14 17.3% 3 8.8% 9 9.3% 31 38.8% 39 46.4% 51 19.5% Don't Know 7 1.0% 2 2.3% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.6% 1 0.4% Total 725 100% 88 100% 81 100% 34 100% 97 100% 80 100% 84 100% 261 100% Number of times sold to same buyers* Twice 123 22.2% 3 4.3% 26 39.4% 5 16.1% 4 4.5% 8 16.3% 9 21.4% 68 32.5% Three times 111 20.0% 21 30.0% 10 15.2% 6 19.4% 10 11.4% 5 10.2% 6 14.3% 53 25.4% More than three times 284 51.2% 39 55.7% 23 34.8% 18 58.1% 75 85.2% 35 71.4% 21 50.0% 73 34.9% *Calculated for first buyer and reported that they sell to same buyer more than once USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 144 TABLE B-14. COST, REVENUE AND NET PROFIT BY CULTIVATED CROPS CROPS COST PER FEDDAN REVENUE PER 1 KILOGRAM NET PROFIT INCREASE INCREASED STABLE DECREASED TOTAL INCREASED STABLE DECREASED TOTAL INCREASED STABLE DECREASED TOTAL N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Onion 57 69.5% 3 3.7% 22 26.8% 82 74 92.5% 2 2.5% 4 5.0% 80 51 67.1% 0 0.0% 25 32.9% 76 Garlic 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 8 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 Tomato 37 66.1% 4 7.1% 15 26.8% 56 51 91.1% 4 7.1% 1 1.8% 56 26 50.0% 0 0.0% 26 50.0% 52 Potatoes 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 Okra 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 6 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 6 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 6 Green Beans 57 64.8% 17 19.3% 14 15.9% 88 67 81.7% 8 9.8% 7 8.5% 82 59 72.8% 3 3.7% 19 23.5% 81 Pomegranate 15 75.0% 4 20.0% 1 5.0% 20 5 25.0% 3 15.0% 12 60.0% 20 7 38.9% 1 5.6% 10 55.6% 18 Dates 70 45.8% 22 14.4% 61 39.9% 153 124 83.8% 16 10.8% 8 5.4% 148 113 78.5% 7 4.9% 24 16.7% 144 Grapes 14 58.3% 2 8.3% 8 33.3% 24 15 62.5% 1 4.2% 8 33.3% 24 9 42.9% 0 0.0% 12 57.1% 21 Mango 85 46.2% 23 12.5% 76 41.3% 184 156 89.7% 13 7.5% 5 2.9% 174 152 89.9% 1 0.6% 16 9.5% 169 Parsley 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 Basil 24 96.0% 1 4.0% 0 0.0% 25 22 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 22 16 72.7% 0 0.0% 6 27.3% 22 Fennel 4 28.6% 6 42.9% 4 28.6% 14 11 78.6% 3 21.4% 0 0.0% 14 12 85.7% 1 7.1% 1 7.1% 14 Anise 25 65.8% 1 2.6% 12 31.6% 38 36 94.7% 1 2.6% 1 2.6% 38 31 81.6% 0 0.0% 7 18.4% 38 Cumin 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 Total 402 57.1% 88 12.5% 214 30.4% 704 579 85.4% 53 7.8% 46 6.8% 678 494 75.4% 15 2.3% 146 22.3% 655 145 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV PART C: ASSOCIATIONS SURVEY TABLE C-1. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES, YEAR TO JOIN FAS, NUMBER OF MEMBERS, AND CROPS CHARACTERISTICS N % Governorate Beni Suef 9 15.3% Minia 6 10.2% Assiut 6 10.2% Sohag 6 10.2% Qena 4 6.8% Luxor 8 13.6% Aswan 20 33.9% Year to Join FAS 2015 4 6.8% 2016 15 25.4% 2017 15 25.4% 2018 23 39.0% 2019 2 3.4% Number of Members <200 6 10.2% 200-400 20 33.9% 400-600 11 18.6% 600-800 10 16.9% 800-1000 2 3.4% 1000+ 10 16.9% Crops Onions 21 35.6% Garlic 3 5.1% Tomato 10 16.9% Potatoes 4 6.8% Okra 1 1.7% Green Beans 6 10.2% Pomegranate 4 6.8% Dates 25 42.4% Grapes 6 10.2% Mangoes 25 42.4% USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 146 CHARACTERISTICS N % Parsley 3 5.1% Basil 16 27.1% Fennel 10 16.9% Anise 4 6.8% Mint 5 8.5% Thyme 4 6.8% Marjoram 3 5.1% Cumin 7 11.9% Other 7 11.9% Total 59 100.0% FIGURE C-1. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES Beni Suef 9 15.3% Minia 6 10.2% Assiut 6 10.2% Sohag 6 10.2% Qena 4 6.8% Luxor 8 13.6% Aswan 20 33.9% 147 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE C-2. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY YEAR JOINING FAS FIGURE C-3. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY NUMBER OF MEMBERS 2015 4 6.8% 2016 15 25.4% 2017 15 25.4% 2018 23 39.0% 2019 2 3.4% <200 6 10.2% 200-400 20 33.9% 400-600 11 18.6% 600-800 10 16.9% 800-1000 2 3.4% 1000+ 10 16.9% USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 148 FIGURE C-4. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY CROPS 35.6% 5.1% 16.9% 6.8% 1.7% 10.2% 6.8% 42.4% 10.2% 42.4% 5.1% 27.1% 16.9% 6.8% 8.5% 6.8% 5.1% 11.9%11.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% PERCENT DISTRIBUTION CROPS 149 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE C-2. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY YEAR TO JOIN FAS, NUMBER OF MEMBERS, AND CROPS FOR EACH GOVERNORATE GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % YEAR TO JOIN FAS 2015 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 2 10.0% 2016 1 11.1% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 2 50.0% 1 12.5% 5 25.0% 2017 4 44.4% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 4 20.0% 2018 3 33.3% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 5 62.5% 9 45.0% 2019 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% NUMBER OF MEMBERS <200 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 1 25.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 200-400 2 22.2% 4 66.7% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 7 35.0% 400-600 1 11.1% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 5 25.0% 600-800 2 22.2% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 1 25.0% 1 12.5% 4 20.0% 800-1000 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1000+ 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 4 20.0% CROPS ONIONS 5 55.6% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 5 83.3% 1 25.0% 4 50.0% 4 20.0% GARLIC 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TOMATO 5 55.6% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% POTATOES 3 33.3% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% OKRA 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% GREEN BEENS 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% POMEGRANATE 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% DATES 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 2 50.0% 5 62.5% 15 75.0% GRAPES 2 22.2% 4 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% MANGOES 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 7 87.5% 17 85.0% PARSLEY 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% BASIL 6 66.7% 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 2 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.0% FENNEL 1 11.1% 4 66.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 3 75.0% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% ANISE 2 22.2% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% MINT 4 44.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.0% THYME 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% MARJORAM 0 0.0% 4 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 150 GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % CUMIN 1 11.1% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% OTHER 3 33.3% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.0% TOTAL 9 100.0% 6 100.0% 6 100.0% 6 0.0% 4 100.0% 8 0.0% 20 100.0% 151 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE C-3. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY LIST OF SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE PROJECT WITH OVERALL MEAN RATE FOR THE PROJECT TOTAL N % MEAN RATE Capacity Building Services Result Management 48 81.4% 8.4 Financial Management 48 81.4% 8.4 Good Governance 52 88.1% 8.8 Proposal Writing workshops 49 83.1% 8.4 Farmers￾Based Services 1. Marketing management 51 86.4% 8.2 2. Communication and networking with the business community 42 71.2% 8.1 3. Building the capacity of emerging companies to export horticultural crops 29 49.2% 7.7 4. Development of management and operating systems 39 66.1% 8.1 5. Use of PH and EC meters 18 30.5% 8.1 6. Soil and water analyzes and linking associations with high-tech laboratories 14 23.7% 8.2 7. Enhancing the technical skills of local agronomists 35 59.3% 8.5 8. Conducting awareness workshops with the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) 29 49.2% 8.6 9. Business plan template 38 64.4% 8.8 10. Nurturing and promoting innovation across agribusiness value chains 28 47.5% 8.3 11. Coding and equipping post-harvest centers and collection centers with quality control tools 31 52.5% 8.5 12. Supporting contractual production inputs for small farmers 35 59.3% 8.6 13. Crop Collection Center 24 40.7% 8.0 14. Receive a computer and a projector 49 83.1% 9.5 15. Database for registering farmers 41 69.5% 9.0 Community Awareness and Marketing 1. Marketing materials for the association (posters / instructions about food safety) 43 72.9% 8.9 2. Producing a documentary film 22 37.3% 8.8 3. Virtual platform for capacity building around the value chain of horticulture 22 37.3% 8.1 4. Train the trainers 31 52.5% 8.6 5. Posters on the safe use of pesticides 40 67.8% 9.1 6. Technical brochures and posters on best agricultural practices and safe uses 41 69.5% 8.9 USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 152 TOTAL N % MEAN RATE 7. An instruction book for crops 43 72.9% 9.1 8. Technical guides for horticultural and post-harvest operations 29 49.2% 8.6 9. Training on food safety and hygiene 42 71.2% 9.1 10. Field / study visits 49 83.1% 9.1 11. Exhibitions 45 76.3% 8.9 Mean Overall Rate for FAS 8.1 153 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE C-4. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY LIST OF SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE PROJECT WITH OVERALL MEAN RATE FOR THE PROJECT FOR EACH GOVERNORATE GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE CAPACITY BUILDING SERVICES RESULT MANAGEMENT 8 88.9% 8.0 5 83.3% 9.0 5 83.3% 7.4 5 83.3% 7.5 2 50.0% 7.5 5 62.5% 9.0 18 90.0% 8.7 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 6 66.7% 8.2 6 100.0% 7.8 6 100.0% 7.8 4 66.7% 8.0 2 50.0% 8.0 5 62.5% 8.6 19 95.0% 9.1 GOOD GOVERNANCE 8 88.9% 8.0 5 83.3% 9.8 6 100.0% 8.0 5 83.3% 8.8 4 100.0% 8.8 5 62.5% 8.8 19 95.0% 9.3 PROPOSAL WRITNG WORKSHOPS 6 66.7% 7.3 5 83.3% 8.8 5 83.3% 7.8 5 83.3% 8.0 4 100.0% 8.0 7 87.5% 8.6 17 85.0% 9.2 FARMERS￾BASED SERVICES 1. MARKETING MANAGEMENT 9 100.0% 8.3 6 100.0% 6.7 5 83.3% 7.8 5 83.3% 8.3 3 75.0% 8.3 5 62.5% 9.0 18 90.0% 8.6 2. COMMUNICATION AND NETWORKING WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY 8 88.9% 8.6 3 50.0% 9.3 4 66.7% 7.8 6 100.0% 7.3 4 100.0% 7.3 4 50.0% 8.3 13 65.0% 8.2 3. BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF EMERGING COMPANIES TO EXPORT HORTICULTURAL CROPS 5 55.6% 7.8 1 16.7% 10.0 1 16.7% 8.0 4 66.7% 5.0 1 25.0% 5.0 2 25.0% 8.5 15 75.0% 8.1 4. DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING SYSTEMS 8 88.9% 7.8 4 66.7% 9.3 3 50.0% 7.3 3 50.0% 7.0 2 50.0% 7.0 4 50.0% 8.5 15 75.0% 8.4 USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 154 GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE 5. USE OF PH AND EC METERS 4 44.4% 8.0 2 33.3% 10.0 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 5.0 2 50.0% 5.0 2 25.0% 8.5 6 30.0% 8.2 6. SOIL AND WATER ANALYZES AND LINKING ASSOCIATIONS WITH HIGH-TECH LABORATORIES 2 22.2% 9.0 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 6.0 2 33.3% 5.5 2 50.0% 5.5 2 25.0% 8.5 5 25.0% 8.8 7. ENHANCING THE TECHNICAL SKILLS OF LOCAL AGRONOMISTS 7 77.8% 8.6 3 50.0% 8.3 2 33.3% 7.0 4 66.7% 8.3 3 75.0% 8.3 3 37.5% 9.0 13 65.0% 9.2 8. CONDUCTING AWARENESS WORKSHOPS WITH THE NATIONAL FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY (NFSA) 4 44.4% 9.0 2 33.3% 9.0 2 33.3% 8.0 4 66.7% 5.7 3 75.0% 5.7 5 62.5% 9.0 9 45.0% 9.2 9. BUSINESS PLAN TEMPLATE 7 77.8% 8.6 3 50.0% 8.7 4 66.7% 8.5 2 33.3% 7.0 2 50.0% 7.0 4 50.0% 8.8 16 80.0% 9.2 10. NURTURING AND PROMOTING INNOVATION ACROSS AGRIBUSINESS VALUE CHAINS 5 55.6% 8.6 3 50.0% 9.3 2 33.3% 6.5 1 16.7% 7.5 2 50.0% 7.5 2 25.0% 8.5 13 65.0% 8.3 11. CODING AND EQUIPPING POST￾HARVEST CENTERS AND COLLECTION CENTERS WITH 6 66.7% 8.7 3 50.0% 9.0 1 16.7% 8.0 2 33.3% 7.7 3 75.0% 7.7 2 25.0% 8.5 14 70.0% 8.9 155 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE QUALITY CONTROL TOOLS 12. SUPPORTING CONTRACTUAL PRODUCTION INPUTS FOR SMALL FARMERS 7 77.8% 9.0 3 50.0% 9.5 2 33.3% 8.0 4 66.7% 8.3 3 75.0% 8.3 3 37.5% 7.7 13 65.0% 8.8 13. CROP COLLECTION CENTER 2 22.2% 8.5 1 16.7% 8.0 2 33.3% 5.0 3 50.0% 7.3 3 75.0% 7.3 1 12.5% 9.0 12 60.0% 8.6 14. RECEIVE A COMPUTER AND A PROJECTOR 7 77.8% 9.4 4 66.7% 10.0 4 66.7% 8.5 6 100.0% 9.0 4 100.0% 9.0 5 62.5% 9.8 19 95.0% 9.8 15. DATABASE FOR REGISTERING FARMERS 7 77.8% 8.9 3 50.0% 9.3 4 66.7% 7.8 2 33.3% 8.5 4 100.0% 8.5 5 62.5% 9.2 16 80.0% 9.2 COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND MARKETING 1. MARKETING MATERIALS FOR THE ASSOCIATION (POSTERS / INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT FOOD SAFETY) 6 66.7% 9.0 5 83.3% 8.6 4 66.7% 7.8 6 100.0% 9.3 3 75.0% 9.3 5 62.5% 9.6 14 70.0% 9.1 2. PRODUCING A DOCUMENTARY FILM 3 33.3% 8.3 1 16.7% 7.0 2 33.3% 8.0 3 50.0% 8.0 3 75.0% 8.0 1 12.5% 10.0 9 45.0% 9.4 3. VIRTUAL PLATFORM FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AROUND THE VALUE CHAIN OF HORTICULTURE 3 33.3% 8.7 3 50.0% 8.3 1 16.7% 10.0 2 33.3% 7.5 2 50.0% 7.5 1 12.5% 10.0 10 50.0% 8.0 USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 156 GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE N % MEAN RATE 4. TRAIN THE TRAINERS 5 55.6% 9.2 3 50.0% 8.3 3 50.0% 8.7 3 50.0% 7.5 2 50.0% 7.5 4 50.0% 9.3 11 55.0% 8.7 5. POSTERS ON THE SAFE USE OF PESTICIDES 7 77.8% 9.6 5 83.3% 8.6 3 50.0% 9.3 6 100.0% 8.0 4 100.0% 8.0 5 62.5% 9.6 10 50.0% 9.8 6. TECHNICAL BROCHURES AND POSTERS ON BEST AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND SAFE USES 6 66.7% 9.2 4 66.7% 8.5 4 66.7% 8.3 5 83.3% 9.3 3 75.0% 9.3 5 62.5% 9.2 14 70.0% 9.4 7. AN INSTRUCTION BOOK FOR CROPS 4 44.4% 9.5 5 83.3% 8.8 4 66.7% 9.0 6 100.0% 8.7 3 75.0% 8.7 4 50.0% 9.5 17 85.0% 9.4 8. TECHNICAL GUIDES FOR HORTICULTURAL AND POST-HARVEST OPERATIONS 4 44.4% 9.8 4 66.7% 9.0 1 16.7% 7.0 2 33.3% 6.0 2 50.0% 6.0 2 25.0% 10.0 14 70.0% 8.7 9. TRAINING ON FOOD SAFETY AND HYGIENE 7 77.8% 9.7 5 83.3% 9.4 5 83.3% 7.8 4 66.7% 7.7 3 75.0% 7.7 3 37.5% 9.3 15 75.0% 9.7 10. FIELD / STUDY VISITS 8 88.9% 8.6 5 83.3% 9.6 4 66.7% 8.3 6 100.0% 9.0 3 75.0% 9.0 5 62.5% 9.6 18 90.0% 9.3 11. EXHIBITIONS 6 66.7% 8.7 6 100.0% 8.2 2 33.3% 9.5 5 83.3% 9.0 3 75.0% 9.0 4 50.0% 9.3 19 95.0% 9.1 MEAN OVERALL RATE FOR FAS 8.6 7.7 7.7 7.2 8.5 7.9 8.5 157 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE C-5. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS ENHANCE PERFORMANCE DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % ENHANCED PERFORMANCE YES 51 87.9% 8 88.9% 5 83.3% 6 100.0% 3 50.0% 4 100.0% 7 87.5% 18 94.7% NO 7 12.1% 1 11.1% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 1 5.3% TOTAL 58 100.0% 9 100.0% 6 100.0% 6 100.0% 6 100.0% 4 100.0% 8 100.0% 19 100.0% FIGURE C-5. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS ENHANCE PERFORMANCE DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES 87.9% 88.9% 83.3% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 87.5% 94.7% 12.1% 11.1% 16.7% 50.0% 12.5% 5.3% T O T A L N = 5 8 B E N I S U E F N = 9 M I N I A N = 6 A S S I U T N = 6 S O H A G N = 6 Q E N A N = 4 L U X O R N = 8 A S W A N N = 1 9 PERCENT GOVERNORATES Yes No USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 158 TABLE C-6. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY NUMBER OF MEMBERS, CONTRACTS, QUANTITY OF CROPS, AND VALUE PER CONTRACT BEFORE AND AFTER JOINING FAS BEFORE FAS AFTER FAS N % N % Number of Members Missing 1 1.7% 2 3.4% No Member 2 3.4% 1 1.7% 1 - 299 Member 27 45.8% 17 28.8% 300+ 29 49.2% 39 66.1% Mean* 540 613 Number of Contracts Missing 11 18.6% 8 13.6% No Contract 36 61.0% 18 30.5% 1-49 Contracts 6 10.2% 22 37.3% 50+ 6 10.2% 11 18.6% Mean** 118 113 Quantity of Crops Missing 10 16.9% 9 15.3% 0 Tons 30 50.8% 15 25.4% 1-999 Tons 14 23.7% 27 45.8% 1000+ 5 8.5% 8 13.6% Value per Contract Missing 49 83.1% 32 54.2% <50,000 EGP 8 13.6% 14 23.7% 159 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV BEFORE FAS AFTER FAS N % N % 50,000+ 2 3.4% 13 22.0% * Calculated mean is for the associations with at least ONE member ** Calculated mean is for the associations with at least ONE contract TABLE C-7. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY THE CHANGE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS, CONTRACTS, QUANTITY OF CROPS, AND VALUE PER CONTRACT BEFORE AND AFTER JOINING FAS Governorate Total Beni Suef Minia Assiut Sohag Qena Luxor Aswan N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Number of Members Change Increased 31 54.4% 7 77.8% 4 66.7% 4 66.7% 1 16.7% 4 100.0% 4 57.1% 7 36.8% Stable 21 36.8% 2 22.2% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 12 63.2% Decreased 5 8.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 28.6% 0 0.0% Number of Contracts Change Increased 24 52.2% 3 33.3% 2 50.0% 4 66.7% 1 33.3% 4 100.0% 1 50.0% 9 50.0% Stable 19 41.3% 6 66.7% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 9 50.0% Decreased 3 6.5% 0 0.0% 2 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Quantity of Crops Change Increased 30 61.2% 6 66.7% 2 50.0% 4 66.7% 2 40.0% 4 100.0% 1 50.0% 11 57.9% USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 160 Stable 16 32.7% 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 8 42.1% Decreased 3 6.1% 0 0.0% 2 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Value per Contract Change Increased 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% Decreased 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% TABLE C-8. DISTRIBUTION OF CB ASSOCIATIONS DISAGGREGATED BY THE CHANGE IN COST OF PRODUCTION, PRODUCTIVITY OF MEMBERS, AND CHANGE IN SALES RETURNS FOR EACH GOVERNORATE GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % CHANGE IN COST OF PRODUCTION DECREASED 38 65.5% 4 44.4% 5 83.3% 4 66.7% 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 6 75.0% 15 78.9% INCREASED 14 24.1% 5 55.6% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 10.5% CONSTANT 6 10.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 2 10.5% DON'T KNOW 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% CHANGE IN CROP PRODUCTIVITY DECREASED 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% INCREASED 53 91.4% 9 100.0% 5 83.3% 6 100.0% 3 50.0% 4 100.0% 7 87.5% 19 100.0% CONSTANT 5 8.6% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% DON'T KNOW 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% CHANGE IN SALES RETURNS DECREASED 5 8.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.3% INCREASED 47 81.0% 9 100.0% 5 83.3% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 4 100.0% 7 87.5% 18 94.7% 161 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE TOTAL BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % CONSTANT 5 8.6% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% DON'T KNOW 1 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TABLE C-9. SUSTAINABILITY OF CB ASSOCIATIONS AND THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES TOTAL N % The association maintained the same level of service provision 1 5 8.6% 2 6 10.3% 3 25 43.1% 4 14 24.1% 5 8 13.8% Mean 3.2 Total 58 100.0% Available Resources 1. Trained labor 37 63.8% 2. Financial resources 27 46.6% 3. Assets (equipment, collection centers) 26 44.8% 4. Guides and manuals 32 55.2% USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 162 TOTAL N % 5. An income-generating activity managed by the association 38 65.5% 6. A network of relationships with merchants and exporters 28 48.3% 7. Partnerships with the private sector 13 22.4% 8. Partnerships with the government sector 9 15.5% /7. Partnerships / relationships with the private sector 15 25.9% 8. Partnerships with the government sector (formal or informal) 21 36.2% 9. Consolidating the relationship between the association and the farmers 37 63.8% 10. The existence of databases provided by the project 41 70.7% 11. There is no 5 8.6% Other (please specify) 3 5.2% TABLE C-10. SUSTAINABILITY OF CB ASSOCIATIONS AND THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES DISAGGREGATED BY GOVERNORATES GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % The association maintained the same level of service provision 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 2 10.5% 2 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 2 10.5% 163 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 3 5 55.6% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 50.0% 4 50.0% 10 52.6% 4 2 22.2% 4 66.7% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 25.0% 2 25.0% 3 15.8% 5 1 11.1% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 2 10.5% Mean 3.3 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.1 Total 9 100.0% 6 100.0% 6 100.0% 6 100.0% 4 100.0% 8 100.0% 19 100.0% Available Resources 1. Trained labor 7 77.8% 6 100.0% 3 50.0% 2 33.3% 2 50.0% 4 50.0% 13 68.4% 2. Financial resources 4 44.4% 6 100.0% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 11 57.9% 3. Assets (equipment, collection centers) 4 44.4% 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 12 63.2% 4. Guides and manuals 5 55.6% 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 15 78.9% 5. An income-generating activity managed by the association 6 66.7% 4 66.7% 5 83.3% 2 33.3% 3 75.0% 4 50.0% 14 73.7% 6. A network of relationships with merchants and exporters 5 55.6% 6 100.0% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 3 75.0% 4 50.0% 6 31.6% 7. Partnerships with the private sector 3 33.3% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 1 25.0% 4 50.0% 1 5.3% 8. Partnerships with the government sector 2 22.2% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 7. Partnerships / relationships with the private sector 3 33.3% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 4 21.1% USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 164 GOVERNORATE BENI SUEF MINIA ASSIUT SOHAG QENA LUXOR ASWAN N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 8. Partnerships with the government sector (formal or informal) 2 22.2% 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 8 42.1% 9. Consolidating the relationship between the association and the farmers 8 88.9% 6 100.0% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 7 87.5% 13 68.4% 10. The existence of databases provided by the project 7 77.8% 6 100.0% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 3 75.0% 5 62.5% 16 84.2% 11. There is no 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 2 10.5% Other (please specify) 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 165 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX 6: LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS # Document name 1 1.2 AID-263-A-15-00022_VEGA signed 2 1.12 Mod-01, Egypt FAS AID-263-A-14-0002 (fully executed) (1) 3 1.8 MOD 2 4 1.9 MOD 3 5 1.10 MOD 6 6 1.11 Mod 7-Signed 7 In-person Version_ Jan 2013 ASC_FINAL (Developing Private Sector Input Supply Systems) 8 2. End Market Report Apr 21-2016 - Value Chain & End Market Studies Volume I: End Market Study Main Report (Cairo, April 23, 2016) 9 3.1 FAS Egypt Value Chain Report Final (1) - Value Chain & End Market Studies - Volume II: Value Chain Study Main Report (Cairo, October 17, 2016) 10 1. FAS Egypt Value Chain Report Final - Value Chain & End Market Studies - Volume II: Value Chain Study Annexes (Cairo, October 17, 2016) 11 2.1 Egypt FAS FY2020 Q1 Report Oct-Dec19 -Manal comments - response 12 2.2 Egypt FAS FY19 Q1 Report_31Jan2019 (2) (1) 13 2.3 Egypt FAS FY2017 Q1 -Clean 14 2.4 Egypt FAS FY2017 Q2 Report with comments CNFA response and additional comments 15 2.5 Egypt FAS FY2017 Q3 Report - Revised - Clean 16 2.6 Egypt FAS FY2017 Q4 Report 10-31-17 17 2.7 Egypt FAS FY2018 Q1 Report MA comments to CNFA revised by CNFA (1) 18 2.8 Egypt FAS FY2018 Q2 Report MA 19 2.9 Egypt FAS FY2018 Q3 Report April-June FINAL 20 2.10 Egypt FAS FY2018 Q4 Report July-September_FINAL (3)-With manal comments 21 2.11 Egypt FAS FY2019 Q3 Report_April-June 2019_Final-with Manal comments_FAS response 22 2.12 Egypt FAS FY2019 Q4 Report July-September 2019_Final 23 2.13 Egypt FAS FY2020 Q2 Report January-March - with Responses 24 2.14 Egypt FAS FY2020 Q3 Report April-June – response to USAID comments 25 2.14 Egypt FAS Quarterly Report FY2019 Q2 January-March 2019 26 2.15 Egypt FAS FY2020 Q4 July-Sept_Final 27 2.15a Egyptian Pomegranate Farmers to Reap Benefits of National Food Standards Agency Certification 28 Innovation in Irrigation - Winrock Success Story (FAS) USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 166 29 PIRS No. 1 - Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance 30 PIRS No. 2 - Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs 31 PIRS No. 3 - Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance 32 PIRS No. 4 - Number of farmers who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity training 33 PIRS No. 5 - Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USG assistance 34 PIRS No. 6 - Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance 35 PIRS No. 7 - Number of farmers receiving third-party certification as a result of FAS assistance 36 PIRS No. 8 - Value of new USG commitments & private sector investment leveraged by the USG 37 PIRS No. 9 - Number of contracts between smallholder farmers (or farmer groups) and market channels 38 PIRS No. 10 - Number of people trained in nutrition through USG-supported programs 39 3.4 FAS_Year_1_Work_Plan_Final_9-3-15 (1) 40 1.6 FAS Year 2 Workplan - 10.12.16 41 3. FAS only final DQA-pdf 42 4.1 Egypt FAS MEL Plan_Final-Oct 2 43 4.2 Egypt FAS Work Plan Year 5 - FINAL (5) 44 4.3 Egypt FAS Year 4 Work Plan MA CNFA response-1 (2) 45 4.4 VEGA-CNFA FAS Y3 Workplan Revised - Clean Version 46 4. ASU Egypt FAS CBA (Baseline Cost-Benefit Analysis) 47 FAS Grants Manual FINAL 48 FtF Egypt FAS Grants Process Map 49 In-person Version_ Jan 2013 ASC_FINAL 50 15. Egypt FAS- Cooperatives & Associations Institutional Capacity Assessment Report-Revised 51 5. Cooperatives & Assoc. Governance Assessment Report 52 FAS FY2020 Outcome Study (draft) 53 El Esraa Association signed grant agreement 54 El Shorouk Association for community development proposal to CNFA 55 Egypt Vision 2030 56 Gezeret Al Arab Company (Grantee) corresponds with FAS regarding the grant 57 Agricultural Community Development Association in Baiaho (Grantee) corresponds with FAS regarding the grant 58 Al-Firdaws for Agricultural Services (Grantee) corresponds with FAS regarding the grant 167 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX 7: FAS DATA COLLECTION TOOLS (ARABIC AND ENGLISH) QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS Project Name Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support Implementer Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) Life of Project July 2015 – November 2020 (including five month no cost extension Evaluation Target Duration July 2017 – November 2020 Active Geographic Regions Upper Egypt – 7 Governorates USAID Office Economic Growth Office LIST OF DATA COLLECTION TOOLS SR. TOOL TYPE TARGET GROUP PAGE NUMBER T1 Questionnaire Farmers 2 T2 On-Line Questionnaire Associations 30 T3 Group Discussion Guide (GD) Farmers 42 T4 Group Discussion Guide (GD) Associations 48 T5 Key Informant Interview Protocol (KII) Grantees 55 T6 Key Informant Interview Protocol (KII) FAS Team 61 T7 Key Informant Interview Protocol (KII) FAS Partners 68 T8 Key Informant Interview Protocol (KII) Private Sector 74 T9 Key Informant Interview Protocol (KII) Government 80 T10 Key Informant Interview Protocol (KII) USAID 86 USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 168 FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T1 – FARMERS QUESTIONNAIRE GOVERNORATE DISTRICT SERIAL NO. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: ENUMERATOR NAME REVIEWED BY: The respondent filled in the questionnaire: 1. Yes 2. No 1 - BASIC DATA: (TO BE FILLED BY ENUMERATORS) Please choose the correct response based on the location of implementation, and write the community name in the space below the table. 1A. GOVERNORATE: 1B. DISTRICT: 1A. GOVERNORATE: 1B. DISTRICT: 1A. GOVERNORATE: 1B. DISTRICT: 1. Beni Suef 1. Beni Suef 4. Sohag 13. Sohag 7. Aswan 24. Aswan 2. Samosta 14. El Maragha 25. Kom Ombo 3. El Wasta 15. Geheina 26. Nasr El Nouba 4. Nasser 16. Tema 27. Daraw 2. Minia 5. Minia 5. Qena 17. Qena 6. Samalout 18. Qeft 7. Bani Mazar 19. Nage’ Hammady 8. Maghagha 20. Naqada 3. Assiut 9. Assiut 6. Luxor 21. Luxor 10. Abnoub 22. Armant 11. El Badary 23. Esna 12. Sahel Selim 1C. Community: _______________________________ 169 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1D. Association Name: 1E. Type of Association: 1. Farmer’s Association 2. Agricultural Co-op 3. Input Supplier – Private Sector 4. Post-Harvest Service Center – Private Sector 1F. Category of Association: 1. CB Association 2. Non-CB Association 3. Grantee INTRODUCTION: This evaluation is being conducted by an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-term evaluation to the activities you participated in through USAID/Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in making informed decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of interventions, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular; and the potential areas for future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation in this questionnaire is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this study. we confirm that the results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders for the purpose of the evaluation only. Thank you for your valuable contribution; the questionnaire should not take more than 25 minutes to complete. USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 170 Farmers Questionnaire Farmers fill in the questionnaire this point forward 2 - DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: Please write your name: 2A. Respondent’s Name: Please mention the year you joined the project, and the last season you received project services: 2B. Year joined the FAS project: 2C. Season joined the project (started receiving services): 1. ______ 1. Season: _________ 2. Year: __________ 2. Don’t Know 2. Don’t Know 2D. ID Number: 2E. Mobile Number 2F. Age: 2G. Gender 1. Male 2. Female 2H. are you the Head of Household? 1. Yes 2. No 2J. Educational Level: 1. Illiterate 2. Incomplete School Education 3. Literacy Programs 4. Primary Education 5. Preparatory Education 6. Secondary School 7. Technical School 171 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 8. University degree 9. Post graduate degree Other, Specify: 3 - LAND HOLDING INFORMATION: Please mark (√) to select options for 3A, select all that apply. Then choose the question that applies to your case or both if you own and rent land). 3A. Land Holding (in the last season in which you participated in the project) 1. I own land 2. I rent land 8. Don’t know 3B. Total Size of Owned Land: 3C. Total Size of Rented Land 1. ( ) Feddan 1. ( ) Feddan 2. ( ) Kirat 2. ( ) Kirat 3. ( ) Sahm 3. ( ) Sahm 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 4 - CROPS: Please mark (√) all that apply: 4A. What crops do you currently grow in your land? Choices 1. Onion 13. Basil 2. Garlic 14. Fennel 3. Tomatoes 15.Anise 4. Potatoes 16. Mint 5. Okra 17. Thyme 6. Green Beans 18. Marjoram 7. Sweet Potatoes 19. Cumin 8. Pomegranate 20. Wheat 9. Dates 21. Corn USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 172 4A. What crops do you currently grow in your land? Choices 10. Grapes 22. Alfaalfa 11. Mangoes 23.Capsicum 12. Parsley 24. Coriander Other, Specify: 4B. Which of your crops were supported by the project’s services in the last season? Choices 1. Onion 10. Mangoes 2. Garlic 11.Parsley 3. Tomatoes 12. Basil 4. Potatoes 13. Fennel 5. Okra 14. Anise 6. Green Beans 15. Mint 7. Pomegranate 16. Thyme 8. Dates 17. Marjoram 9. Grapes 18. Cumin Other, Specify: 5 - PRODUCTION AND SALES: Please fill in the sections below: 5A. What is the total area cultivated with the crops supported by the project in the last season? Crop 1 Crop 2 Crop Name: Crop Name: ( ) Feddan ( ) Kirat ( ) Sahm ( ) Feddan ( ) Kirat ( ) Sahm 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 173 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 5B. Did you grow this crop before joining the project? Crop 1 Crop 2 Crop Name: Crop Name: 1. Yes 1. Yes 2. No (go to 5E) 2. No (go to 5E) 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know Please fill in the following section: If the response to the previous question was (no), ignore the following table and move to table 5D. 5C. If the response to the previous question was (yes), what was the yield of your crops before participating in FAS per feddan/kirat/sahm? Crop Name: Crop Name: 1. Ton 2. Kilo 3. Trap 1. Ton 2. Kilo 3. Trap 1. Feddan 1. Feddan 2. Kirat 2. Kirat 3. Sahm 3. Sahm 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 5D. What is the yield of your crops in the last season (after participating in FAS) per feddan/kirat/sahm? Crop Name: Crop Name: 1. Ton 2. Kilogram 3. Trap 1. Ton 2. Kilogram 3. Trap 1. Feddan 1. Feddan 2. Kirat 2. Kirat 3. Sahm 3. Sahm 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 174 5E. Have you exported the mentioned crops in the last season you participated in FAS? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know 5F. Did you export the mentioned crops before participating in FAS? 1. Yes 2. No 8. Don’t know FIRST – EXPORT DETAILS: CROP 1 CROP 2 Crop Name: Crop Name: 5G. What was the quantity you exported before joining the project? 1. ( ) Tonnes 1. ( ) Tonnes 2. ( ) Kilograms 2. ( ) Kilograms 3. ( ) Traps 3. ( ) Traps 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 5H. What was the export price for your crop in Egyptian pounds before joining the project? 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 5I. What was the quantity you exported of your crops in the last season (after joining the project)? 1. ( ) Tonnes 1. ( ) Tonnes 2. ( ) Kilograms 2. ( ) Kilograms 3. ( ) Traps 3. ( ) Traps 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 5J. What was the export price for your crop in Egyptian pounds for the last season (after joining the project)? 175 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know SECOND – LOCAL MARKET SALES: CROP 1 CROP 2 Crop Name: Crop Name: 5K. What was the sale price for your crop in the local markets in Egyptian pounds before joining the project? 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 4. I didn’t sell this crop in the local market before the project 4. I didn’t sell this crop in the local market before the project 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 5L. What was the sale price for your crop in the local markets in Egyptian pounds for the last season (after joining the project)? 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 1. ( ) EGP per Ton 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 2. ( ) EGP per Kilogram 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 3. ( ) EGP per Trap 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 4. I didn’t export this crop before the project 8. Don’t know 8. Don’t know 6 - BUYERS, CONTRACTS AND REPEATED SALES (LAST SEASON): Please fill in the table below with your responses focusing on the three largest buyers. CROP 1 CROP 2 6A. What is the number of buyers for each of the crops in the last season? Crop Name: Crop Name: 1. Number: 1. Number: 88. Don’t know 88. Don’t know USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 176 CHOICES CROP 1 CROP NAME: CROP 2 CROP NAME: BUYER 1 BUYER 2 BUYER 3 BUYER 1 BUYER 2 BUYER 3 6B. Type of Buyer 1. Association 2. Broker 3. Trader 4. Exporter 5. Processor 8. Don’t know Other, Specify: 6C. Sales Method 1. Direct Sales prior to harvest (Kelala) 2. Farm Gate 3. Barter Sale 4. Local Market Sale 5. Contractual arrangement 6. Forward Contract 8. Don’t know Other, Specify 6D. Did you sell to this buyer more than once? 1. Yes 2. No (go to 7A) 8. Don’t know (go to 7A) 177 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CHOICES CROP 1 CROP NAME: CROP 2 CROP NAME: BUYER 1 BUYER 2 BUYER 3 BUYER 1 BUYER 2 BUYER 3 6E. If yes, how many times did you sell to this buyer? 1. Twice 2. Three times 3. More than three times 8. Don’t know 7 - PRODUCTION COSTS: Please fill in the cells below with your responses on production costs before and after participation in the project. CHOICES CHOICES PRE FAS PARTICIPATION POST FAS PARTICIPATION CROP (1) CROP (2) CROP (1) CROP (2) 7B. Total Production Cost in Egyptian Pounds per Unit (feddan, kirat, or Sahm) Please mark the suitable unit first, then write down the costs in the relevant cell in the same row. Crop Name 1. Per feddan EGP EGP EGP EGP 2. Per Kirat EGP EGP EGP EGP 3. Per Sahm EGP EGP EGP EGP 8. Don’t know 8 - SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM ASSOCIATION/PROJECT: This question is divided into three steps: 1. Mark (√) the services that you received from FAS in the first column 2. Rate the services you received by giving them a grade from 1 – 10, where is the lowest and 10 is the highest grade 3. Mark (√) the services that you believe will continue after the project ends. USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 178 8A. What services did you receive from the project/association? How satisfied are you with those services? Please mark (√) the services that you received from the project/the association in the list below Rate your satisfaction with the services you received with a grade from 1 – 10 Mark (√) the services that you believe will continue after the project ens. 1. Inputs - Nutrients 2. Inputs – Seeds/Seedlings 3. Inputs – Fertilizers 4. Inputs - Pesticides 5. Technical assistance/extension visits – on farm 6. Technical assistance – ICT 7. Training – Farming Practices 8. Training – Marketing 9. Production Support – Machination 10. Production Support – Irrigation Techniques 11. Production Support – Access to Finance 12. Harvest Support 13. Post-harvest support – Grading 14. Post- Harvest support – sorting 15. Post-Harvest support – packaging 16. Tools/technology 17. Transporting to market points 18. Access to cold transportation 19. Sales and Marketing – Direct purchase 20. Sales and Marketing – Facilitating forward contracting 21. Support for Certification 22. Did not receive services 88. Don’t know Other, specify: 8B. Has the performance level of the association changed over the past three years? 1. Yes 2. No (go to 8D) 8. Don’t know (go to 8D) 179 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 8C. If yes, how? What changed? Please mark all that apply. 1. Responsiveness to Needs 2. Availability of support 3. Quality of services 4. Establishing linkages between buyers and suppliers 5. Facilitating marketing processes Other, Specify: 8D. How do you rate the association’s overall performance in service provision? Please give it a grade from 1 to 10 (10 is highest). 1. Grade 88. Don’t know 8E. First, how have the services you received from FAS benefited you? Second, which of services contributed to those benefits you gained. First: Mark (√) the benefits that you gained from FAS Second: Mark (√) the services that contributed to gaining the benefits you marked in the last column Inputs Training Technical Assistance Production and Machination Support Harvest Support Post-harvest Support Tools and Technologies Market Transport Certification Support Marketing Support Sales and Marketing Contracts FAS Benefits (√) FAS services that contributed to your gaining benefits (√) 1. Increased yield 2. Improved quality of production 3. Reduced use of chemicals and pesticides 4. Reduced cost of inputs 5. Higher quality of inputs 6. Accelerated production processes 7. Reduced harvest loss 8. Increased connection to markets USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 180 First: Mark (√) the benefits that you gained from FAS Second: Mark (√) the services that contributed to gaining the benefits you marked in the last column Inputs Training Technical Assistance Production and Machination Support Harvest Support Post-harvest Support Tools and Technologies Market Transport Certification Support Marketing Support Sales and Marketing Contracts 9. Better prices for harvest 10. Ability to export 11. No benefits gained Other, specify: 9 – INNOVATIVE TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES: 9A. What type of innovative tools and technologies did you receive from the project? How satisfied are you with them? Please mark (√) the tools and technologies that you received in the list below:: Please rate your satisfaction with the received tools and technologies with a grade from 1 – 10. Responses (√) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Date palm pollination device: 2. pH, EC meter devices 3. Red palm weevil device 4. Colorimetric insect sticker traps 5. Land levelling 6. Onion artificial curing 7. Use of micro-elements to increase plant resistance to fungal infection 8. Safe use of pesticides 9. Improved water-use efficiency Other, Specify: 181 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV التقييم النهائيلمشروع فاس أدوات جمع البيانات الكمية أداة )1T )-استمارة المزارعين المحافظة المركز الرقم المسلسل تاريخ تنفيذ ا��تمارة منفذ ا��تمارة المراجع قام المزارع بملء ��ستمارة بنفسه: نعم .2�� 1 -البيانات���ية )يم� ها جامعوالبيانات( برجاء اختيار��ستجابة الصحيحة حسب مكان التنفيذ وكتابة اسم المجتمع 1أ. المحافظة 1ب. المركز 1أ. المحافظة 1ب. المركز 1أ. المحافظة 1ب. المركز .1 بني سويف .1 بني سويف .4 س وهاج .13 سو هاج .7 اسوان .24 اسوان .2 سمسطا .14 . المراغة .25 كوم امبو .3 الواسطى .15 جهينة .26 نصر النوبة .4 ناصر .16 طما .27 دراو .2 المنيا .5 المنيا .5 قنا .17 قنا .6 سمالوط .18 قفط .7 بني مزار .19 نجع حمادي .8 مغاغة .20 نقادة .3 أسيوط .9 أسيوط .6 ��صر .21 ا��صر .10 أبنوب .22 أرمنت .11 البداري .23 أسنا .12 ساحل سليم 1ج. القرية: _______________________________ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 182 1د. اسم الج هة المنعقد ب ها ��جتماع: 1 هـ. نوع الج هة: .1 جمعية أ هلية للمزارعين .2 جمعية تعاونية زراعية .3 موردي ���ت زراعية –قطاع خاص .4 مركز خدمات ما بعد الحصاد –قطاع خاص 1و. فئة الج هة: .1 جمعية تلقت خد مة بناء القدرات .2 جمعية لم تتلق خد مة بناء القدرات .3 ج هة تلقت منحة مقدمة: هذا التقييم يتم من ���ريق مستقل تعاقدت معه الوكالة ا�مريكية للتنمية الدولية في مصر �جراء تقييم نهائي��داء مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي و��عمال الزراعية )فاس(. إن نتائج هذا التقييم ستساعد الوكالة ��مريكية للتنمية الدولية في مصر على اتخاذ قرارات مفيدة لتحسين فاعلية أساليب الدعم الفني المقد مة من الج هة المنفذة، وتحديد أكثر ���ليب المستدا مة والفعالة للترويج ��عمال الزراعية في صعيد مصر بشكل عام، وزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص، ��ضافة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من تنفيذ مشروع )FAS )لتحديد نطاق المساعدة والتدخل في المشروعات المستقبلية المماثلة. ونؤكد أن مشاركتك معنا ا ليوم هي عملية تطوعية تماًما ولكنها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة. علما بأنه سيتم مشاركة النتائج مع الفئات والجهات المرتبطة بالمشروع مع ا���ظ بسرية البيانات الشخصية للمشاركين في التقييم. ً ونحن أخيرا نشكركم مقدم ً ا على مسا همتكم معنا بملء هذا النموذج، علمبأنه لن يستغرق أكثر من 25دقيقة ��تكماله. ا 183 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV استمارة المزارعين ً يقوم المزارعين با�جابة على ا�ستمارة بدءا من هذا الجزء 2 – البيانات الديموجرافية: برجاء كتابة���: 2أ. اسم المشارك: اذكر سنة ا���ام لمشروع وآخر موسم حصلت فيه على خدمات من المشروع: 2ب. في أى سنة اشتركت مع المشروع منذ بدايته 2015 – 2020؟ 2ج. ما هو آخر موسم حصلت فيه على خد مة من المشروع؟ .1 ______ .1 الموسم: _____________ .2 السنة: _____________ .2 ��اعرف .2 ��أعرف �� البيانات في الجزء التالي: 2د. رقم بطاقة الرقم القومي )14 رقم(: 2 هـ. رقم التليفون: 2و. العمر: ضع ع��ة )√( على���تيار المناسب في ��ئلة التالية: 2ز. النوع: .1 ذكر .2 أنثي 2ح. هل انت المسئول مالياً عن دخل ا��رة؟ .1 نعم USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 184 ��.2 .8 ��اعرف 2ط. المستوى التعليمي: .1 أمي .2 ترك الدراسة .3 منضم لبرنامج محو ��مية .4 تعليم ابتدائي .5 تعليم إعدادي .6 تعليم ثانوي عام .7 تعليم فني / تجاري .8 حاصل على درجة جامعية .9 حاصل على دراسات عليا أخرى، تذكر: .3بيانات الحيازة: ضع ع�مة ) √( ���ار���ابات لسؤال رقم 3أ مع اختيار كل ما ينطبق. ثم انتقل للسؤال المنطبق على حالتكم )3ب أو 3ج، أو السؤالين معًا في حالة امت�ككم �رض وتأجيركم �رض أخري في ذات الوقت(. 3أ. الحيازة )في آخر موسم اشترك فيه مع المشروع(: .1 امتلك أرض .2 اؤجر أرض .8 ��اعرف 3ب. المساحة الكلية ���المملوكة: 3ب. المساحة الكلية ���المستأجرة: .1 ) ( فدان .1 ) ( فدان 185 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV .2 ) ( قيراط .2 ) ( قيراط .3 ) ( سهم .3 ) ( سهم .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف .4 المحاصيل: ضع ع�مة ) √( ���ار كل ما ينطبق )اختيارات متعددة(. 4أ. أي المحاصيل التي تقوم بزراعتها حاليًا: ا�ختيارات .1 بصل .13 ريحان .2 ثوم .14 شمر .3 طماطم .15 ينسون .4 بطاطس .16 نعناع .5 بامية .17 زعتر .6 فاصوليا خضراء .18 بردقوش .7بطاطا .19 كمون .8 رمان .20 قمح .9 بلح .21 ذرة .10 عنب .22 برسيم .11 مانجو .23 فلفل .12 بقدونس 24كزبرة أخرى، تذكر: USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 186 4ب. اي محاصيل يغطي ها مشروع فاس بالمساعدة الفنية )في آخر موسم اشتركت فيه مع المشروع(؟ ا�ختيارات .1 بصل .10 مانجو .2 ثوم .11 بقدونس .3 طماطم .12 ريحان .4 بطاطس .13 شمر .5 بامية .14 ينسون .6 فاصوليا خضراء .15 نعناع .7 رمان .16 زعتر .8 بلح .17 بردقوش .9 عنب .18 كمون أخرى، تذكر: 5 – ا��اجية والمبيعات: �� البيانات في الجداول التالي: 5أ. ما هي مساحة ا���المزروعة في آخر موسم بالمحاصيل التي دعم ها المشروع؟ محصول 1 محصول 2 اسم المحصول: اسم المحصول: ) ( فدان ) ( قيراط ) ( سهم ) ( فدان ) ( قيراط ) ( سهم .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 187 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 5ب. هل كنت تزرع هذا المحصول قبل المشروع؟ محصول 1 محصول 2 اسم المحصول: اسم المحصول: .1 نعم .1 نعم .2 �� )الذهاب إلى 5 هـ( .2�� )الذهاب إلى 5 هـ( .8 ��اعرف )الذهاب إلى 5 هـ( .8 ��اعرف )الذهاب إلى 5 هـ( برجاء ملء البيانات التالية: )إذا كانت ��ابة ب�، برجاء إ همال الجدول التالي وا��قال إلى الجدول 5د( 5ج. إذا كانت ��جابة على السؤال السابق نعم، ماذا كانت انتاجية المحصول قبل ا�نضمام لمشروع فاسللفدان / القيراط / السهم الواحد؟ محصول :1 محصول :2 .1 طن .2 كيلو .3 اردب .1 طن .2 كيلو .3 اردب .1 فدان .1 فدان .2 قيراط .2 قيراط .3 سهم .3 سهم .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 5د. ما هي انتاجية المحصول في آخر موسم )بعد ا�نضمام لمشروع فاس(للفدان / القيراط / السهم الواحد؟ محصول :1 محصول :2 .1 طن .2 كيلو .3 اردب .1 طن .2 كيلو .3 اردب .1 فدان .1 فدان .2 قيراط .2 قيراط USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 188 .3 سهم .3 سهم .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 5 هـ. هل قمت بتصدير المحاصيل المذكورة في آخر موسم زراعة بالمشروع؟ .1 نعم .2 �� .8 ��اعرف 5و. هل كنت تقوم بتصدير المحاصيل المذكورة قبل ��نضمام لمشروع فاس؟ .1 نعم .2�� .8 ��اعرف أو�ً – التصدير: محصول 1 محصول 2 اسم المحصول: اسم المحصول: 5ز. ماذا كانت الكمية المصدرة قبل ا�نضمام للمشروع؟ .1 ) ( طن .1 ) ( طن .2 ) ( كيلو .2 ) ( كيلو .3 ) ( أردب .3 ) ( أردب ُصدر هذا المحصول قبل المشروع ُصدر هذا المحصول قبل المشروع .4 لم أ .4 لم أ .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 5ح. ماذا كان سعر التصدير بالجنيه المصري قبل ا�نضمام للمشروع؟ .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .4 لم أصدر هذا المحصول قبل المشروع .4 لم أصدر هذا المحصول قبل المشروع 189 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 5ط. ما هي الكمية المصدرة حاليًا )في آخر موسم زراعة( بعد ا�نضمام للمشروع؟ .1 ) ( طن .1 ) ( طن .2 ) ( كيلو .2 ) ( كيلو .3 ) ( أردب .3 ) ( أردب .4 � أصدر هذا المحصول حاليًا .4 � أصدر هذا المحصول حاليًا .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 5ي. ما هو سعر التصدير بالجنيه المصري حاليًا )في آخر موسم زراعة( بعد ا�نضمام للمشروع ؟ .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .4 � أصدر هذا المحصول حاليًا .4 � أصدر هذا المحصول حاليًا .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف ثانيًا – ا��واق المحلية: محصول 1 محصول 2 اسم المحصول: اسم المحصول: 5ك. ماذا كان سعر البيع في ا��واق المحلية بالجنيه المصري قبل ا�نضمام للمشروع ؟ .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .4 لم أبع هذا المحصول في السوق المحلي قبل المشروع .4 لم أبع هذا المحصول في السوق المحلي قبل المشروع .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 5ل. ما هو سعر البيع في ��سواق المحلية بالجنيه المصري حاليًا بعد ا�نضمام للمشروع ؟ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 190 .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .1 ) ( جنيه للطن .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .2 ) ( جنيهللكيلو .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .3 ) ( جنيه ��ردب .4 � أبيع هذا المحصول في السوق المحلي حاليًا .4 � أبيع هذا المحصول في السوق المحلي حاليًا .8 ��اعرف .8 ��اعرف 6 - المشترون، العقود، والمبيعات المتكررة: )الموسم السابق( محصول 1 محصول 2 6 ٍ أ. ما هو عدد المشترين لكل من المحصولين في الموسم السابق؟ اسم المحصول: اسم المحصول: .1 العدد: .2 العدد: .88 ��اعرف .88 ��اعرف برجاء ملء الجدول التالي مع التركيز على أعلى ��ثة مشترين في������الية: ا�ختيارات محصول 1 اسم المحصول: محصول 2 اسم المحصول: مشتري 1 مشتري 2 مشتري 3 مشتري 1 مشتري 2 مشتري 3 6ب. نوع المشتري .1 الجمعية .2 وسيط .3 تاجر 4 ُ . م َصدر 5 ُ . م َصنع .8 ��اعرف 191 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ا�ختيارات محصول 1 اسم المحصول: محصول 2 اسم المحصول: مشتري 1 مشتري 2 مشتري 3 مشتري 1 مشتري 2 مشتري 3 أخرى، تذكر: 6ج. طريقة البيع .1 بيع قبل الحصاد )��لة( .2 راس الغيط .3 بيع بالمقايضة .4 بيع في السوق المحلي .5 بيع بالتعاقد .6 بيع بالتعاقد ��جل .8 ��اعرف أخرى، تذكر: 6د. هل قمت بالبيع لنفس المشتري اكتر من مرة؟ .1 نعم ��.2 ) انتقل إلى7 أ( .8 ��اعرف ) انتقل إلى7 أ( ا�جابات محصول 1 محصول 2 مشتري 1 مشتري 2 مشتري 3 مشتري 1 مشتري 2 مشتري 3 6و. إذا كانت ا��بة بنعم، كم مرة بعت لنفس المشتري؟ .1 مرتين .2 ��ثة مرات .3 أكثر من ��ثة مرات .8 ��اعرف USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 192 7 –تكلفة ا��اج: برجاء ملء��قسام التالية بإجاباتكم حول تكاليف��نتاج قبل وبعد المشروع. ا�ختيارات ا�ختيارات قبل المشروع حاليًا محصول 1 محصول 2 محصول 1 محصول 2 7أ. إجمالي تكلفة ��نتاج )للفدان أو القيراط أو السهم( بالجنية المصري ً برجاء وضع ع�مة على الوحدة المناسبة أو�ثم كتابة التكلفة في الخانات ��خرى بنفس الصف اسم المحصول .1 للفدان الواحد جنيه جنيه جنيه جنيه .2 للقيراط الواحد جنيه جنيه جنيه جنيه .3 للسهم الواحد جنيه جنيه جنيه جنيه .8 ��اعرف 193 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV .8 الدعم المقدم من الجمعية / المشروع: هذا السؤال مقسم إلى ث�ثة خطوات: -1 ضع ع��ة في العامود المخصص بجانب الخدمات التي تلقيتها -2 تقييم الخدمات التي تلقيتها بإعطاء ها درج ة من 1 – 10 ًعلما بأن 1 هو��قل درجة و10 هو��على درجة -3 ضع ع��ةعلى الخدماتالتي تعتقد انهاستستمربعدنهاية المشروع 8أ. ما هى المساعدات التي قدمت ها لكم الجمعية/ المشروع، وما هى درجة رضاكم عن هذه المساعدات؟ اختر الخدمات التي تلقيت ها من الجمعية أو من فاس القائ مة التالية بوضع �� مة )√( أمام كل خد مة حصلت عليها ثم اعط درجة من 10 لتقيم مدى رضاك عن كل خد مة حصلت عليها ضع �� مة على الخدمات التي تعتقد أنها ستستمر في تقديم ها بعد انت هاء المشروع .1 ال���ت الزراعية - العناصر الغذائية .2 ال���ت الزراعية - البذور / الش��ت .3 ال���ت الزراعية – ا��مدة .4 ال���ت الزراعية – المبيدات .5 المساعدة الفنية / الزيارات ��رشادية داخل الحقل .6 المساعدة الفنية -تكنولوجيا المعلومات و��تص��ت .7 التدريب – أفضل الممارسات الزراعية .8 التدريب – التسويق .9 دعم ��نتاج – الميكنة .10 دعم ��نتاج -تقنيات الري .11 دعم ��نتاج - الوصول إلى التمويل .12 دعم عمليات الحصاد .13 دعم عمليات ما بعد الحصاد - التدريج .14 دعم ما بعد الحصاد - الفرز .15 دعم ما بعد الحصاد - التعبئة والتغليف .16 ا�دوات / التكنولوجيا المتطورة .17 النقل إلى ا��واق .18 اتاحة وسائل النقل البارد .19 المبيعات والتسويق - الشراء المباشر USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 194 8أ. ما هى المساعدات التي قدمت ها لكم الجمعية/ المشروع، وما هى درجة رضاكم عن هذه المساعدات؟ اختر الخدمات التي تلقيت ها من الجمعية أو من فاس القائ مة التالية بوضع �� مة )√( أمام كل خد مة حصلت عليها ثم اعط درجة من 10 لتقيم مدى رضاك عن كل خد مة حصلت عليها ضع �� مة على الخدمات التي تعتقد أنها ستستمر في تقديم ها بعد انت هاء المشروع .20 المبيعات والتسويق -تسهيل التعاقد ��جل .21 الدعم لحصول على شهادات جودة .22 لم أتلق أي خدمات .88 ��اعرف أخرى، تذكر: 8ب. هل تحسن مستوى خدمات الجمعية ���ال��ث سنوات ا���؟ .1 نعم .2 �� )��نتقال إلى 8 د( .8 ��اعرف )��نتقال إلى 8 د( 8ج. ما الذي تحسن في أداء الجمعية؟ ضع �� مة على كل ما ينطبق .1 ����بة ��حتياجات .2 توافر الدعم .3 جودة الخدمات .4 الربط بين المشترين والموردين 5 . تسهيل عمليات التسويق أخرى، تذكر: 8د. كيفتقيم أداء الجمعية ً عمومابإعطائها درجة من 1 – 10 ًعلمابأن 1 هو��� درجة و10 هو ا�على درجة؟ .1 الدرجة: .88 ��اعرف 195 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 8 هـ. أو�: في أي صورة عادت عليك الفائدة من خدمات مشروع فاس؟ وثانيا: أي من تلك الخدمات سا همت في تلك الفائدة / الفوائد أو�:ضع ع���√ أمام كل من الفوائد المذكورة بالقائمة التالية، التي عادت عليك من مشروع فاس ثانيا:ضع ع���√( لتختار الخدمة / الخدمات التي ساهم بها مشروع فاس وعادت عليك بالفائدة من بالجزء أو� المدخ�ت الزراعية التدريب المساعدة الفنية دعم عمليات ا�نتاج والميكنة دعم عمليات الحصاد دعم عمليات ما بعد الحصاد المعدات والتكنولوجيا دعم الحصول على الشهادات دعم التسويق والتسويق المبيعات التعاقدات فوائد مشروع )√(؟ الخدمة التي سا همت في الفائدة العائدة عليكم من مشروع فاس )√(؟ فاس .1 زيادة ��نتاجية .2 تحسن جودة ��نتاجية .3 التقليل من استخدام الكيماويات والمبيدات .4 انخفاض تكلفة ال���ت .5 استخدام ���ت ذات جودة أعلى 6 . تسريع عمليات ��نتاج .7 تقليل الفاقد المحصول USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 196 أو�:ضع ع���√ أمام كل من الفوائد المذكورة بالقائمة التالية، التي عادت عليك من مشروع فاس ثانيا:ضع ع���√( لتختار الخدمة / الخدمات التي ساهم بها مشروع فاس وعادت عليك بالفائدة من بالجزء أو� المدخ�ت الزراعية التدريب المساعدة الفنية دعم عمليات ا�نتاج والميكنة دعم عمليات الحصاد دعم عمليات ما بعد الحصاد المعدات والتكنولوجيا دعم الحصول على الشهادات دعم التسويق والتسويق المبيعات التعاقدات فوائد مشروع )√(؟ الخدمة التي سا همت في الفائدة العائدة عليكم من مشروع فاس )√(؟ فاس .8 زيادة ��تصال با��واق .9 الوصول ��عار أفضل للمحصول .10 اتاحة الفرصة للتصدير .11 ��يوجد فوائد أخرى، تذكر: 9 – ا�دوات والتقنيات الحديثة: 9أ. ما هي ��دوات والمعدات التكنولوجية الحديثة التي قدمت ها لك الجمعية / المشروع؟ وما درجة رضاك عن تلك المعدات و��دوات؟ اختر ا�دوات والمعدات التكنولوجية الحديثة التي تلقيت ها من القائ مة التالية بوضع �� مة )√( أمام كل ما حصلت عليه، ثم اعط درجة من 10 لتقيم مدى رضاك عن كل مما حصلت عليه ��دوات والمعدات التيتلقيتها من الجمعية أو منفاس )√(؟ الدرجة ) 1 - 10(؟ .1 أجهزة قياس ��س الهيدروجيني ونسبة ملوحة الماء 197 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 9أ. ما هي ��دوات والمعدات التكنولوجية الحديثة التي قدمت ها لك الجمعية / المشروع؟ وما درجة رضاك عن تلك المعدات و��دوات؟ اختر ا�دوات والمعدات التكنولوجية الحديثة التي تلقيت ها من القائ مة التالية بوضع �� مة )√( أمام كل ما حصلت عليه، ثم اعط درجة من 10 لتقيم مدى رضاك عن كل مما حصلت عليه ��دوات والمعدات التيتلقيتها من الجمعية أو منفاس )√(؟ الدرجة ) 1 - 10(؟ .2 جهاز سوسة النخيل الحمراء .3 المصائد ا��صقة الملونة للحشرات .4تسوية ��رض .5 التجفيف ا�صطناعي للبصل .6 استخدام العناصر الدقيقة لزيادة مقاو مة النبات الفطريات .7 ا��تخدام ��من للمبيدات .8 تحسين كفاءة استخدام المياه .9 يوجد أخرى، تذكر: ختام: فينهاية��ستمارة، نشكركم على مشاركتكم معنا في تقييم مشروع فاس ونؤكد على أ همية آراءكم في تصميم المشروعات المستقبلية المماثلة. USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 198 FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T2 – ASSOCIATIONS (ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE) This evaluation is being conducted by an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-term evaluation to the activities you participated in through USAID/Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in making informed decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of interventions, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular; and the potential areas for future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation in this questionnaire is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this study. we confirm that the results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders for the purpose of the evaluation only. Thank you for your valuable contribution; the questionnaire should not take more than 25 minutes to complete. 1. BASIC DATA: Enumerator Name Data Clerk Name Date of Implementation Association Name 1A. Governorate 1B. District 1C. Respondent Name: 1D. Respondent Position: 1E. Respondent Phone Number: 1F. When did the association join FAS project? Year: 1. Number of total farmer members 1I. What are the crops served through the Association? 1. Onion 10. Parsley 2. Tomato 11.Basil 3. Potatoes 12. Fennel 199 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1I. What are the crops served through the Association? 4. Garlic 13. Anise 5. Okra 14. Peppermint 6. Green Beans 15. Thyme 7. Pomegranate 16. Marjoram 8. Date Palm 17. Cumin 9. Grapes 18. Mangos Other, specify: 2. SERVICES: 2A. What type of institutional support did you receive from FAS? How satisfied are you with the received support? SERVICE DID YOU RECEIVE THIS SERVICE? YES/ NO PLEASE RATE THE SUPPORT YOU RECEIVED BY GIVING IT A GRADE FROM 1 – 10 1. Results Based Management 2. Financial Management 3. Good Governance 4. Grant Proposal Development Workshop 88. Don’t know Other, Specify: 2B. What type of services did the association receive from FAS to address the needs of the farmers? How satisfied are you with the received support? SERVICE DID YOU RECEIVE THIS SERVICE? YES/ NO PLEASE RATE THE SUPPORT YOU RECEIVED BY GIVING IT A GRADE FROM 1 – 10 1. Marketing Management 2. Linkage and Networking with Business Community 3. Start-ups and Newly Established Egyptian Horticultural Exporters' Capacity Building 4. Management and Operation Systems Upgrading 5. Using PH, EC Meter Devices USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 200 SERVICE DID YOU RECEIVE THIS SERVICE? YES/ NO PLEASE RATE THE SUPPORT YOU RECEIVED BY GIVING IT A GRADE FROM 1 – 10 6. Soil & Water Analyses, and Linkage Associations with High-tech Lab 7. Strengthening the Technical Skills of Local Agronomists 8. Awareness Workshops with National Food Safety Authority NFSA 9. Business Plan Model 10. Fostering Innovation Across the Agribusiness Value Chain 11. Coding and Equipping Post-harvest Centres and Collection Centres by Quality Control Tools 12. Support Contract Production Inputs for Small Farmers 13. Crop Collection Centre 14. Computer and Projector 15. Database for Recording Farmer Details 88. Don’t Know Other, Specify: 2C. What type of community awareness services did the association receive from FAS to serve the farmers? How satisfied are you with the received support? SERVICE DID YOU RECEIVE THIS SERVICE? YES/ NO PLEASE RATE THE SUPPORT YOU RECEIVED BY GIVING IT A GRADE FROM 1 – 10 1. Marketing Material for the Association (posters/ food safety instructions) 2. Producing a Documentary 3. Web Based Capacity Building Platform in Horticulture Value Chain 4. Training of Trainers 5. Safe Use Pesticide Posters 6. Technical Bulletin, Fliers and Posters on Best Agricultural Practices and Safe Use 7. Crops Guidelines Book 8. Horticultural Production and Post-harvesting Operations Technical Guides 9. Food Safety and Hygiene Training 10. Study Tours / Trips 201 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV SERVICE DID YOU RECEIVE THIS SERVICE? YES/ NO PLEASE RATE THE SUPPORT YOU RECEIVED BY GIVING IT A GRADE FROM 1 – 10 11. Fairs 88. Don’t Know Others, Specify: 2D. How would you rate your overall satisfaction from the received services? Please rate your satisfaction by giving the capacity building services a grade from 1 to 10 (10 is highest). Grade: 3. ASSOCIATION PERFORMANCE: 3A. Has the performance level of the association improved as a result of the received support from FAS? 1. Yes 2. No 3B. If yes, please indicate how has your firm performance changed in the following areas? (Researcher to identify if the contracts were facilitated through the association or through FAS directly. In case of no contracts, go to 3C) Item Pre-FAS Participation Post-FAS Participation Number of smallholder farmers Number of contracts facilitated through the project or the association Value of traded crops in Egyptian Pounds Volume of traded crops (In tons) 3C. Concerning Farmers, what are the developments that you observed after joining FAS in the following aspects? Please mark (√) to select options Item Change Increased Decreased Stable Don’t Know Cost of Production Inputs Crop Yield Sales Revenue USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 202 Reasons for Increased Production Costs: Reasons for Decreased Crop Yield: Reasons for Decreased Sales Revenues: 4. SUSTAINABILITY: 4A. To what extent do you expect the association to sustain the same level of service provision after the project’s end? Scale 1 – 5 as described. Please mark (√) to select the suitable response. (1) No Chance to be Sustainable (2) Little Chance to be Sustainable (3) Moderate Chance to be Sustainable (4) Big Chance to be Sustainable (5) It is sustainable 4B. What resources does the association have to ensure so that the benefits are sustained? (Check all that apply) 1. Trained personnel 2. Financial resources 3. Assets (collection tents, equipment, etc.) 4. Guides and manuals 5. Independent income generating model 6. Networks and linkages with buyers / input suppliers 7. Partnerships or relationships with private sector 8. Partnerships or relationships with the government sector 9. Stronger relations between farmers and associations 10. Project provided database 11. None 88. Don’t Know 203 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Other, Specify: ENDING أداة 2T–نموذج ملءبيانات لجمعيات المزارعين والجمعيات التعاونية الزراعية عبر ا�نترنت مقدمة هذا التقييم يتم من خ�� فريق مستقل تعاقدت معه الوكالة ���يكية للتنمية الدولية في مصر ��اء تقييم نهائي �داء مشروع دعم ��ن الغذائي وا�عمال الزراعية )فاس(. إننتائج هذا التقييم ستساعد الوكالة ���يكية للتنمية الدولية في مصر على اتخاذ قرارات مفيدة لتحسين فاعلية أساليب الدعم الفني المقد مة من الجهة المنفذة، وتحديد أكثر ا���يب المستدامةوالفعاة للترويج ��عمال الزراعية في صعيد مصر بشكل عام، وزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص،با��افةإلى رصد الدروس المستفادة منتنفيذ مشروع ) FAS )لتحديد نطاقالمساعدة والتدخلفي المشروعات المستقبلية المماثلة . ونؤكد أن مشاركتك معنا اليوم هي عملية تطوعية تماًما ولكنها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة. علما بأنه سيتم مشاركة النتائج مع الفئات والجهات المرتبطة بالمشروع مع ا��تفاظ بسريةالبيانات الشخصية للمشاركين في التقييم. وأخيرانحن نشكركم مقدماًعلى مس اهمتكم معنا بملء هذاالنموذج، علماًبأنه لن يستغرقأكثر من 25 ً دقيقة ���اله. أو�ً – بيانات أساسية: اسمالباحث اسم مدخل البيانات تاريخالتنفيذ اسم الجمعية: USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 204 1أ. المحافظة 1ب. المركز 1ج. اسم المشارك: 1د. وظيفة المشارك: 1هـ. رقم تليفون المشارك: 1و. متىانضمت الجمعيةلمشروع فاس؟ السنة 1ط. العدد الكليللمزارعين ��ضاء بالجمعية / الذينتقدم لهم الجمعية الخدمات: 1ز. ما هيالمحاصيل التي تتعامل فيها الجمعية من خ�� المشروع؟ .1 بصل .10 مانجو .2 ثوم .11 بقدونس .3 طماطم .12 ريحان .4 بطاطس .13 شمر .5 بامية .14 ينسون .6 فاصوليا خضراء .15 نعناع .7 رمان .16 زعتر .8 بلح .17 بردقوش .9 عنب .18 كمون أخرى،تذكر : 205 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ثانيًا – الخدمات: 2أ. ما هي خدمات بناء القدرات المؤسسية التي حصلت عليها الجمعية من مشروعفاس؟ ما مدى رضاكم عن الخدمات المقدمة؟ الخدمة هل تلقيت هذه الخدمة من مشروع فاس؟ )نعم / ��( برجاء تقييم الخدمات المقدمة من 1 10 – ):1 غير راضي على����ق :10 راضي تماماً( .1 ا�دارةبالنتائج .2 ا�دارةالمالية .3 الحكم الرشيد .4 ورشة كتابة المقترحات للمنح .88 �� اعرف خدمات أخرى أخرى ) يرجى التحديد ( 2ب. ما هي الخدماتالتي حصلت عليها الجمعية من مشروع فاس بمايخدم احتياجات المزارعين؟ ما مدىرضاكم عن الخدمات المقدمة؟ الخدمة هل تلقيت هذه الخدمة من مشروع فاس؟ )نعم / ��( برجاء تقييم الخدمات المقدمة من 1 10 – ):1 غير راضي على����ق :10 راضي تماماً( .1 إدارةالتسويق USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 206 . التواصل والتشبيك مع مجتمع ا�عمال 2 . بناءقدرات الشركات الناشئةلتصدير 3 المحاصيلالبستانية . تطوير أنظمة ا�دارة والتشغيل 4 EC . استخدام أجهزةقياس PH و 5 . ���ت التربة والمياه وربط 6 الجمعيات بمعاملالتكنولوجيا الفائقة .7 تعزيز المهارات الفنية لل مهندسين الزراعيين المحليين . تنفيذ ورش عمل توعوية مع الهيئة 8 )NFSA القومية ل��� الغذاء ) . نموذج خطةالعمل 9 .10 رعاية وتعزيز ���� عبرس�� قيمة ا�عمال التجارية الزراعية .11 ترميز وتجهيز مراكز مابعد الحصاد ومراكز التجميع بأدوات مراقبة الجودة .12 دعم مد��ت ا�نتاجالتعاقدي لصغار المزارعين .13 مركز تجميعالمحاصيل .14 اس��م كمبيوتر وبروجكتور .15 قاعدة بيانات لتسجيلالمزارعين .88 �� اعرف خدمات أخرى أخرى ) يرجى التحديد ( 207 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2ج. ما هي انشطة التوعية المجتمعية التي حصلت عليها الجمعية من مشروع فاس لخدمة المزارعين؟ ما مدى رضاكم عن تلك ا��شطة؟ الخدمة هل تلقيت هذه الخدمة من مشروع فاس؟ )نعم / ��( برجاء تقييم الخدمات المقدمة من 1 10 – ):1 غير راضي على����ق :10 راضي تماماً( .1 مواد تسويقيةللجمعية )ملصقات / تعليمات حول ��� الغذاء( .2 انتاجفيلم وثائقي .3 منصة افتراضيةلبناءالقدرات حول سلسلةالقيمة للزراعات البستانية .4 تدريب المدربين .5 ملصقات عن ا��تخدام ��ن للمبيدات .6 النشرات الفنية والملصقات حول أفضل الممارسات الزراعية ���تخدامات ��نة .7 كتاب إرشادات للمحاصيل .8 أدلةفنية لعمليات الزراعةالبستانية وعمليات ما بعد الحصاد .9 التدريب علىس��ةالغذاءوالنظافة .10 الزيارات الميدانية /الدراسية .11 المعارض .88 �� اعرف خدمات أخرى أخرى ) يرجى التحديد ( USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 208 2د . كيف تقيم رضاكالعام عن الخدمات المقد مة من الجمعية للمزارعين؟ برجاء إعطاء ها درجة من 1 - 10 )علماً بأن 1 هو غير راضيتماماً و10تمثل راضي تماماً( الدرجة: 209 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ثالثً – أداء الجمعية: ا 3أ. هل تحسن أداء الجمعية نتيجة الدعم المقدم من المشروع؟ نعم �� 3ب. ما هو أداء الجمعية قبل وبعد���ماملفاس الم���التالية؟ للباحث : برجاء تحديد ان كانت التعاقدات من خ��الجمعية اوالمشروع بعد ا�نضمامفي النسخة الورقية فيحالة عدم وجود عقود من الجمعية أو المشروع، برجاء ا�نتقالللسؤالالتالي مباشرة )3ج( البيان قبل ���ماملفاس بعد���ماملفاس عدد المزارعين ا�عضاء/متلقيالخدمات من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة عدد عقود توريد المحاصيل من خ�� الجمعية او المشروع اجماليكميةالمحاصيل المباعة بالطن اجماليقيمة عقود التوريد بالجنيه المصري 3ج. بالنسبةللمزارع، ماالتغير الذي���موه بعد��نضماملمشروع فاس في الم���التالية؟ برجاء وضع ��مة ) ✓( علىالتغير المناسب. USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 210 البيان التغير قلت زادت ثابتة اعرف تكلفة مد��ت ا�نتاج انتاجية المحاصيل عوائد البيع السببفي حالة زيادة تكلفة ��نتاج: السببفيانخفاض ا����ة: السببفي حالة انخفاض عائدالبيع: رابعًا –��تدامة: 4أ. إلى أي مدى تتوقع أن تحافظ الجمعيةعلى نفس مستوىتقديم الخدمة بعدانتهاءمشروع فاس؟ استخدممقياس من 1إلى 5كما هو مبين. برجاء وضع��مة ) ✓( على���يار المناسب . 1 )��يوجد إمكانيةل��تد امة( 2 )إمكانية قليلة ل��تد امة( 3 )إمكانية متوسطة ل��تدا مة( 4 )إمكانية عالية ل��تد امة( 5 )الجمعية حاليا تقدم خدمات مستد امة بالفعل( 211 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 4ب. ما هي الموارد المتاحةلدى الجمعية لضماناستمرارية الخدمات؟ )ضع ��مة على ) ✓( كل ما ينطبق ( .1 عمالة مدربة .2 موارد مالية .3 أصول )معدات، مراكز تجميع( .4 أدلة وكتيبات .5 نشاط مدرللدخل تديره الجمعية .6 شبكة ع��ت مع التجار والمصدرين .7 شراكات / ع��ت مع القطاع الخاص .8 شراكات مع القطاعالحكومي )رسمية أو غير رسمية( .9 توطيد الع�� بين الجمعية والمزارعين .10 وجود قواعد البيانات المقد مة منالمشروع .11 ��يوجد .88 �� اعرف أخرى ) يرجى التحديد (: ختــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــام USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 212 FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T3 – FARMERS GROUP DISCUSSION (GD) TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: Farmers Target Group Categories: Type of Tool GD Number of Copies Planned to Distribute: Evaluation Total # of Tools: 32 Variation: Type of Association and Crops # of tools per (variation selected): ? Time per tool implementation: ## minutes per tool implementation - net time: 45 minutes ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post-arrangements:60 minutes Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Booking location for implementation Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Online connectivity (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelops, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets BASIC DATA: Governorate District Community Association Name: Association Type: 1. Farmer’s Association 2. Agric. Co-op 3. Input Supplier Association Category: 1. Grantee 2. CB Association 3. Non-CB Association DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: # Participants of the respondent’s Group (Female: _______ Male: _______) Season joined the project (started receiving services): Year joined the project: 213 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV T3 – FARMERS GROUP DISCUSSION (GD) Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Tool Questions: What services did you receive from the project/association under the FAS project? Categorize probing by components: input/production post-harvest marketing Were these services sufficient? Where do you meet the most challenges in these processes? Challenges/gaps to be probed for each component separately by moderator. What else is still needed? EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: Over the last three years, can you identify any progress in the performance of your association? Please elaborate with examples. How did this affect your production/sales? (Please categorize probing by production efficiency, marketing connections, and revenue increase? How has the assistance you received from the association affected the value and volume of your traded crops? USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 214 Concerning contracts, to what extent did the number of contracts facilitated by the association change? What challenges remain in the contracting process (e.g. commitment from buyers, delayed payments, etc.) How does the association help in this regard? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: What services did you receive from the project/association? What type of new tools and technologies training or assistance did you receive? Which of them do you consider as innovative tools or technologies? Did you receive any follow-up support? Was the training/technical assistance/follow-up sufficient for your needs? That is, to use the tools or technologies? Have you been using the innovative tools and technology? If not, why not? Did you need to change or adapt the tools/technologies to your own needs? If yes, how? Which factor contributed to your successful use of tools and technologies? What difficulties did you encounter and what did you do to overcome them? Did you share what you learned with other farmers who did not receive training or assistance? 215 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV تقييم نهاية المدةلمشروع دعم��� الغذائي و��مال الزراعية ) فاس( ����الكيفية ��اة )3T – )مجموعةنقاشية -صغار المزارعين المشاركينبالمشروع وصف ��اة: مصدرالبيانات ) الفئة المستهدفة (: المزارعونالمشاركون بالمشروع ) صغار المزارعين( نوع��� : مجموعة نقاشية عدد مرات تنفيذ ��� مع الفئة المستهدفة: 35 أداة )-- مجموعة ( التباين: )نوعالجمعيات –نوع المحصول ( عدد���ت حسبالتباين: ؟ الوقت المتوقع لتنفيذ���: 40 دقيقة لكل أداة )صافي الوقت( 60 دقيقة شاملةالترتيباتالسابقة وا���ة للمقابلة ��تياجاتاللوجستية: التجهيزات:  دعوةالمشاركين فيالمقاب�ت  التسجيل فيكشوفاتالحضور  إعدادنسخ من��وات للمشاركين )إذاتطلب ا��(  إعداد وتجهيز مكانالمقابلة  التأكد من احتياطات وشروطالس��ةالخاصةبفيروسكورونا  توفيرمصدر للكهرباء )فيشات(  التوصيلبشبكة ��نترنت )إذالزم ا��( المستلزمات المطلوبة :  نسخ من أدوات جمعالبيانات )لتسجيلال��ظات الميدانية( في حالة انقطاعالتيارالكهربائي.  أدوات كتابية )دفاتر، أق��، دوسيهات حفظ، مظاريف، دبابيس،الخ(  نسخ منسج�ت حضور المشاركين USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 216 البيانات��ساسية: )تتمالكتابة فى الخانات( فريق التقييم: )أ ، ب ، ج(: _______ التاريخ: / / 2020م المحافظة : المركز: مكانالمقابلة: أسمالجمعية : نوعالجمعية .1 جمعية مزارعين .2 جمعيةتعاونية زراعية .3 موردمستلزمات إنتاج تصنيفالجمعية .1 جمعية ممنوحة )ممولة( .2 جمعيةتلقت خدماتبناء القدرات .3 جمعيةلم تتلق خدمات بناءالقدرات البيانات الديموغرافية: عددالمشاركينفى المقابلة ) إناث: _______ ذكور: ________ ( الموسمالذىتم فيه المشاركة مع المشروع )بداية تلقىالخدمات(: سنةالمشاركة معالمشروع: 217 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ��اة )3T – )مجموعةنقاشية -صغار المزارعين المشاركينبالمشروع صباح الخير، أنا أسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتي في العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاء فريق تقييم مستقل تعاقدت معه الوكالة ا��يكية للتنمية الدولية في مصر���اء تقييم نهائي��� مشروع دعم ا��ن الغذائي���عمال الزراعية )فاس(. حيث ستساعد نتائج هذا التقييم الوكالة ا��يكية للتنمية الدولية بمصر على اتخاذ قرارات لتحسين فاعلية أساليب الدعم الفني المقدمة من الجهة المنفذة، و تحديد اكثر��ساليب المستدامة والفعالة للترويج ل�عمال الزراعية في صعيد مصر بشكل عام، و لزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص، ب���فة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروع لتحديد نطاق المساعدة الفنية و التدخل في المشروعات ال�حقة. ً إن مشاركتك معنا اليوم تطوعية تماما ولكنها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة، ونؤكد لكم أنه سيتم مشاركة نتائج التقييم مع الفئات والجهات المرتبطة بالمشروع مع ا��تفاظ بالسرية التامة للبيانات الشخصية للمشاركين في التقييم. أسئلة ا��اة: سؤال التقييم رقم -1أ : إلي أي مدى نجحمكون المنحة )12 منحة تمتنفيذ هافي هذالمشروع ( في سدالفجوات في سلسلة القيمةبكفاءة وفعالية؟ )الجهات الفاعلة –القطاعات – موردو المدخ�ت الزراعية – مراكز التعبئةوالفرز - معام�ت ما بعدالحصاد - القطاع الخاص—المصنعون - الجمعيات ( سؤال التقييم رقم -1 ب: ما مدىنجاحالحاصلينعلى المنحة فيتأسيسنموذج اعمال مستدام؟ وإلى أي مديسا هموا في تحقيق نتائج المشروع في ���ت: ��نتاجية، معام�ت مابعدالحصاد والتسويق؟ أسئلة��داة: ما هيالخدماتالتي حصلتعليها من المشروع / الجمعية من خ�ل مشروع فاس؟ صنفهمحسب المكونات )المراحل(  مستلزمات��نتاج/ خدمات��نتاج  معام�ت مابعدالحصاد  التسويق USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 218 هلكانت هذه الخدماتكافية؟ في أي من هذه المراحل واجهتتحديات؟ )علىفريقالتقييم أنيصنف التحديات حسب كل مكونعلى حدة ( ماذا أيضا في هذه العمليات؟ ً �زال مطلوباً سؤال التقييم رقم :2 إلى أي حد كان اتباعنهج مشروع "فاس " لبناءقدراتالجمعياتالشريكة ��عتماد وتطبيقنموذج اعمال مستدام يسا همفيتحسينمستوي أداء ��عمالبشكل يمكنقياسه من خ�ل عددالعقود، عدد المستفيدين )منالمزارعين أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة(،كمية وقيمةالمحاصيل المباعة، متضمنهتكرارية عملية البيع،بماينعكسعلي زيادة دخل المزارعين؟ أسئلة��داة: خ�ل السنوات الماضية، هل يمكنكمتحديدتقدماًفى أداء جمعيتكم؟ من فضلكمالتوضيحبا��ثلة كيف أثر هذاالتقدم على إنتاجكم/مبيعاتكم؟يرجىتصنيف النتائجحسب كفاءة��نتاج، ��ت��ت التسويقية، وزيادة ا�يرادات؟ كيف أثرت المساعدةالتي حصلت عليها منالجمعيةعلى حجم وقيمة المحاصيل المتداولة؟ فيمايتعلقبالعقود،إلى أي درجةتغير عددالعقود التييسرتها ) أبرمتها( الجمعية؟ ما هيالتحديات المتبقيةفي عمليةالتعاقد )علىسبيل المثال: ا��تزام منالمشترين، المدفوعات المتأخرة، الخ(،كيفتساعدالجمعيةفي هذاالشأن؟ سؤال التقييم رقم :3 هل نجحالمشروع فيالترويج���ت مبتكرة وتكنولوجيه م�ئمة للفئات المستهدفة فيكافةمكونات المشروع؟ إذاكانت��جابة بنعم، ما هيالعواملالتي ساعدت علىتحقيق هذالنجاح؟ إذاكانت ���بةب�، ما هي العوائق؟ أسئلة��داة: ما هيالخدماتالتيتلقيتها من المشروع /الجمعية؟ ما هونوع التدريب أو المساعدةالتيحصلت عليهابخصوص��واتالحديثة أو تقنيات زراعية جديدة؟ أي من هذه ���ت أوالتقنياتالحديثةتعتبر ها مبتكرة؟ هلتلقيتم أينوع من المتابعةكدعم لهذه��وات والتقنيات؟ هلكانتالتدريبات /الدعم الفني/المتابعةكافيةلمتطلباتكم؟تلكالتي تتعلقباستخدام ���ت أوالتقنيات هلكنتتستخدم��وات والتقنيات المبتكرة منقبل؟ إذاكانت��جابة ��لماذا؟ هل احتجتم إلىتغيير أو تطويع هذه ���ت والتقنيات وفقاً��تياجاتكم؟�� كانت��جابة نعم،فكيف؟ ما هو العامل المؤثر الذي سا هم في نجاحاستخدامكم ���ت أوالتقنيات؟ 219 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ما هيالصعوباتالتي واجهتكم خ�لالتطبيق وماذا فعلتمللتغلب عليها؟ هلشاركتم ما تعلمتموه مع مزارعين آخرينلميتلقوا التدريب أوالمساعدة؟ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 220 FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T4 – CAPACITY BUILDING ASSOCIATIONS GROUP DISCUSSION TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: Associations Target Group Categories: NA Type of Tool GD Number of Tools Planned: Evaluation Total # of Tools: 20 Variation: NA (Governorate – type of association – crop – gender – etc.) # of tools per (variation selected): 20 Time per tool: ## minutes per tool - net time: 60 minutes ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Booking location for implementation Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Online connectivity (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelopes, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION): Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: (Grantee – Association CB/nonCB – IP – IP Subcontractor) Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: 221 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV T4 – CAPACITY BUILDING ASSOCIATIONS - GROUP DISCUSSION Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS: Opening question: Tell us about your experience with FAS When did you join FAS project? Why have you been interested in joining? Tool Questions: EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: Can you briefly explain your business model as an association that provides services to smallholder farmers? what type of capacity building assistance have you received from FAS between 2017 and 2020? How has this assistance addressed the knowledge gaps at the association? How has the capacity building you received changed or affected your business model (or practices)? How has the capacity building assistance changed the way your association supports farmers, in production, post￾harvest, and/or marketing processes? In what way? What challenges, if any, did your association face in applying the business model? (e.g. farmer related, infrastructure, capacities, resources, marketing, etc.)? How did the institution address these challenges? Will the assistance you received continue to influence your associations work after the project closes? How will you ensure its sustainability of the new practices / business model after project close? Do you work with other donors on similar/complementary interventions? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: Did you as an association receive any ICT support? If yes, did it match the association’s needs? Have your farmer members received technology/ innovation support? If yes, how were the farmer recipients chosen? what were the selection criteria? USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 222 If any, what type of training did your association receive on usage of the tools and technologies targeting farmers? Was it sufficient for their needs? If any, what type of follow-up support did your association receive on the usage of the tools and technologies? How has the follow-up support facilitate your usage of tools and technologies received? If any, what resources do you have in place to ensure the maintenance and sustainability of the introduced technology? Were farmers receptive to the innovative tools and technologies promoted? Did you as the association promote their use among farmers? Did you face any challenges in promoting their? What challenges did your association members face in using these tools and technologies? What difficulties did farmers encounter is accessing/using the tools and technologies? (lack of infrastructures, lack of association resources, lack of association support, lack of market connections, lack of knowledge of the farmers, lack of level of connectivity, lack of access to finance, farmers resistance to change long standing practices, risk aversion) What did the farmers do, if anything, to overcome them? Did you receive any gender training? If yes, what is the perceived change of the received training? How are you using that training? To what extent the provided services by your association are inclusive of women? 223 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ا��اة )4T – )مجموعةنقاشية معالجمعية )أهلية / تعاونية(تلقت دعمبناءمؤسسي وصف��داة مصدر البيانات )الفئة المستهدفة(: المجموعة المستهدفة : الجمعية تصنيفالمجموعةالمستهدفة : ��ينطبق نوع��داة : مجموعة نقاش عدد مرات تنفيذ��� معالفئة المستهدفة: عدد���ت المخططتنفيذ ها: 20 ��ت��ت النوعية: ��تنطبق )جهات حكومية – نوعالجمعية – المحصول – النوع ��تماعي - .... الخ( عدد���تبناءعلي ��ت��ت النوعية: 20 الوقت المتوقع لتنفيذ���: عددالدقائق لتطبيق ���- صافيالوقت : 45 دقيقة عددالدقائق ��مالي لتطبيق ل��� -تضمن قبل وبعد زمنالتطبيق الفعلي 60 دقيقة ��تياجات اللوجستية: ��عداد: - دعوةالمشاركون - كشفالتوقيعالحضور - تحضيرنسخ من ا�داةللمشاركين )لومطلوب( - حجز مكانعقدالجلسة -��تزامبتطبيق معايير���مةضدفيروسكرونا )كوفيد19( - ا�تصالبا�نترنت )لومطلوب( ا�دواتالمطلوبة: - نسخة ورقية من ا�داة�خذ��حظات –في حالةتعزراستخدام ا�دوات التكنولوجية - أدوات مكتبية )أ�� – حافظات أوراق – أظرف – استيكة( - نسخة منكشفالتوقيعبالحضور USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 224 بيانات أساسية فريق العمل )أ- ب – ج( التاريخ الموقع: )يوم /شهر / سنة( المحافظة: عدد منتم مقابلتهم : ا��مالي ) ( رجال ) ( ،نساء ) ( نوع الجمعية: )حاصلة علي منحة – حاصلة علي دعم مؤسسي – غير حاصلة علي دعم مؤسسي-شريكتنفيذي – شريكتنفيذي أسم الجمعية : أسم الشخص: الوظيفة داخل الجمعية أسم الشخص: الوظيفة داخل الجمعية أسم الشخص: الوظيفة داخل الجمعية صباح الخير، أنا أسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتيفي العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاءفريقتقييم مستقلتعاقدت معه الوكالة��مريكيةللتنمية الدوليةفيمصر��اءتقييم ن هائي�داء مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس(. حيثستساعدنتائج هذا التقييم الوكالة��مريكيةللتنمية الدوليةبمصر على اتخاذقراراتلتحسينفاعليةأساليب الدعم الفني المقدمة من الجهة المنفذة، وتحديداكثر���ليب المستدامة والفعالةللترويج��مالالزراعيةفي صعيدمصربشكل عام، ولزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص،ب���ة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروعلتحديدنطاق المساعدة الفنية و التدخلفي المشروعات ال��قة. إن مشاركتك معنا اليوم تطوعية ً تماما ولكن ها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة، ونؤكد لكم أنه مشاركة نتائج التقييم مع الفئات والج هات المرتبطةبالمشروع مع��حتفاظبالسرية التامةللبيانات الشخصيةللمشاركينفي التقييم . 225 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV أسئلة ا�داة سؤال افتتاحي: احكيلنا عنفاس وجمعيتك متى اشتركتفيمشروع )فاس(؟ ولماذاكنت مهتم بالمشاركةفي هذا المشروع؟ Tool Questions: سؤال :2 إلى أي حدكان اتباعنهجمشروع "فاس" لبناءقدرات الجمعيات الشريكة و��تمادوتطبيقنموذج اعمال مستدام يسا هم فيتحسين مستوي أداء ا��مالبشكليمكنقياسه من��ل عدد العقود، عدد المستفيدين )من المزارعين أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة (،كميةوقيمة المحاصيل المباعة، متضمنهتكرارية عملية البيع،بماينعكس عليزيادة دخل المزارعين؟ أسئلة��داة هليمكن وصفنموذج ا��مال الذيتعتمد عليه الجمعيةفيتقديم خدمات هاللمزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة؟ ما هي اشكال البناء المؤسسي التي حصلت عليه الجمعية��ل الفترة من 2017 و حتى 2020؟ كيفسا هم الدعم الفنيفيسد الفجوة المعرفيةلدي الجمعية؟ كيفسا هم الدعم الفني الذي حصلت عليه الجمعيةفيتعديلنموذج ا��مال المستخدم في الجمعية )أو الممارسات(؟ كيفساعد الدعم الفني الذي حصلت عليه الجمعيةفيتغيير طريقةتقديم المساعدة ��عضاء من المزارعينسواءفيما يخص ا�نتاجية و مستلزمات��نتاج، معا�� مابعد الحصاد، و / أو عمليات التسويق؟ وبأي طريقة؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهت ها الجمعيةفيتطبيقنموذج��عمال الخاصب ها؟ )عليسبيل المثال:مايخص المزراعين، البنية التحتية،بناء القدرات، الموارد، التسويق....، الخ(؟ وكيفتمكنت الجمعية من التعامل مع هذه التحديات؟ هل الدعم الفني الذي حصلت عليه المؤسسةسوفيستمرفي التأثير علي طريقة الجمعيةفي العملبعدن هايةالمشروع؟ كيفتتحقق من استدامة الممارسات الجديدة و/ أونموذج ا��مالبعدن هايةالمشروع؟ هلتتعامل الجمعية مع أي جهة مانحة أخري اوت���تتكامل مع ماتم تقديمه من المشروع؟ سؤال :3 هلنجحالمشروعفي الترويج�دوات مبتكرة وتكنولوجيه��ئمةللفئات المستهدفةفيكافة مكوناتالمشروع؟ إذاكانت ا��بةبنعم، ما هي العوامل التيساعدت علىتحقيق هذ النجاح؟ إذاكانت���بة��، ما هي العوائق؟ أسئلة��داة هل حصلت الجمعية علي دعمفي مجالتكنولوجيا المعلومات��تص��؟لونعم : هل أشبع هذا التدخل احتياجلدي الجمعية؟ هل حصل��عضاء من المزارعين علي دعم في مجال التكنولوجيا و��بتكار؟ لونعم : كيفتم اختيار المشاركين؟ وما هي معايير��تيار؟ فيماتم الحصول عليه: ما هي التدريبات التي حصلت علي ها الجمعيةفيمايخص استخدم أدوات وتكنولوجياتستهدف المزارعين؟ هلكانت مناسبة��تياجاتهم؟ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 226 فيما تم الحصول عليه: ما هي أنواع الدعم والمتابعة الفنية التي حصلت علي ها الجمعية للتأكد من استخدام ا�دوات و التكنولوجيا المقدمة؟ كيف سا همت المتابعة الفنية في تسهيل استخدام تلك��دوات و التكنولوجيا التي حصلت عليها؟ ما هي الموارد المخصصة لضمان عملية الصيانة و استدامة استخدام التكنولوجيا التي تم تقديم ها؟ هل المزارعون رحبواب��دوات و التكنولوجيا التي تم تقديم ها؟ هل الجمعية تبنت الترويج لتل���دوات لباق���عضاء؟ هي واجهت الجمعية اي عقبات في الترويج لتلك��دوات؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهت أعضاء الجمعية في استخدام ت���دوات و التكنولوجيا؟ ما هي الصعوبات التي واجهت المزراعين للوصول أو أستخدام تلك ا�دوات و التكنولوجيا؟ )ضعف البنية التحتية، ضعف موارد الجمعية، ضعف الدعم المتاح للجمعية، صعوبة الوص���سواق، ضعف المعرفة ل���عضاء، ضعف مستوي ��تصا��، صعوبة للوصول للتمويل، مقاومة المزراعين لتغيير الممارسات المورثة، الخوف من المخاطر... كيف تفاعل المزراعون في مواجهة هذه التحديات و المخاوف؟ هل تلقيت اي تدريب علي النوع��تماعي؟ لو ��ابة نعم، ما هو التغيير الذي حدث كنتيجة لهذا التدريب؟ كيف تقوم ا�� باستخدام هذا التدريب؟ الي اي مدي كانت الخدمات المقدمة من قبل الجمعية شاملة للمرأة؟ 227 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T5 – KII - GRANTEES TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: PS Representatives/Grantees Target Group Categories: A. PS B. CDA C. Cooperative Type of Tool KII Number of GDs to be implmented : Evaluation Total # of Tools: 12 Variation: Private Sector - CDA # of tools per (variation selected): 12 Time per tool implementation: ## minutes per tool - net time: 1.30 ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: 1.45 Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Booking location for implementation Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Online connectivity (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelopes, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 228 BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION): Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: (PS Representative - CDA- Association CB / non-CB – IP – IP Subcontractor) Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: * In case of GDs – attendance sheets will include names and positions Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS: EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) Tool Questions: Please tell us what is the rationale of the grant you received? Please provide us with context information about you company/institution, e.g. when it was founded, headquarters, its geographical coverage. Are you: Input supplier: Post harvest: 229 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Marketing: Was your role different before the grant? That is, did the grant cause to expand into a different function? Can you tell us how your association performance changed as a result of the grant in terms of: Number of clients, before and after Volume of sales, before and after What was your in-kind contribution? What were the criteria of selection for the grantees? How did the selection process? What was the gap (or gaps) in the value chain that the grant addressed? Has it succeeded in filling the gap? Probing questions: 1. Good agricultural practices 2. adopting good harvesting - grading - packing 3. dissemination of marketing information 4. Handling and transportation 5. market infrastructure and facilities What are the remaining bottlenecks in the value chain? Why do they remain? What else could have been done to fill the gaps of the value chain? Did the grant lead to improved on-farm production among farmers? Or efficient post harvest processes? Marketing? How do you measure the change? Did you receive capacity building? If yes, what type? Was the capacity building sufficient to better manage the grant? and fulfill FAS grant requirements? and better serve your clients? Were there any unmet needs to better serve your clients? what are they? Are there any gender specific VC gaps? How were they addressed? Had addressing VC gaps have a gender impact (e.g created employment for women)? If yes, in which ways ? (Need to have a copy of a grantee report to CNFA) EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Tool Questions: Could you briefly explain your business model? Was it the same business model implemented before the grant? Or did your model change after/through the grant? If yes, how did it change and why? What in your opinion, will determine the business model's success? How will one know if it is successful? Will you continue using this business model after FAS? If no, why not? If yes, how will the grantee support the continuity of applying this business model? (systems, policies, capacities, resources, infrastructure, etc.) USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 230 What challenges did you as the grantee face in applying the business model? (farmer related, infrastructure, capacities, resources, marketing, etc.) How did you address these challenges? Did you consider gender while developing your business model? If yes, please provide examples. How can the developed FSCs be more women inclusive (e.g special services, outreaching channels, etc.)? Applying your new adopted business model, how did it affect the farmers (members/clients) in: Providing them with low cost inputs High quality of inputs, New un-existing inputs Infrastructure (machines) Forward contracts/access to high end market, Market information ا��اة )5T – )مقابلة شخصية -الحاصلون على المنح وصف ا��اة: مصدر البيانات )الفئة المستهدفة(: المجموعة المستهدفة: ممثلو القطاع الخاص / الحاصلون على المنح تصنيف الفئة المستهدفة: )أ( قطاع خاص )ب( جمعية أ هلية )تنمية مجتمع( )ج( جمعية تعاونية زراعية نوع ��داة: مقابلة مع مصدر رئيسى للمعلومات عدد مرات تنفيذ��� معالفئة المستهدفة: عدد 12 أداة تقييم التباين: القطاع الخاص – جمعيات أ هلية )تنمية المجتمع( الوقت المتوقع لتنفيذ���: 90 دقيقة )صافى الوقت( 105 دقيقة )شاملة الترتيبات السابقة وال��قة للم���ت( ��تياجات اللوجستية: التجهيزات:  دعون المشاركين فى المقاب��  التسجيل فى كشوفات الحضور  إعداد نسخ من ا�دوات للمشاركين )إذا تطلب��مر(  إعداد وتجهيز مكان المقابلة  التأكد من إحتياطات وشروط ا��مة الخاصة بفيروس كورونا توفير مصدر للكهرباء )فيشات(  التوصيل بشبك���نترنت )إذا لز���مر( 231 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV المستلزمات المطلوبة:  نسخ من أدوات جمع البيانات )لتسجيل ���ظات الميدانية( فى حالة إنقطاع التيار الكهربائى.  إدوات كتابية )دفاتر، أق�م، دوسيهات حفظ، مظاريف، دبابيس، الخ( نسخ من ��� حضور المشاركين البيانات ا�����)تتم الكتابة فى الخانات( فريق التقييم: )أ ، ب ، ج(: _______ التاريخ: / / 2020م المحافظة: المركز: مكان المقابلة: نوع الجمعية: )حاصلة علي منحة – حاصلة علي دعم مؤسسي – غير حاصلة علي دعم مؤسسي-شريكتنفيذي – شريكتنفيذي أسم الجمعية : أسم من تم مقابلته: الوظيفة: أسم من تم مقابلته: الوظيفة: أسم من تم مقابلته: الوظيفة: صباح الخير، أنا أسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتي في العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاء فريق تقييم مستقل تعاقدت معه الوكالة ��مريكية للتنمية الدولية في مصر���اء تقييم ن هائي��داء مشروع دع���من الغذائي وا��مال الزراعية )فاس(. حيث ستساعد نتائج هذا التقييم الوكالة��مريكية للتنمية الدولية بمصر على اتخاذ قرارات لتحسين فاعلية أساليب الدعم الفني المقدمة من الجهة المنفذة، و تحديد اكثر���ليب المستدامة والفعالة للترويج���مال الزراعية في صعيد مصر بشكل عام، و لزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص، ب���ة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروع لتحديد نطاق المساعدة الفنية و التدخل في المشروعات ال��قة. USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 232 ً إن مشاركتك معنا اليوم تطوعية تماما ولكنها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة، ونؤكد لكم أنه مشاركة نتائج التقييم مع الفئات والج هات المرتبطة بالمشروع ���حتفاظ بالسرية التامة للبيانات الشخصية للمشاركين في التقييم. أسئلة ا�داة : سؤا التقييم رقم -1أ: إلي أي مدى نجح مكون المنحة )12 منحة تم تنفيذ ها في هذا المشروع( في سد الفجوات في سلسلة القيمة بكفاءة وفعالية؟ )الج هات الفاعلة – القطاعات – موردو المدخ�� الزراعية – مراكز التعبئة والفرز - معا���ما بعد الحصاد -القطاع الخاص—المصنعون - الجمعيات( سؤال التقييم رقم -1ب: ما مدى نجاح الحاصلين على المنحة في تأسيس نموذج اعمال مستدام؟ وإلى أي مدي سا هموا في تحقيق نتائج المشروع في مج�����نتاجية، معا���ما بعد الحصاد والتسويق؟ أسئلة ا��اة: من فضلكم أخبرنا عن مبررات حصولكم على المنحة؟ برجاء إفادتنا عن شركتكم/مؤسستكم ، متى تأسست؟ مقر ها؟ نطاق عملها الجغرافى؟ هل تصنفون شركتكم/مؤسستكم كـ:  مورد م����راعية  خدمات ما بعد الحصاد  التسويق هل كان دوركم مختلفا ساعدت المنحة فى التوسع إلى لقيامكم بأدوار مختلفة ً قبل حصولكم على المنحة؟ وبناء عليه، هل ؟ هل يمكنكم التفضل بإفادتنا كيف تغير أداء المؤسسة كنتيجة للمنحة؟ فيما يخص: • عدد الع��ء قبل وبعد • حجم المبيعات قبل وبعد • حجم المبيعات قبل وبعد ما هى قيمة مسا همتكم العينية كشرط لتلقى المنحة؟ ما هى المعايير التى وضعت��تيار المستفيدين من المنحة؟ وكيف تمت عملية ا��تيار؟ ما هى الفجوة )أو الفجوات( التى عالجت ها المنحة فى سلسلة القيمة للمحاصيل التى تم التعامل في ها؟ و هل نجحت المنحة فى سد هذه الفجوات؟ فيما يخص: )1( الممارسات الزراعية الجيدة )2( الممارسة الجيدة لكل من الحصاد – الفرز والتدريج – التعبئة )3( انتشار المعلومات التسويقية )4( التداول والنقل )5( البنية التحتية والمرافق ما هى المعوقات التى ��الت متبقية فى سلسلة القيمة؟ ولماذا ��الت تلك المعوقات باقية؟ ما الذى كان بمكن فعله لسد الفجوات فى سلسلة القيمة؟ 233 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV هل أدت المنحة إلى: -تحسن إنتاجية المزرعة لدى المزارعين؟ -تحسن كفاءة معا���ما بعد الحصاد؟ التسويق؟ -كيف يمكنكم قياس التغيير؟ هل تلقيتم تدريبات لبناء القدرات ���ل المشروع؟ فى حالة نعم، ما هى نوعيات بناء القدرات التى تلقيتمو ها؟ هل كانت خدمات بناء القدرات كافية��دارتكم للمنحة بشكل أفضل؟ وفقاُ لمتطلبات منحة فاس؟ وتقديم خدمة أفضل لع��ئكم؟ هل كانت هناك إحتياجات لم يتم تلبيتها لكم لتقديم خدمة أفضل لع��ئكم؟ ما هى ت���حتياجات؟ هل تم مراعة و تضمين النوع ��تماعي عند تحديد فجوات سلسة القيمة؟ كيف تم التعامل مع ها؟ هل كان هناك آثر ما نتيجة تضمين الن���جتماعي؟ ما هو )وضع المرأة و ارتباطها بسوق العمل علي سبيل المثال(؟ هناك حاجة للحصول على نسخة من تقرير الممنوحين )المستفيدين من المنح( الموج هة إلى CNFA سؤال التقييم رقم :2 إلى أي حد كان اتباع نهج مشروع "فاس" لبناء قدرات الجمعيات الشريكة و��تماد وتطبيق نموذج اعمال مستدام يسا هم في تحسين مستوي أداء ا��مال بشكل يمكن قياسه من��ل عدد العقود، عدد المستفيدين )من المزارعين أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة(، كمية وقيمة المحاصيل المباعة، متضمنه تكرارية عملية البيع، بما ينعكس علي زيادة دخل المزارعين؟ أسئلة ا��اة: هل يمكنكم بإيجاز شرح "نموذج العمل" الخاص بكم هل كان هو نفس "نموذج العمل" المنفذ لديكم قبل المنحة؟ أم حدث تغيير له بعد المنحة؟ إذا كانت ���بة نعم، كيف تغير "نموذج العمل"، ولماذا؟ فى رأيكم ، ما الذى يحدد نجاح "نموذج العمل" وكيف يمكننا معرفة ما إذا كان "نموذج العمل" ناجحاً؟ هل ستستمرون فى إستخدام "نموذج العمل" الحالى؟ هلتم اخذالنوع في ��عتبار عندتطويرنموذجالعملالخاصبك؟ لو نعم رجاء التوضيح مع امثلة. كيفيمكن انيكونمركز خدمات المزرعة المطور انيكون شامل للمرأة؟ )خدمات خاصة،قنوات تواصل،الخ...( إذا كانت ا��بة "�"، فلماذا؟ إذا كانت ا��بة "نعم"، فكيف يمكنكم كجهة ممنوحة ��ستمرار فى تطبيق "نموذج العمل" المشار إليه )النظم، السياسات، القدرات، الموارد، البنية التحتية، الخ(؟ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 234 كجهة مستفيدة من المنحة، ما هى التحديات التى واجهتكم فى تطبيق "نموذج العمل" )تلك التى تخص المزارعين، البنية التحتية، القدرات، الموارد، التسويق، الخ(؟ كيف تعاملتم مع هذه التحديات السابق ذكر ها؟ من واقع تطبيقكم لـ "نموذج العمل" الجديد، كيف أثر هذا النموذج على المزارعين )كأعضاء/ع��ء( فيما يتعلق بكل من:  تذويد هم بمستلزمات زراعية منخفضة التكاليف  مستلزمات إنتاج عالية الجودة  البنية التحتية )ا���الزراعية(  العقود طويلة ا��ل  العقود��جلة / الوصول إلى أسوق ا��سل الراقية  إتاحة المعلومات التسويقية 235 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T6 – KII – GD FAS TEAM TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: FAS team Target Group Categories: Type of Tool GD/KII Number of GDs/KIIs to be implmented : Evaluation Total # of Tools:7 Variation: NA # of tools per (variation selected): 3 – 9 Time per tool implementation: 45 minutes per tool - net time: 60 minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Booking location for implementation Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Online connectivity (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelopes, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 236 BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION): Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: (Grantee – Association CB/nonCB – IP – IP Subcontractor) Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: * In case of GDs – attendance sheets will include names and positions T6 - FAS TEAM KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW / GROUP DISCUSSION Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. 237 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TOOL QUESTIONS Introductory Question: How well has CFNA's FSC worked in Egypt compared to other countries where it has been implemented? EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) Tool Questions: Can you tell us about the concept behind the grants program, in terms of its scope, targeted value chains gaps, selection process, etc.? Noting that less than half the grantee funds were spent, what were the main obstacles to disbursing more of the funds earmarked for grants were used? (project design, project implementation, stakeholder positions, etc.) What criteria did you use in selecting grantees? How was the VC assessment used to develop the grant program? Do you think the grant was effective at filling the gaps? Is there anything else that could have been done to fill the gaps? Were other approaches considered? Are there any gender specific VC gaps? How were they addressed? Had addressing VC gaps have a gender impact (e.g created employment for women)? If yes, in which ways? EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Tool Questions: Can you explain to us through the capacity building approach for associations, and the FSCs ? What was the logic behind the approach? What, if any, measures has the FAS project taken to ensure or promote the sustainability of the business models after project close? What challenges did the association face in applying the business model? (farmer-related, infrastructure, capacities, resources, marketing, etc.) How did the institution address these challenges, if it did so? Did you consider gender while developing your business model? If yes, please provide examples. How can the developed FSCs be more women inclusive (e.g. special services, outreaching channels, etc.)? EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: What were the selection criteria for the associations who received capacity building assistance? Do you have any evidence that the recipients adopted and are still using what they learned or received? We know that there were other organization supporting farmers in the region, e.g. Land O'Lakes. Is it possible to distinguish between the impact of other programs and FAS? USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 238 Did you receive any gender training? If yes, what is the perceived change of the received training? How are you using that training? To what extent the provided services by FAS were inclusive of women? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: What was the rationale behind the selected innovations and technologies? What type of follow up support on the usage of the tools and technologies? Was it sufficient? To what extent do you think the project succeeded in promoting innovative tools and technologies to farmers? What were the most / least successful cases of promoting innovative tools and technologies? What factors explain success or failure? What difficulties did farmers encounter and what did they do to overcome them? (lack of infrastructures, lack of association resources, lack of association support, lack of market connections, lack of knowledge of the farmers, lack of level of connectivity, lack of access to finance; farmer resistance to change long standing practices, risk aversion?) Did any of the offered innovations/technologies targeted women farmers or affected women (e.g. women started home business as a result of recycling innovation)? If yes, in which ways? If no, what are the challenges that prevent women from accessing or using innovations/technologies? What is your perception of the extent that farmers benefited? Are farmers willing and able to retain the innovative and technological practices after project close? Do associations have the capacities to continue providing the technological services (e.g., call centre / cold chain app….etc.) after project close? Is there anything else we should know as we conduct the evaluation? 239 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 6T – مقابلةشخصية / مجموعةنقاشية -فريقفاس مصدر البيانات )الفئة المستهدفة(: المجموعة المستهدفة: فريق عمل مشروع فاس ن���داة: مقابلة مع مصدر رئيسى للمعلومات عدد مرات تنفيذ��� معالفئة المستهدفة: عدد��دوات: 7 التباي��� يوجد الوقت المتوقع لتنفيذ���: 45 دقيقة )صافى الوقت( 60 دقيقة )شاملة الترتيبات السابقة و��حقة للمق���( ��تياجات اللوجستية: التجهيزات:  دعون المشاركين فى المقاب��  التسجيل فى كشوفات الحضور  إعداد نسخ من ا�دوات للمشاركين )إذا تطلب��مر(  إعداد وتجهيز مكان المقابلة  التأكد من إحتياطات وشروط ا��مة الخاصة بفيروس كورونا توفير مصدر للكهرباء )فيشات(  التوصيل بشبك���نترنت )إذا لز���مر( المستلزمات المطلوبة:  نسخ من أدوات جمع البيانات )لتسجيل ���ظات الميدانية( فى حالة إنقطاع التيار الكهربائى.  إدوات كتابية )دفاتر، أق�م، دوسيهات حفظ، مظاريف، دبابيس، الخ(  نسخ من ��� حضور المشاركين المحافظة التاريخ: الموقع: إجمالي عدد المشاركين ) ( ذكور ) ( إناث ) ( نوع المؤسسة : اسمالمؤسسة: )متلقو منحة، جمعية متلقية أو غير متلقيةلبناء القدرات - جهة منفذة( اسمالمشارك : الوظيفة : اسمالمشارك : الوظيفة : اسمالمشارك : الوظيفة : USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 240 * في حالة المجموعات النقاشية،،ستتضمنكشوف الحضور ا��ماء والوظائف صباحالخير، أناأسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتيفي العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاء فريق تقييممستقلتعاقدت معهالوكالة ا��يكيةللتنميةالدولية في مصر�جراء تقييمنهائي���مشروع دعم ا��ن الغذائي��عمال الزراعية )فاس (. حيث ستساعدنتائج هذاالتقييمالوكالة ا��يكية للتنميةالدولية بمصر على اتخاذ قراراتلتحسين فاعلية أساليبالدعم الفني المقدمة منالجهة المنفذة، وتحديداكثر ��اليبالمستدامة والفعالةللترويجل�عمالالزراعية في صعيد مصربشكل عام، و لزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحابالحيازات الصغيرةبشكل خاص، ب���فة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروعلتحديدنطاق المساعدةالفنية و التدخل في المشروعاتال�حقة . إنمشاركتك معنااليومتطوعية ً تماما ولكنها هامةللغاية �نجاز هذهالدراسة، ونؤكدلكم أنه مشاركة نتائجالتقييم معالفئات والجهات المرتبطة بالمشروع مع ا��تفاظبالسريةالتامة للبياناتالشخصية للمشاركينفي التقييم. ما مدينجاح CNFA في تطبيق نموذجمركز خدمات المزرعة FSCمقارنابب�� اخري تمتطبيقه فيها؟ سؤال التقييم رقم -1أ : إلي أي مدى نجحمكون المنحة )12 منحة تمتنفيذ هافي هذالمشروع ( في سدالفجوات في سلسلة القيمةبكفاءة وفعالية؟ )الجهات الفاعلة –القطاعات – موردو المدخ�ت الزراعية – مراكزالتعبئةوالفرز - معام�ت ما بعدالحصاد - القطاع الخاص— المصنعون - الجمعيات( أسئلة ا�داة : هل ممكنشرحالفكرة وراءبرنامج المنح٬ من حيث النطاق،الفجوات المستهدفة في سلسلةالقيمة، عملية ا��تيار٬الخ... لقد��ظنا اننصف الميزانيةالمخصصة للمنحتماستخدامها. ماذا كانتالعوائقالرئيسيةلصرف اكثرللميزانيةالمخصصةللمنح؟ )تصميم المشروع٬تطبيقالمشروع٬ وضع المستفدين،الخ...( ما هي المعاييرالتيتماستخدامها ��تيارالمستفيدين من المنحة؟ كيفتماستخدام تقييمسلسلةالقيمة لتطويربرنامج المنح؟ هلتظن ان المنحكانت فعالة لسد تلكالفجوات؟ هل هناكشيء اخر كانيمكنفعله لسدتلك الفجوات؟ هلتم��خذبمنا هج اخري في ��عتبار؟ هل هناكفجوات لسلسلة القيمة خاصة بالنوع؟كيف تمالتعامل معها؟ هلكان هناك أثرنوعي عندتم ا�� بفجوات سلسلةالقيمة )خلق فرص عملللمرأة؟( سؤال التقييم رقم -1 ب: ما مدىنجاحالحاصلينعلى المنحة فيتأسيسنموذج اعمال مستدام؟ وإلى أي مديسا هموا في تحقيق نتائج المشروع في���ت : ��نتاجية، معام�ت ما بعدالحصاد والتسويق؟ أسئلة ا�داة : هل ممكنشرح منهجبناءقدرات الجمعيات و مركز خدمات المزرعة FSC( الذي هو نموذج العمل ( والمنطق من ورائه؟ 241 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ماالتدابيرالذي اتخذ ها مشروع FAS للتأكد مناستمراريةنموذج العملبعد انتهاءالمشروع؟ ماالتحدياتالتي واجهاتهاالجمعيات عندتطبيق نموذج العمل؟ ) خاصة بالمزارع،البنيةالتحتية، القدرات،الموارد ،التسويق،الخ ( كيفقامتالمؤسسةبحلها؟ هلتم اخذالنوع في ��عتبار عندتطويرنموذجالعملالخاصبك؟ لو نعم رجاء التوضيح مع امثلة. كيفيمكن انيكونمركز خدمات المزرعة المطور انيكون شامل للمرأة؟ )خدمات خاصة،قنوات تواصل،الخ...( سؤال التقييم رقم :2 إلى أي حد كان اتباعنهج مشروع "فاس " لبناءقدراتالجمعياتالشريكة ��عتماد وتطبيقنموذج اعمال مستداميسا هم في تحسينمستوي أداء ا�عمالبشكل يمكنقياسه من خ�ل عددالعقود، عددالمستفيدين )من المزارعينأصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة (،كمية وقيمة المحاصيل المباعة، متضمنهتكرارية عملية البيع،بماينعكسعلي زيادة دخلالمزارعين؟ أسئلة ا�داة : ما هي معايير��تيارللجمعيات التيتلقتمساعدة فيبناء القدرات؟ هل عندك أي ادلة ان المستفيدينقاموابتطبيق او استخدام ماتعلموه او تلقوه؟ نحننعلم ان هناك منظمات اخريتقومبمساعدة المزارعين في المنطقة، مثل.Lakes’O Land خليمكنالتفرقة بين اثرالمشاريع��خرى ومشروع ?FAS هلتلقيت ايتدريب عليالنوع ��جتماعي؟لو ���بة نعم، ما هو التغييرالذي حدث كنتيجةلهذا التدريب؟كيف تقوم��ن باستخدام هذا التدريب؟ الي اي مدي الخدمات المقدمة من قبلالجمعيةشاملةللمرأة؟ سؤال التقييم رقم :3 هل نجحالمشروع فيالترويج���ت مبتكرة وتكنولوجيه م�ئمة للفئات المستهدفة فيكافةمكونات المشروع؟ إذاكانت ���بةبنعم، ما هي العوامل التيساعدتعلىتحقيق هذ النجاح؟ إذاكانت���بةب�، ما هي العوائق؟ أسئلة ا�داة : هل ممكنشرح المنطق خلف اختيار���ت المبتكرةوالتكنولوجيا؟ مانوعالمساعدة ا���ةالتي تقدمها عنداستخدام ���ت المبتكرة والتكنولوجيا؟ هل هيكافية؟ ما هيالصعوباتالتييواجهاالمزارعون عنداستخدام ���ت المبتكرةوالتكنولوجياالتيتم اتاحتها ؟ كيفتمالتغلبعلي تلكالصعوبات؟ نقصفيالبنية التحتية،نقص في مواردالجمعية،نقص في دعم الجمعية،نقص في ص�ت في السوق، نقصفي معرفة المزارع،نقص في مستوي��تصال،نقص في الوصل إلي ائتمان،مقاومة المزارع لتغيير عادات قديمة،تجنب المخاطر هل اي من��وات المبتكرة /التكنولوجياكانت موجهةللمرأةكمزارع او اثرت عليالمرأة )سيدات بدأن مشروع اعادةتدوير مبتكر؟( لو نعم، كيف؟لو �� ما هيالتحدياتالتيتحد من حصول او استخدام السيدات علي ا���ت المبتكرة /التكنولوجيا ؟ ما هو��ظاتك عن مدي امتداد استفادة المزارعين؟ هلالمزارع راغب وقادر علي��حتفاظب���ت المبتكرةوالتكنولوجيا المقدمةله بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ ماذا عنقدراتالجمعياتب��تمرارفي تقديمالخدماتالتكنولوجية )مركز��تصال/تطبيق سلسلة التبريد....... الخ( USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 242 FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T7 – KII – GD FAS PARTNERS TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: FAS Partners Target Group Categories: A. Winrock International (EQ3) B. Blue Moon International (EQ2+EQ3) C. WFLO (EQ1+EQ2+EQ3) D. Souktel (EQ3) Type of Tool KII Number of GDs to be implmented : Evaluation Total # of Tools:4 Variation: NA (Governorate – type of association – crop – gender – etc.) # of tools per (variation selected):4 Time per tool implementation: ## minutes per tool - net time: 45 minutes ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: 60 minutes Logistical Needs: Preparation: Make appointments with partners Fill in Attendance Sheets Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelopes, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION): Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: Interviewee Name: Position: 243 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: * In case of GDs – attendance sheets will include names and positions T7 – KII - FAS PARTNERS Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS Introductory Question: Which activities the partner was involved in with CNFA and since when? EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) Tool Questions: WFLO What, if any, role did your organization play role in the grant selection process? Did you contribute to a grantee’s business model? If yes, please elaborate. How did your organization contribute to identifying value chain gaps? Did your organization support development of the grants model? If yes, how? What was your organization’s role? To what extent do you think the grant assists in filling the gaps in the value chain? Are there any remaining bottlenecks? How would you propose to solve them? What is your involvement, if any, in the grant delivery process/implementation? EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Tool Questions: WFLO Can you walk us through the capacity building approach for grantees, including the FSC business models? What is the logic behind it? Is there anything else that could have been done to fill the value chain gaps? Were other approaches considered? What challenges, if any, did the grantee face in applying the business model? (e.g. related to farmer related, infrastructure, capacities, resources, marketing, etc.) Are you aware of how the grantee address them? USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 244 What, if any, measures has the FAS project taken to ensure the sustainability of the business model after project close? EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: WFLO, Blue Moon Did you contribute to building the capacity of the partner associations? if yes, please elaborate. Do you have any evidence that the recipients adopted and are using what they learned or received? Were there were any other factors that contributed to the adoption of the business models? We understand that there were other organizations supporting farmers in the region, e.g. Land O'Lakes. Is it possible to distinguish between the impact on farmers of those other programs and FAS? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: WFLO, Blue Moon, Winrock International, Souktel What difficulties did farmers encounter while using the tools and technologies they were provided with? Can you tell us what, if anything was done to help them overcome them? (e.g. lack of infrastructures, lack of association resources, lack of association support, lack of market connections, lack of knowledge of the farmers, lack of level of connectivity, lack of access to finance. farmers resistance to change long standing practices, risk aversion) What is your overall sense of how much farmers benefited? What type of follow-up support did you provide on the usage of the tools and technologies? Do you believe it was sufficient for farmers to continue using them after project close? Are farmers willing and able to retain the innovative and technological practices after the project? What about the associations’ capacities to keep providing the technological services (e.g. call center / cold chain app) Is there anything else we should know as we conduct the evaluation? 245 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ا��اة )7T– )مقابلةشخصية / مجموعةنقاشية -شركاءمشروعفاس مصدر البيانات )الفئة المستهدفة(: المجموعة المستهدفة: شركاء مشروع فاس تصنيف الفئة المستهدفة: أ. International Winrock( سؤال 3#( ب.Moon Blue( سؤال # 2&3( ج.WFLO(سؤال # 1&2&3( د.Souktel( سؤال 3#( ن���داة: مقابلة جماعية عدد مرات تنفيذ��� معالفئة المستهدفة: عدد تكرار ا�داة: 4 التباي��� ينطبق الوقت المتوقع لتنفيذ���: 45 دقيقة )صافى الوقت( 60 دقيقة )شاملة الترتيبات السابقة و��حقة للمق���( ��تياجات اللوجستية: التجهيزات:  دعون المشاركين فى المقاب��  التسجيل فى كشوفات الحضور  إعداد نسخ من ا�دوات للمشاركين )إذا تطلب ��مر(  إعداد وتجهيز مكان المقابلة  التأكد من إحتياطات وشروط ا��مة الخاصة بفيروس كورونا توفير مصدر للكهرباء )فيشات(  التوصيل بشبك���نترنت )إذا لز���مر( المستلزمات المطلوبة:  نسخ من أدوات جمع البيانات )لتسجيل ���ظات الميدانية( فى حالة إنقطاع التيار الكهربائى.  إدوات كتابية )دفاتر، أق�م، دوسيهات حفظ، مظاريف، دبابيس، الخ(  نسخ من ��� حضور المشاركين المحافظة التاريخ: الموقع: إجمالي عدد المشاركين ) ( ذكور ) ( إناث ) ( اسمالمؤسسة: USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 246 اسمالمشارك : الوظيفة : اسمالمشارك : الوظيفة : اسمالمشارك : الوظيفة : صباحالخير، أناأسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتيفي العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاء فريق تقييممستقلتعاقدت معهالوكالة ا��يكيةللتنميةالدولية في مصر�جراء تقييمنهائي���مشروع دعم ا��ن الغذائي��عمال الزراعية )فاس (. حيث ستساعدنتائج هذاالتقييمالوكالة ا��يكية للتنميةالدولية بمصر على اتخاذ قراراتلتحسين فاعلية أساليبالدعم الفني المقدمة منالجهة المنفذة، وتحديداكثر ��اليبالمستدامة والفعالةللترويجل�عمالالزراعية في صعيد مصربشكل عام، و لزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحابالحيازات الصغيرةبشكل خاص، ب���فة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروعلتحديدنطاق المساعدةالفنية و التدخل في المشروعاتال�حقة . إنمشاركتك معنااليومتطوعية ً تماما ولكنها هامةللغاية �نجاز هذهالدراسة، ونؤكدلكم أنه مشاركة نتائجالتقييم معالفئات والجهات المرتبطة بالمشروع مع ا��تفاظبالسريةالتامة للبياناتالشخصية للمشاركينفي التقييم. أسئلة ا�داة : سؤال التقييم رقم -1أ : إلي أي مدى نجحمكون المنحة )12 منحة تمتنفيذ هافي هذالمشروع ( في سدالفجوات في سلسلة القيمةبكفاءة وفعالية؟ )الجهات الفاعلة –القطاعات – موردو المدخ�ت الزراعية – مراكز التعبئةوالفرز - معام�ت ما بعدالحصاد - القطاع الخاص—المصنعون - الجمعيات ( أسئلة���ة: هلسا همت مؤسستكفي اختيار المستفيدين من المنحة؟ 247 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV هلسا همت في نموذج العمل الخاصبالمستفيد من المنحة؟لو ��جابةنعم، رجاءالتوضيح. كيفسا همت مؤسستكفي سد فجواتسلسلة القيمة؟ هلقامت مؤسستكبالمساعدة في تطويرنموذج المنحة؟ لو نعمكيف؟ وماذاكان دور مؤسستك؟ الي أي مدي تساعد المنحة فيسد فجوات سلسلة القيمة؟ هل هناك أي تحديات؟ كيفتقترح حلها؟ هلتم مراعةالنوع ��تماعي عند دراسة وتحديد فجوات سلسلة القيمة؟كيفتمالتعامل معها؟ هل كان هناك آثر ما نتيجة تضمين النوع ا��تماعي؟ ما هو )وضع المرأة و ارتباطها بسوق العمل علي سبيل المثال(؟ ماذاكانتمسا همتكفي عمليةتسليم اوتطبيق المنحة؟ سؤال التقييم رقم -1 ب: ما مدىنجاحالحاصلينعلى المنحة فيتأسيسنموذج اعمال مستدام؟ وإلى أي مديسا هموا في تحقيق نتائج المشروع في ���ت: ��نتاجية، معام�ت مابعدالحصاد والتسويق؟ أسئلة���ة: هل ممكنتوضح لنا منهجبناءقدراتالجمعيات و مركز خدمات المزرعة FSC( الذي هونموذج العمل( والمنطق من وراءه؟ هل هناك أي شيء إضافيكانيمكنفعله لسد فجوات سلسلةالقيمة؟ ؟ هلتم ��� بمنا هج اخري في ��عتبار؟ ماالتحدياتالتي واجهتهاالجمعيات عندتطبيقنموذجالعمل؟ ) خاصة بالمزارع،البنيةالتحتية، القدرات، الموارد ،التسويق،الخ ( كيفقامتالمؤسسةبحلها؟ هلتم اخذالنوع في ��عتبار عندتطويرنموذجالعملالخاصبك؟ لو نعم رجاء التوضيح مع امثلة. كيفيمكن انيكونمركز خدمات المزرعة المطور انيكون شامل للمرأة؟ )خدمات خاصة، قنواتتواصل،الخ... ( هلتعلمكيف قام المستفيد من المنحةباستخدا مها؟ ماالتدابيرالذي اتخذ ها مشروع FAS للتأكد مناستمراريةنموذج ا�عمالبعد انتهاءالمشروع؟ سؤال التقييم رقم :2 إلى أي حد كان اتباعنهج مشروع "فاس " لبناءقدراتالجمعياتالشريكة ��عتماد وتطبيقنموذج اعمال مستداميسا هم فيتحسين مستوي أداء ا�عمالبشكليمكنقياسه من خ�ل عددالعقود، عددالمستفيدين )من المزارعين أصحاب الحيازاتالصغيرة(،كمية وقيمة المحاصيل المباعة، متضمنه تكرارية عمليةالبيع،بماينعكسعلي زيادة دخل المزارعين؟ أسئلة���ة: هلسا همت في بناءقدرات الجمعياتالشريكة؟ لو نعم رجاء التوضيح هللديك أي ��ئل ان المستفيدينقاموابتطبيق اواستخدام ما تعلموه او تلقوه؟ هلكان هناك عوامل اخري ساعدتعلي ��� بنماذجالعمل؟ نحننعلم ان هناك منظمات اخريتقومبمساعدة المزارعين في المنطقة، مثل.Lakes’O Land خليمكنالتفرفة بين اثرالمشاريع��خرى ومشروع ?FAS USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 248 هلتلقيت ايتدريب عليالنوع؟لو ���بة نعم، ما هو التغييرالذي حدثكنتيجةلهذا التدريب؟ كيف تقوم ��نباستخدام هذاالتدريب؟ الي اي مدي الخدمات المقدمة من قبلالجمعيةشاملةللمرأة؟ سؤال التقييم رقم :3 سؤال :3 هل نجح المشروع في الترويج��وات مبتكرة وتكنولوجيه م�ئمة للفئات المستهدفة فيكافة مكونات المشروع؟ إذاكانت��جابة بنعم، ما هيالعواملالتي ساعدت علىتحقيق هذالنجاح؟ إذاكانت ���بةب�، ما هي العوائق؟ أسئلة���ة: ما هيالصعوباتالتييواجهاالمزارعون عنداستخدام ���ت المبتكرةوالتكنولوجياالتيتم اتاحتها ؟ كيفتمالتغلبعلي تلكالصعوبات؟ )نقصفي البنيةالتحتية،نقص في مواردالجمعية،نقص في دعم الجمعية،نقصفي ص�ت فيالسوق،نقصفي معرفة المزارع،نقص في مستوي��تصال،نقص في الوصل إلي ائتمان،مقاومة المزارع لتغيير عادات قديمة،تجنب المخاطر ( ما هوتقديركلمدي استفادة المزارعين؟ مانوعالمساعدة ا���ةالتي تقدمها عنداستخدام ���ت المبتكرة والتكنولوجيا؟ هل تظن انهاكافية للمزارعين��تمرارفي استخدامهابعد انتهاءالمشروع؟ هل اي من��وات المبتكرة /التكنولوجياكانت موجهةللمرأةكمزارع او اثرت عليالمرأة )سيدات بدأن مشروع اعادةتدوير مبتكر؟( لو نعم، كيف؟لو �� ما هيالتحدياتالتيتحد من حصول او استخدام السيدات علي��وات المبتكرة /التكنولوجيا ؟ هل اي من��وات المبتكرة /التكنولوجياكانت موجهةللمرأةكمزارع او اثرت عليالمرأة )سيدات بدأن مشروع اعادةتدوير مبتكر؟( لو نعم، كيف؟لو �� ما هيالتحدياتالتيتحد من حصول او استخدام السيدات علي��وات المبتكرة /التكنولوجيا ؟ هلالمزارع راغب وقادر علي��حتفاظب���ت المبتكرةوالتكنولوجيا المقدمةله بعد انتهاء المشروع؟ ماذا عنقدراتالجمعياتب��تمرارفي تقديمالخدماتالتكنولوجية )مركز��تصال/تطبيق سلسلة التبريد( هل هناك أي شيء نحتاج ان نعرفه عندالقيامبالتقييم؟ 249 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T8 – KII/D – PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: Private Sector Target Group Categories: Input suppliers Exporters Retailers Type of Tool KII Number of GDs to be implmented : Evaluation Total # of Tools: 8 Variation: NA (Governorate – type of association – crop – gender – etc.) # of tools per (variation selected): ? Time per tool implementation: ## minutes per tool - net time: 30 minutes ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: 45 minutes Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Booking location for implementation Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Online connectivity (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelopes, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION): Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: (Grantee – Association CB/nonCB – IP – IP Subcontractor￾Private sector/service provider) USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 250 Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: * In case of GDs – attendance sheets will include names and positions T8 – KII/GD – PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS General questions Before we start, and to help us know what to ask, can you tell us how familiar you are with the FAS project? (i.e. project goals, approach, stakeholders, etc.) What are your overall impressions about the FAS project? Which association or grantee you dealt with? Contract information (amount, how many times) EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) Tool Questions: In your opinion, what is the role of the private sector in responding to the value chain gaps? As far as you are aware, how has participating in FAS contributed to solving the identified challenges? In your opinion, how the value chain gaps can be further tackled (e.g., target groups, partnerships methods)? EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Tool Questions: 251 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Are you aware of the Farmer Service Center (FSC) business model? If yes, do you have any interactions with FSCs? If yes, do you think FSCs have improved the efficiencies? How good are they at filling value chain gaps? EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: What do you think can improve the associations’ ability to engage with private sector companies like yours? Have you observed any improvements in how associations are managed over the last 3 years (i.e. under the FAS project)? How many contracts have you conducted with (Associations, cooperatives, direct farmers) and how many repeated orders, through FAS project) What are any challenges you have experienced while dealing with Associations/ cooperatives? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: What are the key challenges farmers face to fulfil your orders (e.g. lack of financing, low produce quality, low volume of produce, difficult in being reliable partners, etc.) What do you believe could enhance farmers ability to fulfil your orders? USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 252 أداة )8( – مقابلةشخصية / مناقشة جماعية مع ممثليالقطاعالخاص وصف ا��اة: مصدر البيانات )الفئة المستهدفة(: لفئة المستهدفة: القطاع الخاص تقسيم الفئة المستهدفة: أ- موردى الم��� ب- المصدرين ت-تجار التجزئة ن���داة: نموذج كيفى لجمع البيانات عدد مرات تنفيذ ا����ع الفئة المستهدفة : العدد الكلي ل�دوات: ## تقسي���دوات حسب الفئات المستهدفة: الوقت المتوقع لتنفي����: 45دقيقة لملء النموذج 15دقيقة ب��عداد القبلي والبعدي ��تياجات اللوجستية: التحضير: - دعوة المشاركين - ملء أوراق الحضور - التأكد من وجود المكان المناسب للتنفيذ￾تحضير نسخ من ا�دوات للمشاركين )إذا لز���مر( - مراعاة احتياطات ا��مة الخاصة بفيروس كورونا -��تصال ����نترنت )إذا لزم��مر( المواد المطلوبة: الكهرباء / المشاكل الفنية￾نسخ ورقية من أداة التعبئة )���ظات الميدانية( -في حالة انقطاع - أدوات مكتبية ) دفاتر وأق�م ودباسات ومجلدات وأظرف ومشابك وما إلى ذلك( 253 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV -نسخ من أوراق الحضور / المشاركة البيانات ا��اسية )���ا جامعوا البيانات ( فريق أ/ب/ج المحافظة: لتاريخ: المكان: عدد الحضور ا��مالى ) ( ذكور ) ( إناث ) ( اسم الجهة/المؤسسة: نوع الجهة /المؤسسة: اسم المشارك: الوظيفة: اسم المشارك: الوظيفة: اسم المشارك: االوظيفة: اسم المشارك: الوظيفة: صباح الخير، أنا أسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتيفي العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاءفريقتقييم مستقلتعاقدت معه الوكالة��مريكيةللتنمية الدوليةفيمصر��اءتقييم ن هائي�داء مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس(. حيثستساعدنتائج هذا التقييم الوكالة��مريكيةللتنمية الدوليةبمصر على اتخاذقراراتلتحسينفاعليةأساليب الدعم الفني المقدمة من الجهة المنفذة، وتحديداكثر���ليب المستدامة والفعالةللترويج��مالالزراعيةفي صعيدمصربشكل عام، ولزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص،ب���ة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروعلتحديدنطاق المساعدة الفنية و التدخلفي المشروعات ال��قة. إن مشاركتك معنا اليوم تطوعية ً تماما ولكن ها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة، ونؤكد لكم أنه مشاركة نتائج التقييم مع الفئات والج هات المرتبطةبالمشروع مع��حتفاظبالسرية التامةللبيانات الشخصيةللمشاركينفي التقييم . USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 254 أسئلة ا��اة: اسئلة عامة فى البداية، هليمكنك إخبارنابمدى معرفتكبمشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مال الزراعية )فاس( ؟ )على سبيل المثال، أ هداف المشروع ، المناهج المستخدمة ، أصحاب المصلحة ،إلخ.( ما هيانطباعاتك العامة عنمشروع دعم��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس( ؟ ما هي الجمعية أو الحاصل على االمنحة الذيتعاملت معه؟ معلومات العقد المنفذ )مبلغ العقد ، عدد المرات( سؤال -1أ: إلي أي حدقدنجح مكونالمنح )12 منحةتمتنفيذ هافي هذالمشروع( فيسدفجوة سلسلة القيمةبكفاءة وفاعالية؟ )الفاعلين- الموردينللم���الزراعية معا�� مابعد الحصاد -القطاع الخاص-- الجمعيات( أسئلة ا��اة في رأيك ، ما هو دور القطاع الخاصفيسد الفجواتفىسلسلة القيمة؟ حسب معلوماتك ،كيفسا همت المشاركةفيمشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس( في حل التحدياتالمحددة؟ في رأيك ،كيفيمكن معالجةفجواتسلسلة القيمةبشكل أكبر )علىسبيل المثال ، الفئات المستهدفة ونظم الشراكات( ؟ سؤال -1ب: ما هو مستوينجاح و استدامةنموذج ا��مال المقدم منقبل الحاصلين علي المنحة؟ و إلي أي مديسا هموافيتحقيقنتائجالمشروعفي مج��: ��نتاجية، معا�� مابعد الحصاد و التسويق؟ أسئلة ا��اة هل أنت على درايةبنموذج عمل مركز خدمة المزارعين ؟ إذاكانت ا��بةبنعم ، هللديك أيتعا�� مع مركز خدمة المزارعين؟ إذاكانت ا��بةبنعم ، هلتعتقد أن مركز خدمة المزارعينقدرفع الكفاءات؟ ما مدى جودت هافيسد فجواتسلسلة القيمة؟ سؤال :2 إلي أي حد استخدم مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس(مناهجتساعدفيبناء قدراتشركائه من الجمعيات��تماد وتطبيقنموذج اعمال مستدام يسا همفيتحسين مستوي أداء ا��مال عبرزيادة عدد العقود، عدد المستفيدين )من المزارعين أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة (،كمية وقيمة السلع التيتم بيع ها، متضمنهتكرارية عملية البيع،بماينعكس عليزيادة دخل المزراعين؟ أسئلة ا��اة ماذايمكن انيرفع منقدرة الجمعيات على التعامل معشركات القطاع الخاص مثلشركتك؟ 255 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV هل��� أيتحسنفيكيفية إدارة الجمعيات على مدى السنوات ا��� الماضية )أيفي إطارمشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مال الزراعية )فاس(؟ كم عدد العقود التيأبرمت ها مع )الجمعيات ، التعاونيات ، المزارعينبشكل مباشر( وكم عددالطلبات المتكررة ، من��لمشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مال الزراعية )فاس(؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهت ها أثناء التعامل مع الجمعيات / التعاونيات؟ سؤال :3 هلنجحالمشروعفي الترويج�دوات مبتكرة وتكنولوجيه��ئمةللفئات المستهدفةفيكافة مكوناتالمشروع؟ لونعم، ما هي العناصر التيساعدت عليتحقيق هذ النجاح؟ لو�� ما هي العوائق؟ أسئلة ا��اة ما هي التحديات الرئيسية التييواجه ها المزارعون��لتزام بطلباتكم )علىسبيل المثال،نقص التمويل وانخفاض جودة ا�نتاج وحجم��نتاج وعدم القدرة على الوثوقبهم كشركاء وما إلى ذلك( ماذايمكن أنيعززقدرة المزارعين على��لتزام بطلباتك؟ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 256 FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T9 - GOVERNMENT PARTNERS KII/GD TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: Government Representatives Target Group Categories: Central Government representatives Local government representatives Type of Tool KII Number of GDs to be implmented : Evaluation Total # of Tools:9 Variation: NA (Governorate – type of association – crop – gender – etc.) # of tools per (variation selected): Time per tool implementation: ## minutes per tool - net time: 20 minutes ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: 35 minutes Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Booking location for implementation (if needed) Observing COVID safety precautions Electric plugs availability Online connectivity (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) – in case of outage/technical problems Stationary (notebooks, pens, staples, folders and envelopes, clips, etc.) Copies of attendance/participation sheets BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION) Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: (Grantee – Association CB/nonCB – IP – IP Subcontractor) 257 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: * In case of GDs – attendance sheets will include names and positions T 9– KII/GD – GOVERNMENT PARTNERS Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS: How long have you been in your position? What are your overall impressions about the FAS project in your governorate? EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) Tool Questions: Are you aware of FAS efforts to improve the value chain? If so, what have you heard about it? In your opinion, what is the role of the private sector in responding to the value chain gaps? (In case of local grantee from the same governorate), Do you think the grantee/s addressed the gaps in the value chain? If yes, in which ways? In your opinion, how can the value chain gaps be further addressed (e.g., target groups, partnerships methods), more services, more infrastructure, etc.)? Are there any gender specific VC gaps? How were they addressed? Had addressing VC gaps have a gender impact (e.g. created employment for women)? If yes, in which ways? EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? Tool Questions: USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 258 What do you think the chances are that the new business model [or use a more specific term, based on what the grantee actually is doing e.g. farmers service centre, greenhouse] will be sustainable after project close? EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: From your perspective, what are the key challenges face associations that hinder their ability to serve their farmers? Have you observed any improvements in how associations are managed since they received the capacity building? If you did, do you think they will last, now that the project is closed? Why/why not? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: What do you think of the introduced innovation and technology interventions provided by FAS project? How receptive were farmers to them, as far as you know? What other innovative and technological solutions could enhance production and increase farmers’ income? Did any of the offered innovations/technologies targeted women farmers or affected women (e.g. women started home business as a result of recycling innovation)? If yes, in which ways? If no, what are the challenges that prevent women from accessing or using innovations/technologies? Is there anything you think this project could have done better, to be more effective, to help farmers, associations, more? Is there anything else you think we should know about to help us conduct our evaluation? 259 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV أداة )9T – )مقابلة شخصية/ مناقشة جماعية - ممثلي الجهات الحكومية وصف ا��اة: مصدر البيانات )الفئة المستهدفة(: لفئة المستهدفة: ممثلى الج هات الحكومية تقسيم الفئة المستهدفة: أ- ممثلى الحكوممة المركزية ب- ممثلى االحكومة المحلية نوع��داة : نموذجكيفىلجمع البيانات عدد مرات تنفيذ��� معالفئة المستهدفة: لعدد الكلي��دوات: ## تقسيم��دوات حسب الفئات المستهدفة: الوقت المتوقع لتنفيذ���: 45 دقيقةلملء النموذج 15 دقيقةب��عداد القبلي والبعدي ��تياجات اللوجستية: التحضير: - دعوة المشاركين - ملء أوراق الحضور -تحضيرنسخ من ا�دواتللمشاركين )إذالزم ��مر( - التأكد من وجود المكان المناسبللتنفيذ، و حجز مكان )إذالزم ��مر( - مراعاة احتياطات ا��مة الخاصةبفيروسكورونا -��تصالعبر ا�نترنت )إذالزم ��مر( المواد المطلوبة: المشاكل الفنية￾نسخورقية من أداة التعبئة )���ظات الميدانية( -في حالة انقطاع الكهرباء / - أدوات مكتبية ) دفاتر���م ودباسات ومجلدات وأظرف ومشابك وما إلىذلك( -نسخ من أوراق الحضور / المشاركة USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 260 البيانات ا��اسية )���ا جامعو البيانات( : فريق أ/ب/ج المحافظة: لتاريخ: المكان: عدد الحضور ا��مالى ) ( ذكور ) ( إناث ) ( اسم الجهة/المؤسسة: نوع الجهة /المؤسسة: ��سم: الوظيفة: ��سم: الوظيفة: ��سم: الوظيفة: ��سم: الوظيفة: صباح الخير، أنا أسمي--------------------: و معي زميلي/زميلتيفي العمل ---------------------------- . نحن أعضاءفريقتقييم مستقلتعاقدت معه الوكالة��مريكيةللتنمية الدوليةفيمصر��اءتقييم ن هائي�داء مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس(. حيثستساعدنتائج هذا التقييم الوكالة��مريكيةللتنمية الدوليةبمصر على اتخاذقراراتلتحسينفاعليةأساليب الدعم الفني المقدمة من الجهة المنفذة، وتحديداكثر���ليب المستدامة والفعالةللترويج��مالالزراعيةفي صعيدمصربشكل عام، ولزيادة دخل المزارعين من أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة بشكل خاص،ب���ة إلى رصد الدروس المستفادة من المشروعلتحديدنطاق المساعدة الفنية و التدخلفي المشروعات ال��قة. إن مشاركتك معنا اليوم تطوعية ً تماما ولكن ها هامة للغاية �نجاز هذه الدراسة، ونؤكد لكم أنه مشاركة نتائج التقييم مع الفئات والج هات المرتبطةبالمشروع مع��حتفاظبالسرية التامةللبيانات الشخصيةللمشاركينفي التقييم . 261 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV أسئلة ا��اة: اسئلة عامة منذ متى وانتفي منصبك؟ ما هيانطباعاتك العامة عنمشروع دعم��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس( في محافظتك؟ سؤال -1أ: إلي أي حدقدنجح مكونالمنح )12 منحةتمتنفيذ هافي هذالمشروع( فيسدفجوة سلسلة القيمة بكفاءة وفاعالية؟ )الفاعلين- الموردينللم��تالزراعية معا�� مابعد الحصاد -القطاع الخاص-- الجمعيات( أسئلة ا��اة هل أنت على علم بجهود مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي��عمالالزراعية )فاس( لتحسينسلسلة القيمة؟ إذاكانت ���بةبنعم ،فماذاسمعت عنالمشروع؟ في رأيك ، ما هو دور القطاع الخاصفيسدفجواتسلسلة القيمة؟ )فى حالة ان الحاصل على المنحة مننفس محافظة الممثل الحكومى( ، هلتعتقد أن الحاصل على المنحةقدسد الفجوات فيسلسلة القيمة؟ إذاكانت ا��بةنعم ،فما هى طرقتحقيق ذلك؟ في رأيك ،كيفيمكن معالجةفجواتسلسلة القيمةبشكل أكبر )علىسبيل المثال ، الفئات المستهدفة ونظم الشراكاوتوفير خدمات اكثر وتعزيز من البنية التحتية ، وما إلىذلك(؟ هل هناكفجواتلسلسلة القيمة خاصةبالنوع؟ كيفتم التعامل مع ها؟ هلكان هناكأثرنوعي عندتم ا��ذ بفجواتسلسلة القيمة )خلقفرص عملللمرأة؟ ( سؤال -1ب: ما هو مستوينجاح و استدامةنموذج ا��مال المقدم منقبل الحاصلين علي المنحة؟ و إلي أي مدي سا هموافيتحقيقنتائج المشروعفي مج��: ��نتاجية، معا�� مابعد الحصاد و التسويق؟ أسئلة ا��اة ما هىفرصنموذج العمل المنفذ )او استخدم مصطلح اكثردقةبناءا على مايقدمه الحاصل على المنحة على سبيل المثال، مركز خدمة المزارعين ، الصوباتالزراعية( فى��ستدامةبعد��� المشروع؟ سؤال :2 إلي أي حد استخدم مشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس(مناهجتساعدفيبناءقدرات شركائه من الجمعيات�عتماد وتطبيقنموذج اعمال مستدام يسا هم فيتحسين مستوي أداء ا��مالعبرزيادة عدد العقود، عدد المستفيدين )من المزارعين أصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة (،كمية وقيمة السلع التيتمبيع ها، متضمنهتكرارية عملية البيع،بماينعكس علي زيادة دخل المزراعين؟ أسئلة ا��اة من وجهةنظرك ، ما هي التحديات الرئيسية التيتواجه الجمعيات الزراعية التيتعيققدرت ها على خدمة مزارعي ها؟ USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 262 هل��� أيتحسنفيكيفية إدارة الجمعياتبعد حصول ها علىبناء القدرات؟ إذاكانت ا��بةبنعم ، هلتعتقد أن التغيرات الملحوظةستستمربعد���المشروع؟لماذافى حالة���بةبنعم او�� سؤال :3 هلنجحالمشروعفي الترويج�دوات مبتكرة وتكنولوجيه��ئمةللفئات المستهدفةفيكافةمكونات المشروع؟ لونعم، ما هي العناصر التيساعدت عليتحقيق هذالنجاح؟ لو�� ما هي العوائق؟ أسئلة ا��اة ما رأيكفيت�����بتكار والتكنولوجيا المقدمة منمشروع دعم ��من الغذائي وا��مالالزراعية )فاس( ؟ ما مدىتقبّل المزارعينللتد�� المقدمة، على حد علمك؟ ما هي الحلول المبتكرة والتكنولوجية���ى التييمكن أنتعزز��نتاجوتزيد من دخل المزارعين؟ هل اي من��دوات المبتكرة /التكنولوجياكانت موجهةللمرأة كمزارع اواثرت علي المرأة )سيداتبدأنمشروع اعادةتدوير مبتكر؟ ( لونعم،كيف؟ لو ما هي التحديات التيتحد من حصول او استخدام السيدات علي��دوات المبتكرة /التكنولوجيا ؟ هليوجد أشياء اخرىتعتقد أن هذالمشروعكانبإمكانه القيام ب هابشكلأفضلليكونالمشروعأكثرفاعلية و لمساعدة المزارعين والجمعيات؟ هل هناك أيشيء آخرتعتقد أننايجب أننعرفهلمساعدتنافي إجراءتقييمنا؟ 263 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FAS END-OF-TERM EVALUATION QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOLS T10 – KII – USAID TEAM TOOL DESCRIPTION: Data Source (Target Group) Target Group: USAID mission Target Group Categories: Type of Tool GD/KII Number of GDs to be implmented : Evaluation Total # of Tools: 1 Variation: NA # of tools per (variation selected): ? Time per tool implementation: ## minutes per tool - net time: 1 hour ## minutes per tool – including pre-and post arrangements: 1.15 hours Logistical Needs: Preparation: Inviting participants Fill in Attendance Sheets Prepare copies of tools for participants (if needed) Materials Needed: Hard copies of fill-in tool (for field notes) BASIC DATA - FILL IN BLOCKS (PER TOOL ADMINISTRATION): Team A/B/C: Governorate: Date: (mm/dd/yy) Location: # of Interviewees: Total # ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) Organization Name: Type of Organization: (Grantee – Association CB/nonCB – IP – IP Subcontractor) Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: Interviewee Name: Position: * In case of GDs – attendance sheets will include names and positions USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 264 Good morning, my name is _______________ and my colleague is __________________. We are members of an independent evaluation team contracted by the USAID Mission in Egypt to conduct an end-of-project performance evaluation of Egypt Food Security and Agribusiness Support (FAS) project. The findings of the evaluation will assist USAID in informing decisions regarding the effectiveness of the identified technical assistance approaches adopted by the contractor in selected areas of FAS, the most effective/sustainable approaches regarding the promotion of agri-business in Upper Egypt in general and increasing the incomes of small farmers in particular, and the potential areas of future technical assistance based on the lessons learned from this project. Your participation is entirely voluntary, but it is important to the results of this evaluation. Results will be anonymized (no personally identifiable information) and shared with project stakeholders. TOOL QUESTIONS: How well has CFNA's FSC worked in Egypt compared to other countries where it has been implemented? EQI-A To what extent has the grant component (12 grants implemented under the project) succeeded to fill gaps in the value chain effectively and efficiently? (actors/segments/input suppliers-packhouses- private sector processors-associations) Tool Questions: Can you tell us about the thinking behind the grants program, in terms of scope, targeted value chains gaps, selection process, etc.? What criteria were used in selecting the grantees? What were the main obstacles to disbursing more of the funds earmarked for grants were used? (project design, project implementation, stakeholder positions, etc.) How does USAID/Egypt perceive the private sector role in the FAS project ? To what extent the FAS grant component contributed to project objectives? Could FAS IPs have done used a different approach, undertaken other actions to increase the number of grantees/disburse more funding? How was the VC assessment used to develop the grant program? Were sustainability measures incorporated into the grant program? Were other approaches to addressing VC issues considered and rejected? If so, why? Is there anything else that could have been done to fill the VC gaps? Are there any gender specific VC gaps? How were they addressed? Had addressing VC gaps have a gender impact (e.g created employment for women)? If yes, in which ways? From your point of view; which model was more efficient, the grant provided to the associations or the grant provided to private sector companies? What, if any, factors hindered the models from being fully successful? Does USAID have ideas of how future projects could maximize the role of the private sector investments in agricultural development and agribusiness? EQI-B How successful have the grantee’s been in instituting sustainable business models, and contributed to achieving the project results in the activity components: production, post-harvest, and marketing? 265 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Tool Questions: How do the different business models used under FAS work? What, if any, measures has FAS taken to ensure the sustainability of the business model after project close? What challenges did the association face in applying the business model? (farmer related, infrastructure, capacities, resources, marketing, etc.) How did the association address these challenges? Did you consider gender while developing your business model? If yes, please provide examples. How can the developed FSCs be more women inclusive (e.g special services, outreaching channels, etc.)? EQ2 In what ways were the FAS approach to build the capacities of the partner associations and to adopt successful sustainable business models resulting in improved business performance as measured by number of contracts/deals, number of beneficiaries (small holder farmers), value and volume of traded crops including repeated sales thus affecting farmers’ incomes? Tool Questions: What was the basis for selecting partner associations who received capacity building assistance? (e.g. activity levels, convenience, interest levels/demand, etc.) We know that there were other organization supporting farmers in the region, e.g. Land O'Lakes. How did FAS coordinate with these, e.g. to either collaborate or avoid duplication? Do you believe a different approach by the FAS IPs may have made a bigger impact on capacity of partner associations? Why or why not? Since the cooperative's legal structure is multi layered, complicated, how does FAS project responds to the capacity needed beyond the village level (district, governorate)? In other words, how does FAS supports the macro level? For the CDAs/Associations to what extent you think that the current (not for profit governance structure) would prevent the sustainability of any business model? EQ3 Was the project successful in the promotion of innovative tools and technology among its targeted beneficiaries across components? If yes, what factors contributed to this success? If no, what are the hindrances? Tool Questions: What was the rationale behind the selected innovations and technologies? What difficulties did farmers encounter in adopting innovations and technologies? (Lack of infrastructures, Lack of association resources, Lack of association support, Lack of market connections, Lack of knowledge of the farmers, Lack of level of connectivity, Lack of access to finance; Farmer resistance to change long standing practices, risk aversion?) What, if anything was done to help overcome those difficulties? Did any of the offered innovations/technologies targeted women farmers or affected women (e.g women started home business as a result of recycling innovation)? If yes, in which ways? If no, what are the challenges that prevent women from accessing or using innovations/technologies? Is there anything else we should know as we conduct the evaluation? USAID.GOV USAID REPORT TITLE HERE | 266 ANNEX 8: BIOGRAPHIES Nils Junge Nils Junge is an independent policy advisor and evaluation specialist. He works at the intersection of policy and evaluation, drawing on 20 years of experience in international development across 45 countries, including Egypt and other Middle East countries. He has been team leader or coordinator on more than 30 evaluations and studies. He conducts evaluations (more than 60 to date) as well as analysis of policy reforms and programs related to social and economic impacts. His focus areas are agriculture, energy and water. In the agriculture sector, he has covered forestry, food security, irrigation and development of smallholder farmers, His primary clients are the World Bank, USAID, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co￾Operation and Development (OECD). Mr. Junge holds an master’s degree in development economics and international relations from Johns Hopkins, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in the U.S. He is fluent or conversational in seven languages. Nivine Ramses With more than 25 years of experience in the field of development and humanitarian work, Ms. Ramses is an expert evaluator in various sectors, with special focus on gender. Her expertise is Monitoring Evaluation Accountability and Learning (MEAL)-focused, carrying out program and project evaluations; conducting situation analyses, pre-project research, evaluability assessments, baselines and endlines and organizational assessments; developing monitoring and evaluation systems; building evaluation capacities in organizations; designing and implementing multi-themed surveys; and implementing participatory planning and participatory monitoring and evaluation. Some organizations that Ms. Ramses has worked with include U.N. Women, World Food Programme (WFP), the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), USAID/Egypt’s SIMPLE Project, CARE International, Save the Children, Plan International, UNICEF, Face, Oxfam and GreenWorld. Her most recent consultancy assignments varied wildly in topics that ranged between national food loss programs, education programs for refugees, economic empowerment for women through value chains and asset transfer, youth and smallholder farmers, climate change resilience, gender equality, gender transformative strategies, gender-based violence, agribusiness development and cultural heritage. Noha Hassan Noha Hassan is an M&E specialist with a master's degree in development management from the London School of Economics. She has extensive experience working with national, multinational and governmental entities in Egypt, the U.S. and the U.K. Ms. Hassan’s fields of expertise are monitoring and evaluation, entrepreneurship and economics. Ms. Hassan worked with clients such as USAID, the European Union (EU), GIZ, Plan International, the Drosos Foundation, Oxfam Novib, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Christian Aid, among others. Youmna Khalil Youmna Khalil is a development practitioner and M&E specialist with more than 17 years of experience working for regional and international development organizations in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. She has wide experience with international organizations such as USAID, EU, Goethe Institute, CIDA, GIZ, Embassy of Finland, Plan International, UNICEF, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the U.S. State Department. Her portfolio includes working with socio-economic projects, such as enterprise development, economic growth, agriculture, education, 267 | FAS END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV youth, gender, humanitarian response, rural and community development, health, housing rehabilitation, cultural heritage, vocational training and crafts development. Mrs. Khalil has conducted multiple regional and national baseline studies and midterm and endline project evaluations in various development areas. She also supported the strengthening of organizations’ monitoring systems and M&E staff capacity building. She is currently instructing at the American University in Cairo, teaching the monitoring and evaluation diploma. Gebril M. Osman Dr. Gebril M. Osman is a senior consultant with 38 years of experience in socio-economic and rural development, agriculture extension services, food security, agribusinesses, tailored institutional capacity building schemes and monitoring and evaluation. He holds a Ph.D. in environmental agriculture from Ain Shams University (Egypt) and a master’s degree in agriculture (horticulture) from Suez Canal University (Egypt). His professional record reflects a diversity of capacities with international organizations in Egypt and Sudan with an emphasis on agriculture development, farmer’s empowerment and projects evaluations. He worked on several projects sponsored by multilateral development organizations, including: USAID, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), FAO, the U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the EU. Bassem Adly Bassem Adly is a socio-economic researcher and social development practitioner with more than 25 years of experience in conceptualizing, evaluating, planning and implementing projects in social development, economic growth, and small and medium enterprises enhancement for regional and international organizations including Care International, Save the Children, Plan International and Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services (CEOSS). Over the past 16 years, Mr. Bassem have evaluated, planned and provide technical assistant for programs to a diverse list of clients such as UNICEF, the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), USAID, WFP, UNAIDS, International Labour Organization (ILO), CARE International, the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD), the SEEP Network, Accion and others. During his previous job assignments in the field of development, he acquired considerable skills in research using both qualitative and quantitative techniques for the propose of baseline, project design, evaluation and impact assessment. He has worked in Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Jordan, South Sudan, Chad, Lebanon and other African and Arab countries. Ehab Sakr Ehab Sakr is a Ph.D. candidate and assistant lecturer in the Department of Demography and Biostatistics at the Institute of Statistical Studies and Research of Cairo University in Egypt. Mr. Sakr holds a master’s degree in statistics from the university’s Faculty of Economics and Political Science. He has more than 18 years’ experience in research, working at both the national (e.g., National Population Council and the Industrial Modernization Center) and international (e.g., United Nations Population Fund, Demographic and Health Surveys Program and ILO) levels. He contributes to questionnaire design and provides guidance on the quality of data collection, data entry, and data analysis using statistical packages, including STATA and SPSS. Sakr also has experience in software and web development, as well as digital marketing. U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523