[Midterm evaluation for the FY 2014 Food for Progress 
Mindanao Productivity for Agricultural Commerce and Trade
(MinPACT) project in the Philippines] 
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-492-2014/057-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2014
Project Duration: FY 2014-FY 2018 
Implemented by: ACDI/VOCA
Evaluation Authored by: [Institute for Socio-Economic Development Initiatives of 
Ateneo de Davao University] 
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of 
Agriculture or the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
ii
Acknowledgements
This report was commissioned through an open bidding process by ACDI/VOCA who implements the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded Mindanao Productivity for Agriculture
Commerce and Trade (MinPACT) project in the Mindanao Region in the Philippines. The Mid-Term
Evaluation was undertaken by the Institute for Socio-Economic Development Initiatives (ISEDI) of the
Ateneo de Davao University (AdDU).
We acknowledge the contribution of 734 farmer-respondents, producer organizations, partner
agencies/associations, and selected MinPACT and ACDI/VOCA headquarters team members for the 
information, experience and recommendations shared with us. The participants to the MinPACT 
Stakeholders Forum last March 21, 2017also provided additional information and validated the initial
findings of the midterm evaluation.
We assume all errors found in this report
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
iii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BACOFA Balutakay Coffee Farm Association
BBTFLA Bmans Binaton Bagobo Tagabawa Farmers Livelihood Association
BPI Bureau of Plant Industry
BPMAC Batangason Farmers Association
CIDAMI Cacao Industry Development Association in Mindanao, Inc.
CQI Coffee Quality Institute
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DRCICI Davao RegionalCoconut Industry Cluster, Inc.
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FRFP Request for Proposal
ICBFMFA Imbayao Community Based Forest Management Farmers Association
ISEDI Institute for Socio-Economic Development Initiatives
ITMPC Inhandig Tribal Multi-Purpose Cooperative
JORIFA Jose Rizal Farmers Association
KII Key Informant Interview
LAMPCO Laak Multi-Purpose Cooperative
LGU Local Government Unit
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAGROW Maragusan Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative
MALACO Mati Davao Oriental Upland MPC
MDOUMPCO Mati Davao Oriental Upland Multi-Purpose Cooperative
MinDA Mindanao Development Authority
MinPACT Mindanao Productivity in Agricultural Commerce and Trade
MSC Most Significant Change
MTE Mid-Term Evaluation
NAGMASID ARCO Kooperatiba sa Nagkahiusang Mag-uuma sa San Isidro
NGP National Greening Program
NELECOFAPA New Leyte Cocoa Farmers Producer Organization
NICO Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative
PCA Philippine Coconut Authority
PCBI Philippine Coffee Board, Inc.
PO Producer Organization
USDA US Department of Agriculture
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... ii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents............................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... v
List of Annexes................................................................................................................ vi
List of Statistical Tables.................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... ix
Background, Brief Description, Context and Rationale....................................................... 1
Purpose, Objectives and Expected Use of the Study .......................................................... 4
A. Purpose............................................................................................................................ 4
B. Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 4
C. Expected Use of the Study................................................................................................. 4
Study Methodology, Survey Sampling and Data Collection Techniques.............................. 5
A. Evaluation Design and Methodology ................................................................................. 5
B. Survey Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................. 5
C. Data Collection Techniques............................................................................................... 7
Survey Team Management and Operations ...................................................................... 9
A. Team Composition............................................................................................................ 9
B. Team Management and Operations .................................................................................. 9
Data Analysis Methods, Process and Limitations............................................................. 10
A. Data Analysis Methods and Processes ............................................................................. 10
B. Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 10
C. Constraints in Data Gathering.......................................................................................... 10
GIS Data and Reporting .................................................................................................. 11
Results and Discussion.................................................................................................... 16
A. Information on the Farmers and Farms............................................................................ 16
D. Survey Results vis-à-vis MinPACT Performance Indicators................................................ 21
E. Key Observations using Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................... 41
Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................. 51
A. Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 51
B. Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 54
C. Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 56
Works Cited.................................................................................................................... 63
Annexes......................................................................................................................... 64
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Distribution of Farming Family Survey Respondents............................................................................... 6
Table 2: Number, Average Age, Average Household Size and Married respondents, by Crop............................ 16
Table 3: Average Years in Farming (all crops) and Growing 3C Crops................................................................. 17
Table 4: Farmers by crop cultivation, during MinPACT......................................................................................... 17
Table 5: Crop Cultivation by type of crop ............................................................................................................. 18
Table 6: Changes in Area Planted, Before and During MinPACT......................................................................... 18
Table 7: Average Number of Trees per Hectare, Before and During MinPACT................................................... 18
Table 8: Production, Price and Net Income, Cacao, Before and During MinPACT .............................................. 19
Table 9: Production, Price and Net Income, Coconut, Before and During MinPACT .......................................... 20
Table 10: Production, Price and Net Income, Coffee, Before and During MinPACT ........................................... 20
Table 11: Attendance to Technology and Farm Management Trainings............................................................ 21
Table 12: Average Amount of Loan, Terms of Payment and Monthly Interest .................................................. 22
Table 13: Planting Materials Used, Before and During MinPACT (monocrop farmers only), in percentage....... 23
Table 14: Sources of Planting Materials, Before and During MinPACT (monocrop farmers only), in percentage
..............................................................................................................................................................23
Table 15: Rate of Technology Adoption by Type of Trees, Cacao, in percentage ............................................... 24
Table 16: Technologies that have caused or likely to cause changes, Cacao Farmers, in percentage................ 24
Table 17: Rate of Technology Adoption by Type of Trees, Coconut, in percentage ............................................ 26
Table 18: Technologies that have caused or likely to cause changes, coconut farmers, in percentage ............. 27
Table 19: Rate of Technology Adoption by Type of Trees, Coffee, in percentage ............................................... 28
Table 20: Technologies that have caused or likely to cause changes, coffee farmers, in percentage ................ 28
Table 21: Regression Analysis on the Factors of Adoption .................................................................................. 29
Table 22: Number of Respondents Requiring Additional Support from MinPACT (multiple answers)................ 31
Table 23: Women Holding Leadership Position, Before and During MinPACT, number and percentage........... 33
Table 24: Consensus on Decision-Makers in the Household, Based on FGD (n=8)............................................. 36
Table 25: Level of Satisfaction, POs and Industry Associations ........................................................................... 46
Table 26: Proposed Activities Leading to Results................................................................................................ 51
Table 27: Short and Medium-to-Long Term Recommendations......................................................................... 54
List of Figures
Figure 1: MinPACT Results Framework................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Farm locations in Bukidnon.................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: Farm locations in Compostela Valley ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Farm Locations in Davao City ............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Farm locations in Davao del Norte....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Farm locations in Davao del Sur........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Farm locations in Davao Oriental......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Farm locations in Misamis Occidental.................................................................................................. 14
Figure 9: Farm locations in Zamboanga del Norte .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 10: Farm Locations in Zamboanga del Sur ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Technologies Adopted, Cacao Farmer-Respondent by type, in number ............................................. 24
Figure 12: Distribution of MinPACT Training, by participant .............................................................................. 25
Figure 13: Technologies Adopted, Coconut Farmer-Respondent by type, in number........................................ 26
Figure 14: Technologies Adopted, Coffe Farmer-Respondent by type, in number............................................. 27
Figure 15: Farmers who adopted farm management practices, in numbers (n=224, farmers can provide
multiple answers) ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 16: Change in Women Participation in local development activities during MinPACT, in number ......... 34
Figure 17: Change in Women Participation in Farm Activities during MinPACT, in number............................... 34
Figure 18: Change in Youth Participation in Local Development Processes during MinPACT, in number .......... 35
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
vi
Figure 19: Change in Youth Participation in Farm Activities during MinPACT .................................................... 35
Figure 20: Farmer-respondents sharing MinPACT-gained knowledge and technologies with other farmers (not
MinPACT beneficiaries)................................................................................................................................ 38
List of Annexes
Annex 1: MinPACT Beneficiary Producer Organizations..................................................................................... 65
Annex 2: Actual versus Target Respondents (Deviation) .................................................................................... 66
Annex 3: Most Significant Change Stories........................................................................................................... 67
Annex 4: Regression Analysis on Factors Affecting Rate of Adoption................................................................. 70
ANNEX 5: MTE STATISTICAL TABLES................................................................................................................................................74
Annex 6: Crop Cultivation by crop, by PO, in percentage ................................................................................... 97
ANNEX 7: SATISFACTION RATING ON MINPACT STAFF......................................................................................................................... 100
ANNEX 8: PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS RELEVANCE AND RANKING OF MINPACT SERVICES .............................................................. 101
Annex 9: List of FGD and KII Participants (Incomplete)...................................................................................... 103
List of Statistical Tables
Statistical Table 1: Distribution of respondents, by crop.................................................................................... 74
Statistical Table 2: Distribution of respondents by average age and sex, by crop.............................................. 74
Statistical Table 3: Distribution of respondents by marital status, by crop ........................................................ 74
Statistical Table 4: Average years of formal schooling by respondents, by crop ................................................ 75
Statistical Table 5: Main occupation of respondents, by crop ............................................................................ 75
Statistical Table 6: Average household size, by crop .......................................................................................... 75
Statistical Table 7: Type of household and average size of extended households, by crop ............................... 75
Statistical Table 8: Average years in farming and in farming 3Cs, 2017.............................................................. 76
Statistical Table 9: Changes in crop cultivation from before and during MinPACT............................................. 76
Statistical Table 10: Area planted to 3Cs before and during MinPACT ............................................................... 77
Statistical Table 11: Perception on farmer-respondents that changes in net income will be due to adoption of
farming techniques and technologies.......................................................................................................... 77
Statistical Table 12: Average number of visits of MinPACT Technician/Staff in 2016......................................... 77
Statistical Table 13: Perception of farmer-respondents on MinPACT technician/staff's availability for
consultation ................................................................................................................................................. 78
Statistical Table 14: Satisfaction of farmer-respondents on services of MinPACT Field Technicians ................. 78
Statistical Table 15: Sources of funds for farm operation, before and during MinPACT .................................... 78
Statistical Table 16: Number of farmer-respondents assisted/linked and received financial services through
MinPACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 78
Statistical Table 17: Sources of financial services (n=54).................................................................................... 79
Statistical Table 18: Sufficiency of the loan amount availed (N=54)................................................................... 79
Statistical Table 19: Perceived benefits to farmer-respondents after access to financial service (N=54, multiple
response) ..................................................................................................................................................... 79
Statistical Table 20: Effectiveness of the MinPACT-supported financial services (N=542) ................................. 79
Statistical Table 21: Type of planting materials, before and during MinPACT.................................................... 80
Statistical Table 22: Sources of planting materials, before and during MinPACT ............................................... 80
Statistical Table 23: Number and percentage of farmer-respondents who adopted the recommended
technologies, cacao, N=249 ......................................................................................................................... 80
Statistical Table 24: Observed/perceived changes in quality due to adopted technologies, cacao.................... 81
Statistical Table 25: Observed/perceived changes in productivity due to adoption of technologies, cacao...... 81
Statistical Table 26: Observed/perceived changes in cost reduction due to adoption of technologies, cacao .. 81
Statistical Table 27: Observed/perceived changes in marketability due to adoption of technologies, cacao.... 81
Statistical Table 28: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended technologies, cacao ..................................... 82
Statistical Table 29: Number and percentage of farmers who adopted recommended technologies, coconut,
N=258........................................................................................................................................................... 82
Statistical Table 30: Observed/perceived changes in quality due to adopted technologies, coconut................ 82
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
vii
Statistical Table 31: Observed/perceived changes productivity due to adopted technologies, coconut............ 82
Statistical Table 32: Observed/perceived changes in cost reduction due to adopted technologies, coconut.... 83
Statistical Table 33: Observed/perceived changes in marketability due to adopted technologies, coconut ..... 83
Statistical Table 34: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended technologies, coconut.................................. 83
Statistical Table 35: Number and percentage of farmers who adopted recommended technologies, coffee,
N=161........................................................................................................................................................... 83
Statistical Table 36: Observed/perceived changes in quality due to adopted technologies, coffee................... 84
Statistical Table 37: Observed/perceived changes in productivity due to adopted technologies, coffee .......... 84
Statistical Table 38: Observed/perceived changes in cost reduction due to adopted technologies, coffee....... 84
Statistical Table 39: Observed/Perceived changes in marketability due to adopted technologies, coffee ........ 84
Statistical Table 40: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended technologies, coffee .................................... 85
Statistical Table 41: Number of farmers with additional training needs ............................................................ 85
Statistical Table 42: Number of farmer-respondents who rated training as the best modality for knowledge
transfer ........................................................................................................................................................ 85
Statistical Table 43: Other modalities perceived as effective ............................................................................. 85
Statistical Table 44: Number and percentage of farmers who availed of non-training activities (n=106).......... 86
Statistical Table 45: Types of activities and services availed by farmer-respondents (N=106, multiple response)
..............................................................................................................................................................86
Statistical Table 46: Observed/perceived effects of participating in non-training activities (n=106, multiple
response) ..................................................................................................................................................... 86
Statistical Table 47: Perceived effectiveness of non-training activities (n=106)................................................ 86
Statistical Table 48: Number and percentage of farmer-respondents on the perceived appropriateness and
sufficiency of non-training interventions..................................................................................................... 87
Statistical Table 49: Number of farmers who attended farm management trainings........................................ 87
Statistical Table 50: Percentage of farmer-respondents who applied the management practices.................... 87
Statistical Table 51: Reasons for adoption of recommended management practices ....................................... 87
Statistical Table 52: Perceived level of effectiveness of farm management practices ....................................... 88
Statistical Table 53: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended management practices................................ 88
Statistical Table 54: Farm planning practice, before and during MinPACT......................................................... 89
Statistical Table 55: Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries covered by crop insurance...................................... 89
Statistical Table 56: Percentage of farmers whose farm is certified................................................................... 89
Statistical Table 57: Percentage of farmers who are aware of product quality standards................................. 89
Statistical Table 58: Awareness of women-friendly farm practices being promoted by MinPACT..................... 90
Statistical Table 59: Identification of women-friendly farm practices promoted by MinPACT........................... 90
Statistical Table 60: Average number of women in family involved in MinPACT................................................ 91
Statistical Table 61: Method of transferring knowledge learned from training by women to their
husband/father/son..................................................................................................................................... 91
Statistical Table 62: Perception on the difference of women holding leadership position in any MinPACT
supported groups, before and during MinPACT .......................................................................................... 91
Statistical Table 63: Perception on the difference of women holding leadership positions in any other groups,
before and during MinPACT......................................................................................................................... 92
Statistical Table 64: Extent of women participation and change in women participation in several
themes/issues due to MinPACT ................................................................................................................... 92
Statistical Table 65: Average number of youth participants, access and promotion of youth in MinPACT
Project.......................................................................................................................................................... 93
Statistical Table 66: Extent of youth participation and change in women participation in several themes/issues
due to MinPACT ........................................................................................................................................... 93
Statistical Table 67: Number and percentage of youth members who are motivated to continue farming due
to exposure/participation in MinPACT ........................................................................................................ 94
Statistical Table 68: Number and percentage of MinPACT -trained farmers who shared MinPACT-gained
knowledge and technologies to fellow 3C farmers...................................................................................... 94
Statistical Table 69: Number and percentage of MinPact-trained farmers who shared MinPACT-gained
knowLedge and technologies to non-3C farmers ........................................................................................ 94
Statistical Table 70: Number and percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries who are aware of the
timeline/termination of the project ............................................................................................................ 95
Statistical Table 71: Number and percentage of MinPACT-beneficiaries who perceived that project
interventions created will be sustained and even after the termination of the project ............................. 95
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
viii
Statistical Table 72: Number and percentage of MinPACT-beneficiaries who are beneficiaries of other projects
..............................................................................................................................................................95
Statistical Table 73: Number and percentage of farmer-beneficiaries' perception on life becoming better due
to MinPACT involvement............................................................................................................................. 96
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
ix
Executive Summary
OVERVIEW. Mindanao Productivity in Agricultural Commerce and Trade (MinPACT), implemented by
ACDI/VOCA commissioned a mid-term evaluation (MTE) through an open bidding process to assess
the status of project activities two (2) years after its inception. MinPACT aims to assist 10,600
farmers engaged in the production of cacao, coffee and coconut as well as the 600 value chain
actors. The project has two strategic objectives: increase agricultural productivity through training
and provision of grants; and expand trade of agricultural products through identification of value
chain constraints, improvement of post-harvest management and product quality, value-adding to
smallholder agricultural products, provision of grants and access to markets.
The main point of the evaluation was to assess the project’s progress, effectiveness, efficiency and
relevance, as well as its sustainability measures. It was directed to gauge the quality and
effectiveness of the implementation approaches and look for scaling-up opportunities. The MTE was
expected to generate critical information to serve as inputs in improving the pace and quality of
delivery of activities in the remaining months of implementation. The MTE was undertaken by the
Institute for Socio-Economic Development Initiatives (ISEDI) of the Ateneo de Davao University
(AdDU).
The MTE’s primary data gathering phase commenced on the last week of February and stretched
until the 2nd week of March 2017 (22 February to 10 March). A total of six (6) field teams were
involved in the process of data collection across Mindanao. Each team consisted at least two (2)
enumerators and one (1) Field Supervisor. The MTE employed three (3) methods in primary data
gathering. The survey method was used to collect quantitative data from farming families using a
mobile data collection application. Qualitative data was collected using key informant interviews
with representatives of producer organizations, national government agencies, local government 
units, and value chain actors. In addition, focus group discussions were used to collect qualitative 
data from representative members of producer organizations (POs). The team also reviewed 
secondary information and collected change stories. Much weight was given to questions related to 
technology adoption and learnings, as emphasized by ACDI/VOCA in a meeting with ISEDI last 
February 6, 2017. Overall, the MTE captured the experience, opinions, concerns and
recommendations of 7341project beneficiaries. Additional comments were also captured during the
Stakeholder Forum organized by MinPACT on March 21, 2017, with more than 80 beneficiaries and
industry players in attendance.
KEY FINDINGS. The average years in farming across three crops is 22.3 years. Coconut farmers have
spent the longest years in farming at 26.6 years and in planting monocrop coconut at average of
19.9 years. Cacao and coffee farmers are within the range of 20 years in farming, with relatively
fewer years in planting cacao only at average of 3.4 years and coffee only at average of 5.5 years.
Some changes2 are noted in the size of land cultivated with 3Cs, with the biggest increase in farm
area made by coconut farmers3
(average of 0.7 hectare). Cacao farmers register the highest addition
1
542 farmers surveyed, 78 FGD participants, 106 key informants, and 8 storytellers. By organization, these were 24
producer organizations, 3 local industry association and 1 non-government organization based in North America, 5 national
government agencies, and 15 local government units.
2
In the Baseline survey, land area per farmer represented a geographical area (i.e. province-wise), while the Mid-term
evaluation noted the land area on a per crop basis.
3
The succeeding comparisons made in this section refer to the situation/figure before participating in MinPACT and during
MinPACT.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
x
of planted trees (121%, from 112 trees per hectare before to 247 now)while coconut farmers have
the least increase (4%, from 126 trees per hectare before to 142 now).
The average volume of fermented cacao beans has increased, from only 3.0 kilos per hectare before
project to 6.4 kilos per hectare under MinPACT. Similarly, coffee farmers are now selling more green
beans per hectare (from 157.43 kilos per ha before MinPACT to 191.52 kilos per ha during
MinPACT)than coffee cherries. There is also a modest increase in coffee yield (from 395.46 kilos per
ha before project to 399.64 kilos per ha), which can be an indicator of improved yield, among other
factors. The higher volume of green coffee beans is influenced by slightly increasing price for the
value-added activity (which also reflects the national trend)and by proper post-harvest/handling
practices.
GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ADOPTION. The farmer respondents are gradually utilizing cacao
clonal varieties and are slowly sourcing their planting materials from nurseries that are supported by
MinPACT and other certified nurseries in their communities. On average, 33% of cacao
farmers4
,25% of coffee farmers and 9% of coconut farmers have started adopting the recommended
technologies. Examples of these technologies are: disease management, adopted by 46% of the
cacao farmers; farm diversification, adopted by 36% of the coffee farmers; and crop genetics, 38% of
cacao farmers, among others. Coconut farmers have low adoption rate across the six (6) technology
groups promoted by MinPACT. The most common reason for non-adoption across the three groups
is the “no seedlings yet or seedlings recently adopted (planted)”. Other minor reasons for non￾adoption are input intensive/expensive and laborious/time consuming.
Four in every ten (41%) farmer-respondents have adopted the farm management practices such as
record keeping and doing the computation on inputs, outputs and labor needs (76%) and record￾keeping (84%). The reasons for the adoption areas these are easy to follow (99% of the
respondents), helpful in decision-making (77%), and formalize the farm operations (56%).
Nine in every ten (92% of the farmer-respondents) rated training as the best modality for knowledge
transfer and they are generally satisfied with the amount of time allocated for demonstration or
application (during the training days). Those who believe otherwise (8%) prefer farm exposures
(visiting other farms) and demonstration farms (model farm within their community), both provide
them a picture of the ideal practices and results of the recommended technologies.
MinPACT activities, strategies and approaches are effective, generally eliciting favorable feedback
from the beneficiaries and partners. Most of the recommended technologies are now practiced
because these are explained well and are easy to follow. Farmers who have yet to adopt certain
technologies say they have yet to receive the seedlings or the seedlings are newly planted. The POs
and farmers are pleased knowing there are buyers beyond their traditional markets (i.e. local
traders), who are willing to pay for quality products. They also notice more buyers are now going to
their farms, saving them the effort and cost in transporting the products to the market (also a risk
reduction move).
IMPLEMENTATION AND SERVICE DELIVERY METHOD. Survey results indicate that farmer-respondents
have started adopting the recommended technologies on 3Cs, although in varying degrees
depending on the crop and the type of technology. Yet even as they are still in the initial stages of
adoption, farmer-respondents exhibit a generally optimistic view that their income will eventually
increase in the future. Many are hopeful that the recommended technologies will increase their
yield because of the quality planting materials, access to financial services that will fund their
4
The survey interviewed 133 cacao farmers, 151 coconut farmers, 138 coffee farmers, and 120 mixed crops farmers.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
xi
production capital and enhanced farm management. Six of every 10 farmer-respondents are
satisfied with the services of the MinPACT field technician. These technicians have conducted an
average of four (4) farm visits in 2016.
GENDER AND YOUTH. There is at least one (1) woman per family who is involved in MinPACT.
Women who attend technical training share their training materials (57%) with husband, father, son
or daughter while the other women-attendees physically demonstrate these technologies in the
farm (41%). There is not much change in the number of women holding positions in any of
MinPACT-supported organizations: 12% of respondents have noticed such cases before the project,
and still 12% of respondents noticing such cases during MinPACT.
On youth participation, there is fewer number of youths involved in MinPACT, averaging 1 youth for
every 4 families (since most of them are still in school/studying). Nearly 4 in every 10 farmer￾respondents believe that youth members in their family appear motivated to continue farming due
to their family’s participation in MinPACT.
Evaluation Criteria. Overall, MinPACT is found relevant with respect to the government directions
and priorities, in relation to the needs of its target beneficiaries and capacity of its partners, and in
extending interventions that are considerate of the local conditions. There is a strong likelihood that
the project will make an impact on the lives of beneficiaries and on the capacity of partners,
particularly with the strong awareness and attempt to comply with quality, the optimistic view on
the effects of recommended technologies, and the increasing confidence in dealing with buyers.
On sustainability, the beneficiaries and partners are still at the level of “awareness” on how to
prolong the gains of MinPACT, since it is still mid-way into the project and technical interventions of
MinPACT have only been comprehensive in 2016. This awareness includes recognition among
farmer-respondents to strive in following the recommended technologies, starting from the use of
recommended varieties, the application of recommended technologies, and the promotion of
quality-reinforcing policies and activities. Officers of the POs recognize the need to implement the
recommended changes in their internal systems, to leverage on the existing resources and networks,
and to manage their income-generating projects well. The value chain actors are encouraged to
support their backward linkages (i.e. farmers and POs) at the same time use every opportunity to
promote the local quality products. LGUs and the government agencies are requested to build on
the gains of the project by continuing the support given to the 3Cs with more commodity-friendly
policies, more technical support, more quality awareness, and more market linkages.
The factors indicating sustainability in POs are still in the germinal stage. Measures to strengthen
and sustain the operations of the POs will take definite shape over the next few months after the
Sell More for More curriculum is completed and systems introduced are working, misunderstanding
in some POs is reduced with better financial transparency, and crucial information is shared to
members and officers alike.
For industry organizations (IOs), CIDAMI and PCB have advanced well in forging partnerships with
the government and other foreign institutions. They have created committees to address different
aspects of their programs (i.e. resource generation and technical trainings). PCB enumerates its
sustainability indicators, ranging from having manuals to guide their operations, having a trained
team dedicated to transfer technologies to farmers, having clear roles of key actors within
organization, and having the support of other institutions interested in coffee. PCB plans to
reorganize itself and become a membership based organization. Working closely with PCB on
quality is the Coffee Quality Institute, a US-based NGO. CocoLink formerly the Davao Regional
Coconut Industry Cluster, Inc. (DRCICI), though established in 2009, is organizationally an infant after
having experienced several staff turn-over (newest set of staff hired only 1
st quarter of 2017). DRCICI
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
xii
staff admits they have the most number of beneficiaries and value chain players, the most number
of by-products, and the largest land area to cover, demanding so much energy from the office staff.
Key Recommendations. Based on the MTE findings, the following are the key recommendations:
• To further increase technology adoption:
a. Intensity communication-based interventions to reinforce and increase the adoption
of good agricultural practices, emphasize the importance of product quality to
getting good price and maintaining buyers, and disseminate the availability of
marketing and financial services through local providers such as the POs and value
chain actors.
b. Emphasize to farmers that they can apply the recommended (relevant) technologies
on their old or non-3C plants; they do not need to wait for the promised seedlings to
be distributed before they can adopt the technologies.
c. Conduct follow-up visits to farmers with newly-planted trees and to remind them
apply the recommended technologies vis-à-vis the growth of the trees.
d. Further, develop communication messages and materials that aim to change
behaviors using the MTE and MinPACT SharePoint M&E databases for effective
message framing and audience targeting.
• To further improve reach and quality of extension services:
a. Increase the use of communications media and materials as part of the extension
tools of the MinPACT, POs, and value chain technicians.
b. Familiarize MinPACT staff, PO and value chain technicians on the 4-6 core adoptions
and the use of technology and information data to encourage higher technology
adoption.
c. Increase the number of farmer field days and hands-on assistance and increase the
frequency of farm visits by technicians and trainers.
d. Where necessary, conduct refresher training for trainers and expand the current
pool to accommodate those who have the right mix of technical and facilitation skills
and availability to do cascading training.
• To accelerate project activities along the value chain (post-harvest handling, processing
and marketing):
a. Increase support for appropriate post-harvest facilities, increase number of post￾harvest handling and marketing trainings.
b. Continue training on quality assessment.
c. Advance efforts on buyer relationship building, to include visits/tours and
participation in trade fairs.
d. Continue to support IO-led industry events (Kakao Konek, Philippine Coffee Summit,
and CocoLink), with corresponding review of the expected outcomes. These events
are largely advocacy/promotional in nature and may not yield immediate results vis￾à-vis the effort and funds required to stage these. However, these events are a
mechanism to reach wider audience, participative in nature, and crucial to
build/maintain an “enabling” environment since government policies can emanate
from these events.
e. Continue support for POs to attend product and quality competitions, to expose
value chain actors to the (international) market demand, strengthen Mindanao as a
source of quality 3Cs, and gradually integrate producers to the national/global value
chain.
f. Considering that newly planted trees will not see production for 1.5 to 3 years (more
for coconut) at the same time further prepare the beneficiaries for increased
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
xiii
production, donor must evaluate the possibility of project extension of one or more
years so post-harvest handling and marketing adoptions can be fully realized.
g. Continue to work with Franklin Baker, Kennemer Foods, Chocolate de San Isidro and
similar organizations/businesses, which are existing buyers with international reach
and future market of the farmers/POs when the latter start producing in greater
volume and quality.
• To sustain early (1st half) gains of the project:
a. Monitor closely the operation of the nurseries, including the continuity of seedlings
production, compliance with the government accreditation requirements,
transparency in financial transactions, among others.
b. Begin to build actionable sustainability plans with POs, IOs and other core value
chain actors, especially financial services providers.
c. Support the application of the Sell More For More curriculum as this is designed to
support sustainability
d. Develop management plans for all the newly established enterprises (i.e. nurseries),
and those with POs and IOs that have changed/improved their structure and
services to ensure continuity of change and sustainability after MinPACT project.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
1
Background, Brief Description, Context and Rationale
MINDANAO’S DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE. Mindanao is the Philippines’s second largest island, a home
to nearly one-fourth (24%) of Filipinos (2015 national census). Mindanao is considered as “the land
of promise” because of its natural resources, strategic location, and diverse cultures. It is a major
food producer and exporter, owing to its fertile soil, extensive river systems, and tropical climate; it
has rich deposit of minerals such as gold and nickel; and lush forest lands. Yet comparing to the two
other major island groups of Luzon and Visayas, Mindanao has fallen behind in terms of economic
growth. In 2014, Mindanao’s contribution to the Gross Regional Domestic Product is only 15% (only
0.1% higher than Visayas, which has smaller land mass and a smaller population compared to
Mindanao region). Mindanao has 7 of the 10 poorest provinces in the country, based on the 2015
Poverty Incidence Among Families (Philippine Statistics Authority).
In a report published by World Bank in 2016, following a series of island-wide consultation on jobs,
Mindanao lackluster economic growth is linked to the “narrow-based growth strategy and armed
conflict” (Chua et al, 2016). The study links the dominance of plantation crops, forestry, mining and
heavy manufacturing, which are all capital intensive, but have very meager local processing
activities, profits are hardly reinvested locally, and therefore, have very little multiplier effects. The
study highlights that while the island’s comparative advantage lies in its agriculture sector, “8 in
every 10 farmers and fishermen live beyond $1.25 a day or are vulnerable to poverty” (Chua et al,
2016). What is not fully utilized, as the report emphasizes, are the “agriculture based smallholders”,
whom if strongly supported and upgraded, will have massive multiplier effects based on their sheer
number (NEDA, 2017).
AGRICULTURE SECTOR’S LONG-STANDING CONSTRAINTS. The country’s agriculture, forestry and fishing
(AFF) contributes an annual average of 10% to the country’s Gross Domestic Product between years
2013 to 2015. Further breaking the agriculture sector in sub-sector, the growth of the Gross Value
Added from 2013 to 2015 for crops was only 0.2%, livestock at 2.2%, poultry at 3.4%, and fisheries as
negative 0.4%. The government attributes the dismal performance to natural calamities (typhoons
and El Nino) and cases of infestation (coconut) and the still-present challenges such as the limited
access to credit, inadequate post-harvest facilities, weak extension service, little support on research
and development, ageing farmers and fisherfolks, limited connectivity between production areas
and markets, and poor compliance with product standards (NEDA, 2017).
AGRICULTURE IN THE NEW PDP. After the new government assumed power in mid-2016, a new
Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022 has been formulated. It provides details on how to realize
the new administration’s 10-point agenda, which includes as its #5 point the item on “promoting
rural and value chain development toward increasing agricultural and rural enterprise productivity
and rural tourism”. In unpacking this specific part of the plan, the government vows to improve
access for the value chains by linking areas to markets, organizing the small farmers, providing
capacity building on value adding activities, creating non-farm livelihood options, extending
agricultural insurance and access for formal credit, and enhancing capacity of farmers to use better
and new technologies, among others. Thus, it is expected that the value chain approach will likely
be used in pushing priority crops within the next five (5) years or so.
MINPACT’S COHERENCE WITH MINDANAO’S NEEDS AND POTENTIALS IN AGRICULTURE. The entry of
MinPACT in Mindanao agriculture sphere two years ago has been timely. The Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) had included the cacao, coffee and coconut as part of its priority industry clusters
(in their National Industry Cluster Capacity Enhancement Project, funded by the Japan International
Cooperation Agency). The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) have
promoted coffee and cacao as part of the crops which can be used for agro-forestry under their
National Greening Program (NGP). The Department of Agriculture (DA) considers coffee and cacao
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
2
as high-value crops and the agency has been active in the dispersal of seedlings as well as provision
of post-harvest facilities. The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), through its KAANIB5 Enterprise
Development Project, is promoting coffee and cacao as intercrop between coconuts as well as
providing community/household-level coconut processing support. Finally, the Mindanao
Development Authority (MinDA), the primary coordinating agency in the island, has taken the lead in
an island-wide program called Cacao Double-Up, aiming to expand the cacao land area to 200,000
hectares by 2020. The above programs indicate that cacao, coffee and coconut are currently
enjoying favor – in terms of attention and funding – from the leading agencies involved in
agriculture. What these meant two years ago ( in 2015) was MinPACT could leverage these
institutions’ resources in increasing awareness on the project and lobbying more government
support for the three (3) crops.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. MinPACT’s strategic objectives are two-fold: first is to increase the
agricultural productivity of selected direct beneficiaries, numbering as many as 10,600 smallholder
farmers engaged in cacao, coffee and coconut; and second is to expand the trade of agricultural
products (using cacao, coffee or coconut as the raw material base).
Within its project timeline of four (4) years, MinPACT provides training and other targeted support
to producers and agribusiness. These interventions are aimed at improving post-harvest losses
handling practices and infrastructure, enhance market efficiency and create market linkages,
promote agriculture sector and subsector coordination, and facilitate agricultural lending. To
appreciate MinPACT’s pathways to achieving its strategic objectives, please refer to Figure 1 which
illustrates the project’s results framework.
Initially, the project identified seven6
(7) sites as the focus of its interventions. Based on the Request
for Proposal (RFP) for the conduct of the mid-term evaluation (MTE), the number of provinces
participating in MinPACT-supported activities are 23 provinces in Mindanao, 15 provinces in Luzon
and one (1) province in Visayas. The expansion of project sites only conveys the direct reach of
MinPACT project activities, as stakeholders in cacao, coconut and coffee from other areas have been
permitted to participate in MinPACT-organized activities. Although spill-over effects cannot be
ruled out, we belief ACDI/VOCA must have indirectly reached other farmers.
The support of MinPACT is significantly channeled through 24 producer organizations (see Annex 1).
MinPACT also works with the industry/sectoral associations, national government agencies, local
government units, and other value chain players (i.e. input suppliers, processors, traders, and service
providers).
5
KAANIB refers to Kasaganahan sa Niyugan ay Kaunlaran ng Bayan (English translation – prosperity in coconut is progress
for the country)
6
Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Compostela Valley, Bukidnon, Zamboanga del Norte, and Davao City.
MinPACT Mid
-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
3
Figure 1: MinPACT Results Framework
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
4
Purpose, Objectives and Expected Use of the Study
A. Purpose
As outlined in the RFP, the mid-term evaluation aims to assess the project’s progress, effectiveness,
efficiency, and relevance of the planned and implemented activities as well as the sustainability
measures. Moreover, it seeks to verify if the project is moving towards meeting its strategic
objectives, weigh on the quality and effectiveness of the implementation approaches, and look for
scaling-up opportunities, threats that might hamper its momentum, and filter any negative
unintended impact. Finally, the MTE captures early evidence of project achievements, lessons from
the implementation, and to document recommendations.
B. Objectives
The mid-term evaluation specifically aims to:
• Assess the project’s progress relative to expected results and the likelihood to attain defined
outcomes and impact
• Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation approaches used
• Review the appropriateness and usefulness of performance indicators described in the
project document in assessing the project’s progress and if the targets are realistic given the
project capacity, resources and remaining time
• Asses how the project is integrating women and youth in its interventions all along the value
chain and whether both men and women are benefiting equally from project interventions
• Provide suggestions and recommendations on areas the project should focus in its remaining
year of implementation
• Identify measures/mechanisms for sustainability put in place by the project
• Assess the effectiveness of project monitoring and evaluation system in facilitating
achievement of results and project delivery as well how project monitoring data is used in
decision making and adaptive management
• Document any project-related/unrelated factors that are affecting successful
implementation and results achievement
• Generate lessons learned by the project during the first period of implementation
• Provide succinct recommendations on areas of improvements based on evaluation findings.
C. Expected Use of the Study
The findings and the recommendations from the mid-term evaluation will be valued as input in
improving the pace and quality of project implementation, considering that MinPACT is already
halfway to its timeline. It serves as a feedback tool on whether the project assumptions have made
or are still valid as well as identify barriers and gaps that have/will derail the drive of the project. It
offers an opportunity for sharing the early successes and lessons from the different value chains and
project sites, contributing to the body of knowledge on agricultural development and value chain
promotion in Mindanao.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
5
Study Methodology, Survey Sampling and Data Collection
Techniques
A. Evaluation Design and Methodology
This being a mid-term evaluation, the evaluation design was exploratory, intended to confirm and
compare if the project intentions in terms of increasing production and access to market was being
achieved by comparing baseline findings and midterm findings. To achieve this, the evaluation
employed five (5) main approaches to data collection.
• DOCUMENTS REVIEW, particularly the four (4) semi-annual reports prepared by the project
team, the inventory of beneficiaries and partners, and the crop production manuals.
• FARMING FAMILY SURVEY using the Magpi7 mobile data collection platform (mobile
application) data collection was undertaken in seven (7) project sites, with respondents
randomly selected from the 24 producer organizations.
• KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS)targeted members of the project team, producer
organizations, national government agencies, local government units, value chain actors,
and industry associations.
• FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS) with selected members of producer organizations.
• MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE (MSCS) STORIES based on referrals of the project field teams.
The family survey generated quantitative data and focused on the level of technology adoption. The
KIIs, FGDs and MSCs assembled more qualitative data, delving on the experience, learning, and
recommendations of the respondents.
B. Survey Sampling Procedures
SELECTION OF THE FARMING FAMILY SURVEY RESPONDENTS. The evaluation employed a three-stage
sampling process. The first stage was complete listing of the 24 producer organizations (POs); the
second stage was a complete listing of the farmers that grow each of the 4 value chains (cacao,
coffee, coconut and mixed of any two crops); and the third stage was the random sampling of the
individual beneficiaries from each value chain. The basis for the random sampling was the universal
list of individual beneficiaries (sample frame) shared by MinPACT M&E Manager. To obtain the
number per commodity group, we used the Slovin’s Formula at 8% margin of error, assuming spatial
intervention per commodity was homogenous. This resulted to a sample size of 542 households.
Comparing the target to the actual survey, there was a deviation of 28 respondents per commodity
group. Originally, these 28 respondents were listed under “mixed”, but during actual interviews,
they corrected their main commodity, saying they were still engaged in single crop (coconut) and
have not yet added another crop (either cacao or coconut). After identifying and segregating the
target respondents, the secondary list was also drawn up in case the primary respondents should be
replaced. With approval from the MinPACT Team, replacement only occurred when:
• The target respondent was not available during the visit (not in the house when the team
arrived or was sick).
• The target respondent migrated to other area and address unknown or died.
• The target respondent’s house could not be located.
7
http://home.magpi.com
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
6
• Inaccessibility of the respondent due to bad weather condition and security concerns.
• The target respondent declined to be interviewed.
The actual survey is shown below while the deviation between target and actual is shown as
Annex 2.
Table 1: Distribution of Farming Family Survey Respondents
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed Total Beneficiaries % Sampled
Balutakay Coffee Farm
Association (BACOFA)
8 8 63 13%
Barcelona Primary Multi￾Purpose Agricultural
Cooperative (BPMAC)
2 3 6 11 108 10%
Batangason Farmers Association
(BFA)
23 23 200 12%
Bansalan Cooperative Society￾MPC
5 21 4 30 409 7%
BMANs Binaton Bagobo
Tagabawa Farmers Livelihood
Association (BBTFLA)
1 2 2 4 9 136 7%
FEDCO 32 2 1 35 241 15%
Imbayao Community based
Forest Management Farmers
Association (ICBFMFA)
43 43 379 11%
Inhandig Tribal MPC (ITMPC) 19 19 168 11%
Jose Rizal Farmers Association
(JORIFA)
4 5 1 1 11 192 6%
Katipunan Small Coconut
Farmers’ Cooperative
6 12 18 164 11%
Kooperatiba sa Nagkahiusang
Mag-uuma sa San Isidro
(Nagmasid Koop)
3 5 8 90 9%
Laak Multi-Purpose Cooperative
(LAMPCO)
3 9 10 22 273 8%
MACOFED 6 2 12 20 272 7%
Maragusan Growers Multi￾Purpose Cooperative (MAGRO)
17 7 24 235 10%
Mati City Lapagan Multi￾Purpose Cooperative (MALACO)
1 4 2 7 68 10%
Mati Davao Oriental Upland
Farmers MPC (MDOUPMC)
2 4 6 83 7%
MILALITTRA 1 40 41 354 12%
Nabunturan Integrated
Cooperative (NICO)
1 3 6 10 109 9%
New Leyte Cocoa Farmers￾Producers Association
(NELECOFAPA)
16 14 30 302 10%
Paglaum Multi-Purpose
Cooperative
23 29 17 69 593 12%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
7
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed Total Beneficiaries % Sampled
Peoples- Officials-Employees
Community Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (POEMCO)
2 6 2 10 82 12%
Salaysay Upland Farmers
Association
2 2 4 8 100 8%
Sindangan FACOMA Community
Multipurpose Cooperative
(FACOMA)
11 34 6 51 463 11%
USPD Savings and Credit
Cooperative
9 18 2 29 173 17%
Total 135 150 138 119 542 5,257
SELECTION OF THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS. The evaluation team purposively
selected two POs per commodity group, i.e. 2 for cacao, 2 for coffee, 2 for coconut and 2 for mixed.
For each PO, the evaluation team requested for an FGD session with 6 to 8 members, representing a
mix of officers and members, have participated in MinPACT activities, and have started planting the
seedlings provided by the project. With these criteria, the FGD participants were named and invited
to join the session. The POs selected were: ICBFMFA, BFA, ITMPC, MILALITTRA, PAGLAUM,
FACOMA, USPD, LAMPCO, and NELECOFAPA. The total FGD participants across the four (4)
commodity groups was 78 (distributed as 56%males and 44% females), below the target of 100
participants, since not all of those invited turned up during the FGD session.
SELECTION OF THE KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS. The key informants were selected based on their
official functions with the government or industry association; value chain actors; officers of the POs,
and selected MinPACT project team members. They were also chosen based on their familiarity
with the project or have sufficient institutional memory of their respective organization’s
partnership with MinPACT. Total key informants reached was 106 (distributed as 59% males and
41% females), from a target of 100 key informants.
SELECTION OF MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES. The evaluation team was only able to gather
seven (7) stories from the beneficiaries, coming from 6 males and 1 female storytellers. These were
no longer subjected to selection using the common domains (changes in quality of lives, changes in
participation in development activities, changes in sustainability) because of the small number.
Please refer to Annex 3.
The stories revolved around their adoption of farming practices (individual level) and the
construction of nurseries (organization level). The evaluation team has taken note of the success
stories published in MinPACT’s semi-annual reports submitted to the US Department of Agriculture.
C. Data Collection Techniques
TRAINING OF THE FIELD TEAMS. ISEDI conducted a one-day orientation for the field supervisors and
enumerators on 17 February 2017 at the Ateneo de Davao University. The orientation covered the
following topics: overview of the MinPACT MTE, objectives of the orientation, evaluation design and
target respondents, data gathering instruments, research protocols, deployment schedule, pre-test
activities, logistics and the trial run of the survey using Magpi platform.
PRE-TESTING OF THE TOOLS. Two days after the orientation, the field teams tested the survey and
FGD tools in Davao City, specifically the members of FEDCO. The pre-test was done to calibrate the
length of interviews (ranging between 1:15 hours to 1:45 hours, depending on the number of crops).
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
8
Further, the pre-test allowed the field teams to fix the coherence of the questions flow and weed￾out redundant questions. The pre-test was also needed to address any technical issues of the Magpi
platform, including the skip logic, radio buttons, saving and uploading commands.
SECONDARY INFORMATION REVIEW. MinPACT provided secondary data to ISEDI. These included semi￾annual reports, list of trainings, list of organizations’ other activities, individual beneficiary record,
performance monitoring plan, and unpublished crop technology manuals on coffee, cacao and
coconut. The secondary information was the basis for formulating the evaluation questions. The
team used MinPACT database as a sampling frame and therefore the basis for randomly selecting
the survey respondents.
GENERATION OF PRIMARY DATA: As explained in earlier sections, ISEDI conducted a survey on a
representative of a farming family household. The respondent from farming family households were
randomly selected from a list of names contained in the MinPACT database. Briefly, the procedures
in administering these tools are explained below:
• ADMINISTRATION OF THE FARMING FAMILY SURVEY. The target respondents were pre￾selected prior to deployment of the survey team to the field. MinPACT Field Technicians
were informed of the field teams’ deployment schedule and the names of respondents
scheduled for interview on specific day. The Field Technicians informed the POs ahead of
the visit, notifying the selected respondents of the upcoming interview. The MTE teams
sought the help of PO officials/staff in locating the houses of the randomly-selected
respondents. Prior to administering each survey, the enumerator presented a brief
background on the purpose of MTE and length of the interview. The enumerator also
assured the respondents of the confidentiality of their responses. After each interview, the
enumerator recorded the GPS coordinates of the respondent’s farm or house (should the
post-production activities are done near the house).
• ADMINISTRATION OF THE FGDS. The POs selected for the FGDs were informed ahead of the
FGD schedule. The POs were instructed to choose representative-members and officers
who have participated in MinPACT activities and have planted the seedlings provided by
MinPACT. On the appointed day and time, the MTE Field Supervisor met with the
beneficiaries and officers, and facilitated the session using a structured FGD guide.
• ADMINISTRATION OF THE KIIS. MTE field supervisors and the team leader made
appointments with selected key informants. The interviews were done at the offices of
respondents. However, for key informants who were far from Davao City (i.e. PCB and
CQI), the questions were sent via email.
• COLLECTION OF MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES. During the FGDs, the field supervisors
asked the FGD participants to provide names of other members willing to share their
change stories related to MinPACT. There were very few receptive storytellers who wanted
to share change stories, since the adoption of technology was relatively recent.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
9
Survey Team Management and Operations
A. Team Composition
The Executive Director of ISEDI served as the Project Manager and worked with The Team Leader 
and the Survey Specialist. For the data gathering activities, there were field supervisors in the 
Bukidnon area, Compostela Valley, Davao City, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte, 
Misamis Occidental, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur. Field supervisors managed 
between 1 to 3 enumerators.
B. Team Management and Operations
The six field teams were deployed immediately after the pre-test activities, since prior notice was
already sent to the MinPACT Field Technicians for coordination. The teams reported their daily
activities to the Team Leader, and their day-to-day progress (number of completed survey forms
uploaded) was seen at the Magpi dashboard. The field activities were generally smooth, except for
some delays in Bukidnon and Compostela Valley because of security situation. The concerned teams
had to wait for the advice of the local officials/PO leaders when it was already safe to travel.
Each field team had a 1:1 tablet ratio (others used their own Android phones as back-up). During
the first three days, they were instructed to update the survey forms based on the feedback during
pre-test.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
10
Data Analysis Methods, Process and Limitations
A. Data Analysis Methods and Processes
The Survey Specialist monitored the daily progress of the uploaded questionnaire via the Magpi
dashboard. They did a random audit for content completeness, range and consistence. The
field supervisor’s attention was called if there was a need for validation/verification. At the 
completion of the data gathering activities, the database was exported to Microsoft Excel for
the final data audit. The audit checked data errors, including transpositions, coding, consistency 
and range. Graphical analysis was conducted in Excel while descriptive analysis was imported to 
SPSS software. Data analysis mainly produced descriptive statistics such as frequency counts
and mean.
Regression analysis was done on the factors that would influence the rate or likelihood of
technology adoption. Several variables were considered such as number of trees, size of cultivate
farmlands, schooling, membership to organizations, years in farming, and attending to training. The
computation is shown as Annex 4.
B. Limitations of the Study
The MTE was conducted in Davao City and eight provinces (Bukidnon, Compostela Valley, Davao del
Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga
del Sur). The field activities spanned nearly three (3) weeks, from February 22 to March 10. It only
covered the beneficiaries of MinPACT, and captured their experience and progress with the project.
Lastly, the sex ratio that emerged from the sampling did not correspond to the project existing
beneficiary ratio (more males than females were randomly chosen). This was an oversight on the
part of the evaluation team, lumping the list of beneficiaries together. In addition, no sex
disaggregation was done in the responses, although these can be filtered in the database.
C. Constraints in Data Gathering
The field teams encountered five (5) constraints in data gathering. First was the location of the
farms, primarily found in remote and upland barangays. Only few vehicles were plying these areas.
Second was the security concerns in a barangay in Bukidnon and another in Compostela Valley,
which were known as areas of New People’s Army (the data gathering coincided with the President’s
announcement of an all-out war against the armed rebel group). Third reason was in some FGDs,
the number of those who attended was lower than expected due to conflict of schedule and other
personal reasons. The fourth limitation was the failure of the evaluation team to use sex
disaggregation in the sampling procedures, resulting to a sampling set of more males than females
(not reflecting the MinPACT database on sex). Finally, the “efficiency” part of the evaluation criteria,
where the evaluation team did not measure how economically (cost effectiveness to produce
results) the resources/inputs have been converted to results.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
11
GIS Data and Reporting
The GIS data are submitted separately from this report. The maps below show the location points of
the households at municipal level per province.
Figure 2: Farmlocations in Bukidnon
Figure 3: Farmlocations in Compostela Valley
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
12
Figure 4: FarmLocations in Davao City
Figure 5: Farmlocations in Davao del Norte
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
13
Figure 6: Farmlocations in Davao del Sur
Figure 7: Farmlocations in Davao Oriental
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
14
Figure 8: Farmlocations in Misamis Occidental
Figure 9: Farmlocations in Zamboanga del Norte
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
15
Figure 10: FarmLocations in Zamboanga del Sur
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
16
Results and Discussion
A. Information on the Farmers and Farms
1. Information About the Farmers
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY CROP, AGE, MARITAL STATUS, AND SEX. The MTE interviewed 542
respondents distributed as follows: 25% cacao farmers, 28% coconut farmers, 25% coffee farmers
and 22% farmers with mixed crops. In terms of PO, FEDCO has the most number of cacao
respondents, representing 24% for cacao group; Sindangan FACOMA had 23% of the coconut group;
Imbayao had 31% of the coffee group; and Paglaum MPC represented 14% of the mixed category.
The average age of the respondents is 49.1 years (younger compared to the baseline survey average
of 54 years old). The group with the oldest average age are those engaged in cacao-coconut-coffee
at 61.7 years, while the youngest group are farmers engaged in coffee at 41.8 years old. Counting
other members of the family (parents of the respondents, children and other relatives), the average
age of family members is 31 years old. There are more male respondents (57%) than female
respondents (43%). Eight in every 10 respondents are married (80%), while 9% are widow/widower.
Please refer to Annex 5 for the Statistical Tables (ST) #1, 2 and 3, page 74.
Table 2: Number, Average Age, Average Household Size and Married respondents, by Crop
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed
Respondents, in number 133 151 138 120
Average age, in years 49.6 53.6 41.8 55.8
Average household size, in number 4 4 5 4
Married, in number 111 111 111 111
YEARS IN SCHOOL AND MAIN OCCUPATION. The average number of years in formal schooling is 9
years (which is 2 years more than the baseline average of 7 years) across the different commodity
groups. The group with the longest average years in school are the farmers belonging to cacao￾coconut group with 10 years, while the lowest are the farmers of coconut-coffee with only 6 years.
Farming (78%) is the main occupation of the farmer-respondents. Majority of the farmer￾respondents are married (80%), while 9% are widow/widower. Please refer to STs #4 and 5, page
75.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND TYPE. The average household size across groups is 4 members (which is
smaller than the baseline average of 5 members), equally divided in terms of sex (average of 2 males
and 2 females). Nine in every 10 respondents have nuclear8
family type (92%). The extended
families composed the remainder (8%) with an average of six (6) members (refer to STs #6 and 7,
page 75).
DISTRIBUTION IN YEARS IN FARMING AND IN FARMING 3CS. Among the farmers interviewed, the
average years engaged in farming, regardless of crop, is 22.3 years. The group with the longest
farming years (all types of crop) are families involved in coconut-coffee (30 years) while the families
with the shortest years in farming are those producing coffee (19.6 years). When asked about the
number of years engaged in 3Cs, the average years in farming coconut is 11.2 years, while the
8
Per the Philippine Statistics Authority, a nuclear family is composed of a father and a mother with unmarried children or a
parent with children, while the extended family refers to household composed of a nuclear family with relatives like son in￾law, daughter in-law, grandson, granddaughter, father, mother and other relatives. See
http://nap.psa.gov.ph/technotes/poverty/concept.asp.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
17
farmers engaged in coffee and cacao have been involved in producing these crops for only 3.4 and
5.5 years respectively. Thus, the farmer-respondents have long been into coconut production and
only recent planters of coffee and cacao. While the latter is true, it must be emphasized that there
are several areas in Mindanao where cacao and coffee used to be dominant crops a few decades
ago. Diseases and dampening of price in the world market were the two factors that drove farmers
to cut/abandon their coffee and cacao. Many local industry experts say that the prominence of
cacao and coffee now is considered as the resurgence of the two crops’ contribution to
employment, income, and agro-forestry efforts, including the strong international demand (ST #8,
page 76).
Table 3: Average Years in Farming (all crops) and Growing 3C Crops
Average years in
farming
Average years growing
the 3C
Cacao farmers 20.4 2.3
Coconut farmers 26.6 11.2
Coffee farmers 19.6 2.2
Note: Mixed group’s average years are shown in annex.
2. FarmOperations
CHANGES IN CROP CULTIVATION, FROM 2015 TO 2016. The introduction of or the availability of
improved technologies have encouraged farmers to expand (the number) of existing crops or to
add/shift to new crops. Based on the MTE survey, 28% of the respondents have expanded their
original cultivated crops; 24% have recently gotten into planting any of the 3Cs; 20% have diversified
(for example, originally coconut only but now have added cacao); and 15% have no change in
cultivation. The remaining 13% chose not to respond to the question. Seven (7) for every 10
respondents have made changes in their farm configuration in the past two years.
Table 4: Farmers by crop cultivation, during MinPACT
Number Percentage
Respondents who expanded original cultivated crops 154 28%
Respondents who newly planted any of 3Cs crops 132 24%
Respondents who diversified their 3Cs 106 20%
No change in cultivation 79 15%
Respondents who chose not to respond 71 13%
Cacao farmers represent the biggest group with expanded 3C crop (31%). Coffee farmers represent
the group with the most number of old trees (56%), while coffee farmers represent the group with
the most number who have yet to plant seedlings (58%). The detailed distribution per PO is shown
as Annex 6.
Cacao farmers is the biggest group who expanded their original crops (19% of total respondents).
Coffee farmers is the biggest group with new cultivation (13%). Please refer ST #9, page 76.
The PO in Maragusan narrates their crop history, saying they used to plant cacao decades before but
abandoned it due to low local and international market price. They shifted to bananas for export
when plantations were set up in the province, but Typhoon Pablo in December 2012 devastated the
plantations. The entry of MinPACT soon after provided them an opportunity to return to cacao.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
18
Table 5: Crop Cultivation9 bytype of crop
Old trees Expanded Newly
planted
No plant Total
Cacao farmers 22% 31% 3% 44% 100%
Coconut farmers 56% 24% 1% 19% 100%
Coffee farmers 20% 10% 13% 58% 100%
AREA PLANTED. There is very minimal change in the area planted among the respondents.
Monocrop cacao registers the highest average increase in land area with 0.8 hectares, followed by
coconut (both mono-crop and intercrop) at 0.7 hectare while coffee has the least area expansion
with only 0.3 hectare. The area expansion is evident in farms practicing mono-cropping rather than
in farms where inter-cropping is done (details are in ST #10, page 77).
Table 6: Changes in Area Planted, Before and During MinPACT
Average Area Planted (Ha)
Before MinPACT(2015)
Average Area Planted (Ha)
during MinPACT(2016) Difference (Ha) % Growth
Cacao 1.6 2.1 0.5 31.2%
Coconut 2.2 3.0 0.7 36.4%
Coffee 0.89 1.18 0.3 32.6%
Note: Mono and intercrop combined.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF TREES PER HECTARE. The average density of cacao plants per hectare is highest
among the 3Cs, with 112 before MinPACT to 247 during the project (an increase of 135 trees).
Coffee trees count was an average of 170 before MinPACT and this swelled to 200 during the project
(an increase of 30 trees). Coconut density per hectare was 136 before project and an increase of 6
trees during the project. The increase in the number of trees can be partly attributed to MinPACT
since there are no other external but similar projects supporting these communities. The LGU in
Davao Oriental have distributed cacao seedlings but the number vary per community.
Table 7: Average Number ofTrees per Hectare, Before and During MinPACT
Average Number of
Trees per Hectare
(Ha) Before
MinPACT (2015)
Average Number of
Trees per Hectare
(Ha) during
MinPACT (2016)
Difference
(Ha) % Growth
Cacao 112 247 135 121%
Coconut 136 142 6 4%
Coffee 170 200 30 18%
Note: Combination of mono and inter-crop
AVERAGE CACAO PRODUCTION SOLD, PRICE, NET INCOME AND DISPOSAL DISTRIBUTION. On wet beans,
the cacao farmers have reported a very slight increase in production, by an average of 1.6 kilos per
hectare or a growth rate of 2.3%. Similarly, there is an increase in the volume of fermented beans,
from an average of 3 kilos before the project to 6.4 kilos during the project (a difference of 3 kilos or
a growth rate of 113%). On the other hand, dried beans increased from 12.8 kilos per hectare to
20.4 kilos per hectare, a difference of 7.6 kilos or 59% growth rate. The production of beans is
9
Expanded- Farm with old trees planted before MinPACT and newly planted during MinPACT
Old Trees- Alltrees are planted before MinPACT
Newly Planted- All trees are planted during MinPACT
No Plant- Farm without 3C yet, but planning to plant soon
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
19
typically measured by farmers in two forms: wet or dried (and now fermented, which is relatively a
recent technology). The decision on what form the cacao should be sold is specified by the buyers,
the price, the available of post-harvest facilities/tools, and the farmers’ financial needs.
Based on the experience of the farmer-respondents, the prices for wet beans and fermented beans
have decreased (national average for dried cacao beans was on the increasing trend though,
according to the Philippine Statistics Authority). Wet beans dropped by Php 7.60 per kilo (-14%),
from Php 52.8 before project to Php 45.2. Dried bean price also fell by Php 3.6 per kilo (-3.5%).
There is no price reference for fermented beans before the project, but today it fetches Php 98.2 per
kilo. CIDAMI Chair says that the prevailing local price for cacao is dictated by the world prices, which
is also fluctuating.
On average for both mono and intercrop cacao, gross income and net income have improved before
and during the project, with 74% and 114% respectively. The cost has dropped by 47.07%.
Table 8: Production, Price and Net Income, Cacao, Before and During MinPACT
Item Cacao
Yield/Harvest, kl per ha Price, Php/kl
Before During Before During
Wet Beans 68.8 70.4 52.8 45.2
Fermented Beans 3.0 6.4 No data 98.5
Dried Beans 12.8 20.4 103.1 99.5
Total (Kgs) 84.6 97.2
Average Annual: Before During % Change
Gross Income (Php)/Hectare 7,271.35 12,665.70 74.19
Annual Cost (Php)/Hectare 4,839.62 2,561.56 (47.07)
Net Income (Php)/Hectare 5,570.95 11,939.56 114.32
Note: Combination of mono and inter-crop
AVERAGE COCONUT PRODUCTION SOLD, PRICE, NET INCOME AND DISPOSAL DISTRIBUTION. Coconut
farmers in Mindanao typically sell coconut in two forms: as whole nut or as copra. The average
production for whole nut dipped by 743 nuts per hectare or equivalent to -45%. The copra
production also declined by an average of 134 kilos per hectare or -21%.
Prices, on the other hand, increased. Whole nut price moved by an average of Php 1.75 per piece or
a growth rate of 22.1% while copra price jumped by an average of Php 15.02 per kilo or 61%. This is
largely precipitated by the low supply. In KII with PCA – XI Regional Office and DRCICI, the main
reason for the increase in price is the competition of raw materials among local buyers and
processors. The supply of coconut has been affected by the long dry spell, lowering the Mindanao￾wide production. PCA-XI says there are more local processors setting-up in the region that are also
serving foreign markets. The range of coconut-based export products have reportedly increased.
The agency also relays information that Franklin Baker, based in the Davao region, has gone to other
regions to procure whole nuts for their processing requirements.
There is a parallel increase in the gross income and net income per hectare. Coconut farmers enjoy
an average boost of Php 13,952 more per hectare on gross income (26% growth rate) and Php
12,678 more for net income (27% growth rate).
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
20
Table 9: Production, Price and NetIncome, Coconut, Before and During MinPACT
Item Coconut
Yield/Harvest, kl/ha Price, PhP/kl
Before During Before During
Whole Nuts (piece) 1,660 917 7.91 9.66
Copra (kilo) 653.36 518.72 24.76 39.78
Average Annual: Before During % Change 
Gross Income (Php)/Hectare 53,687.65 67,639.56 26%
Cost (Php)/Hectare 6,623.45 6,900.43 4%
Net Income (Php)/Hectare 46,868.77 59,457.00 27%
Note: Combination of mono and inter-crop
AVERAGE COFFEE PRODUCTION SOLD, PRICE, NET INCOME AND DISPOSAL DISTRIBUTION. Farmers sell
their coffee either as fresh cherries or as green coffee beans. The average production of green beans
and fresh cherries have increased with 34 kilos per hectare (22% growth rate) and 4 kilos per hectare
(merely 1% growth rate) respectively. The price for green coffee beans is now Php 106.82 per kilo
compared to Php 75.27 per kilo before, an increase of Php 31.05 more per kilo (or 41% growth rate)
while fresh cherries are Php 86.67 now from Php 65.40 before, up by Php 21.2 (33% growth rate).
Income of coffee farmers have also increased comparing before and during MinPACT, with a
difference of Php 5,743 (20% growth) for gross income and Php 5,520 (22% growth) for net income.
There is an average reduction of 14% in cost.
Table 10: Production, Price and Net Income, Coffee, Before and During MinPACT
Item Coffee
Yield/Harvest, kl/ha Price, Php/Kg
Before During Before During
Green Beans 157.43 191.52 75.27 106.82
Cherries 395.46 399.64 65.40 86.67
Total (Kgs) 552.89 591.16
Average Annual: Before During % Change
Gross Income (Php)/Hectare 28,434.83 34,178.46 20%
Cost (Php)/Hectare 3,115.00 2,679.41 -14%
Net Income (Php)/Hectare 24,590.65 30,110.36 22%
Note: Combination of mono and inter-crop
PERCEPTION OF POSSIBLE FACTORS THAT WILL AFFECT CHANGES IN INCOME. The farmer-respondents
are asked what they perceived are the factors that will affect changes in their income, nearly half of
the respondents say it will be the technology adoption (259 or 47.8%) that will have the biggest
positive impact on their net income (details on ST #11, page 77).
AVAILABILITY OF AND SATISFACTION ON MINPACT TECHNICIAN/STAFF SERVICES. MinPACT has between
1 to 2 field staff per province, with some technicians having to cover more than one (1) project area
because the POs have members across provinces. The ratio of field technician to MinPACT
beneficiaries is at least 500, but it is more than this number in some areas. The respondents were
asked to recall the number of visits on their farms by MinPACT technician/staff in 2016. Per
responses received, MinPACT technician/staff make on average 4 visits a year, with the highest
number of visits done for coffee farmer groups and zero visits for coco-coffee group. Cacao, coconut
and cacao-coconut groups have an average of 3 farm visits per year, while cacao-coffee have 2 visits
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
21
(details on ST #12, page 77). Depending on the terrain and location of farms, a technician can visit
8 farms in a day (KII with field technician).
Moreover, 60% of respondents say the technicians are accessible for consultation, typically done
through face-to-face during farm visits or through text or call. Considering the physical limitations,
majority of the farmer-respondents are still contented (64%) with the services provided by the field
technicians. About half of this (32%) want more interactions with field technicians (details on ST 13
and 14, pages 77 - 78).
D. Survey Results vis-à-vis MinPACT Performance Indicators
1. Individuals Who Attended MinPACT-Organized Trainings
From the 542 farmer-respondents, 98% have attended at least one technology training and 42%
have attended at least one farm management-related training.
Table 11: Attendance to Technology and Farm ManagementTrainings
Crops N TechnologyTraining Farm ManagementTraining
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Cacao 133 131 99 54 41
Coconut 151 146 97 47 31
Coffee 138 137 99 65 47
Mixed 120 118 98 58 48
Total 542 532 98 224 41
Average 98 42
On the cascading training on farm technologies, MinPACT has trained people nominated by the POs
to become the Master Trainers. They are expected to support MinPACT field technicians and to re￾echo the technology trainings to the rest of the PO members and those interested to venture into 3C
production. Cascading training is ongoing during the data gathering. However, concerns have been
raised on the capacity gaps (i.e. facilitation skills) of some of the appointed Master Trainers. Another
is the availability of some Master Trainers to proceed based on training timetable since they must
attend to their other responsibilities. These are the Master Trainers who are also PO Chair, PO
officer or staff, employee of the local government, or employee of another NGO.
2. Increased Use of Financial Services
SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR FARM OPERATIONS. The farmer-respondents show a modest change in the
line-up of their sources of fund for farm operations. Prior to MinPACT, 78% of the respondents have
relied on the sales of their farm produce to finance their farm operation while 11% have borrowed.
During MinPACT, the number of farmers taking out a loan has increased to 20% (from 61 farmers to
110 farmers). By group, the shift to loans/borrowings comes from farmers who are engaged in
cacao (141% increase, from 17 respondents before and to 41 respondents during MinPACT) and
from the mixed group (108% increase before project to during MinPACT). The details are on ST #15,
page 78.
ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES. Financial services can support farmers in their pursuit of increased
productivity. Only 15% of farmer-respondents have availed of the financial services from POs linked
by MinPACT with Land Bank of the Philippines. Among those who were linked, 66% received
financial services, and 87% of whom obtained it from their PO. On the other hand, the remaining
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
22
From 542 (100%) respondents 82 (15% of 542) were assisted/linked only 54 (66% of 82) accessed
loan/credit only 47(87% of 54) sourced it from their producer organizations.
13% those who did not receive from their POs obtained loan from other sources such as traders or
relatives (details on ST #16, page 78).
The 15% assisted/linked and consequently the 10% equivalent to total respondents who accessed
loan/credit are indeed a very small proportion to the 542 respondents. Based on interviews with the
key informant of the Land Bank of the Philippines and the MinPACT officer who does the financial
linkages, not all POs are qualified as the bank’s conduit for loans. These POs are still considered
financially weak – i.e. financial systems are not installed and lack of personnel with financial
background. There are also reasons such as reluctance of farmers to get a loan because of the strict
requirements, misconception of the need for collaterals, or bad loan experience (crop failure, price
fluctuations) which had further pushed them to debt.
The producer organizations are the main conduit for financial services for the 47 who received
financial services or 87% (details on ST #17, page 74). Overall, the average amount of loan received
is Php 47,699 while the average monthly interest is 2.69% per month and the terms of payment is
32.57 months. By commodity, the mixed group has the highest average amount of loan at Php
59,563; coconut has the highest monthly interest at 3.64% monthly, and the most considerate terms
of payment is cacao at 56 months. No monocrop coffee farmer-respondents accessed loan/financial
services at the time of the MTE data gathering.
Table 12: Average Amount of Loan,Terms of Payment and Monthly Interest
Crop Amount of Loan (in Php) Terms of Payment (Months) Monthly Interest Rate (%)
Cacao 52,396.67 56.17 1.82
Coconut 10,514.29 12.57 3.64
Mixed 59,562.50 23.63 2.88
Average 47,698.68 32.57 2.69
Note: Combination of mono and inter-crop
Seventy percent (70%) of those who have received financial services find the amount sufficient to
their needs. The farmer-respondents are hoping that such loan will assist in improving their crop
productivity and eventually redound to increase in income (83%). When asked to rate the linkage to
financial services, both directly experienced by those with loan and indirectly observed by others,
42% said the linkage is effective. Details are on ST # 18,19 and 20, on page 79).
In the baseline survey, majority of those who borrowed approached their cooperative (76%), paying
a monthly interest rate of 2.59% and the average amount borrowed was Php 39,369.
During the stakeholder validation forum, a representative of the Model Network Cooperative which
supports the project’s capacity building activities says good number of POs are not yet ready to be
conduit of financial services. Some systems need to be institutionalized. She says that cooperatives
are typically manned/managed by farmers who do not have sufficient business skills. CIDAMI
representative suggests the need to hire, for POs with large loan portfolio, a professional manager
who can manage the investments of the cooperative.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
23
3. Increased Use ofImproved AgriculturalTechniques and Technologies
PLANTING MATERIALS USED. Excluding mixed group, 69% of the respondents practicing monocrop
say that before the project, they preferred traditional varieties of planting materials. Today,
majority of respondents now favor clone varieties (55%). The number of traditional varieties users
has decreased while the number of clonal varieties has increased. For details, please refer to ST #21,
page 80.
Table 13: Planting Materials Used, Before and During MinPACT(monocrop farmers only), in percentage
Before the Project During the Project Difference
Clone 14 54 40
Traditional variety 69 26 -43
Wildlings 3 - -2
No response (choose not
to respond to question)
14 19
5
Total 100 100 -
SOURCES OF PLANTING MATERIALS. Prior to MinPACT, majority (51%) farmer-respondents took
seedlings from their existing plants and while others sourced it from their friends/community (28%).
Now, there is an increase in number of farmer-respondents who are getting their planting materials
from MinPACT-supported PO nurseries (39% from 2% previously) and from accredited/certified
nurseries (25% from 14% previously). Please note that the some MinPACT-supported PO nurseries
have already operated a nursery before MinPACT whose operation got upgraded/improved under
MinPACT, hence the existence of “2%” (details on ST # 22, page 80).
Table 14: Sources of Planting Materials, Before and During MinPACT (monocrop farmers only), in
percentage
Before the Project During the Project Difference
Unaccredited and Uncertified Nurseries 3 0 -2
Unaccredited Nurseries 2 1 -1
Friends/Community 28 8 -20
Own 51 26 -25
Accredited and Certified Nurseries 14 25 11
MinPACT supported PO Nurseries 2 39 37
Total 100 100% -
Note: For mono-cropping farmers only, whose number has decreased during the project.
At the time of data gathering, 17 of the 24 POs have already benefited from nursery establishment
support of MinPACT, but these are in various levels of operation (some already completed first cycle,
while few are still putting up the physical structures). The delay experienced by some POs was due
to late compliance with the in-kind grant requirements. In general, it is yet early to see concrete
evidence of outcomes/sustainability indicators since the nurseries are all in the incipient stages of
operation. In general, the POs recognize the importance of nursery establishment so their members
can have easy access to quality seedlings. The nurseries can earn additional income for the POs by
selling seedlings to non-beneficiaries or the local government units.
TECHNOLOGIES ADOPTED CACAO FARMERS: Among the 249 cacao farmers (mono and inter-crop),
only 33% have adopted the recommended technologies. Disease management garners the highest
proportion of adoptees at 46% of cacao farmers. This is followed by farm diversification 39% and
crop genetics at 38%. Please refer to ST #23, page 80.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
24
Figure 11:Technologies Adopted, Cacao Farmer-Respondent bytype, in number
Looking at the adoption rate by type of trees, farmers who have higher rate of adoption are those
who have expanded their farm, representing 59% for that group. The group with least adoption rate
are those without cacao plant yet but have attended MinPACT training (16%).
Table 15: Rate ofTechnology Adoption byType ofTrees10, Cacao, in percentage
Expanded Old Trees Newly-Planted No Plant
Yet
Farm Diversification 55 34 42 20
Crop Genetics 65 35 54 20
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 47 27 44 16
Pest Management 70 35 50 21
Disease Management 73 52 54 16
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 45 22 29 4
Average percentage of adoptees 59 34 46 16
Average percentage of non-adoptees 41 66 54 84
Albeit still early to observe concrete changes, the cacao farmers who have already adopted the
recommended technologies share the observed and anticipated changes due to technology
adoption. Details on STs #24, 25,26 and 27, pages 80-81.
Table 16: Technologies that have caused or likelyto cause changes, Cacao Farmers, in percentage
Result of Adoption Top 3 Technologies that have started or likelyto cause changes, in
10Expanded- Farm with old trees planted before MinPACT and newly planted cacao during MinPACT
Old Trees- All cacao trees are planted before MinPACT
Newly Planted- All cacao trees are planted during MinPACT
No Plant- Farm without cacao yet, but planning to plant soon, attended MinPACT training/s
Harvesting andPHH
Disease Mgt
Pest Mgt
Soil-Related
Crop Genetics
Farm Diversification
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cacao Cac-Cof Cac-Coc-Cof Cac-Coc
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
25
percentage
Improved quality a. Farm diversification (92%)
b. Soil-related fertility and conservation (90%)
c. Disease management (90%)
Increased productivity a. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (88%)
b. Disease management (84%)
c. Soil-related fertility and conservation (81%)
Reduced cost a. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (79%)
b. Disease management (70%)
c. Farm diversification (68%)
Enhanced marketability a. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (85%)
b. Disease management (68%)
c. Soil-related fertility and conservation (68%)
Note: The percentage is based on the number of adoptees for each technology, and not against the total adoptees.
The reasons for the non-adoption of recommended technologies: they have not yet received the
seedlings/have not planted yet or the cacao seedlings are still young/not harvested yet. The average
number of non-adoptees across the six (6) groups of technology is 36 (details on ST #28, page 81).
These reasons for non-adoption are confirmed by coconut and cacao farmers. Lack of seedlings,
seedlings not yet planted, or plants are still too young are mainly attributed to the delays in the
project activities (i.e. training and nursery establishment). In fact, 80% of the respondents attended
MinPACT training between the period 2nd to the 4th quarter of 2016. The farmers who have not yet
adopted the technologies tied the adoption to receipt of seedlings coming from MinPACT-supported
nurseries.
5
Figure 12: Distribution of MinPACTTraining, by participant
TECHNOLOGIES ADOPTED BY COCONUT FARMERS. There are 258 farmers engaged in mono and
intercropping of coconut. Based on the MTE results, only an average 9% of the coconut farmer￾respondents have started adopting the recommended technologies. Pest management is the
2016 - 1 2
2016 - 2 1
2015 - 3 2
2015 - 4 6
2016 - 1 10
2016 - 2 31
2016 - 3 37
2016 - 4 11
0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
26
Harvesting andPHH
Disease Mgt
Pest Mgt
Soil-Related
Crop Genetics
Farm Diversification
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Coc-Cac Coconut
technology with most number of adoptees (11%) while the harvesting and post-harvest handling has
the least adoptees (8%). Details on ST #29, page 82).
Figure 13: Technologies Adopted, Coconut Farmer-Respondent bytype, in number
In terms of technology adoption by classification of trees, coconut farmers with expanded farms
(26%) are likely to adopt the recommended technologies.
Table 17: Rate ofTechnology Adoption byType ofTrees11, Coconut, in percentage
Expanded Old Trees Newly-Planted No Plant
Yet
Farm Diversification 25 3 - 5
Crop Genetics 27 4 - 3
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 23 3 - 5
Pest Management 32 4 - -
Disease Management 32 2 - 5
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 20 2 - -
Average percentage of adoptees 26 3 - 4
Average percentage of non-adoptees 74 97 100 96
Note: Combined mono and inter-crop coconut.
The coconut farmers are asked to pinpoint the specific technologies they believe have already or will
likely cause positive changes in their farm activities. Farm diversification and soil-related fertility and
conservation are the two technology groups that are anticipated to have caused or like to cause
positive changes in their farms (details on STs #30, 31, 32 and 33, pages 82-83).
11Expanded- Farm with old trees planted before MinPACT and newly planted coconut during MinPACT
Old Trees- All coconut trees are planted before MinPACT
Newly Planted- All coconut trees are planted during MinPACT
No Plant- Farm without coconut yet, but planning to plant soon
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
27
Harvesting andPHH
Disease Mgt
Pest Mgt
Soil-Related
Crop Genetics
Farm Diversification
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cac-Cof Coffee
Table 18: Technologies that have caused or likelyto cause changes, coconut farmers, in percentage
Result of Adoption Technologies that have started orlikelyto cause changes, in percentage
Improved quality a. Soil-related fertility and conservation (93%)
b. Farm diversification (86%)
c. Pest management (86%)
Increased productivity a. Farm diversification (94%)
b. Soil-related fertility and conservation (93%)
c. Pest management (86%)
Reduced cost a. Farm diversification (88%)
b. Soil-related fertility and conservation (83%)
c. Crop genetics (81%)
Enhanced marketability a. Farm diversification (85%)
b. Soil-related fertility and conservation (85%)
c. Pest management (79%)
Note: The percentage is based on the number of adoptees for each technology, and not against total adoptees.
Like cacao, the primary reasons for non-adoption are lack of seedlings/have not yet planted or the
plants are still young (details on ST #34, page 83).
TECHNOLOGIES ADOPTED BY COFFEE FARMERS. There are 161 farmer-respondents engaged in
monocrop and intercrop coffee, with only 25% have adopted the recommended technologies.
Farmers who are into mono-crop are more inclined to adopt the technologies (details on ST #35,
page 83).
Figure 14: Technologies Adopted, Coffe Farmer-Respondent bytype, in number
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
28
In terms of the tree classification, farmers who have expanded their coffee trees (planted before
MinPACT and have planted recently during the project) have the higher tendency to adopt
new/recommended technologies.
Table 19: Rate ofTechnology Adoption byType ofTrees12, Coffee, in percentage
Expanded Old Trees Newly-Planted No Plant
Farm Diversification 71 29 100 34
Crop Genetics 55 32 50 27
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 30 22 75 24
Pest Management 68 26 - 20
Disease Management 53 40 - 11
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 42 26 - 8
Average percentage of adoptees 53 29 38 21
Average percentage of non-adoptees 47 71 62 79
The farmer-respondents engaged in the production of coffee are consistent in rating rehabilitation
as a major contributory factor in improving the quality, increasing productivity, reducing cost and
enhancing the marketability of coconuts. For the details, please refer to STs # 36, 37, 38 and 39,
pages 84-85.
Table 20: Technologies that have caused or likelyto cause changes, coffee farmers, in percentage
Technologies that have started or likely to cause changes (top 3), in
percentage
Improved quality a. Disease management (91%)
b. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (75%)
c. Crop genetics (61%)
Increased productivity a. Disease management (86%)
b. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (73%)
c. Soil-related fertility and conservation (60%)
Reduced cost a. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (60%)
b. Pest management (51%)
c. Crop genetics (51%)
Enhanced marketability a. Disease management (78%)
b. Harvesting and post-harvest handling (69%)
c. Crop genetics (57%)
Note: The percentage is based on the number of adoptees for each technology, and not against total adoptees.
Like the two other crops, the main reasons for the non-adoption of the recommended technologies
are seedlings have not been received yet or newly planted, or the coffee seedlings are still too
young. Two minor reasons are laborious/time-consuming and input-intensive/expensive (STs # 40 a
page 85).
FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION. Regression analysis was employed to examine the factors
affecting rate of adoption of the recommended crop technologies. Separate analyses were
conducted for the 3Cs. The empirical model applied per crop in this study is:
12Expanded- Farm with old trees planted before MinPACT and newly planted coffee during MinPACT
Old Trees- All coffee trees are planted before MinPACT
Newly Planted- All coffee trees are planted during MinPACT
No Plant- Farm without coffee yet, but planning to plant soon
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
29
𝒀 = 𝖰𝟎 + 𝖰𝟏𝑻𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒃 + 𝖰𝟐𝑻𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅 + 𝖰𝟑𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒃 + 𝖰𝟒𝑻𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅 + 𝖰𝟓𝑨𝒈𝒆 + 𝖰𝟔𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓
+ 𝖰𝟕𝑪𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕 + 𝖰𝟖𝑶𝒘𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉 + 𝖰𝟗𝑬𝒅𝒖𝒄 + 𝖰𝟏𝟎𝑶𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒑𝒂 + 𝖰𝟏𝟏𝑶𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝑶𝒄𝒄𝒖
+ 𝖰𝟏𝟐𝑴𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑 + 𝖰𝟏𝟑𝑫𝑷𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕 + 𝖰𝟏𝟒𝑫𝑷𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕𝟐 + 𝖰𝟏𝟓𝑫𝑷𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕𝟑
+ 𝖰𝟏𝟔𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 + 𝖰𝟏𝟕𝒀𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒔𝑭𝒂𝒓𝒎 + 𝖰𝟏𝟖𝒀𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒔𝑪𝒓𝒐𝒑
+ 𝖰𝟏𝟗𝑭𝒂𝒓𝒎𝑴𝒂𝒏𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏 + 𝖰𝟐𝟎𝑯𝑯𝑺𝒊𝒛𝒆 + 𝖰𝟐𝟏𝑯𝑯𝑭𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒆 + 𝗌
The table below summarizes the factors affecting the rate of adoption among 3Cs farmers. Cacao
technologies are greatly influenced by land ownership. In this case, ownership of farm increases the
percentage of adopted technologies by 34% from 28% of those who do not own their cultivated
farm. Secondly, a year increase in the number of years of formal schooling increases the percentage
of technology adopted by 1.37%. The per unit increase of existing cacao tree increases the
technology adopted by 0.021%, and a year increase in year of cacao farming increases the
percentage of technology adopted by 0.86%, ceteris paribus.
The coconut technologies are largely influenced by access to financial services, where those with
access to financial services has a percentage increase of 25.39% of adopted technologies. Moreover,
a per hectare expansion of area planted to coconut during the project increases the percentages of
adopted technologies by 0.23%.
Coffee technologies on the other hand are affected number of trees, number of years of formal
schooling and household size. Estimated coefficients reveal that per tree increase of existing coffee
tree prior to MinPACT decreases the percentage of technologies adopted by 0.03%. However, an
expansion (per tree of newly planted) increases the technologies adopted by 0.02%. A year increase
in educational level (in years) and an increase in the number of household members increase the
percentage of technologies adopted by 2.11% and 4.18% respectively.
Table 21: Regression Analysis on the Factors of Adoption
Significant at 1% Level
of alpha
Significant at 5% Level
of alpha
Significant at 10% Level
of alpha
Cacao
technologies
• Land ownership • Farm with old trees
• Attendance to farm
management
training
• Number of trees of
crop before
MinPACT
• Number of years of
formal schooling
• Farm contains new
planted crop
• Number of years
cultivating the crop
Coconut
technologies
• Accessto financial
services
• Number of hectares
planted for crop
during MinPact
Coffee
technologies
• Number of trees of
crop before
MinPACT
• Number of years of
formal schooling
• Total number of
household members
• Number of trees of
crop during
MinPACT
Please refer to Annex 4 for the details of the regression analysis, including the result table per
commodity/crop.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
30
ADDITIONAL TRAINING NEEDS AND MODALITIES FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER. Farmer-respondents
express their desire to learn more (76%), with the coffee group (81% against other groups) showing
the highest percentage wanting to acquire more knowledge. In terms of topic, majority of these
farmer-respondents want additional production-related trainings (62%), followed by the topic post￾harvest practices and marketing (12%).
Training is the best modality for transferring knowledge/technology (92%) as rated majority of the
farmer-respondents. Training activities happen in their community, which do not require them to be
away from their farms or houses for too long, has good mix of inputs and application; spread across
days for the knowledge be given in chunks, and provides them reference materials which they refer
to occasionally. For those who do not consider training as the best modality, they select “demo
farms” as a better alternative (83%). Details on ST # 41, 42, 43 and 44, pages 85-86.
OTHER NON-TRAINING ACTIVITIES. There are 20% of the total respondents who say that they have
participated in activities other than technical and farm-management trainings. These non-training
activities are farm exposure (46%), referring to visiting farmers with good practices; and
demonstration farms (43%), referring farms supported by MinPACT which showcase the
recommended technologies. The remaining 11% refer to buyer referrals, IEC materials, field school,
market information, forum/conferences, and competition/linkages (details on ST #45 and 46, page
86). Nursery establishment is not part of the non-training services, since this section only points to
“learning/acquiring recommended technologies”. Nurseries are interventions aimed at improving
access to quality inputs. The MTE recognizes that these are operated and will be sustained by
beneficiaries, becoming a communal resource of the PO/community.
When asked on the perceived benefits of participating in non-training activities13, the respondents
say these activities support increasing their farm productivity and income (72%). Other reasons
include reduction in post-harvest losses (16%), increase in market value/price of products (9%), and
increase competitiveness in market (9%). Details on ST #47, page 86.
When asked to rate these non-training activities, majority declare that MinPACT interventions match
their needs (98%) and these interventions are believed sufficient to create changes in their farms
(95%). Nearly all (93%) also think that these services are effective. Please refer to ST 48, page 87.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT. Given that MinPACT has already provided training and funneled in-kind grants
through the POs, farmers still clamor for more support (43%). Farmers are seeking in the form of
access to fertilizer (59%). They also ask for an increase the amount of credit (36%), even if there are
only a small number of the farmer-beneficiaries who reported to have accessed financial services.
13Farmers can have more than one response.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
31
Gender Equity/Equality/Development/mainstreaming
Record Keeping (including financial and production
documents,receipts and expenses, maintaining and
using inventories, etc)
153
Financial planning, cash flow, balance sheet, income
statements, variable and fixed agents
Use of Information Technology (including computers
and GPS)
Business practices(related to the management of
land, crops, equipment, facilities,transportation)
Input,Output, and Labor Needs Computation 158
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Table 22: Number of Respondents Requiring Additional Support from MinPACT(multiple answers)
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed Total % to Total 
Increase amount of credit 30 43 79 42 194 36
Postharvest facilities support 60 54 89 54 257 47
Access to fertilizer 58 67 119 74 318 59
Others 51 62 7 36 156 29
Total 199 226 294 206
Average 231 43
Note: “Others” refer to seedlings (31%), training (19%), credit (9%), and other reasons (7%).
4. Farm Management Related-Practices
ADOPTION OF FARM MANAGEMENT-RELATED PRACTICES. Farming is not all physical work in the field,
as farmers make several decisions in a day to maximize their resources. MinPACT shares
management related practices to make farm activities more cost-efficient and meaningful. The MTE
finds that 41% of the total farmer-respondents have availed of training related to farm management
(details on ST #49, page 87).
Nearly all (92%) who trained on farm management say that they now compute much they spend and
earn from their farm activities. This is supported by the farm records they keep (81%), particularly
receipts and expenses, inventory of input supply and harvest, and other financial/production
documents. With these farm management practices, the farmers are guided what decisions to make
(details on ST # 50, page83).
Gender equity/equality/mainstreaming is also integrated in MinPACT’s knowledge and practice￾sharing with the farmers. Twenty-seven percent (27%) have attended these sessions, and among
those who attended, 90% have already integrated gender in work division.
55
117
11
10
2
Figure 15: Farmers who adopted farm management practices, in numbers (n=224, farmers can provide
multiple answers)
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
32
REASONS FOR ADOPTION AND NON-ADOPTION14 OF FARM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The farmer￾respondents have been encouraged to adopt the management practices because these are easy to
follow (40%), helpful in decision-making (31%), and enhances efficiency in farm operations (22%).
These practices help the farmers improve their farm efficiency and optimize their resources. Nine in
every 10 farmer-respondents find these topics/practices effective or necessary (92%).
On the other hand, those who are reluctant to adopt the recommended practices say these are
time-consuming (3%) and they lack the equipment/tools needed to apply the practice (i.e. use of
information technology, at 4%). These farmers will need additional time or explanation to fully
appreciate the benefits of recommended management practices. Details on ST #51, 52 and 53,
pages 87-88.
FARM PLANNING AS A PRACTICE. Prior to MinPACT, only 29% farmer-respondents have farm plans
and this increased to 54% during MinPACT. The biggest jump in farm planning practice are farmers
engaged in cacao-coffee and coffee, from 31% to 69% (details on ST #54, page 89). It helps that one
of the requirements for seedlings distribution is the farm plan of the beneficiary.
CROP INSURANCE. Crop insurance provides farmers protection for their crops against losses caused
by plant diseases, infestations and natural calamities. At present, only 7.6% of farmer-respondents
have insured their farms (details on ST #55, page 89).
5. Increased Adoption of Established Standards byIndustry
CERTIFICATION OF FARMS. Thirty-three (33) farmer-respondents say that their farms are already
certified, representing only 6% of the total respondents. These are distributed as follows: 13 for
GAP and 20 for others (Organic and FairTrade). Among the POs supported by MinPACT, four have
FairTrade certification: KSCFMPC, Nagmasid, BCS-MPC and LAMPCO. During the Validation Forum
after the data gathering, a representative of a coconut-based PO in Davao del Sur shares their
experience of having to secure Fair Trade certification with the help of Franklin Baker, a major
producer and exporter of coconut-based products. The PO narrates being paid premium price for
their coconuts, where part of the proceeds went to physical improvement of their office.
Farm certification is a quality indicator. This is an information shared by MinPACT to farmer
beneficiaries. Government organizations like DA and DTI, as well as value chain actors like Nestle
Philippines, Coffee for Peace and Catholic Relief Services share information on the importance of
complying with quality standards. However, getting one’s farm to be certified require resources and
processes that are compliant with the certifying body. In addition, certification is also worth the
investment if there are assured buyers willing to pay for the premium price or a private sector willing
to support the farm’s certification (like Nestle for coffee, Franklin Baker for coconut and Chokolate
de San Isidro for cacao). For farmers with very limited production and limited financial resources,
getting a certification without assured buyers will be a risk.
Some farmer-respondents believe that certification has benefits: 19% say it improves the
marketability of their product, 14% say it allows producers to sell his/her product at premium, and
9% say it allows them to penetrate target markets. Among the commodity groups, more coffee
farmers are knowledgeable of the benefits (20%). The certifications are Details on ST #56, page 89.
14Farmer-respondents can have more than one response.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
33
AWARENESS ON RESPECTIVE PRODUCT QUALITY STANDARDS15
. The Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries
Product Standards (BAFPS) is responsible for developing the Philippine National Standards for
different agricultural crops. The survey shows that only 30% were aware of this crops standards
prior to MinPACT, but this number has increased to 70% during the project years. The increase of
farmers is attributed to the exposure activities coordinated and information materials produced by
MinPACT (details on ST #57, page 89).
6. Women and Youth Participation in MinPACT
WOMEN PARTICIPATION IN MINPACT. Majority (72%) of the respondents are aware of women￾friendly practices being promoted by MinPACT, the highest proportion of these respondents are
engaged in coffee production (86%) and the lowest proportion are those engaged in coconut-coffee
production (50%). The respondents have observed this practice as “inclusion of women in technical
and leadership skills training” (667%). Second on the list is equal access to input supply (9%) and the
third is representation in decision-making bodies (8%). Details on ST #58 and 59, page 90.
On average, there is nearly one (0.93) woman in every family who is involved in MinPACT project
(details on ST #60, page 91). In addition, more than half of the respondents perceive that women
have equal chance to participate in MinPACT project (61%).
MinPACT M&E Manager has informed the evaluation team on the high participation rate of women
in technical trainings. The survey verifies how these trained women transfer knowledge obtained
from technical trainings to their husband, father or son. More than half of the farmer-respondents
say women share the training materials (57%), while others say women physically demonstrate
(41%) such knowledge/skills in the farm to their husband, father or son. Details on ST #61, page 91.
The respondents also say that there is no perceptible change on the number of women holding
leadership positions in any MinPACT supported groups (12%). On the other hand, there is a bit
higher number of women in leadership positions in other non-MinPACT groups ((from 9 to 11%) in
their own communities. Details on ST #62 and 63, pages91-92.
Table 23: Women Holding Leadership Position, Before and During MinPACT, number and percentage
Before MinPACT During MinPACT 
Number % Number %
Women Holding Leadership Position
in MinPACT supported POs
63 12 64 12
Women Holding Leadership Position
in any POs (in their community)
50 9 58 11
Participation also means women being able to contribute their voice in deciding local activities as
well as in managing their family farm. Even prior to the project, women have been participating in
community-development activities with the frequency of “a few times in a year” (48%).
Under MinPACT, they are asked if there are relative changes in women participation in community
activities. Nearly one fourth (24%) have noticed an improvement, translating to more women now
15The aim of the product quality standards is to “provide common understanding on the scope, definition, quality
requirements, grading, sampling, marking and labelling, storage, fumigation, and contaminants… to reduce hazards
associated with all stages of production to processing” (BAFS, 2016).
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
34
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Resource Mgt Budgeting Implmentn of Devt
Project
Formulation of Membership in Revenue generation
Ordinances committees
No Response No Improvement
335 319 352 338 319 335
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
What to plant Where and What inputs to Farm Use of farm Borrow money Who to hire Where to
quantity to sell buy equipment to equipment for productio and how much spend income
buy to pay
More participation Less Participation No Improvement No Response
340 352 339 366 364 329 320 311
are increasing their participation in different activities. Still, there is 61% who say nothing has
changed on women’s participation in their community. Details on ST #64, page 92.
Figure 16: Change in Women Participation in local development activities during MinPACT, in number
On farm activities, women are also involved in several activities and the frequency is still dominantly
“a few times” (50%). During the project, 23% of respondents say that there is improvement in
women’s participation across different farm activities. Again, majority of respondents have said
nothing has changed yet (63%) in women’s frequency of involvement on farm-activities.
Figure 17: Change in Women Participation in FarmActivities during MinPACT, in number
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
35
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 337 334 341 342 340 330 
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Resource mgt Budgeting Implenttn Devt Formulation of Membership in Revenue generation
Project ordinances committees
More Participation Less Participation No Improvement No Response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 339 337 329 352 353 332 346 335
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
What to plant Where and What inputs to Farm
quantity to sell buy equipment to
buy
Use of farm Borrow money Whome to hire Where to
equpment for productio and how much spend income
to pay
More participation Less Participation No Improvement No Response
YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN MINPACT. The youth have low participation in local development activities,
marked by “only a few times a year” (43%) or never at all (37%). During MinPACT, majority (62%) of
the respondents say nothing have changed in the frequency of participation.
Figure 18: Change in Youth Participation in Local Development Processes during MinPACT, in number
The youth are also expected to assist in farm activities, during week-end or school breaks. Most of
the respondents (43%) said that children were expected to assist in farm activities, likely a few times
such as during week-ends or school breaks. During MinPACT, 16% of respondents have noted that
there is an improvement on the frequency of youth participation in farm activities.
Figure 19: Change in Youth Participation in FarmActivities during MinPACT
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
36
In term of number, there is at least one (1) youth member who participate in MinPACT16 for every
family of four (4). More than half (57%) of the respondents perceive that MinPACT promotes youth
friendly practices, and nearly half (41%) say that the youth have equal access to MinPACT support.
Like women, the youth participate in local development activities and farm activities only a few
times in a year. There are no major changes in youth participation, comparing the before and during
MinPACT periods. Details on ST # 65 and 66, pages 92-93.
DECISION-MAKING ON DOMESTIC MATTERS. In the eight (8) FGDs with the farm families, the
respondents were asked on how they make the final decision on typical issues affecting the
households. After sharing their own family experiences and by consensus, what emerged is a picture
of both household head and the spouse making most of the decisions jointly on domestic, farm and
social matters. This practice of giving equal weight on the opinion of the head and spouse are
reflections of fairness, unity, understanding and trust within the family, resulting to harmonious
family environment. FGD participants also convey that nothing has changed in the way major
decisions are made in the family. In the FGD, the participants discussed decision-making as the
main responsibilities of the couples, because majority of the youth in their families are still in school.
Table 24: Consensus on Decision-Makers in the Household, Based on FGD (n=8)
Both Father Mother
Budgeting household income and expenses 8 0 0
Educating and rearing children 8 0 0
Marrying off children 8 0 0
Attending important social functions 2 0 6
Constructing or renovating the house 6 2 0
Deciding on the types of crop and fertilizers to use 1 6 1
Owning or selling the land or livestock 3 5 0
Purchasing major farm equipment 6 2 0
Adopting farm technologies 1 6 1
Accessing credit and other financial services 7 1 0
Selling of agricultural output (where and how much) 3 2 4
Negotiating with buyers 5 2 1
Managing sales and income 7 0 1
Participating in community organizations 2 0 6
Holding leadership position in organizations 5 0 3
Participating in community events like barangay meetings and other civic
activities
2 0 6
DECISION-MAKING ON FARM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING. In the FGDs where distribution of work
was discussed, it was revealed that the men in the family undertake the heavy physical work, such as
holing, planting, fertilization, plowing, and pasture of livestock. The women are responsible for the
weeding, planting, fertilization, harvesting, selling, seed preparation, and drying. They also cook and
bring the food for their husbands while deep in farm work. The youth, during their free time (after
school, week-end or during summer break) help in weeding, collecting grass for the farm animals,
feed the animals and fetch water. In terms of hours, men work between 6 to 8 hours a day, with
16In the baseline survey, only 8% of the 781 respondents said that youth in their family were involved in farming or
providing off-farm labor.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
37
break on Sunday, while women work between 2 to 6 hours per day in farm. The youth or children
take part in the farm work, ranging between 1 to 2 hours per day.
Still coming from the FGDs, the men are generally satisfied having to learn or update themselves on
matters related to crop production. They have also gained confidence because of the awareness on
technology and the market potentials, which have helped them arrive at better decisions related to
their farms. The men talk about “less burden” on their part because their wives can replace them
when they get sick or must attend to urgent concerns. The women also discuss how their husbands
are liking the women’s new role “as more-knowledgeable alternate/assistant” in farming activities.
Women FGD participants in Davao del Sur say their husbands are sometimes hard-headed in sticking
to old practices; fortunately, the wives have also been trained and thus they can point out important
facets of the recommended technologies. Most women feel empowered and confident when they
do these.
The FGD also finds out that daily wage rate between men and women working in farms are the same
(but women are paid lower if they spend shorter time in farm). In Misamis Occidental and Bukidnon
though, the rates are different, men are paid PHp 250 per day while women only Php 150 per day. At
home, food allocation is same for the men and women of the family.
PERCEPTION THAT YOUTH IN FAMILY ARE MOTIVATED TO CONTINUE FARMING. More than a third of the
farmer-respondents say that there is likelihood a youth in their family will continue farming (38%)
because of their exposure to MinPACT activities. The highest motivation is exhibited by farmers
engaged in cacao-coffee (62%) and coffee (59%). Details on ST #67, page 93.
There are 332 farmer-respondent (61%) who gave a “No” answer. Their reasons include: children
are still in school and have not made conveyed yet any motivation (28%), children not interested in
farming as a livelihood (20%), there is no more youth in the family (18%), the children are still too
young (14%), and children are now old and are currently working on other types of livelihood
engaged in non-farm work (20%).
POSSIBLE INDICATIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND LOOKING FORWARD. Like other development projects,
MinPACT also aims to prolong the benefits of its interventions well beyond the project’s end. One
way of ensuring this is how the beneficiaries will perpetuate the recommended technologies. The
survey finds out that the farmer-beneficiaries share what they learned to follow 3C producers (59%)
as well as to other farmers engaged in other crops (63%).
Among the groups, cacao-coffee farmers exhibit the highest proportion of farmer-respondents who
share their MinPACT-gained knowledge/technologies with other farmers (at 85%). Details on STs
#68 and 69, page 94.
On POs with nurseries already established, particularly those in Bukidnon say they will continue
producing seedlings for their members. One PO with nursery in Davao Oriental says their nursery
operation has been delayed due to unfavorable weather condition. Four POs in Davao del Sur (2),
Davao del Norte (1) and Misamis Occidental (1) are still in the initial stages of their nursery
operation.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
38
Figure 20: Farmer-respondents sharing MinPACT-gained knowledge and technologies with other farmers
(not MinPACT beneficiaries)
Based on their mid-project experience, eight in every 10 farmer-respondents are anticipating that
things will improve in their farm, enabling them to have better yield and income. They rest this
optimism on the information and the opportunities possible because of MinPACT participation,
based on their observation as well as the experiences of others who are already enjoying better
market linkages.
Very few of farmer-respondents are aware of the timeline or termination of the project (17%), the
highest proportion is exhibited by farmers engaged in coffee (20%). Further, 81% of farmer￾beneficiaries are hoping that small changes (gaining new knowledge and expanding their market
beyond traditional traders in their area), effected by MinPACT will continue, such as the technical
training and market linkages via industry organizations, local government and national agencies;
seedlings, technical advice and financial services through their POs.
A small portion (17%) of farmer-respondents admit they have been supported by other projects,
both completed and ongoing, such as those funded by the government (i.e. DAR, DSWD and DA) and
the private sector (i.e. Nestle Philippines). The projects vary from provision of agricultural inputs,
livelihood activities, water supply, training for out-of-school youths, conditional cash transfer, and
financial assistance. Details on ST # 70, 71,72 and 73, pages 95-96.
7. Implications of the MTE Farming Family Survey Results
The MTE Farming family survey results suggest the following:
• Five (5) years younger as a median age. The MTE respondents are five (5) years younger
than the baseline survey respondents, 49 years old compared to baseline’s 54 years old, with
95% confidence. The difference in means between the baseline and midterm results lies
between -30 to 20 (within the margin of error).This difference offers the MTE respondents
half a decade more to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cacao Coconut Coffee Cacao
Coconut
Cacao
Coconut
Coffee
Cacao Coffee Coconut
Coffee
3C farmers Non-3C farmers
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
39
• Same representation in terms of sex distribution. The gender ratio is nearly the same
between the MTE and the baseline respondents. There is only a slight increase of 1% (from
42% female respondents in baseline to 43% in MTE respondents).
• Nine (9) years average of formal schooling. MTE respondents have attended an average of
nine (9) years of formal education, which places them at secondary level. This is two years
more than the average of baseline respondents with only seven (7) years of formal
education. The difference in means between the two periods lies within the 95% confidence
interval.
• Coffee farmers have the lowest years of formal education. Coffee farmers into mono￾cropping have the lowest number of years in formal schooling and this is also reflected by
farmers planting coconut-coffee. Arabica coffee is typically planted in high altitude areas,
where school facilities are hard to come by because of the terrain, distance, and low
population count. At best, only primary or elementary educational facilities are established
in these areas.
• Nuclear families have fewer hands available working in the farms. MTE respondents are
overwhelmingly nuclear families having an average of two children (school age). The
respondent or household heads only have their spouses to support them in their farm work,
without having to directly pay for additional labor. Allowing couples to attend training
ensures that women have the same access to recommended technologies.
• Respondents have long been planters of coconut, but recent for cacao and coffee. It
should be mentioned that there were many areas in Davao Region where cacao and coffee
used to be dominant crops. Plant diseases (i.e. pod borer), dampening of price in the world
market and cacao corporate farms subjected to land reforms were the three (3) factors that
drove farmers to cut/abandon their cacao in between 1980-1990s. Coffee export from
Davao Region was also high in the 1990s, but when the coffee export quota system ended, it
also plunged the price of coffee in the world market, severely affecting local farmers back
then. The renewed support on cacao and coffee by the government and MinPACT are giving
the farmers reason to engage in these two crops again.
• Farm diversification catches the interest of the farmers. Majority of the farmers (7 in every
10) have been receptive to changing their farm configuration by adding, shifting or
intercropping the 3cs, even if their farm areas have not increased at all. The messaging on
the benefits of farm diversification is good, as the move maximizes the existing support and
may likely augment income in the future.
• Respondents look forward to value-adding activities (i.e. primary processing) to earn
more. More farmers are gradually selling fermented cacao beans and green coffee beans
due to higher price offered compared to fresh/unprocessed form. Naturally, this requires
additional investment in labor, post-harvest facilities and time from the farmers. They must
also be more conscious on the post-harvest processes that will allow them to achieve and
maintain quality of their products. Thus, advancing MinPACT’s support along the value chain
will be appreciated, such as the provision of post-harvest tools/equipment.
• Net income of cacao, coconut and cacao farmers have increased. A great part of the
increase are reflection of the general supply and demand, particularly for coconut.
However, there is a strong demand for cacao, as there are anecdotes from respondents that
buyers now procure at farm gate. In such cases, the buyers are the ones going to the farm
or nearby consolidation centers to pick the 3Cs. Some farmers prefer/settle to selling their
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
40
products in fresh form because these afford them immediate return for their efforts or they
do not have to spend for the transport from farm to traders/market. The MTE has focused
on collecting the overall cost and income from the 3Cs crop, and not on a per cost item.
Therefore, the movement in income can only come from the cost and volume of fertilizers
and seedlings, labor cost, yield, and post-harvest activities.
• Awareness on how to attain increased income is half the battle won. The MTE shows that
the farmers are well-aware that increased in net income can be attained because of the
quality seedlings, access to financial services, enhanced farm management knowledge and
skills, and adoption of the recommended techniques. The crucial part is to follow or apply
this knowledge, requiring discipline, some investments, linkages, among others.
• POs are slowly improving their services to members. Respondents say that their respective
organizations are slowly showing some improvement in providing services to members. This
is due to the nursery establishment, availability of master trainers, exposure to more
markets, and access to financial services. This is understandable given that MinPACT is still
actively supporting the POs, either directly through the field technicians and specialists or
through the training service providers. To optimize these nascent gains, the POs need to
have to clear plan on what to do once MinPACT is over.
• Farm operation isstill primarily financed through income from the previous cropping cycle,
but the number of farmers borrowing for production is on the rise, comparing the before
MinPACT (11%) and during MinPACT (20%). Lack of access to financial services is one of the
long-standing complaint of farmers. There is sufficient number of financing windows, both
offered by the government financing institutions and other non-government organizations.
What apparently prevent farmers from accessing available credit are their reluctance to
comply with the requirements (and rigor of maintaining financial records) and bad
experience of their own cooperative mishandling the funds or a suffering crop/market
failure that drove them deeper in debt.
• Quality starts from planting materials and sources. MinPACT delivered this message quite
well to the respondents, with 55% of the respondents now planting clones and 51% now
sourcing materials from accredited/certified nurseries and MinPACT-supported nurseries.
This message needs to be amplified further by lobbying with the local government units to
either have their nurseries accredited or source seedlings for dispersal from accredited
sources.
• Farm certification is recognized to benefit farmers but this requires investment. Farmers
know the benefits of certification. Certification also requires continuous investment and
compliance. Farmers or their cooperatives need to have prior agreement or contract with
buyers willing to bankroll the cost of the certification or pay the product’s premium price.
• Technologies that are adopted at this stage are the typically done at the initial stage of
planting, relatively easy to follow, and do not cost a lot. The more important concern for
MinPACT is to pay close attention on how farmers will follow the other recommended
technologies as the crops grow.
• Primary reason for delayed adoption of technologies is the delay in seedling distribution.
Farmers with old 3C trees must be encouraged to apply the recommended technologies on
their existing plants. There is no need to wait for the seedlings to be distributed. They can
also apply these technologies on existing non-3C crops in their farms.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
41
• Factors of adoption differ per type of farmer. Based on regression analysis done, factors
differ per type of farmer (crop-differentiated). However, this information will help in
formulating or strengthening behavior change intervention in the future.
• Farmers are asking for more trainings and believe training is still the best modality for
transferring technology/knowledge. MinPACT has been training-centric in the first half of
the project and still, the respondents seem to be clamoring for more similar activities. There
are several anecdotes where the farmers favor the typical MinPACT training as “20% inputs
and 80% actual demonstration/field application”. Training using this mix is still the most
efficient way to disperse knowledge.
• The proportion of farmers who have availed financial services is still small and more are
likely to be needing this support. MinPACT understands that not all POs are financially￾mature to lend out capital to their members: they do not have sufficient credit management
experience and they do not have the appropriate personnel. Since farmers require capital
typically for seedlings, fertilizers, labor or rental of equipment, it will help if their POs can
provide these material support instead of cash/loan.
• Inclusion of women in technical and leadership training is one of the strengths of the
project. The knowledge, skills and technology imparted by the project to women create
ways for women to contribute effectively in improving their farms, strengthening their
cooperatives and helping their families. It gives them confidence and voice. However, the
frequency of participation is still found wanting since majority of them are only able to
participate “a few times” in community development processes and farm activities.
• Succession in the farming family. Smallholder farming is one of the country’s least-paying
yet backbreaking job. Naturally, some parents wish a different career for their children. The
MTE shows that there is nearly 4 in every 10 respondents who say that youth members in
their family are now motivated to continue farming because of their exposure to MinPACT.
This proportion will likely increase if the families start to enjoy higher yields and are paid
better for their quality products.
• MinPACT optimizes the government priority on the 3C and these crops have high potential
in the local and international markets. MinPACT operates as a facilitator and a catalyst in its
relationship with the government, sharing its rich experience in the 3Cs and value chain
development. It implements a different approach when working with farmers, industry
organizations, and other value chain actors as it is more responsive (i.e. faster in making
decision as it is not encumbered by bureaucracy).
E. Key Observations using Evaluation Criteria
This part of the report covers the qualitative information gathered by the evaluation team,
organized under the five (5) evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and
sustainability.
1. Relevance
Overall assessment: MinPACT is relevant.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
42
RELEVANCE WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNMENT DIRECTIONS AND PRIORITIES. The strategic objectives of
increasing productivity and expanding trade reflect the priorities of the national government,
specifically the DA, DTI, PCA, and BPI. When MinPACT started two years ago, the previous
government administration rallied its resources in bringing inclusive growth, defined simply as
“…high growth that is sustained, massively creates jobs, and reduces poverty”. Cacao, coffee and
coconut were already considered as channels of inclusive growth, with respect to the number of
farmers, vastness of land devoted to these crops, their adaptability to different terrains, indications
of increasing market demand, and their potential contribution to combating the impact of climate
change. Even today, the above-mentioned government agencies have not abandoned these crops
and instead, continue to pour resources to keep the momentum forward. The Cacao Roadmap was
recently signed (March 2017) and the Coffee Roadmap has already been finalized (January 2017).
The government still have less than three years to go to achieve its target of 200,000 hectares of
cacao and an estimated of 100 million cacao trees.
Referring to the results framework (Figure 1), MinPACT offers similar interventions with the
government agencies (i.e. DA, DTI, PCA and DAR) – seedlings distribution, technology training, and
provision of post-harvest facilities – yet these cannot be considered outright duplication because
MinPACT’s beneficiaries are clearly identified and these are the members of the 24 producer
organizations.
RELEVANCE IN RELATION TO THE NEEDS OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND CAPACITY OF THE PARTNERS. The
agricultural sector provides employment to one-fourth (26% or 39.35 million as of January 2017,
National Economic and Development Authority), while there is no accurate number of farmers
engaged in planting the 3Cs, there could still be millions of them (in Davao Region, there are 203,000
coconut farmers alone). Regional representatives of these national agencies admit that there are
simply too many farmers still unserved, such as those living in far-flung or geographically difficult
areas. If they are hardly visited by an extension worker, these farmers are presumed to be still
following traditional farming practices.
Smallholder farmers (less than 5 hectares of land) have long struggled to overcome low productivity,
which is a confluence of many factors such as scant extension service, traditional farming practices,
lack of access to quality planting materials and credit, limited connectivity to markets, unpredictable
weather condition, and ageing farmers. Government statistics shows that because of poor
productivity, many among the farmers live within the edge of poverty. It does not help that farmers
also cite the unfair practices of traders, giving them low price for their harvests.
Therefore, increasing the farm productivity with quality planting materials and transferring
appropriate technology combined with the promise of sustainable market, MinPACT responds to the
needs of the farmers. One indication of this demand-supply fit is the report of producer
organizations of increased membership over the past two years, as new members are drawn by the
MinPACT training and free seedlings. The Maragusan-based PO says the project has given them new
hope, considering that the bad experience of the past decades made them abandoned their cacao
farms. Now, the training and market demand have convinced them to revive the farms.
On the post-production front, CIDAMI reports that there is more movement of cacao products out of
Mindanao to other parts of the country, particularly now that a fine chocolate processing plant has
opened recently in Laguna. Now, the buyers do the trip to the farms to source their cacao beans.
Moreover, the farmers are getting themselves drawn into fermentation and value-adding activities,
whereas before they only focus on production. CIDAMI is also elated that their proposal to include a
mandatory training for every seedling dispersal is gaining traction with relevant national government
agencies via National Cacao Roadmap signed March 2017.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
43
When asked to rate the different interventions, using the 3-point scale of very relevant (1), relevant
(2) and not relevant (3), the most relevant support for the beneficiaries are the nursery
establishment (average 1.13), followed by cooperative systems improvement (1.17) and access to
financial services (1.21). When asked to rank eight (8) typical support given by MinPACT, at the top
of the list is agricultural/farm technique training (1st rank), nursery establishment (2nd rank) and
access to financial services 3.04). Twenty-two (22) of the producer cooperatives are “very likely” to
continue working with MinPACT on the remaining two years and two (2) rated “likely” to continue.
The project areas identified by MinPACT are suited to growing cacao, coffee and coconut. Davao
Region is the country’s most dominant cacao producer, Bukidnon is replete with upland areas
conducive for Arabica coffee, and Davao del Norte and Zamboanga del Norte are major contributor
to coconut production.
Farmers also appreciate the presence of MinPACT field technicians – as they learned a lot from the
farm visits, and the coaching and mentoring.
The DA-Davao Region appreciates the fact that MinPACT has been reaching out to the indigenous
peoples cultivating cacao and coffee. The agency is having a difficulty of serving this group because
of distance and limitation on personnel. DA-Davao even reveals that DAR-Davao has turned over a
list of more than 200 producer groups (both formally-recognized cooperatives and still-unaccredited
farmer associations) that are seeking technical support on agricultural production (i.e. cacao and
coffee). This number of producer groups is potentially larger if we consider the other five (5) regions
in Mindanao.
RELEVANCE OF INTERVENTIONS VIS-À-VIS LOCAL CONDITION. MinPACT endeavors to customize its
approaches to the local situation. While other organizations provide seedlings, it is typically
accompanied by a very brief orientation (one or half a day). MinPACT departs from this “ineffective”
practice by amply preparing the beneficiaries with a series of technology trainings replete with
“what” but also with “why, when, how, and the alternatives”. Technical inputs are richly supported
with hands-on and return demonstration. The delivery of lecture is in vernacular. For participants
who cannot read and write can bring a relative to the training who can take notes on his/her behalf.
In the Stakeholder Forum organized by MinPACT last March 2017, women belonging to indigenous
people groups in Bukidnon admit that MinPACT’s recommended technologies do not run counter
with their traditional farm practices (i.e. observing the moon and stars as guide in farming). They
have never been advised to abandon these generations-long beliefs, rather how these two schools
of practice can work together.
2. Efficiency
Overall Assessment: MinPACT is efficient. (Please note that the MTE refrained from measuring the
economic efficiency of the project as the MTE timeframe did not allow for it; rather the focus is on
the adequacy of the resources to implement the activities and achieve results).
EFFICIENCY IN THE USE OF PROJECT RESOURCES. MinPACT assigns 1 to 2 field technicians per project
area and the ratio can be as many as one technician for at least 500 beneficiaries; or 1 technical for
at least 3 producer organizations. Based on interviews, the field technicians are within comfortable
level of accomplishment, although they admit being delayed in submission of internal financial
documents and reports, since most of them are one-man team (handling the operational and
administrative concerns). Technicians can communicate with their superiors, using email, calls, and
applications such as Outlook. The technicians enjoy flexibility and can make decisions based on their
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
44
45-day work program. Concerns and issues are immediately resolved. Monthly meetings are held
on regular basis.
However, it is possible that the field technicians and some positions (i.e. Communications) may be
experiencing overload of responsibilities given the number of clients they serve (technicians for the
beneficiaries and producer cooperatives; lone communications staff to support the technicians). It is
assumed that there may be lost opportunities to capture learning and to provide more proactive
support.
The M&E system appears robust and comprehensive. Internal communication is fast as well as
transparent. The financial system has clear procedures and uses online banking to support the field
activities, reducing time physically going to the bank for transactions.
Delays in the implementation are external to the project, such as the late start of technical
interventions due to late monetization of the Crude Degummed Soybean Oil (initial months were
spent of capacity-building for the project staff and introducing the project to partners), weather
condition, and conflict of schedule for the trainings. There were concerns, though minimal, on
internal dynamics within two producer organizations and one industry association, fortunately these
are not addressed.
The recent cupping competition (Kape Pilipino Green Coffee Quality Competition, which had 78
entries from 15 regions) last March 2017 catapulted the Inhandig Tribal Multi-Purpose Cooperative
and the Kape Maramag to a national stage after winning the Arabica and Robusta categories
respectively. These community-based organizations were essentially non-entities before, yet the
chance to compete and to win made them realize that they have the best coffee in the country,
which they anticipate will open more market opportunities in the future (i.e. the cupping scores will
translate into marketing linkages and demand for specific coffees, as CQI predicts). The winning POs
will also use this recent recognition to lobby for more support from their provincial government
(Bukidnon). CQI boasts that partnership with MinPACT has increased the number of licensed
Arabica Graders from 15 to 26 and the Q Robusta Graders from zero (0) to 10. These competitions
are a chance to be exposed to market expectation, create name/brand recognition as quality source,
and motivate farmers/POs to continue with their quality journey (as quality pays well).
EFFICIENCY IN LEVERAGING NETWORK AND LINKAGES. MinPACT has scored and nurtured good
relationship with the national government agencies, value chain actors, industry associations, and
the local government units. It helped that ACDI-VOCA has had previous projects in Mindanao (i.e.
Success Alliance and CocoPal), which established its credibility.
MinPACT’s decision to work and strengthen the industry organizations (CIDAMI, PCB, DRCICI and
CQI) has propelled the 3Cs to a wider audience, not only within Mindanao but also at the national
sphere. This is evident in MinPACT’s strong sponsorship in the conduct of industry-wide
conferences, summit and related gatherings. MinPACT has supported CIDAMI in the conduct of the
Kakao Konek, the PCB in the conduct of the Philippine Coffee Summit, and the DRCICI in the conduct
of the CocoLink. These events are geared largely on advocacy, where problems and opportunities
are brought to the wider stage, discussed by the industry players, and elevated to the concerned
government agencies for proper policy formulation and technical response. Since these events are
large assemblies, these are also venue to disseminate latest technology and updates on government
and non-government projects and services on the three crops. These events can also be taken as
introductory activity to new industry entrants (producers, processors and buyers).
MinPACT has done well in leveraging with the presence of Franklin Baker, which has helped coconut
POs obtained their Fair Trade certification. Kennemer Foods, on the other hand, has been operating
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
45
before MinPACT. It is largely a marketing company, seeking to buy cacao beans from Mindanao
farmers and POs, formalized by short-term supply arrangements. While Kennemer is procuring
cacao beans from farmers and POs with matured cacao plants (it supplies to world famous chocolate
brands), it is also working with the POs on the production side, particularly in the conduct of training
and extension service through their Cacao Doctors (the company has a comprehensive package of
assistance to farmers under its Growership Program). These Cacao Doctors have received intensive
capacity-building from the company, who will later become consolidators under their buying
program. Kennemer presents itself as a major buyer of cacao beans in the future and it cements its
relationship with farmers as early as now by providing technology advice.
EFFICIENCY IN DELIVERING EFFORTS TO THE DIFFERENT VALUE CHAINS. Cacao and coffee enjoy higher
level of effort from MinPACT, based on the frequency and variety of activities undertaken with the
respective IOs. This level of intensity (compared to coconut) can be attributed to the active
participation of the DA and DTI. The Philippine Coconut Authority which has the primary mandate
over the development of coconut industry, has been limited by its financial and personnel resources.
The level of organizational maturity and the strength of linkages they now have, due to the depth of
involvement and range of experience of the Board can also be a factor. A good case is the
production of manual, where coffee and cacao have already completed their version, while the
coconut is still being finalized (as of March 2017).
3. Effectiveness
Overall Assessment: MinPACT activities, strategies and approaches are effective.
EFFECTIVENESS IN REACHING THE TARGET GROUPS. Suffice it to say that the MinPACT trainings have
been considered “packed”, with more participants turning up than the number expected. MinPACT
has allowed this, recognizing that the people in project sites have rare opportunities to attend
technical training that are brought to their communities. The farmer-respondents have found the
training very useful that they expressed their need for additional training. Another sharing done by
a representative of indigenous women from Bukidnon is the fact that they did not think highly of
their coffee before, since coffee was selling at a low price in their area. MinPACT has emphasized
the importance of quality which takes root in using the quality seedlings and following the
recommend production and harvesting protocols.
The value chain actors are also pleased to be part of the project. They get to participate in the post￾production node of the value chain, drumming up awareness and opening market opportunities for
the farmers. CIDAMI representative compares the number of cacao exporters in the Philippines prior
to MinPACT and now, which was only two (2) prior to the project and has not increased to seven (7).
EFFECTIVENESS IN DISSEMINATING THE FARMING AND POST-PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES. Training is
considered as the most efficient and appropriate method for disseminating the farming
technologies. MinPACT field technicians deliver their training in modules, gradually breaking down
the technical information enriched with demonstration and hands-on for the farmers. This strategy
allows the farmers to fully understand the principle behind the proposed technology. There are also
learning sites established for visual appreciation of the process and results of recommended
technologies. By giving the information in digestible chunks, the farmers have become more
receptive. It should be noted that not all recommended technologies are new to the farmers; these
may be familiar only that they did not have the earlier motivation, understanding or resources to
adopt these technologies before.
EFFECTIVENESS IN CONVERTING KNOWLEDGE INTO PRACTICE AT FARM LEVEL. Technology adoption is a
process that starts from the farmers being aware what the technology entails, how it will benefit
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
46
them, and finally the decision to apply such technology. Still, it is a process and a decision that can
be influenced several factors – such as costs, perceived benefits, complexity and risks, as well as the
access to inputs, land tenure and area, availability of credit, and extension services.
MinPACT attempts to provide some of these factors directly or indirectly. What is clear from the
survey is the relatively easy to follow technologies are gradually being practiced, such as farm
planning and diversification, planting distance, weed management, and fertilizer application. Other
recommended technologies still have low level of application because these require a lot of physical
work, investment, or time. An example of the beneficiaries slowly adhering to crop genetics is how
they are becoming selective of the free seedlings being distributed by the national and local
government units. Field technicians report that seedlings appearing to be of dubious origin are
either not accepted or not planted by the trained beneficiaries.
The backlog in seedlings distribution proves to be a major hindrance to farmer-beneficiaries who
have been trained but are still waiting for their share of seedlings. This delay is linked to POs yet to
establish their nurseries.
EFFECTIVENESS IN STRENGTHENING ORGANIZATIONS. MinPACT has granted three local industry
associations with Fixed Obligation Grant. The agreement encompasses several activities and
deliverables, both to strengthen the capacity of the industry association in extending services to
their members, and to push to value chain-wide advocacy. PCB now has an M&E system, database
on its members, and accounting system. CIDAMI is expanding its linkages and has become very
visible – so visible that they cannot hardly cope with the request for trainings sent by other farmer
groups and local government units. Compared to the two associations, DRCICI by comparison is
considered infant, having gone through several staff turnovers. They are grateful for partnership
with MinPACT, allowing them to launch the organization in Cocolink and to hire additional staff serve
the coconut cluster (IT staff, entomologist and technician). DRCICI is also working on its systems for
more efficient operations.
The producer organizations are beneficiary of the ACDI-VOCA’s Sell More for More, which looks at
four dimensions of membership, money, management and marketing. Most of the producer
organizations have received the two modules and it is still too early to tell how these leadership
modules have been translated into their menu of services to members. Some early indications are
membership increase, ability to negotiate with buyers and establish and operate nursery, and the
desire for forward integration.
The 24 producer organizations and the 3 industry associations (+ Coffee Quality Institute) rated the
quality of coordination with MinPACT and the overall picture is shown below. The five-point scale
refers to: 1 as Very Satisfied, 2-Satisfied, 3-Neither, 4-Dissatisfied, and 5-Very Dissatisfied. Please
refer to Annex 4 for the details per producer organization.
Table 25: Level of Satisfaction, POs and Industry Associations
24 Producer 
Organizations 
4 Industry Associations 
(Fixed Obligation Grants) 
Discuss clearly the objectives, targets, proposed
activities, timelines and delineation of roles
1.67 1.33
Involve you in major decision-making points 1.79 2.00
Accommodate reasonable changes in schedule,
arrangements, activities, priorities
1.75 1.33
Transfer knowledge and provide advice on improving
organizational processes,systems, etc.
1.67 1.67
Communication/coordination, including frequency and 1.71 1.33
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
47
24 Producer 
Organizations 
4 Industry Associations 
(Fixed Obligation Grants) 
quality
Debriefing or learning session (after each important
activity)
1.67 1.67
Average 1.71 1.56
MinPACT has not limited itself working with POs and industry associations. It has reached out to
organizational value chain actors such as the academe. An example is the Southern Philippines Agri￾Business and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology (SPAMAST), based in Malita, Davao del Sur.
SPAMAST has already worked with ACDI-VOCA on its previous project (CoCoPAL in 2012) and has
been a partner of the DTI-Davao Region on an industry clustering project funded by the Japan
International Cooperation Agency. With the agreement with MinPACT only made recently (February
2017), the school will be lending its expertise to the cacao sector with the production of quality
cacao seedlings through cloning, with the possibility of embedding the cacao production in their
Agriculture Curriculum, and the establishment of a coffee cupping laboratory in their newly￾constructed Production Development Center.
EFFECTIVENESS IN MAINSTREAMING GENDER AND OTHER CROSS-CUTTING THEMES. Part of the project
team’s induction and capacity building initiatives are gender-related orientation and training. The
team is nearly gender-balanced. The M&E Manager also serves as the Gender Advisor. The M&E
database is sex and age-disaggregated.
Further, MinPACT cascaded gender concerns in relevant aspects of partner/beneficiary coordination.
MinPACT advises the producer organizations to integrate gender concerns in their policies, activities,
budget and tools. Some POs have more than 50% women and youth participation (although more
skewed on women as the youth are still in school), in terms of membership and in participation to
training. Women in involved in key aspects of PO operation, including the nursery management.
PCB discloses that that more women coffee farmers are in touch with them, tuning into the
organization’s “women in coffee” advocacy and how coffee is helping them earn income and
acknowledging their meticulousness as a factor in attaining post-harvest quality. For their part, CQI
sees that women assuming a “leadership role in modifying practices at the farm level”, although
they have yet to formally document this.
MinPACT has also supported social inclusion. USPD, one PO based in Davao del Sur, was previously
focused only on sugarcane. They have expanded to other crops because of the climate change.
Their clientele or members have also expanded and they now extend support on fertilizers and
equipment or provide loans to rebel returnees who are reportedly convinced to lay down arms and
get into cacao, coffee or coconut production. Indirectly therefore, the project a chance for former
rebels to reset their lives and become productive members of the communities.
At the family level, decision-making responsibilities are shared on domestic matters: more farming
concerns within the territory of men (type of crop and fertilizers to use, purchase of farm
equipment, adopting farm technologies); while women’s voices are somewhat dominant on access
to market (computing the price of product, negotiating with buyers, bringing the produce to buyers,
receiving and managing the sales).
For more than a year between the first quarter of 2015 until 2016, Mindanao has been affected by
long dry spell. The hardest hit between the three crops is coconut, which has experienced a
relatively lower production vis-à-vis high demand from the local processors. Such experience
reminds the farmer-beneficiaries of their vulnerabilities to the unpredictable weather patterns. This
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
48
lesson makes them more appreciative of the MinPACT’s push for farm diversification. It also helps
that coffee planted in the upland areas is used to support the agro-forestry initiatives of the
government, particularly for the POs based in Bukidnon. As the farmer-beneficiaries are gradually
transitioning from purely to lesser use of synthetic fertilizers, the project teaches the beneficiaries
better management of the soil in their farms.
EFFECTIVENESS IN EXPANDING ACCESS AND UTILIZATION OF SERVICES. Government agencies and local
government units are duty-bound to provide services to their clients/constituents. MinPACT have
raised the level of awareness on the income potentials of the 3Cs and more farmers are now
expressing interest to engage in the production and processing of these crops. DA representative
has revealed that they have been getting many requests for seedlings and trainings. Similar requests
are also pouring in at CIDAMI and PCB offices.
CIDAMI is now working closely with the City Government of Davao and the Department of Tourism
to establish an exclusive chocolate pasalubong center (souvenir shop) in the city, where they
envisioned to showcase and sell all kinds of chocolates made in Davao Region. This is part of the
move among the local stakeholders to make Davao City the “Cacao and Chocolate Capital” of the
country. It should be noted that Malagos Chocolate Museum was opened in the city last November
2016 to show guests the “tree-to-bar mysteries of chocolate production.”
DTI representative shares an anecdote from a participant of fine chocolate training where the latter
found the activity to be “life-changing…a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”. The agency reveals they
do not have access to such international expertise and with MinPACT bringing that service in the
country augurs exciting prospects for small-scale chocolate confectionery companies.
The project is making a strong pitch for quality – not only on the seedlings and the technologies, but
also the type of post-harvest or processing facilities. Both DTI and DA representatives agree that
locally-fabricated processing facilities may be cheaper deals but the end-products do not measure
up to the quality standards of more exacting yet high-paying markets. If the country is targeting to
serve premium international markets, a corresponding increase on equipment investment is called
for. All efforts on quality are ruined if cacao, coffee and even coconut are processed in precise,
hygienic and scientific manner so that flavors come out, contamination is avoided, and consistency
and safety ensured.
4. Impact
Overall Assessment: MinPACT is likely to make an impact on the lives of the beneficiaries and
capacity of the partners.
LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT ON CHANGING THE PERSPECTIVE AND BEHAVIOR OF THE BENEFICIARIES. What has
been noticeable among the early adopters is the understanding that “quality” equates to better
income. What they also know, achieving quality takes a lot of physical work, discipline, and possibly
costs. In trainings, the field technicians compare sizes of beans; in cupping training, the participants
use their senses in determining the quality coffee; in business-to-business sessions in industry
events, producers meet buyers and are acquainted with the potential demand for quality products;
in working with big brothers like Franklin Baker, POs’ products are paid higher because they have
passed quality certification.
CQI describes that the country was “not producing coffee against benchmarked international coffee
standards or producing and trading coffee based on cup quality or differentiated flavor profiles”.
Now the organization, together with MinPACT, there is an overall initiative “to produce clean,
defect-free, grade coffee, and trade based on differentiated quality”.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
49
While both CQI and PCB report what they are doing to improve perception on Philippine coffee,
there are reports that buyers are starting to notice Mindanao-sourced coffee, driven proactively by
Mindanao-based producers and processors, while others are promoted by government and NGOs.
For instance, Hineleban Foundation in Bukidnon once shared that they have sent product samples to
Starbucks in the US and Japan. Universal Robina Corporation has recently inked a deal with Sulu￾based farmers in Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao for a 10-tons Robusta Coffee. Mindanao
is also carving a niche as a source of civet coffee, which is aggressively promoted by Mt. Apo Coffee.
The recent win of MinPACT-supported Bukidnon-based POs is an additional boost to the claim that
Mindanao produces quality coffee. Parallel to this effort of elevating Mindanao as a source of
coffee, an officer of PCB reminds the coffee POs that it is important to first increase the yield and
quality, so any bid to go out of Mindanao is strongly supported by volume and quality products.
The push for full technology adoption will take years and more years for these to become second
nature to the farmers. The government and external projects like MinPACT can only provide so
much while the market and the weather continuous to sway erratically. A more definite assurance of
technology adoption is predicated on the farmers’ behavior change, say the compulsion to
continuously practice recommended technologies are internally driven. MinPACT has laid down the
foundation (i.e. explain the science, which is the foundation), show the potential benefits (i.e.
preview the economics, which is the motivation), and now it must latch on behavior change so they
do not back slide to old, convenient or cheaper practices.
LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT ON THE CAPACITY OF THE PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTNERS. At the PO
level, the sense of “cooperativism” is rekindled to some degree. The POs are moving forward to
become consolidators and the members are exhorted (once they start producing) to sell their
products to their group. By offering quality products and in volume, the POs can earn higher income
and have more dividends to share among members. POs who now have regular buyers are
developing skills and confidence in dealing with institutional buyers. A PO is Davao del Sur enjoys
repeat orders in increasing volume and is considering to seek more capital for farm equipment and
machineries and warehouse for centralized quality control.
LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT OF THE MINPACT VALUE CHAIN APPROACH. Value chain as an approach to
industry development is relatively a new concept in Mindanao (less than 10 years old), with some
earlier tracks hinged on industry cluster and one-town, one product strategies. Recently, more
government agencies are using value chain approach in their projects (i.e. DA and World Bank￾funded Philippine Rural Development Program, Department of Agrarian Reform’s Convergence on
Value Chain Enhancement for Rural Growth and Empowerment, and DTI’s forthcoming project with
IFAD to be called Rural Agro-Industry Partnership for Inclusive Development and Growth).
At this point, what MinPACT may contribute to or illustrate is a different way of implementing value
chain project. ACDI-VOCA has better track record in completing value chain projects, enriched by its
experience in other countries. It appears to have a better grasp on the approach, looking at the
scope of its engagement partners and diversity of activities it has introduced so far. Combining all
these, MinPACT has the appropriate macro-level lens in understanding the needs and realizing the
potentials of the value chains. A market-driven value chain approach has better chance to ensure
financial and operational sustainability of 3C farms and POs.
5. Sustainability
Overall Assessment: At this stage, beneficiaries and partners know it will take behavior change,
functioning internal systems, improved capacity, expanded network, and investment to attain some
level of sustainability in the future.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
50
EARLY INDICATIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY. The main question raised is, “do beneficiaries and partners
now have the capacity to continue reaping the benefits of improved productivity and expanded
trade?”. A good indicator is the adoption of selected technologies, though not yet massive at this
stage since technology transfer only started last year and a good number of training participants
have yet to receive their seedlings and start application.
At the PO level, it is important to consider the differences in organizational resources, maturity,
commitment of the management and board, and internal culture; therefore, what is expected is the
varying levels of improvement in organizational capacity.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE LEVERS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND INSTALLING THESE. The beneficiaries and
partners know how to continue reaping the benefits of MinPACT interventions. For the project
team, forming and capacitating Master Trainers will ensure the continuous promotion of the
recommended technologies. They will also need to produce videos and manuals, which will serve as
reference materials. For the POs, improving their services (i.e. nursery, lending and consolidation)
will help their members and increase their capital. For value chain actors, there is a need to
continue the quality-related activities such as cupping, competitions, and market promotion.
For LGUs and contingent on their budget and personnel, they will continue reaching out to farmers,
provide seedlings and fertilizers, sponsorship to exposure trips, among others. For the national
government agencies, they will implement national roadmaps, based on their respective mandates.
For industry association, they will continue with the resource generation, networking, training, and
advocating quality across the value chain.
Therefore, for the remaining time, MinPACT needs to work with beneficiaries and partners, discuss
how to install these levers.
FACILITATING AND HINDERING FACTORS. MinPACT’s remaining two years will be supported with the
increasing awareness on the activities of the three sectors (i.e. winning competitions, private
investments in processing activities, strategic directions). This awareness has spawned interest from
potential partners (Peace and Equity Foundation and the Japan International Cooperation Agency)
who may consider implementing support to the 3Cs to keep the momentum going. Another
facilitating factor is the good relationship MinPACT has nurtured with its national government
partners and industry organizations.
On the contrary, there are also factors that may slow the pace of the project activities. Some of
these are external to the project, such as the industry-specific concerns that are beyond MinPACT’s
control: senile coconut trees estimated at 30% in Davao Region alone, farm-to-market road, security
condition in major production areas, etc. There are provincial and municipal LGUs that are still on
the sideline when it comes to the 3Cs – not because they do not believe in the potential of the crops
– rather they have more pressing priorities, limited staff, and funding. Some farmers divulge that
they do not own their land, hence, they cannot go full steam with the technology adoption. The PO￾beneficiaries have different levels of development and maturity, which mar their commitment and
allocation of resources. The weather continues to be erratic and increases the farming risks for the
farmers. The coconut and cacao industries have been affected by the 13-month long dry spell that
started March 2015 and ended April 2016. The PCA estimates that the coconut industry will be able
to recover last quarter of 2018. Finally, there is the possible “over-load” among staff versus the
areas to cover and the number of beneficiaries to serve.
These facilitating and hindering factors are admittedly focused on the implementation, given that
there are few indications of concrete outcomes at the time of data gathering (February 2017) – i.e.
nurseries are recently established, seedlings planted in the farms are still young, trainings conducted
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
51
are relatively recent. At best, the evaluation team has gathered the “knowledge, plans, possible
steps” that most of the farmers, POs and IOs would pursue in the coming months. Application of
knowledge and systems improvement require time to be fully digested and lead to outcomes.
Conclusion and Recommendations
A. Conclusion
1. Overall Conclusion
Physically, based on the M&E report shared to the evaluation team, the project is within the
comfortable level of achievement. The delays to implementation are primarily external in nature –
such as conflict of schedule, internal dynamics within beneficiary organizations, and weather and
security condition. Beneficiaries and partners exhibit a general sentiment of satisfaction on the
initial project results as well as optimism of the things to come, should all project activities fall into
their right places. The project team must accelerate some activities (distribution of seedlings,
provision of post-harvest support, linkage to financial services) to move closer to the achievement of
the strategic objectives.
MinPACT is expected to contribute in helping the small farm holders in Mindanao, using the value
chain approach in developing and promoting the industries of cacao, coffee and coconut.
2. Comments on the Results Framework
Based on what has been captured in the data gathering phase and the feedback of the stakeholders
during the validation forum, the evaluation teams reviewed the project’s results framework. The
general opinion is that the logic of the framework still stands; a few of the activities show early
indications of contributing strongly to attaining the strategic objectives but many of activities need
fast-tracking.
For easier reference, the first column shows the items under the project’s Result Framework, while
the second column show the proposed activities that will lead to the results. Please note that these
activities are from the evaluation team’s perspective – not based on the official work plan of
MinPACT. Blue rows are the activities that are progressing extremely well, contributing to the
achievement of the expected results. Orange rows are activities that are making
satisfactory/moderate progress, based on the information gathered during the MTE. Red rows are
activities that need to be fast-tracked by the project, to increase the likelihood to attaining the
results by the end of the project.
Table 26: Proposed Activities Leading to Results
Expected Results Proposed Activities Leading to Results
FFPr 1.2.4: Increased knowledge by farmers of
improved agricultural techniques and
technologies
• Continue cascading of training activities
• Improve capacity, increase pool of Master
Trainer
• Distribute 3Cs manuals and techno videos
(if available)
• Explore other modalities for learning (e.g.
farmer field schools)
FFPr 1.3.1: Improved knowledge regarding farm • increase frequency and length of farmer-to-
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
52
Expected Results Proposed Activities Leading to Results
management technician/trainer engagement, to provide
continued guidance to support
management adoption
FFPr 1.4.3: Increased access to improved market
information
• Provide market information, trends and
prospects to POs and value chain actors
using ICT (social media) or through dynamic
websites of IOs
• Support participation to trade fairs
FFPr 1.4.4: Improved capacity of key groups in the
agricultural production sector
• Continue Sell More For More curriculum
and handhold POs are they install proposed
systems and protocols
• Update knowledge and skills of MinPACT,
PO, and value chain technicians
FFPr 2.4.4: Improved capacity of key organizations
in the trade sector
• Monitor IO’s milestone targets and
performance
• Provide advice/support as IOs pursue
resource generation activities
FFPr 2.1.1.1: Increased adoption of established
standards by industry
• Continue messaging/awareness on the
importance of quality
FFPr 2.1.2.1: Increased use of improved post￾production processing and handling
practices
• Consider the immediate release of post￾production and post-harvest equipment
and tools
• Implement post-production and post￾harvest training courses
FFPr 1.2.1: Increased availability of improved inputs • Consider direct or indirect provision of
fertilizers
• Continue providing extension services
• Find, develop or link with other innovative
financial services/products
FFPr 2.1.3/2.2.1: Improved marketing of agricultural
products
• Improve general quality of 3Cs products by
following GAPs and recommended
technologies
• Promote, where possible, value adding
activities (i.e. fermentation)
FFPr 2.2.2: Improved linkages between buyers and
sellers
• Emphasize quality-enhancing activities and
policies
• Continue participation to competitions
• Support participation of qualified
POs/farmers to selected trade fairs
• Link with government for an industry-wide
commodity promotion
FFPr 1.3: Improved farm management (operations,
financial)
• Continue to provide advice to farmers and
POs
FFPr 2.2: Increased access to markets to sell
agricultural products
• Maximize market linkages through
government offices
• Leverage with ACDI-VOCA’s market linkages
in other countries
FFPr 2.3: Improved transaction efficiency • Upgrade/update MinPACT, POs and IOs
staff capacity
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
53
Expected Results Proposed Activities Leading to Results
• Tighten operational, financial and
managerial systems
FFPr 1.2.3/2.2.3.1: Increased use of financial services • Conduct orientation on available financial
services
• Conduct training to enhance financial
knowledge
• Install/strengthen financial systems in
qualified POs
• Promote crop/weather-based insurance as
additional financial safety net to farmers
FFPr 2.1.2.2: Improved post-harvest infrastructure • Continue to monitor the operation and
maintenance of nurseries
• Require business plan and O&M plan of
post-harvest facilities and tools
FFPr 1.2.2: Improved infrastructure to support farm
production
• Support POs and IOs as they lobby to
connect their production areas to the
market via construction or improvement of
roads, power and water services
FFPr 2.1.1/2.1.2: Improved quality and efficiency of
post-production agricultural
products/processes
• Emphasize post-production practices and
processes through training or mentoring,
provision of tools/equipment
FFPr 1.1: Improved quality of land and water
resources
• Promote GAP practices to encourage
farmers, POs and value chain actors use
these resources judiciously
• Conduct additional orientation
• Cooperate with LGUs and other partners
that have advocacies/activities related to
land and water resources
FFPr 1.2: Increased use of improved
agricultural techniques and
technologies
• While the first two rows are on
“knowledge”, this focuses on the
application or adoption.; therefore, closely
monitor farmers’ yield, and quality of
produce
• Continue linking with markets/buyers
FFPr 2.1: Increased value added to post-production,
agricultural products
• Distribute post-production and post￾harvest facilities
• Explore other value-adding activities
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
54
B. Recommendations
1. Proposed Short and Medium-to-Long TermRecommendations
Table 27 enumerates the MTE recommendations arranged under short-term (within the project
timetable) to be led by the MinPACT Project Team and medium-to-long term (three years
onward), which may be led by the government and other partners. The explanation for each
recommendation is shown after the table.
Table 27: Short and Medium-to-Long TermRecommendations
Findings Short-Term Medium- to – Long Term 
1. Nascent
evidence
of
technolo
gy
adoption
• Consider extending the project by adding two more
years in time for the first harvest of newly planted 3C
crops
• POs with nurseries:
oFormulate management plan
oObtain accreditation from the Bureau of Plant
Industry
oEnroll nurseries with the Barangay and Municipal
Development Councils
oImprove financial transparency on nursery
operations
• Retooling and strengthening of the Master Trainers
• All POs:
oExplore qualified POs to be accredited as suppliers
of fertilizers
oContinue with the cascading of training activities
oExplore other modalities of technology transfer
• Project Team to enhance project messaging on:
oQuality at all stages
oTechnologies can be employed in existing and other
selected crops (no need to wait for MinPACT
seedlings)
oNurseries and master trainers as community
resource
oConsolidation of products when volume is sufficient
and market is found
oAvailability of financial support to qualified farmers
• Continue the validation/updating of the MinPACT
Sharepoint M&E database, as basis for targeting for
the 1
st half reinforcement or 2nd half planned activities
• Partners
oPromote short-gestating crops to augment income
from 3Cs
• Design or implement a Mindanao-nuanced 3c
behavior change
• Explore a parallel
mechanism solely
focused on reinforcing
technology adoption
(i.e. including massive
info drive on services
offered by the
government)
• Organize a regional
experts pool
• Promote crop
insurance
• Maintain BPI and
other government
accreditations
2. Increase
efforts
related
to
marketin
• Increase focus on processing and marketing-related
intervention for the 2
nd half of the project.
• Distribute appropriate post-harvest facilities to
qualified POs
• Explore activities that encourage product upgrading
• Share contacts with
the relevant
government agencies
(for post-harvest
technologies,
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
55
Findings Short-Term Medium- to – Long Term 
g, to
include
closing
supply
agreeme
nts with
institutio
nal
buyers
(i.e. technology training offered by DOST, product
development and market promotion by DTI)
• Support POs in the participation to national and
international competitions
• Continue grading and cupping activities
• Support the relatively-advanced POs to obtain
certifications (required by buyers)
• Explore activities where buyers/markets will pull 3Cs
products (rather than the farmers/cooperatives do the
pushing), such as the exposure tours, product
sampling/testing
• Support POs with processing activities to secure
License to Operate from Bureau of Food and Drugs
Administration
• Continue, albeit seeking better outcomes, support on
industry-wide marketing/advocacy events like
summits, conferences
• Continue support to farmers, POs and value chain
actors participation to product and quality
competitions
• Continue working with local buyers that are supplying
international markets (Franklin Baker, Kennemer
Foods and CSI, among others)
processing and
marketing)
• Work with
government in
demand-driven
upgrading
interventions (quality
upgrading or product
value-adding, efficient
transport, etc.)
3. Different
levels of
PO
capacity
• Continue or complete the Sell More for More program
• Conduct revisiting of M4 results of the producer
organizations to re-calibrate them in the areas of
resources, capacities, project achievements,
transparency, etc.
• Conduct exit and sustainability planning
• Realign staff to focus on the 2nd phase farmers’
technology adoption, marketing and POs’
organizational support
• Strengthen enterprises (nursery establishment,
financial services, possible consolidation) of the POs
by formulating management and business plans:
o On management plan: clarify the roles and
responsibilities in the operation and
maintenance; draw production schedule,
secure and maintain the BPI accreditation.
o On business plan: find possible markets for
seedlings (beyond members), “charge”
cascading training to non-members or non￾beneficiaries; price the seedlings
appropriately
• Provide support for
POs that are still
association to
transition as
cooperatives
4. Differing
capacitie
s of the
Industry
organizat
ions
• Conduct exit and sustainability planning with the
industry organizations
• Discuss resource generation or mobilization plan to
make strong transition after end of MinPACT
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
56
Findings Short-Term Medium- to – Long Term 
5. Women’s
participa
tion
• Create “women or youth-only” project activities, such
as those that tap into their creativity (for new
products or business opportunities that do not take up
much of their time)
6. Youth’s
participa
tion
• Succession training/activities for farming families or
more project activities enjoining youth
• Curriculum in 3Cs in
local agricultural
/vocational schools in
project areas
• Lobby for more local
colleges to offer
agricultural courses or
vocational schools to
offer short-term
certificates on
processing 3C food
and non-food
products
7. Value
chain
develop
ment
• Meet with relevant agencies and discuss MinPACT exit
and sustainability plan
• Continue the documentation of learnings from the
beneficiaries and partners’ perspective
• Document project processes to share with
government and NGOs on Mindanao-based value
chain development project
• Continue supporting interaction/space for the farmers
to meet with their buyers/markets
• Support the lobby for
an industry-wide
quality assurance
• Study the feasibility
and benefits being a
member of the
International Coffee
Organization and
International Cocoa
Organization
• Lobby for assistance
on other value chain
constraints to relevant
agencies (i.e. roads)
C. Recommendations
1. Increase adoption rate of recommended technologies.
• Consider the extension of the project with additional two years, to end by 2020. The MTE
results show that a good number of respondents have only recently planted the
recommended 3C clone varieties (less than 6 months prior to February 2017). More have
yet to plant their seedlings as they are waiting for these to be available, although there are
also respondents who have existing trees. Considering that cacao and coffee need at least 2
to 3 years before first harvest and coconut longer than that, it is only fitting that the project
will be extended in time for the first harvest of the varieties it has introduced. The project
will also be able to walk through the farmer-beneficiaries on the recommended technologies
at every critical stage of the crops.
• Explore other modalities of technology transfer. Training is regarded as the best (and
perhaps the most efficient) modality for technology transfer. While cascading of training will
continue and review of the master trainer intervention is proposed, MinPACT may consider
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
57
other modalities. First is to weigh the possibility of the Farmer Field School, which is proven
effective by the DA and the Department of Science and Technology. A farmer
leader/scientist who has his/her own land can be identified by either the PO or the field
technician. He or she may be provided with customized capacity building, provided with
inputs, become priority for linkages and exposures but in exchange for transferring
technology with at least 25 other farmers in his/her communities. In addition, he or she will
do monitoring of the farms, devoting specific number of hours per week on the project. He
or she will have his/her own farm be open for visits or demonstration. Other qualifications
may include having a one-hectare, fully diversified farm, showcasing all the recommended
technologies of the project. The second modality is to have a school on the air, a radio
program, disseminating technology information on the 3Cs. One coffee PO in Bukidnon said
there was a previous coffee course that ran for four (4) months, but this only reached three
(3) municipalities. Third modality can be the holding of an annual Farmers’ Day showcasing
technologies and products of the farmers. These three modalities can be done in
partnership with the DA.
• The evaluation team recognizes that MinPACT has only 1 or 2 field staff per major project
area, thus it will be physically impossible for them to be visiting the farm to check on their
adoption progress. Perhaps, MinPACT can devise a way that emphasizes the reliability and
frequency of interaction between MinPACT and the farmers so they do not backslide on old
habits. It is possible that there might be a third-party service provider who can offer a
mobile value-added service on 3C production and marketing.
• Fast-track cascading training and distribution of seedlings. There are still many
beneficiaries who have not received or planted the recommended seedlings.
• Explore parallel mechanism focused on reinforcing technology adoption. MinPACT can
explore parallel activities that reinforce technology adoption, so farmers do not slide back
on their traditional, non-efficient habits.
• Organize a regional experts pool. This is akin to the master trainers already set-up at the
producer organizations’ level, only that the members of the pool have higher level of
technical skills on production and processing. They can be fielded to support farmers and
advice processors within and outside of their region. It is preferred that the experts have
their own farm or processing facilities.
2. Improve reach and quality of extension services
• Strengthen operation of the nurseries. The MTE results show that PO-nurseries are on
different stages of operation, some have completed the first cycles and some are still
completing the physical structures. In general, the nurseries can be considered in the early
stages of operation and have not yet yield concrete evidence of outcomes and sustainability,
except that the officers and staff involved are aware they need to operate it well so their
members can have access to quality seedlings and they can earn from selling the seedlings
to non-beneficiaries or the LGU.
Some interviews with PO representatives (e.g. SUFA and BFA) yielded concerns on the
financial transparency of the nursery operations. Thus, it will help the nursery in-charge and
guide the members to have a specific management plan for each nursery. This will include
production scheduling, marketing efforts (i.e. get accredited with the LGUs and national
government agencies as a source of seedlings), maintenance of accreditation, etc.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
58
• Review Master Trainer intervention. The master trainers are expected to fast-track the
cascading of the trainings. In interviews with the field technicians and farmer-respondents,
not all master trainers have been fully utilized. While most of them can be regarded as
technical experts, not all possess the appropriate facilitation skills or have conflicting
schedules/priorities. It may be useful to review the intervention (i.e. existing strengths and
weaknesses) and how this particularly technology transfer modality be further improved.
For a start, look for people who already have training experience with the right mix of
technical and facilitation skills, and those who do not have restrictive formal responsibilities
with an organization. Another strategy is to refresh/retrain them, or groom new ones.
• Further strengthen project messaging. MinPACT has been doing well in emphasizing
“quality” across the chains and this is reflected on the level of awareness among the
farmers, POs and partners. This is not a reason to be complacent; instead, MinPACT needs
to link quality with other opportunities:
• That quality starts from the planting materials, crop establishment and
management, harvesting, processing, marketing and logistics
• That good management of nurseries, credit assistance and other forthcoming
post-harvest facilities are community resource that will earn the POs more
income
• That adoption can also be used in other non-3Cs crop and that farmers need not
wait for the seedlings that will be provided by MinPACT
• That consolidation of products will enable them to have better bargaining power
with the buyers and increase income for the PO (eventually, dividends for
members too)
• That quality requires investment and investment may not necessarily be coming
from their last cropping’s sale, but can be borrowed.
MinPACT can also explore other platforms, not only face-to-face, but other delivery
mechanisms as well (i.e. a gardening subject in elementary school). Other key messages
must include extensive dissemination of available services (i.e. free soil sampling from DA),
addressing the reluctance cooperatives to borrow from government financing institutions, or
enrolling crop/weather insurance.
• Continue the validation and updating of the SharePoint M&E database as a tool for
effective audience design and targeting. The continuous validation and updating of the
database (i.e. types of crop engaged in, technology adoption, etc.) will further classify or
prioritize beneficiaries by the type of interventions they will receive for the remaining
months of the project. MinPACT SharePoint M&E database is a useful resource for effective
audience design and targeting.
• Provide support to associations as they transition as cooperatives. POs that are still
“association” in form will need to register/transition as cooperatives. They will be under a
regulatory agency (Cooperative Development Authority), which will help them formalize
their processes.
3. Advance project activities along the value chain (moving fromproduction to processing andmarketing)
• Increase focus on processing and marketing-related activities on the 2nd half. Much of
MinPACT’s focus in the first half of the project has been on production technologies. The
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
59
MTE showed the beneficiaries, POs and other value chain actors’ satisfaction on how
MinPACT has widened the market links for the 3C products. As the newly-planted 3Cs are
growing, MinPACT can further motivate them to adopt recommended technologies by
conveying the quality and volume requirements of the markets as well as the value-adding
potentials.
• Distribute appropriate post-harvest facilities to qualified/ready POs. The distribution of
the appropriate post-harvest facilities to qualified POs will further encourage them to adopt
the recommended technologies. With the possibilities of increased yield, the POs can
gradually upgrade their product offerings by further processing their 3Cs in products of good
quality. The “appropriate” refers to facilities or equipment that will ensure quality outputs
as required by the buyers/markets. The farmers are too familiar with stories of post-harvest
facilities that are locally-fabricated and cheap, but process products that are not at par with
the quality standards (i.e. concerns on food safety, shelf life, taste, etc.).
• Explore other activities that encourage product upgrading. The general value chain of
Mindanao agricultural products is short, as most crops are sold as fresh/raw or dried.
MinPACT, by working with DTI and DOST, may come up with activities that will encourage
local innovation using the 3Cs as raw materials. It can be a competition through schools or
among organizations, from professional product designers, women or youth.
• Support participation of farmers, POs and value chain actors to competitions, domestic
and international. The experience of Kape Maramag and Inhandig Tribal MPC was a
precious confirmation of the uniqueness of coffee being raised in upland Mindanao.
Without MinPACT, they would have never found out that they stand a chance to compete
nationwide and perhaps globally. Winning competition is a good market promotion activity
and serves as an inspiration for other cooperatives to do better, because through quality, it
opens a whole new world for them.
• Continue grading and cupping activities. The value chain actors were happy with the
quality-related activities such as the grading and cupping. It made them confident about
their crops and their capabilities.
• Explore activities where buyers/markets that will pull 3Cs products, farmers and POs.
MinPACT’s support is not about increasing the size of the pie slice, rather it is increasing the
size of the pie so everyone can have a bigger slice. As the industry organizations suggest,
established buyers both in the country and abroad can be invited to visit Mindanao and try
its 3C products. This can also be a reverse of winning international competitions, where an
appreciation tour brings credible selected buyers to visit the island and see for themselves
the conditions for growing coffee and the people behind the beans. This introduces the
buyers to new sources of coffee and cacao beans.
• Guide POs with certification processes, if certification is required/supported by their
buyers/markets. Certification = quality = premium price – but only works if there is a
market/buyer willing to co-share the cost of certification. Coconut POs working with
Franklin Baker can attest to the benefits linked to certification. Thus, for qualified POs that
can take similar path needs advice or guidance so they are not left to their own devices in
navigating the stringent process.
• Continue Sell More for More curriculum. Fast-track the implementation of the training
program,so POs can gradually adopt/install the recommended systems and protocols.
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
60
• Conduct/revisit POs M4 Result. The MTE did not dwell on organizational diagnosis, but
there were snippets of internal dynamics that have affected the pace of their MinPACT￾related implementation. Secondly, there is a stark contrast on levels of capacities,
resources, priorities, transparency, achievements, etc. across the 24 POs. For instance,
there are POs with below than 50 members while others are bursting with thousands of
members. There are POs that are less than 5 years in existence to POs with decades of
service. There are POs that have profitable enterprises and established partnerships, while
some POs are new to entrepreneurship.
For the second half of the project, MinPACT may consider classifying the POs, i.e. weak and
strong, using different criteria. The result of the diagnosis can further customize how
MinPACT technical and support staff address weaknesses and threats (i.e. speed-up pace in
critical activities, find acceptable solutions to gaps) in the remaining 2
nd half.
• Continue to support IO-led industry-wide conferences and summits, but review expected
outcomes. Kakao Konek, Philippine Coffee Summit and Cocolink are the major industry￾wide events organized by the IOs and supported by MinPACT. Considering the enormity of
the expected attendance, these events are understandably demand time, effort and funds.
However, these events largely advocacy-focused, where problems are elevated and
solutions are discussed. These events must be treated as “investment” with long-gestating
returns or impact. These events do not produce immediate results, but are crucial in
establishing/sustaining “enabling” environment for the 3C production and businesses to
thrive.
• Continue creating/nurturing relationships with local buyers that have international markets.
Franklin Baker, Kennemer Foods, CSI and others are key market partners of the farmers and
the POs. They play a role in integrating the farmers/POs to the global value chains.
• Realign staff to focus on marketing, finance, and organizational strengthening. Based on
the database updating, re-assessment of POs, and completion of the exit and sustainability
planning, MinPACT may need to realign staff assignment to place emphasis on
communications, marketing, financial literacy, and organizational strengthening. Another
option is to hire additional staff or a business development provider to support the
readjustment of activities.
4. Sustain gains of the first half of the project
• Seek accreditation with LGUs and NGAs. The POs with nurseries will need to sustain their
operation. They need move beyond serving their members with seedlings, but offer their
products to the LGUs and national government agencies that are into seedling dispersal as
support to their farmers. They must be accredited as suppliers first, in which their BPI
accreditation will come in handy. Another accreditation from the Fertilizers and Pesticides
Authority will be needed for POs wanting to get into the distribution of fertilizers later,
starting with their members and others in their communities. Finally, a separate
accreditation, specifically License to Operate from the Bureau of Food and Drugs
Administration, will be required for POs wanting to process and sell 3C-based food products.
All these accreditations will require advice in complying with the legal and technical
documents.
• Conduct exit and sustainability planning. The awareness on the project timetable is not
enough to lay-down the foundation of MinPACT’s exit and how POs and industry
organizations can sustain the gains after project closure. It is necessary to have exit and
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
61
sustainability planning, which includes orientation and discussion on several issues. The
agreements need to be documented in a plan to guide the POs after MinPACT’s exit. The
activity can focus on the following:
• Review targets versus accomplishment vis-à-vis remaining timeline and newly￾developed capacities
• Handover of responsibilities, clarify roles and responsibilities
• Entrepreneurial possibilities or business planning
• Policies, standards and procedures (nurseries, credit, master trainers)
• Resource mobilization of the POs (and industry associations too) so they can
formulate plans or enter agreement to support income-generating projects
(spin-off or not of MinPACT)
Another important result of the PO diagnosis will be the decision to open-up to other POs or
drop POs that are lagging with their targets.
• Design or pilot a Mindanao-nuanced 3C behavior change approach. Drawing from ACDI￾VOCA’s experience in implementing value chains and promoting 3Cs across the globe, it may
be able to craft a customized strategy for promoting behavior change, given Mindanao
conditions, capacities, and the early gains of the project. If the time is too short to pursue
the model massively, at least it can be tested in pilot areas/POs, which can be a stepping
point to scale-up the project. The regression analysis done on the factors of adoption only
validates the variability of reasons why farmers do what they do.
• Conduct exit and sustainability planning with the industry associations:
o Review milestones and fast-track critical activities
o Discuss resource generation and mobilization
• Implement “women or youth-only” activities. The MTE results indicate participation of
women in project activities – as these are gender-blind. Still, MinPACT may consider offering
other technologies (i.e. processing-related) that are designed around women and youth’s
interest and limitations.
• Conduct succession training/activities for youth. There are indications of youths wanting to
continue the farming tradition of their family. Such interest may be galvanized by more
information or application opportunities. Speaking of the national government agencies, it
is clear both DA and DTI are fully supportive of the project. MinPACT may want to consider
meeting the key officials on how these agencies can continue the gains of the project that
are within their respective mandates (i.e. technology training, pre-production equipment,
post-harvest facilities, and farm-to-market roads for DA; and trade promotion, quality
assurance and product development for DTI, etc.). In addition, MinPACT may lobby with the
DA regional offices and the LGUs to procure their seedlings requirement from BPI-accredited
POs with nurseries.
• Meet with relevant national government agencies and local government units to discuss
exit and sustainability. MinPACT needs to meet with receptive LGUs discussing the steps
leading to and following the project exit. There may be activities the latter wish to
assume/strengthen. MinPACT may also need to share with the national government
agencies its contacts outside of the country. Other information may also be shared with
these agencies (i.e. specific needs and solutions related to local development such as roads
connecting to major 3C production areas, manufacturers of quality processing equipment).
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
62
• Document learning and process. MinPACT brings in unique approaches and encouraging
results. These processes and lessons need to be documented so other organizations may
learn from them. The present administration has recognized the importance of value chains
and has considered it a vehicle for achieving development in the countryside.
• Lobby with LGUs and NGAs to provide short-gestating crops to augment 3Cs. MinPACT can
coordinate with LGUs and NGAs to continue extending free vegetables seedlings, do
livestock dispersal, and conduct food processing activities as farmers wait for their newly￾planted 3Cs to mature.
• Lobby for more local colleges to offer agriculture courses or propose curriculum on 3Cs.
Mindanao has very few colleges and universities that offer agriculture-related courses, even
if the island is the primary producer and exporter of agricultural products. Together with the
DA and DTI, this move should be proposed to the Center for Higher Education. Otherwise,
work with existing schools (like SPAMAST) to have 3Cs-specific courses.
• Support for industry-wide quality assurance. CIDAMI has been campaigning to set-up
quality assurance for the Mindanao cacao and coffee industries, now that the industry is still
relatively small and getting the people to agree is easier. Quality assurance for Mindanao is
a branding effort and once established/strictly maintain, can become a competitive
advantage.
• Study the benefits of the country being a member of the International Coffee Organization
and International Cocoa Organization.
• Study feasibility of the following: 
• Develop a “commodity champion” who can command attention and rally
support to elevate certain crop-specific issue or activity
• Study other modalities for transferring/strengthening capacity at the PO level,
such as mentoring via manager to manager, big-small sister cooperatives, or
hiring professional managers to run the POs.
• Consider the warehousing needs of the deserving POs to enable them maintain
the quality of products (may or may not be funded by MinPACT).
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
63
Works Cited
Chua et al, K. (2016). Mindanao Jobs Report, Volume 1. World Bank.
NEDA. (2017). Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022. Retrieved March 14, 2017, from National
Economic and Development Authority: http://pdp.neda.gov.ph
BAFS. (2016). Approved Philippine National Standards. Retrieved April 6, 2017, from Bureau of
Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (BAFS):
http://www.bafps.da.gov.ph/index.php/standard-formulation/philippine-national-standards
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
64
Annexes
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
65
Annex 1: MinPACT Beneficiary Producer Organizations
Province/City Name of the Producer Organization 
Compostela Valley
Maragusan Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (MAGROW)
New Leyte Cocoa Farmers Producers Cooperative
Laak Multi-Purpose Cooperative (LAMPCO)
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative (NICO)
Davao del Norte
Federation of Cooperatives in Mindanao (FEDCO)
Katipunan Small Coconut Farmers’ Cooperative
Davao City
MarilogCalinan Baguio Tugbok Cooperative Federation (MACOFED)
Salaysay Upland Farmers Association
Davao del Sur
USPD Savings and Credit Cooperative
Bansalan Cooperative Society mPC
Jose Rizal Farmers Association
Balutakay Coffee Farmer Association (BOCOFA)
BMan’s Community Cooperative
Davao Oriental
Mati Lapagan Multi-Purpose Cooperative (MALACO)
Kooperative sa Nagkahiusang Mag-uumasa San Isidro (Nagmasid Koop)
Mati Davao Oriental Upland Farmers MPC (MDOUPMCO)
Bukidnon Imbayao Community-Based Forest Management Farmers Association
Batanggason Farmers Association
MILALITTRA
InhandigTrival MPC
Zamboanga del Norte
Paglaum Multi-purpose cooperative
People’s Officials, Employees and Community MPC (POEMCO)
Sindangan FACOMA Community Cooperative (FACOMA)
Barcelona Primary Multi-Purpose Agricultural Cooperative
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
66
Annex 2: Actual versus Target Respondents (Deviation)
Cooperative ACTUAL SURVEY TARGET RESPONDENTS DEVIATION FROM TARGET SAMPLE 
CA CT CF M Total CA CT CF Mixed Total CA CT CF Mixed Total
Balutakay Coffee Farm Association BACOFA 8 8 0 1 7 0 8 0 -1 1 0 0
Barcelona Primary Multi purpose Agricultural Cooperative BPMAC 2 3 6 11 2 4 0 4 10 0 -1 0 2 1
Batangason Farmers Association 23 23 0 0 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0
Bansalan Cooperative Society-MPC 5 21 4 30 4 15 0 17 36 1 6 0 -13 -6
BMAN s Binaton BagoboTagabawa Farmers Livelihood Association BBTFLA 1 2 2 4 9 1 1 0 7 9 0 1 2 -3 0
FEDCO 32 2 1 35 33 2 0 4 39 -1 0 0 -3 -4
Imbayao Community based Forest Management Farmers Association ICBFMFA 43 43 0 0 44 0 44 0 0 -1 0 -1
Inhandig Tribal MPC 19 19 0 0 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0
Jose Rizal Farmers Association JORIFA 4 5 1 1 11 2 1 0 9 12 2 4 1 -8 -1
Katipunan Small Coconut Farmers Cooperative 6 12 18 1 7 0 6 14 -1 -1 0 6 4
KooperatibasaNagkahiusang Mag uumasa San Isidro Nagmasid Koop 3 5 8 1 3 0 4 8 -1 0 0 1 0
LaakMulti purposeCooperative LAMPCO 3 9 10 22 4 10 0 11 25 -1 -1 0 -1 -3
MACOFED 6 2 12 20 6 1 0 12 19 0 1 0 0 1
Maragusan Growers Multi PurposeCooperative MAGRO 17 7 24 12 0 0 9 21 5 0 0 -2 3
Mati CityLapaganMulti purpose Cooperative MALACO 1 4 2 7 1 4 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0
Mati DavaoOriental Upland Farmers MPC MDOUPMC 2 4 6 0 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0
MILALITTRA 1 40 41 0 0 41 0 41 0 1 -1 0 0
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative NICO 1 3 6 10 1 3 0 5 9 0 0 0 1 1
New Leyte Cocoa Farmers Producer Association NELECOFAPA 16 14 30 12 3 0 12 27 4 -3 0 2 3
PaglaumMulti Purpose Cooperative 23 29 17 69 24 28 0 17 69 -1 1 0 0 0
People s Officials Employees Community Multi Purpose Cooperative POEMCO 2 6 2 10 1 8 0 2 11 1 -2 0 0 -1
Salaysay Upland Farmers Association 2 2 4 8 2 0 2 4 8 0 0 0 0 0
Sindangan FACOMA Community Multipurpose Cooperative FACOMA 11 34 6 51 15 23 0 14 52 -4 11 0 -8 -1
USPD Savings and Credit Cooperative 9 18 2 29 9 12 0 4 25 0 6 0 -2 4
Total 135 150 138 119 542 131 128 136 147 542 4 22 2 -28 0
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
67
Annex 3: Most Significant Change Stories
Barangay Captain
Misamis Occidental
“I have been a farmer since my youth. However, I did not know much about Cacao Growing or
Production. This all changed when PAGLAUM MPC encouraged me to try planting Cacao. With the
help of Kennemer, and ACDI-VOCA’s MinPACT Project, I was able to plant cacao. I received various
trainings, and there were even times when we were taken on learning expeditions to Davao and
Cagayan. These trainings where all designed to help me become a better and more efficient farmer,
especially since I’m not getting younger.”
Representative of Balingaeng Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BMPC)
Davao City
“MinPACT training on cacao production has taught farmers like me a lot of things that are very
useful. We in the BMPC were trained in various modules like crop establishment, crop and farm
maintenance, soil and nutrient management, integrated pest and diseases management and cacao
harvest and postharvest practices. What I liked best in these trainings is that they mostly had hands
on demonstrations and actual field activities. I’m especially thankful for the pest and diseases
management training as that was my problem with my cacao farm before: I didn’t know what to do
when pests and diseases struck my cacao trees. However, now I know how to identify and manage
these pests and diseases and it has greatly increased the production of my farm.
Since the coop has existing fermentation boxes and solar dryer facilities, we were also taught the
proper way and right process on fermentation techniques. They also gave us tips like how fermented
cacao beans can fetch a higher price compared to just selling cacao wet beans and dried cacao.
The MinPACT project has really transformed our mindset. Now we are resolute in learning more on 
cacao technology that is taught by MinPact and apply the learnings in actual and become more
productive in our existing cacao farms. I really believe that the learnings that we have gained from
the trainings gave us a good start as producer and consolidator of cacao fermented bean that can
command good price in the market.”
Local Coffee Producer 
Davao del Sur
“Our association was quite messy: full of political issues and people who only think of their own
benefit. When MinPACT started the intervention, I recognized that it fits our need. So when the
assembly was held to decide between staying in MinPACT or KAPWA was held, I really campaigned
for us to stay with MinPACT . I have no regrets because from then on, doors were opened for us and
we as a cooperative improved in managing our community.We became aligned and we agreed on a
common goal: to improve and give quality coffee and to become more profitable.
Because of our involvement with MinPACT, BACOFA has increased in productions and sales. Thanks
to MinPACT, we have become more conscious of the quality of the coffee that we are producing.
This is because of the trainings that were conducted we learned how to process good quality coffee.
They also helped us in marketing our products. After we attended the MinPACT sponsored October
2016 Summit, we were approached by a lot of prospective buyers from different places. We had
buyers from Davao, Bacolod and Iloilo. During the coffee cupping contest held during the Coffee
Congress in Baguio, our coffee won 1st Runner Up. And because it was in the news, we
became
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
68
instantly popular. I am proud to say that we are close to grade 12 coffee and we will and we can
achieve that by the help of MinPACT.All of that is because of MinPACT. We learned from the
trainings and applied it in our farm.”
Local Coffee Farmer 
Davao del Norte
“Our farm was devastated by Typhoon Pablo. All our crops were ruined and we were left with
basically nothing. Thankfully, on 2013, we were given two hundred hills of Cacao seedlings through
ACDI-VOCA’s CoCoPal Project. We planted the seedlings despite not having enough knowledge on
how to grow it properly. Fortunately, the ACDI-VOCA followed it up with the MinPACT project.
Through this, they trained us farmers on how to take care of the cacao. Before MinPACT, the cacao
just grew taller and taller. At times, the fruits would just fall off the tree because we couldn’t see
them through the leaves. After the trainings provided by the MinPACT Project, we have now learned
how to prune the cacao properly. Aside from that, we learned everything from land preparation to
harvesting. They also taught us the proper cacao bean fermentation techniques to achieve the
texture and taste of high quality cacao beans. Through this, we will be able to earn money to help us
recover from Typhoon Pablo.”
Local Coffee Farmer 
Compostela Valley
“Before the MinPACT project, cacao seedlings were simply too expensive for us farmers. I kept
hoping that someone will assist us and so when MinPACT arrived and conducted a training about
cacao, I didn’t hesitate about joining. I learned a lot during the training and you can also see that
MinPACT is really involved and dedicated in giving us quality trainings. The members of the
association were also very happy about the provision of not only cacao seedlings, but an entire
nursery. We are really grateful for what ACDI-VOCA, through the MinPACT Project, has done for us.
Changes in our association are very visible as well, especially in the membership. Because of the
MinPACT intervention, we increased from 33 to 337 members. And these farmer members are very
much willing to learn from trainings and apply what they learned in their own farms.”
LAMPCO
Compostela Valley
“Before, we had no nursery. But last year, because of ACDI VOCA interventions, we were able to put
up a nursery , complete with structures. They shouldered all the expenses and also helped us in
registering the nursery with the Bureau of Plant and Industry. If it was only the coop, it wouldn’t
have been possible. We are really thankful for MinPACT and it has helped us a lot in our operations.”
Local Coffee Farmer
 Bukidnon
“We have engaged in coffee production a long time ago. However, we used the old variety and the
traditional way of farming. However, through the technical input provided by MinPACT I have
learned the new practices/technology in coffee farming such as: holing, fertilizer application, 
plantingdistance and inter - cropping. It is very significant because my farming practices have been 
changed and updated. The trainings have made me a better farmer, and at the same time, a teacher 
for my co-farmers here in our locality since I have been sharing my learnings with them. The
demo farm planted with typica and catimor that was established in our area. Tinaytayan also greatly
helped us in adopting the technology. “
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
69
Annex 4: Regression Analysis on Factors Affecting Rate of Adoption
Regression analysis was employed to examine the factors affecting percentage of adoption of introduced
MinPACT technologies. Separate analyses were conducted for the 3Cs. The empirical model to be applied
per crop in this study is :
𝑌 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑏+𝛽2𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑+𝛽3𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑏+ 𝛽4𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑+𝛽5𝐴𝑔𝑒+𝛽6𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟+𝛽7𝐶𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡 +𝛽8𝑂𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ
+𝛽9𝐸𝑑𝑢𝑐 +𝛽10𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑎 +𝛽11𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑢 + 𝛽12𝑀𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝+𝛽13𝐷𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 +𝛽14𝐷𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡2
+𝛽15𝐷𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡3 +𝛽16𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 + 𝛽17𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚 + 𝛽18𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝+𝛽19𝐹𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
+ 𝛽20𝐻𝐻𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒+𝛽21𝐻𝐻𝐹𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒+ 𝜀
where:
Y- Percentage adopted among the technologies introduced by MinPACT
Treeb- Number of trees of crop C before MinPACT
Treed- Number of trees of crop C during MinPACT
Areab- Number of hectarage planted of crop C before MinPACT
Aread- Number of hectarage planted of crop C during MinPACT
Age- Age of respondent in years
Gender- is a dummy variable (1- Male, 0-0therwise)
CivilStat- is the dummy variable on civil status of respondent (1- Married, 0-otherwise)
Ownersh- is a dummy variable on land ownership (1- Owner, 0- otherwise)
Educ- is the number of years of formal schooling of the respondent
Occupa- is the type of occupation of the respondent (1- if farmer, 0-otherwise)
OtherOccu- is a dummy variable on other occupation of the respondent (1-if with other
occupation, 0- otherwise)
Membership- is a dummy variable on organizational membership (1- if with
membership, 0= otherwise)
DPlant- is a dummy on the type of farm (1- if farm contains old trees only, 0-otherwise)
DPlant2- is a dummy on the type of farm (1- if farm is expanded, 0-otherwise)
DPlant3- is a dummy on the type of farm (1- if farm contains new planted crop c, 0-
otherwise)
Financial- is a dummy on access to financial services (1- if availed financial services, 0-
otherwise)
YearsFarm- is the number of years of farming
YearsCrop- is the number of years of cultivating crop c
FarmManTrain- is dummy variable on attendance to farm management training (1-if
respondent attended farm management training, 0-otherwise)
HHSize- is the total number of household members.
HHFemale –is the number of women in the household.
𝛽𝑠 - are the parameters to be estimated
ɛ - is the error term
Table A shows the estimated coefficient of parameters for factors affecting percentage of technology
adoption of Cacao technologies. Among Cacao farmers, adoption of introduced farm technologies are
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
70
affected and enhanced by the following factors: (1) the number of cacao trees planted before the
introduction of the production technologies, (2) land ownership, those who owned the farm land has a
higher percentage of technology adoption compared to those farmers who do not own their land, (3)
number of years of formal schooling significantly and positively affects percentage of adoption, (4) number
of years of cacao farming and (5) access to information on farm management as complement to farm
production technology trainings attended. Ownership of farm increases the percentage of adopted
technologies by 34% from 28% of those who do not own their cultivated farm, a year increase in number of
years of formal schooling increases percentage of technology adopted by 1.37%, per unit increase of
existing cacao tree increases percentage of technology adopted by 0.021%, and an a year increase in year
of cacao farming increases percentage of technology adopted by 0.86%, ceteris paribus.
Table A. Estimated coefficients of the factors affecting adoption rate of MinPACT Cacao technologies.
Variables Coef. Std. Err. T-Stat P Value [95% Conf. Interval]
Treeb 0.021* 0.012 1.720 0.088 -0.003 0.046
Treed -0.002ns 0.006 -0.300 0.762 -0.013 0.010
Areab 0.524 ns 2.337 0.220 0.823 -4.108 5.156
Aread -0.579 ns 0.583 -0.990 0.323 -1.735 0.577
Age 0.261 ns 0.166 1.570 0.119 -0.069 0.590
Gender 2.804 ns 5.071 0.550 0.581 -7.246 12.854
Civilsta -4.538 ns 6.427 -0.710 0.482 -17.276 8.201
Ownersh 34.183*** 5.714 5.980 0.000 22.859 45.508
Educ 1.367* 0.757 1.810 0.074 -0.133 2.867
Occupa -6.471 ns 6.631 -0.980 0.331 -19.613 6.671
Otheroccu -3.072 ns 5.062 -0.610 0.545 -13.104 6.960
Membership -6.883 ns 6.294 -1.090 0.277 -19.358 5.591
Dplant -16.374** 7.381 -2.220 0.029 -31.003 -1.745
dplant2 -11.724 ns 7.915 -1.480 0.141 -27.412 3.964
dplant3 -18.982* 9.992 -1.900 0.060 -38.786 0.822
Financial 10.772 ns 7.706 1.400 0.165 -4.501 26.045
Yearsfarm -0.237 ns 0.163 -1.460 0.148 -0.560 0.085
Yearscacao 0.859* 0.469 1.830 0.070 -0.071 1.790
Farmmantrain 18.789** 5.663 3.320 0.001 7.565 30.012
Hhsize -1.642 ns 1.991 -0.820 0.411 -5.588 2.305
Hhfemale 1.513 ns 2.855 0.530 0.597 -4.146 7.172
Constant 27.955* 15.145 1.850 0.068 -2.062 57.972
Prob> F = 0.0000
R-squared = 0.5208
Adj R-squared = 0.4284
Note: *** significant at 1% level of alpha, ** significant at 5% level of alpha, * significant at 10% level of
alpha, ns not significant 10% level of alpha
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
71
In terms of coconut, significant factors affecting percentage adoption of technologies are number of
hectares planted with coconut during MinPACT and availment of financial services. Result suggest that
farmers with larger farms planted with coconut trees during the MinPACT project has a higher percentage
of technology adoption. Among coconut farmers, it shows that those with access and availed financial
services (credit) have significantly higher percentage of adoption compared to those without access and
availment of financial services.
A per hectare expansion of area planted to coconut during the project increase percentage of adopted
technologies on coconut production by 0.23%. Those with access to financial services has a percentage of
Table B. Estimated coefficients of the factors affecting adoption rate of MinPACT Coconut technologies.
Variables Coef. Std. Err. T-Stat P Value [95% Conf. Interval]
Treeb -0.008ns 0.018 -0.450 0.652 -0.043 0.027
Treed 0.017 ns 0.017 0.980 0.330 -0.017 0.051
Areab 0.170 ns 0.542 0.310 0.754 -0.903 1.244
aread 0.230** 0.084 2.740 0.007 0.064 0.396
age 0.160 ns 0.109 1.470 0.145 -0.056 0.376
gender -0.731 ns 2.916 -0.250 0.802 -6.500 5.038
civilsta 0.775 ns 3.694 0.210 0.834 -6.534 8.084
ownersh 3.094 ns 4.428 0.700 0.486 -5.668 11.856
educ 0.662 ns 0.409 1.620 0.108 -0.147 1.471
occupa 0.890 ns 4.354 0.200 0.838 -7.725 9.506
otheroccu -3.966 ns 3.999 -0.990 0.323 -11.878 3.946
membership 4.454 ns 3.736 1.190 0.235 -2.938 11.846
dplant -0.217 ns 5.849 -0.040 0.970 -11.789 11.355
dplant2 7.421 ns 6.871 1.080 0.282 -6.174 21.015
dplant3 -16.125 ns 22.126 -0.730 0.467 -59.903 27.652
financial 46.102*** 5.714 8.070 0.000 34.797 57.407
yearsfarm -0.032 ns 0.118 -0.270 0.788 -0.266 0.202
yearscacao -0.153 ns 0.145 -1.050 0.294 -0.439 0.134
farmmantrain 0.981 ns 3.180 0.310 0.758 -5.311 7.273
hhsize 0.509 ns 1.287 0.400 0.693 -2.037 3.055
hhmale 1.691 ns 2.008 0.840 0.401 -2.282 5.663
Constant -20.712* 10.110 -2.050 0.043 -40.715 -0.709
Prob> F = 0.0000
R-squared = 0.5249
Adj R-squared = 0.4476
Note: *** significant at 1% level of alpha, ** significant at 5% level of alpha, * significant at 10% level of
alpha, ns not significant 10% level of alpha
Technology adoption among coffee farmers are significantly affected by number of trees planted, level of
education, and household size. The higher numbers of existing coffee trees before MinPACT suggest
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
72
decreasing percentage adoption, while those who able to expand number of trees during the MinPACT
increase percentage of adoption. Number of years of formal schooling and household size positively and
significantly affect percentage of technology adoption. Financial variable was omitted in the model for
coffee since none of the farmers have availed financial services.
The P-value (Prob> F) of the three models are below 0.005 which suggest that there is significant
relationship between the dependent and independent variables. R squared ranged from 23% (Coffee) to
52% (Cacao and Coconut) which is the amount of variance of percentage of technology adoption explained
by the independent variables included in the analysis.
Estimated coefficients revealed that per tree increase of existing coffee tree prior to MinPACT decreases
the percentage of technologies adopted by 0.03%, however, an expansion (per tree of newly planted)
increases the technologies adopted by 0.02%. A year increase in educational level (in years) and an
increase in the number of household members increases the percentage of technologies adopted by
2.11% and 4.18%, respectively.
Table C. Estimated coefficients of the factors affecting adoption rate of MinPACT Coffee technologies.
Variables Coef. Std. Err. T-Stat P Value [95% Conf. Interval]
treeb -0.031** 0.013 -2.340 0.021 -0.058 -0.005
treed 0.023* 0.013 1.760 0.082 -0.003 0.049
areab 0.015ns 0.061 0.240 0.812 -0.106 0.135
aread 0.014 ns 0.049 0.290 0.773 -0.083 0.112
age 0.140 ns 0.170 0.820 0.413 -0.198 0.478
gender -1.087 ns 5.263 -0.210 0.837 -11.513 9.338
civilsta -5.482 ns 5.964 -0.920 0.360 -17.297 6.334
ownersh 15.470 ns 16.790 0.920 0.359 -17.791 48.730
educ 2.117** 0.730 2.900 0.005 0.670 3.564
occupa -0.543 ns 6.809 -0.080 0.937 -14.033 12.946
otheroccu 0.989 ns 7.716 0.130 0.898 -14.297 16.276
membership 1.083 ns 6.416 0.170 0.866 -11.627 13.792
dplant 4.362 ns 16.360 0.270 0.790 -28.048 36.772
dplant2 -9.154 ns 15.955 -0.570 0.567 -40.762 22.453
dplant3 -30.777ns 33.030 -0.930 0.353 -96.210 34.656
yearsfarm 0.338 ns 0.231 1.460 0.147 -0.120 0.797
yearscacao -0.153 ns 0.381 -0.400 0.690 -0.908 0.603
farmmantrain -1.753 ns 5.380 -0.330 0.745 -12.410 8.904
hhsize 4.179** 2.030 2.060 0.042 0.158 8.200
hhfemale -0.329 ns 3.031 -0.110 0.914 -6.333 5.676
Constant 26.456* 14.107 1.880 0.063 -1.489 54.402
Prob> F = 0.0414
R-squared = 0.2308
Adj R-squared = 0.0958
Note: *** significant at 1% level of alpha, ** significant at 5% level of alpha, * significant at 10% level of
alpha,ns not significant 10% level of alpha
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
73
ANNEX 5: MTE STATISTICAL TABLES
StatisticalTable 1: Distribution of respondents, by crop
Distribution
Cacao 133
Coconut 151
Coffee 138
Mixed 120
• Cacao Coconut 97
• Cacao Coconut Coffee 6
• Cacao Coffee 13
• Coconut Coffee 4
Total 542
Note: In succeeding tables and unless specified, the 4 sub-groups under “Mixed” will be combined.
Statistical Table 2: Distribution of respondents by average age and sex, by crop
Average Age
Sex
Female Male Total % Female % Male
Cacao 49.6 50 91 141 35.5 64.5
Coconut 53.6 58 87 145 40.0 60.0
Coffee 41.8 71 66 137 51.8 48.2
Cacao Coconut 50.3 46 50 96 47.9 52.1
Cacao Coconut Coffee 61.7 1 5 6 16.7 83.3
Cacao Coffee 52.7 7 5 12 58.3 41.7
Coconut Coffee 58.6 2 3 5 40.0 60.0
Average 49.1 235 307 542 43.4 56.6
Note: The evaluation team was not able to include sex as a sampling factor.
StatisticalTable 3: Distribution of respondents by marital status, by crop
Married Single Widowed Common
Law/Live in
Divorced/
Separated Total
Cacao 111 11 15 3 1 141
Coconut 111 10 17 3 4 145
Coffee 111 15 6 4 1 137
Cacao Coconut 82 3 7 3 1 96
Cacao Coconut Coffee 5 1 6
Cacao Coffee 10 2 12
Coconut Coffee 3 2 5
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
74
StatisticalTable 4: Average years of formal schooling byrespondents, by crop
Average Years of Education
Cacao 9
Coconut 9
Coffee 7
Cacao Coconut 10
Cacao Coconut Coffee 8
Cacao Coffee 8
Coconut Coffee 6
Average 9
StatisticalTable 5: Main occupation of respondents, by crop
Farme
r
Business
Operato
r
Hired
Farm
Worke
r
OF
W
Other
s
Professiona
l
Employmen
t
Profession
al
Practice
Skille
d
Labor
Studen
t
Tota
l
%
Farmer
Cacao 108 1 3 9 11 2 4 3 141 76.6
Coconut 118 4 2 2 10 7 2 145 81.4
Coffee 113 1 11 8 1 2 1 137 82.5
Cacao
Coconut 67 1 1 1 13 6 4 2 1 96 69.8
Cacao
Coconut
Coffee 5 1 6 83.3
Cacao Coffee 8 1 1 2 12 66.7
Coconut
Coffee 5 5 100
Total 424 8 18 3 40 26 6 10 7 542 78.2
StatisticalTable 6: Average household size, by crop
Household Size Ave. Number of Male Ave. Number of Female
Cacao 4 2 2
Coconut 4 2 2
Coffee 5 3 2
Mixed 4 2 2
Average 4 2 2
StatisticalTable 7: Type of household and average size of extended households, by crop
Nuclear % Extended % Total Ave. number of members of
extended Household
Cacao 120 90.2 13 9.8 133 2
Coconut 136 90.1 15 9.9 151 2
Coffee 135 97.8 3 2.2 138 2
Mixed 108 90.0 12 10.0 120 2
Total 499 92.1 43 7.9 542 2
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
75
StatisticalTable 8: Average years in farming and in farming 3Cs, 2017
Average Years of
Farming
Ave. years of
growing Cacao
Ave. years of growing
Coconut
Ave. years of
growing Coffee
Cacao 20.4 3.4
Coconut 26.6 19.9
Coffee 19.6 5.5
Cacao Coconut 22.0 5.0 18.8
Cacao Coconut Coffee 23.2 2.5 12.8 1.3
Cacao Coffee 23.0 5.8 9.5
Coconut Coffee 30.0 17.8 21.5
Average 22.3 2.3 11.2 2.2
StatisticalTable 9: Changes in crop cultivation frombefore and during MinPACT
Frequency %
Additional Crop Cacao and Coconut 1 0.2
Additional Crop Cacao 101 18.6
Additional Crop Coffee 2 0.4
Additional Crop Cacao and Coffee 2 0.4
Additional Crop Coconut 26 4.8
Expanded Cacao Cultivation 49 9.0
Expanded Coconut Cultivation 39 7.2
Expanded Coffee Cultivation 32 5.9
Expanded of Cacao and Coconut 30 5.5
Expanded of Cacao and Coffee 4 0.7
Newly Cultivated Cacao 25 4.6
Newly Cultivated Cacao and Coconut 6 1.1
Newly cultivated Cacao and Coffee 3 0.6
Newly Cultivated Coconut 4 0.7
Newly Cultivated Coffee 68 12.5
No Change 79 14.6
No Response 71 13.1
Total 542 100.0
Percentage expanded original cultivated crops 28.4
Percentage newly planted 3Cs 19.6
Percentage diversified 3Cs 24.4
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
76
Statistical Table 10: Area planted to 3Cs before and during MinPACT
Area Planted (Has.)
Before MinPACT
(2015)
Area Planted (Has.)
during MinPACT
(2016)
% Change
Cacao 1.4 2.2 0.8
Cacao intercropped with Coconut 2.1 2.2 0.0
Cacao intercropped with Coconut and Coffee 0.6 0.6 0.0
Cacao intercropped with Coffee 0.7 0.9 0.2
Average (Cacao) 1.6 2.1 0.5
Coconut 2.2 3.4 1.2
Coconut intercropped with Cacao 2.4 2.5 0.1
Coconut intercropped with Cacao and Coffee 1.4 1.4 0.0
Coconut intercropped with Coffee 0.2 0.3 0.0
Average (Coconut) 2.2 3.0 0.7
Coffee 0.78 1.26 0.5
Coffee intercropped with Coconut and Cacao 0.21 0.21 0.0
Coffee intercropped with Cacao 2.08 1.42 -0.7
Coffee intercropped with Coconut 0.75 0.68 -0.1
Average (Coffee) 0.89 1.18 0.3
Statistical Table 11: Perception on farmer-respondents that changes in net income will be due to adoption
of farming techniques and technologies
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 59 70 4 133 44.4
Coconut 45 98 8 151 29.8
Coffee 89 44 5 138 64.5
Cacao Coconut 51 43 3 97 52.6
Cacao Coconut Coffee 3 2 1 6 50.0
Cacao Coffee 9 3 1 13 69.2
Coconut Coffee 3 1 4 75.0
Total 259 260 23 542 47.8
Statistical Table 12: Average number ofvisits of MinPACTTechnician/Staff in 2016
Average Number Visits
Cacao 3
Coconut 3
Coffee 8
Cacao Coconut 3
Cacao Coconut Coffee 4
Cacao Coffee 2
Coconut Coffee 0
Total 4
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
77
Statistical Table 13: Perception of farmer-respondents on MinPACT technician/staff's availability for
consultation
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 83 47 3 133 62.4
Coconut 72 70 9 151 47.7
Coffee 101 35 2 138 73.2
Cacao Coconut 53 41 3 97 54.6
Cacao Coconut Coffee 4 1 1 6 66.7
Cacao Coffee 9 3 1 13 69.2
Coconut Coffee 1 1 2 4 25.0
Total 323 198 21 542 59.6
StatisticalTable 14: Satisfaction of farmer-respondents on services of MinPACT Field Technicians
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 90 40 3 133 67.7
Coconut 79 65 7 151 52.3
Coffee 104 30 4 138 75.4
Cacao Coconut 58 36 3 97 59.8
Cacao Coconut Coffee 5 1 6 83.3
Cacao Coffee 10 2 1 13 76.9
Coconut Coffee 1 2 1 4 25.0
Total 347 175 20 542 64.0
StatisticalTable 15: Sources of funds for farmoperation, before and during MinPACT
Before MinPACT During MinPACT
Diff.
Caca
o
Cocon
ut
Coffe
e
Mixe
d
Tot
al %
Caca
o
Coco
nut
Coffe
e
Mixe
d
Tot
al %
Sale of farm produce 86 117 126 93 422 77.9 76 95 128 77 376 69.4 -8.5
Loans/borrowings 17 12 8 24 61 11.3 41 19 0 50 110 20.3 9.0
Remittances 3 7 0 2 12 2.2 1 3 0 2 6 1.11 -1.1
Off-farm
employment 35 25 12 20 92 17.0 35 23 15 22 95 17.5 0.6
Business or other
investment 7 14 21 5 47 8.7 6 7 14 4 31 5.72 -3.0
Statistical Table 16: Number of farmer-respondents assisted/linked and received financial services
through MinPACT
Crop
Assisted/Linked to financial services(n=542) Received Financial Services (n=82)
Yes No
No
Response % Yes Yes No % Yes
Cacao 29 101 3 21.8 24 5 82.8
Coconut 24 125 2 15.9 11 13 45.8
Coffee 3 133 2 2.2 0 3 0.0
Mixed 26 93 1 21.7 19 7 73.1
Total 82 452 8 15.1 54 28 65.9
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
78
StatisticalTable 17: Sources of financial services (n=54)
Crop Producer Organization Others
Cacao 24 0
Coconut 6 5
Coffee 0 0
Mixed 17 2
Total 47 7
StatisticalTable 18: Sufficiency of the loan amount availed (N=54)
Crop Yes No No Response % Yes
Cacao 16 5
3
66.7
Coconut 7 4
0
63.6
Mixed 15 3
1
78.9
Total 38 12 4
70.4
Statistical Table 19: Perceived benefits to farmer-respondents after access to financial service (N=54,
multiple response)
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed Total %
Enhance/Increase crop productivity and
income 21 6 0 18 45 83.3
Align with quality standards 1 0 0 1 2 3.7
Increase market value (price) of products 2 0 0 3 5 9.3
Better farm fertility through improved
quality of land and water resources
6 1 0 5 12 22.2
Enhance/Increase marketability/quality of
farm produce 2 2 0 2 6 11.1
Reduce post-harvest losses 1 0 0 3 4 7.4
Others (ability to buy additional seedlings) 0 3 0 0 3 5.6
StatisticalTable 20: Effectiveness of the MinPACT-supported financial services (N=542)
Crop Very effective Effective
Not effective; No
response % Effective
Cacao 4 68 61 54.1
Coconut 3 42 106 29.8
Coffee 6 47 85 38.4
Mixed 3 50 67 44.2
Total 16 207 319 41.6
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
79
StatisticalTable 21: Type of plantingmaterials, before and during MinPACT
Before MinPACT During MinPACT Diff. 
Cacao Coconut Coffee Total % Cacao Coconut Coffee Total %
Clone 40 13 8 61 14.5 85 52 93 230 54.5 40.0
Traditional variety 77 126 88 291 69.0 32 55 23 110 26.1 -42.9
Wildlings 11 11 2.6 1 1 0.2 -2.4
Non-response 16 12 31 59 14.0 16 44 21 81 19.2 5.2
Total 133 151 138 422 100.0 133 151 138 422 100.0
Note: Data for mixed crops were not included.
StatisticalTable 22: Sources of plantingmaterials, before and during MinPACT
Before MinPACT During MinPAC T Diff 
Cacao Coconut Coffee Total % Cacao Coconut Coffee Total %
Unaccredited and
Uncertified Nurseries
1 4 6 11 2.5 0 1 1 2 0.5 -2.0
Unaccredited Nurseries 2 0 8 10 2.3 0 0 6 6 1.4 -0.9
Friends/Community 15 28 81 124 28.3 3 7 26 36 8.4 -20.0
Own 83 80 62 225 51.4 43 42 27 112 26.0 -25.4
Accredited and
Certified Nurseries
29 27 5 61 13.9 32 31 46 109 25.3 11.4
MinPACT supported
PO Nurseries
2 4 1 7 1.6 64 35 67 166 38.5 36.9
Total 132 143 163 438 100.0 142 116 173 431 100
Statistical Table 23: Number and percentage of farmer-respondents who adopted the recommended
technologies, cacao, N=249
Cacao
Coconut
Cacao
Coconut
Coffee
Cacao
Coffee Cacao Total % Adopted
Farm Diversification 43 2 6 46 96 39%
Crop Genetics 39 1 7 50 96 38%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 36 1 7 38 81 33%
Pest Management 21 0 5 25 51 20%
Disease Management 48 3 9 56 115 46%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 22 1 7 28 58 23%
Average 35 1 7 41 83 33%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
80
StatisticalTable 24: Observed/perceived changes in quality due to adopted technologies, cacao
Technology
Number of
Adoptees Positive Negative None/Same % Positive Change
Farm Diversification 96 88 2 6 92%
Crop Genetics 96 81 1 8 84%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 81 73 1 7 90%
Pest Management 51 41 1 9 76%
Disease Management 115 104 - 11 90%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 58 51 - 7 88%
StatisticalTable 25: Observed/perceived changes in productivity due to adoption oftechnologies, cacao
Technology
Number of
Adoptees Positive Negative None/Same % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 96 75 2 19 78%
Crop Genetics 96 75 2 19 78%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 81 65 1 15 81%
Pest Management 51 34 1 16 67%
Disease Management 115 97 3 15 84%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 58 51 1 6 88%
StatisticalTable 26: Observed/perceived changes in costreduction due to adoption of technologies, cacao
Technology
Number
of
Adoptees
Positive Negative
None/Same
% of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 96 65 3 28 68%
Crop Genetics 96 62 3 31 65%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 81 53 2 26 65%
Pest Management 51 21 3 27 51%
Disease Management 115 80 5 30 70%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 58 46 2 10 79%
StatisticalTable 27: Observed/perceived changes in marketability due to adoption of technologies, cacao
Technology
Number
of
Adoptees
Positive Negative
None/Same
% of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 96 64 3 28 67%
Crop Genetics 96 61 2 33 64%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 81 55 1 25 68%
Pest Management 51 20 2 29 39%
Disease Management 115 78 - 37 68%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 58 50 1 7 85%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
81
StatisticalTable 28: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended technologies, cacao
Technology n Not
appropriate
for the crop
Input
intensive,
expensive
Laborious,
time
consuming
Do not own
a land
(Tenure)
Not
convinced
on the
benefits of
the
technology
No
seedlings,
Not yet
planted,
too young
Farm Diversification 26 2 1 3 3 - 17
Crop Genetics
37 1 2 2 3 - 29
Soil-related Fertility
and Conservation 29 3 1 1 1 - 22
Pest Management 46 1 1 3 2 0 39
Disease Management
53 5 - 2 2 - 45
Harvesting and Post￾Harvest Handling 25 - - - 1 - 24
Statistical Table 29: Number and percentage of farmers who adopted recommended technologies, coconut,
N=258
Technology Coconut Cacao Coconut Total % adopted
Farm Diversification 11 13 24 9.1%
Crop Genetics 12 12 24 9.3%
Soil-related Fertility and
Conservation 11 10 21 8.0%
Pest Management 16 13 29 11.2%
Disease Management 13 13 26 10.1%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest
Handling 8 12 20 7.6%
Average 12 12 24 9%
StatisticalTable 30: Observed/perceived changes in quality due to adopted technologies, coconut
Technology
Number of
Adoptees Positive Negative None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 24 23 1 86.2%
Crop Genetics 24 21 3 85.4%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 21 20 1 92.8%
Pest Management 29 25 4 86.2%
Disease Management
26 22 4 84.6%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 20 13 17 41.7%
StatisticalTable 31: Observed/perceived changes productivity due to adopted technologies, coconut
Technology Number of Adoptees Positive None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 24 23 1 93.8%
Crop Genetics 24 21 3 85.4%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 21 20 1 92.9%
Pest Management 29 25 4 86.2%
Disease Management 26 22 4 84.6%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 20 18 12 58.3%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
82
StatisticalTable 32: Observed/perceived changes in costreduction due to adopted technologies, coconut
Technology Number of Adoptees Positive None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 24 21 3 87.5%
Crop Genetics 24 20 4 81.3%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 21 18 3 83.3%
Pest Management 29 23 6 79.3%
Disease Management 26 21 5 80.8%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 20 16 13 51.7%
StatisticalTable 33: Observed/perceived changes in marketability due to adopted technologies, coconut
Technology Number of Adoptees Positive None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 24 21 3 85.4
Crop Genetics 24 19 5 79.2
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 21 18 3 84.5
Pest Management 29 23 3 79.3
Disease Management 26 20 6 76.9
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 20 16 14 53.3
StatisticalTable 34: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended technologies, coconut
n Not
appropriate
for the crop
Input intensive,
expensive
Laborious,
time
consuming
Do not
own a
land
(Tenure)
Not
convinced
on benefits
of
technology
No
seedlings,
Not yet
planted,
too young
Farm Diversification 7 1 - - 1 - 6
Crop Genetics 7 1 - - 1 - 6
Soil-related Fertility and
Conservation
9 1 1 1 1 - 5
Pest Management 9 2 0 0 1 0 6
Disease Management 7 0 2 1 1 0 3
Harvesting and Post￾Harvest Handling
8 - - - - - 8
Statistical Table 35: Number and percentage of farmers who adopted recommended technologies, coffee,
N=161
Coffe
e
Cacao Coconut
Coffee
Cacao
Coffee
Coconut
Coffee
Tota
l
%
Adopted
Farm Diversification 53 0 4 1 58 35.7%
Crop Genetics 45 0 6 0 50 31.1%
Soil-related Fertility and
Conservation 35 0 5 0 39 24.4%
Pest Management 38 0 5 0 43 26.7%
Disease Management 24 0 5 0 29 18.0%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest
Handling 21 0 5 0 26 15.8%
Average 36 0 5 0 41 25%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
83
StatisticalTable 36: Observed/perceived changes in quality due to adopted technologies, coffee
Number
of
Adoptees Positive None
% of Positive
Change
Farm Diversification 58 33 25 59.9%
Crop Genetics 50 31 19 61.0%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 39 21 18 53.8%
Pest Management 43 26 17 60.5%
Disease Management 29 27 2 91.4%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 26 20 6 75.0%
StatisticalTable 37: Observed/perceived changes in productivity due to adopted technologies, coffee
Number
of
Adoptees Positive None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 58 31 27 53.4%
Crop Genetics 50 30 20 60.0%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 39 24 16 60.3%
Pest Management 43 25 18 58.1%
Disease Management 29 25 4 86.2%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 26 19 7 73.1%
StatisticalTable 38: Observed/perceived changes in costreduction due to adopted technologies, coffee
Number
of
Adoptees
Positive
None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 58 25 33 43.1%
Crop Genetics 50 26 24 51.0%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 39 20 19 50.0%
Pest Management 43 22 41 51.2%
Disease Management 29 20 9 29%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 26 16 10 59.6%
StatisticalTable 39: Observed/Perceived changes inmarketability due to adopted technologies, coffee
Number
of
Adoptees
Positive
None % of Positive Change
Farm Diversification 58 29 29 49.1%
Crop Genetics 50 29 21 57.0%
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation 39 21 18 54.5%
Pest Management 43 24 19 55.8%
Disease Management 29 23 6 77.6%
Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling 26 18 18 69.2%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
84
StatisticalTable 40: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended technologies, coffee
n
Not
appropriat
e for the
crop
Input
intensive,
expensive
Laborious,
time
consuming
Do not
own a land
(Tenure)
Not
convinced
on the
benefits of
the
technology
No seedlings,
Not yet
planted, too
young
Farm Diversification 74 3 1 7 1 2 61
Crop Genetics 52 1 0 1 0 0 50
Soil-related Fertility
and Conservation 92 2 9 8 1 2 70
Pest Management 91 2 4 0 1 0 84
Disease Management 99 2 3 2 1 0 92
Harvesting and Post￾Harvest Handling 100 3 1 4 - - 93
StatisticalTable 41: Number of farmers with additional training needs
Yes No No Response Total % Yes
Cacao 101 27 5 133 75.9
Coconut 117 27 7 151 77.5
Coffee 112 22 4 138 81.2
Mixed 79 39 2 120 65.8
Total 409 115 18 542 75.5
Statistical Table 42: Number of farmer-respondents who rated training as the best modality for knowledge
transfer
Yes No No Response % Yes
Cacao 121 8 4 91.0
Coconut 135 9 7 89.4
Coffee 135 3 97.8
Mixed 105 13 2 87.5
Total 496 30 16 91.5
StatisticalTable 43: Othermodalities perceived as effective
Modality Cacao Coconut Mixed Total %
Demo farms 5 7 13 25 83.3
Field technicians/extension workers 1 1 1 3 10.0
IEC/Techno Guides/Manuals 0 2 1 3 10.0
Field school (physical learning sites) 0 2 1 3 10.0
Farm exposure/ "Lakbay Aral" 0 1 0 1 3.3
Note: the percentage is based on the “No response” in the previous table (n=30).
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
85
StatisticalTable 44: Number and percentage of farmers who availed of non-training activities (n=106)
Yes No No Response % Yes
Cacao 32 98 3 24.1
Coconut 32 117 2 21.2
Coffee 8 128 2 5.8
Mixed 34 85 1 28.3
Total 106 428 8 19.6
Statistical Table 45:Types of activities and services availed by farmer-respondents (N=106, multiple
response)
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed Total %
Buyer referrals 5 2 0 1 8 7.5
IEC materials 0 0 0 1 1 0.9
Field School 2 0 0 2 4 3.8
Farm Exposure 20 10 2 17 49 46.2
Demo Farms 12 18 1 14 45 42.5
Market info. 2 1 0 4 7 6.6
Forum/Conferences 2 5 0 2 9 8.5
Others (competition,
linkages, meetings) 4 2 1 5 12 11.3
Statistical Table 46: Observed/perceived effects of participating in non-training activities (n=106, multiple
response)
Cacao Coconut Coffee Mixed Total %
Increased crop productivity and income 25 24 4 23 76 71.7
Increased market value (or price) of products 3 1 1 4 9 8.5
Increased marketability (or quality) of farm produce 5 1 1 2 9 8.5
Reduced post-harvest losses 7 1 1 8 17 16
Aligned with quality standards 1 1 1 4 7 6.6
Sustainable farming through improved quality of land and
water resources 10 6 4 4 24 22.6
Others(more knowledge) 3 3 1 9 16 15.1
StatisticalTable 47: Perceived effectiveness of non-training activities (n=106)
Very effective Effective Not effective % Effective
Cacao 2 27 3 90.6
Coconut 3 29 1 96.9
Coffee 2 6 100.0
Mixed 6 24 4 88.2
Total 13 85 8 92.5
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
86
Statistical Table 48: Number and percentage of farmer-respondents on the perceived appropriateness and
sufficiency of non-training interventions
Farmers perceived that services
match their needs
The intervention is sufficient to create changes in
the farm
Yes No % Yes Yes No % Yes
Cacao 32 100 31 1 96.9
Coconut 30 2 94 28 5 87.5
Coffee 8 100 8 100.0
Mixed 32 2 97 32 2 94.1
Total 102 4 96 101 8 95.3
StatisticalTable 49: Number of farmers who attended farmmanagement trainings
No. farmers attended training % attended
Cacao 54 40.6
Coconut 47 31.1
Coffee 65 47.1
Mixed 58 48.3
Total 224 41.3
StatisticalTable 50: Percentage of farmer-respondents who applied themanagement practices
No. of
farmers who
attended
mgt training
% farmers
who
attended
mgt training
No. of
farmers who
applied mgt
practices
% Applied
Input, Output, and Labor Needs Computation 205 91.5 158 76.0
Business practices (related to the management of land,
crops, equipment, facilities, transportation)
133
59.4 102 76.7
Use of Information Technology (including computers and
GPS)
45
20.1 11 24.4
Financial planning, cash flow, balance sheet, income
statements, variable and fixed agents
148
66.1 117 79.1
Record Keeping (including financial and production
documents, receipts and expenses, maintaining and
using inventories, etc)
182
81.3
153 84.1
Gender Equity/Equality/Development/mainstreaming 205 27.2 55 90.2
StatisticalTable 51: Reasons for adoption of recommended management practices
Easy to
follow
Helpful in
decision
making
professionalize/
formalize the farm
operation
Enhances
efficiency
of the
operation
Others
(new info,
knowledge)
Input, Output, and Labor Needs Computation 142 111 28 80 9
Business practices (related to the management
of land, crops, equipment, facilities,
transportation)
94 64 13 47 2
Use of Information Technology (including
computers and GPS) 10 8 6 7 0
Financial planning, cash flow, balance sheet,
income statements, variable and fixed agents 109 87 28 60 4
Record Keeping (including financial and
production documents, receipts and expenses,
maintaining and using inventories, etc.)
138 113 42 92 4
Gender Equity/Equality/Development/
mainstreaming 47 36 6 15 1
Average 90 70 21 50 3
% to those who attended management training 40% 31% 9% 22% 1%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
87
StatisticalTable 52: Perceived level of effectiveness of farmmanagement practices
Very
Effective Effective Not Effective Total % Effective
Cacao 5 50 8 63 87
Coconut 10 42 7 59 88
Coffee 2 59 2 63 97
Mixed 17 46 2 65 97
Total 34 197 19 250 92
Note: The excess of 26 who gave rating on this question learned the practice from other farmers.
StatisticalTable 53: Reasons for non-adoption of recommended management practices
Very hard
to follow
and apply
Lack of
equipment,
tools to apply
the practice
Does
not
think
this is
helpful
in my
operati
on
Incon￾venient
Time
consuming
Did not
fully
understan
d the
manageme
nt practice
Others
(have not
yet
planted,
no plants
Input, Output, and Labor Needs
Computation 9 6 1 3 13 0 32
Business practices (related to the
management of land, crops,
equipment, facilities,
transportation)
7 7 1 0 6 2 18
Use of Information Technology
(including computers and GPS) 4 29 2 1 0 1 4
Financial planning, cash flow,
balance sheet, income
statements, variable and fixed
agents
6 4 1 1 10 1 15
Record Keeping (including
financial and production
documents, receipts and
expenses, maintaining and using
inventories, etc)
2 3 3 2 6 2 10
Gender Equity/Equality/
Development/mainstreaming 2 3 0 0 0 1 4
Average 5 9 1 1 6 1 14
% to those who attended
management training 2% 4% 1% 1% 3% 1% 6%
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
88
StatisticalTable 54: Farmplanning practice, before and during MinPACT
Before MinPACT During MinPACT Diff.
Yes No No response Total % Yes Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 31 98 4 133 23.3 70 58 5 133 52.6 29.3
Coconut 47 98 6 151 31.1 63 78 10 151 41.7 10.6
Coffee 40 97 1 138 29.0 92 45 1 138 66.7 37.7
Cacao Coconut 33 60 4 97 34.0 57 36 4 97 58.8 24.7
Cacao Coconut Coffee 2 3 1 6 33.3 1 4 1 6 16.7 -16.7
Cacao Coffee 4 8 1 13 30.8 9 3 1 13 69.2 38.5
Coconut Coffee 2 1 1 4 50.0 3 1 4 75.0 25.0
Total 159 365 18 542 29.3 295 224 23 542 54.4 25.1
StatisticalTable 55: Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries covered by crop insurance
Yes No No response Total % Yes 
Cacao 20 109 4 133 15.0
Coconut 9 134 8 151 6.0
Coffee 1 134 3 138 0.7
Mixed 11 100 9 120 9.2
Total 41 477 24 542 7.6
StatisticalTable 56: Percentage of farmers whose farmis certified
GAP Organic,
thers
No No response Total % Yes 
Cacao 3 4 111 15 133 5.3
Coconut 4 6 118 23 151 6.6
Coffee 0 0 115 23 138 0
Mixed 6 10 83 21 120 13.3
Total 13 20 427 82 542 6.08
Statistical Table 57: Percentage of farmers who are aware of product quality standards
Before MinPACT During MinPACT Diff 
Yes No No response Total % Yes Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 54 70 9 133 40.6 101 25 7 133 75.9 35.3
Coconut 46 91 14 151 30.46 89 50 12 151 58.9 28.5
Coffee 20 109 9 138 14.49 98 34 6 138 71.0 56.5
Mixed 43 67 10 120 35.83 92 17 11 120 76.7 40.8
Total 163 337 42 542 30.07 380 126 36 542 70.1 40.0
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
89
StatisticalTable 58: Awareness of women-friendlyfarmpractices being promoted by MinPACT
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 88 42 3 133 66.2
Coconut 102 41 8 151 67.5
Coffee 119 15 4 138 86.2
Cacao Coconut 63 30 4 97 64.9
Cacao Coconut Coffee 4 1 1 6 66.7
Cacao Coffee 10 2 1 13 76.9
Coconut Coffee 2 1 1 4 50.0
Total 388 132 22 542 71.6
StatisticalTable 59: Identification of women-friendlyfarmpractices promoted by MinPACT
Item Cacao Coconut Coffee Cacao
Coconut
Cacao
Coconut
Coffee
Cacao
Coffee
Coconut
Coffee Total %
Inclusion of women and
youth in technical training,
leadership skills, etc.
76 99 109 62 4 10 1 361 66.6
Flexible working
arrangements(productive
and reproductive
responsibilities)
2 2 7 1 0 0 0 12 2.2
Gender division of labor 5 6 7 4 0 1 0 23 4.2
Representation in
marketing-related activities
2 0 8 1 0 1 0 12 2.2
Representation in decision￾making bodies (cooperative,
association, group)
3 3 33 3 0 0 0 42 7.7
Equal access to
advice/mentor/extension
12 15 8 3 0 2 0 40 7.4
Equal access to input supply 10 10 25 4 1 0 1 51 9.4
Equal access to credit or
gender-specific window
9 8 26 1 0 0 0 44 8.1
Others (bagging of
seedlings, organization of
cooperative, selling of
produce)
18 10 1 13 0 0 0 42 7.7
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
90
StatisticalTable 60: Average number of women in family involved in MinPACT
Ave. number of
women per
family
participated in
MinPACT
% perceived that women have equal access to MinPACT
Project
Yes No No
response
Total % Yes
Cacao 0.98 67 63 3 133 50.4
Coconut 1.30 80 53 18 151 53.0
Coffee 0.83 120 12 6 138 87.0
Cacao Coconut 0.56 47 43 7 97 48.5
Cacao Coconut Coffee 0.60 4 1 1 6 66.7
Cacao Coffee 0.64 8 4 1 13 61.5
Coconut Coffee 0.67 2 1 1 4 50.0
Average/Total 0.93 328 177 37 542 60.5
Statistical Table 61: Method of transferring knowledge learned from training by women to their
husband/father/son
Cacao Coconut Coffee Cacao
Coconut
Cacao
Coconut
Coffee
Cacao
Coffee
Coconut
Coffee Total %
Share the training
materials 55 70 115 56 3 8 1 308 56.8
Women opt to perform
learned knowledge in the
farm 19 11 12 4 0 0 0 46 8.5
Demonstrate the
knowledge/skills in the
farm to
husband/father/son 52 47 77 37 4 7 0 224 41.3
Not shared/transferred at
all 5 2 6 0 0 0 0 13 2.4
Others 9 10 0 15 1 0 0 35 6.5
Note: All respondents were asked this question. For male respondents, they relayed what their spouse/daughter did if the
latter happened to attend the training on their behalf.
Statistical Table 62: Perception on the difference of women holding leadership position in any MinPACT
supported groups, before and during MinPACT
Before MinPACT During MinPACT
Difference
Yes No Non￾response
Total %
Yes Yes No Non￾response
Total %
Yes
Cacao 15 114 4 133 11.3 17 112 4 133 12.8 1.5
Coconut 18 114 19 151 11.9 17 113 21 151 11.3 -0.7
Coffee 10 121 7 138 7.2 10 120 8 138 7.2 0.0
Cacao Coconut 18 72 7 97 18.6 18 73 6 97 18.6 0.0
Cacao Coconut
Coffee 5 1 6 0.0 5 1 6 0.0 0.0
Cacao Coffee 1 11 1 13 7.7 1 10 2 13 7.7 0.0
Coconut Coffee 1 2 1 4 25.0 1 2 1 4 25.0 0.0
Total 63 439 40 542 11.6 64 435 43 542 11.8 0.2
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
91
Statistical Table 63: Perception on the difference of women holding leadership positions in any other
groups, before and during MinPACT
Before MinPACT During MinPACT Difference
Yes No No
response
Total %
Yes Yes No No
response
Total %
Yes
Cacao 13 116 4 133 9.8 14 114 5 133 10.5 0.8
Coconut 15 115 21 151 9.9 16 113 22 151 10.6 0.7
Coffee 2 128 8 138 1.4 7 122 9 138 5.1 3.6
Cacao Coconut 18 72 7 97 18.6 18 72 7 97 18.6 0.0
Cacao Coconut
Coffee 5 1 6 0.0 5 1 6 0.0 0.0
Cacao Coffee 1 10 2 13 7.7 2 9 2 13 15.4 7.7
Coconut Coffee 1 2 1 4 25.0 1 2 1 4 25.0 0.0
Total 50 448 44 542 9.2 58 437 47 542 10.7 1.5
Statistical Table 64: Extent of women participation and change in women participation in several
themes/issues due to MinPACT
Extent of Women Participation before
MinPACT
Relative change of women participation due
to MinPACT
All
the
tim
e
Most
of the
time
Few
Tim
e
Nev
er
No
resp
ons
e
Inc Dec Sa
me
No
respo
nse
Total %
Increase
Resource management
and development
planning
25 94 297 81 45 128 12 335 67 542 23.6
Budgeting 78 142 221 54 47 147 11 319 65 542 27.1
Implementation of
development projects
and activities
22 92 290 91 47 126 12 338 66 542 23.2
Formulation of
ordinances related to
agri and trade
21 71 271 131 48 107 13 352 70 542 19.7
Membership in committees 23 114 257 100 48 127 13 335 67 542 23.4
Revenue generation 22 102 240 130 48 142 12 319 69 542 26.2
Farm Management
What to plant 35 93 281 86 47 132 14 329 67 542 24.4
Where and Quantity
to Sell
32 101 290 72 47 145 12 320 65 542 26.8
What inputs to procure 26 94 279 95 48 148 14 311 69 542 27.3
Farming equipment to buy 20 77 283 114 48 98 14 366 64 542 18.1
Use of farming equipment 17 75 291 113 46 96 16 364 66 542 17.7
Borrowing money for
production
57 122 218 98 47 122 18 340 62 542 22.5
Whom to hire and how
much labor to pay
31 79 281 104 47 113 15 352 62 542 20.8
Where to spend farm
earnings
66 112 247 71 46 121 17 339 65 542 22.3
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
92
Statistical Table 65: Average number of youth participants, access and promotion of youth in MinPACT
Project
Ave. number of
youth members
in the family
involved in
MinPACT
% perceived that MinPACT
promotes youth participation
% perceived that youth have equal access to
MinPACT project
Yes No
No
respons
e
% Yes Yes No No response % Yes
Cacao 0.22 71 55 7 13.1 44 82 7 8.1
Coconut 0.19 79 53 19 14.6 49 79 23 9.0
Coffee 0.31 95 32 11 17.5 85 41 12 15.7
Cacao Coconut 0.15 50 42 5 9.2 33 58 6 6.1
Cacao Coconut
Coffee 0.20 4 1 1 0.7 3 2 1 0.6
Cacao Coffee 0.25 11 1 1 2.0 6 6 1 1.1
Coconut Coffee 1.00 1 1 2 0.2 2 2 0.0
Average/Total 0.23 311 185 46 57.4 220 270 52 40.6
Note: This question was asked to all respondents.
Statistical Table 66: Extent of youth participation and change in women participation in several
themes/issues due to MinPACT
General participation of youth Relative change of youth participation due
to MinPACT
All the
time
Most
of
the
time
Few
Time
Nev
er
No
respons
e
Incre
ase
Decre
ase
Sa
me
No
respons
e
%
Increas
e
Resource management
and development
planning
11 26 245 200 60 90 19 337 96 16.6
Budgeting 12 42 227 199 62 96 19 334 93 17.7
Implementation of
development projects
and activities
8 32 242 198 62 88 17 341 96 16.2
Formulation of
ordinances
related to agri and
trade
8 26 233 213 62 86 17 342 97 15.9
Membership in
committees 8 46 228 198 62 90 15 340 97 16.6
Revenue generation 8 47 221 204 62 98 15 330 99 18.1
What to plant 11 32 250 185 64 92 13 339 98 17.0
Where and Quantity to
Sell 11 39 235 194 63 92 15 337 98 17.0
What inputs to procure 10 48 225 197 62 103 12 329 98 19.0
Farming equipment to
buy 11 31 238 200 62 76 12 352 102 14.0
Use of farming
equipment 11 40 237 192 62 75 14 353 100 13.8
Borrowing money for
production 11 41 213 214 63 95 15 332 100 17.5
Whom to hire and
how much labor to pay
10 35 236 199 62 84 14 346 98 15.5
Where to spend farm
earnings 12 48 221 199 62 92 15 335 100 17.0
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
93
Statistical Table 67: Number and percentage of youth members who are motivated to continue farming due
to exposure/participation in MinPACT
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 47 75 11 133 35.3
Coconut 43 85 23 151 28.5
Coffee 81 48 9 138 58.7
Cacao Coconut 29 62 6 97 29.9
Cacao Coconut Coffee 2 3 1 6 33.3
Cacao Coffee 8 4 1 13 61.5
Coconut Coffee 2 2 4 0.0
Total 210 279 53 542 38.7
Statistical Table 68: Number and percentage of MinPACT -trained farmers who shared MinPACT-gained
knowledge and technologies to fellow 3C farmers
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 95 35 3 133 71.4
Coconut 74 74 3 151 49.0
Coffee 70 66 2 138 50.7
Cacao Coconut 65 28 4 97 67.0
Cacao Coconut Coffee 3 2 1 6 50.0
Cacao Coffee 11 1 1 13 84.6
Coconut Coffee 2 1 1 4 50.0
Total 320 320 15 542 59.0
Statistical Table 69: Number and percentage of MinPact-trained farmers who shared MinPACT-gained
knowLedge and technologies to non-3C farmers
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 95 36 2 133 71.4
Coconut 86 62 3 151 57.0
Coffee 73 64 1 138 52.9
Cacao Coconut 69 24 4 97 71.1
Cacao Coconut Coffee 4 1 1 6 66.7
Cacao Coffee 11 1 1 13 84.6
Coconut Coffee 1 2 1 4 25.0
Total 339 190 13 542 62.5
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
94
Statistical Table 70: Number and percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries who are aware of the
timeline/termination of the project
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 25 106 2 133 18.8
Coconut 27 122 2 151 17.9
Coffee 28 109 1 138 20.3
Cacao Coconut 13 81 3 97 13.4
Cacao Coconut Coffee 5 1 6 0.0
Cacao Coffee 1 11 1 13 7.7
Coconut Coffee 3 1 4 0.0
Total 94 437 11 542 17.3
Statistical Table 71: Number and percentage of MinPACT-beneficiaries who perceived that project
interventions created will be sustained and even after the termination of the project
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 98 33 2 133 73.7
Coconut 118 31 2 151 78.1
Coffee 126 11 1 138 91.3
Cacao Coconut 78 16 3 97 80.4
Cacao Coconut Coffee 5 1 6 83.3
Cacao Coffee 11 1 1 13 84.6
Coconut Coffee 3 1 4 75.0
Total 439 92 11 542 81.0
Statistical Table 72: Number and percentage of MinPACT-beneficiaries who are beneficiaries of other
projects
Yes No No response Total % Yes
Cacao 19 112 2 133 14.3
Coconut 28 118 5 151 18.5
Coffee 31 105 2 138 22.5
Cacao Coconut 12 82 3 97 12.4
Cacao Coconut Coffee 2 3 1 6 33.3
Cacao Coffee 1 11 1 13 7.7
Coconut Coffee 3 1 4 0.0
Total 93 434 15 542 17.2
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
95
Statistical Table 73: Number and percentage of farmer-beneficiaries' perception on life becoming better
due to MinPACTinvolvement
Yes No No
response
Total % Yes
Cacao 107 23 3 133 80.5
Coconut 107 40 4 151 70.9
Coffee 118 18 2 138 85.5
Cacao Coconut 86 8 3 97 88.7
Cacao Coconut Coffee 5 1 6 83.3
Cacao Coffee 12 1 13 92.3
Coconut Coffee 3 1 4 75.0
Total 438 90 14 542 80.8
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
96
Annex 6: Crop Cultivation by crop, by PO, in percentage
Distribution of respondent of plant classification per organization (ALL CROPS), in percentage.
Organizations Old
Trees
Expanded Newly
Planted
No
Plant
Balutakay Coffee Farm Association BACOFA 62.5 25.0 0.0 12.5
Barcelona Primary Multi purpose Agricultural Cooperative BPMAC 60.0 0.0 0.0 40.0
Batangason Farmers Association 17.4 21.7 0.0 60.9
BCS MPC 64.3 14.3 0.0 21.4
BMAN s BinatonBagoboTagabawa Farmers Livelihood Association BBTFLA 40.0 40.0 0.0 20.0
FEDCO 28.6 28.6 22.9 20.0
Imbayao Community based Forest Management Farmers Association ICBFMFA 14.0 18.6 2.3 65.1
Inhandig Tribal MPC 10.5 15.8 0.0 73.7
Jose Rizal Farmers Association JORIFA 40.0 20.0 0.0 40.0
Katipunan Small Coconut Farmers Cooperative 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0
KooperatibasaNagkahiusang Mag uumasa San Isidro Nagmasid Koop 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LaakMulti purpose Cooperative LAMPCO 21.4 50.0 14.3 14.3
MACOFED 62.5 25.0 0.0 12.5
Maragusan Growers Multi Purpose Cooperative MAGRO 21.1 26.3 31.6 21.1
Mati City LapaganMulti purpose Cooperative MALACO 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0
Mati Davao Oriental Upland Farmers MPC MDOUPMC 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
MILALITTRA 2.4 0.0 0.0 97.6
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative NICO 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0
New Leyte Cocoa Farmers Producer Association NELECOFAPA 35.3 47.1 5.9 11.8
PaglaumMulti Purpose Cooperative 51.9 3.8 1.9 42.3
People s Officials Employees Community Multi Purpose Cooperative POEMCO 37.5 12.5 12.5 37.5
Salaysay Upland Farmers Association 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0
Sindangan FACOMA Community Multipurpose Cooperative FACOMA 59.1 15.9 0.0 25.0
USPD Savings and Credit Cooperative 50.0 8.3 0.0 41.7
For CACAO
Organizations Old
Trees
Expanded Newly
Planted
No
Plant
Barcelona Primary Multi purpose Agricultural Cooperative BPMAC 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
BCS MPC 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0
BMAN s BinatonBagoboTagabawa Farmers Livelihood Association BBTFLA 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
FEDCO 28.1 31.3 21.9 18.8
Jose Rizal Farmers Association JORIFA 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0
LaakMulti purpose Cooperative LAMPCO 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3
MACOFED 66.7 16.7 0.0 16.7
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
97
Maragusan Growers Multi Purpose Cooperative MAGRO 23.5 29.4 23.5 23.5
Mati City LapaganMulti purpose Cooperative MALACO 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative NICO 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
New Leyte Cocoa Farmers Producer Association NELECOFAPA 37.5 50.0 0.0 12.5
PaglaumMulti Purpose Cooperative 17.4 4.3 4.3 73.9
People s Officials Employees Community Multi Purpose Cooperative POEMCO 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Salaysay Upland Farmers Association 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
Sindangan FACOMA Community Multipurpose Cooperative FACOMA 18.2 0.0 0.0 81.8
USPD Savings and Credit Cooperative 12.5 0.0 0.0 87.5
Average 22.6 30.6 3.1 43.6
For COFFEE
Organizations Old
Trees
Expanded Newly
Planted
No
Plant
Balutakay Coffee Farm Association BACOFA 62.5 25.0 0.0 12.5
Batangason Farmers Association 17.4 21.7 0.0 60.9
BMAN s BinatonBagoboTagabawa Farmers Livelihood Association BBTFLA 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
Imbayao Community based Forest Management Farmers Association ICBFMFA 14.0 18.6 2.3 65.1
Inhandig Tribal MPC 10.5 15.8 0.0 73.7
Jose Rizal Farmers Association JORIFA 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
MILALITTRA 2.5 0.0 0.0 97.5
Salaysay Upland Farmers Association 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Average 19.6 10.1 12.8 57.5
For Coconut
Old
Trees
Expanded Newly
Planted
No
Plant
Barcelona Primary Multi purpose Agricultural Cooperative BPMAC 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3
BCS MPC 75.0 12.5 0.0 12.5
BMAN s BinatonBagoboTagabawa Farmers Livelihood Association BBTFLA 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
FEDCO 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0
Jose Rizal Farmers Association JORIFA 60.0 20.0 0.0 20.0
Katipunan Small Coconut Farmers Cooperative 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0
KooperatibasaNagkahiusang Mag uumasa San Isidro Nagmasid Koop 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LaakMulti purpose Cooperative LAMPCO 22.2 66.7 0.0 11.1
MACOFED 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Mati City LapaganMulti purpose Cooperative MALACO 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Mati Davao Oriental Upland Farmers MPC MDOUPMC 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
MILALITTRA 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative NICO 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
98
PaglaumMulti Purpose Cooperative 79.3 3.4 0.0 17.2
People s Officials Employees Community Multi Purpose Cooperative POEMCO 50.0 16.7 16.7 16.7
Sindangan FACOMA Community Multipurpose Cooperative FACOMA 72.7 21.2 0.0 6.1
USPD Savings and Credit Cooperative 68.8 12.5 0.0 18.8
Average 56.5 23.7 1.0 18.8
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
99
ANNEX 7: SATISFACTION RATING ON MINPACT STAFF
Discuss clearly the
objectives,
targets, proposed
activities,
timelines and
delineation of
roles
Involve the
POs in
major
decision￾making
points
Accommodate
reasonable changes
in schedule,
arrangements,
activities and
priorities
Transfer knowledge
and provide advice
on improving
organizational
processes, systems,
tec.
Communication,
coordination,
including frequency
and quality
Debriefing or
learning
session after
each
important
activity
Milalittra 2 2 2 2 2 2
Inihanding 2 2 2 2 2 2
Batangason 2 2 2 2 2 2
Imbayao 2 2 2 2 2 2
Maragusan 2 2 2 2 2 2
Laak 2 2 2 2 2 2
New Leyte 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nabunturan 2 2 2 2 2 2
Macofed 1 2 2 2 2 2
Salaylay 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mati Davao 2 2 2 1 2 1
Mati City 2 2 1 1 1 1
Nagmasid 2 2 2 2 2 2
Jose 1 1 1 1 1 1
USPD 1 1 1 1 1 1
BBTFLA 2 2 2 2 2 2
Bansalan 1 2 1 1 1 1
Balutakay 1 1 1 1 1 1
KSCF 2 2 2 2 2 2
FEDCO 1 2 2 2 2 2
Paglaum 2 2 2 2 2 2
Barcelona 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facoma 1 1 1 1 1 1
POEMCO 1 1 2 1 1 1
Average 1.10 1.32 1.36 1.17 1.19 1.17
Legend:
1 – Very satisfied
2 – Satisfied
3 – Neither
4 – Dissatisfied
5 – Very dissatisfied
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
100
ANNEX 8: PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS RELEVANCE AND RANKING OF MINPACT SERVICES
A: Relevance of the services
Agricultural/Farm
technique
training
Management
training
(cooperative
level)
Exposure
trips
Participation
to summit,
conferences
and related
events
Nursery
establishment
Financial
services
(credit)
Printed
materials
(brochure,
directory,
manual,
bulletin)
Cooperative
financial,
organizational
and
marketing
systems
improvement
Milalittra 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2
Inihanding 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0
Batangason 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 2
Imbayao 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2
Maragusan 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Laak 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
New Leyte 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nabunturan 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Macofed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Salaylay 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mati Davao 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mati City 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nagmasid 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Jose 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
USPD 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
BBTFLA 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2
Bansalan 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0
Balutakay 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0
KSCF 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 0
FEDCO 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paglaum 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 1
Barcelona 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Facoma 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
POEMCO 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 0
Average 1.54 1.58 1.38 1.54 1.13 1.21 1.54 1.17
Legend: 1- Very relevant; 2 – Relevant; and 3- Not relevant to farmer-respondents
MinPACT Mid-Term Evaluation Report
5 June 2017
101
B. Ranking of the services
Agricultural/Farm
technique
training
Management
training
(cooperative
level)
Exposure
trips
Participation
to summit,
conferences
and related
events
Nursery
establishment
Financial
services
(credit)
Printed
materials
(brochure,
directory,
manual,
bulletin)
Cooperative
financial,
organizational
and
marketing
systems
improvement
Milalittra 3 5 4 6 2 1 8 7
Inihanding 6 2 1 8 7 0 0 0
Batangason 3 5 4 6 2 1 8 7
Imbayao 3 4 5 6 2 1 8 7
Maragusan 4 6 7 5 2 1 8 3
Laak 2 5 7 6 3 1 8 4
New Leyte 4 3 7 6 2 1 8 4
Nabunturan 3 4 7 6 2 1 8 3
Macofed 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 2
Salaylay 1 2 4 5 3 7 8 6
Mati Davao 1 5 7 6 3 4 2 8
Mati City 2 3 1 7 6 8 4 5
Nagmasid 3 4 5 2 1 7 8 6
Jose 1 0 3 4 0 0 2 0
USPD 1 8 3 4 2 6 6 7
BBTFLA 1 2 3 4 0 4 7 6
Bansalan 1 4 3 4 2 5 7 0
Balutakay 1 5 3 2 4 7 7 7
KSCF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FEDCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paglaum 2 3 4 6 1 8 5 7
Barcelona 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 3
Facoma 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 5
POEMCO 4 5 6 7 8 0 0 0
Average 2.08 3.29 3.96 4.75 2.67 3.04 5.42 4.04
Rank 1
st 4
th 5
th 7
th 2
nd 3
rd 8
th 6
th
Legend: 1 – Service that is most important to the PO and 8 – Service that is least important.