• COCONUT • COFFEE • CACAO
FINAL REPORT
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE
FY 2014 Food for Progress
MINDANAO PRODUCTIVITY FOR 
AGRICULTURAL COMMERCE & TRADE 
(MinPPACT) PROJECT 
Submitted to: 
Submitted by:
Development Academy of the Philippines
2018
[Final 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: [Development Academy of the Philippines] 
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 
1
Contents
List of Figures......................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................3
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................3
I. Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................5
II. Background/Brief Project Description, Context and Rationale ....................................................10
III. Purpose, Objectives and Expected Use of the Study ...................................................................12
IV. Study Methodology, Survey Sampling and Data Collection Techniques.....................................14
V. Survey Team Management and Operations.................................................................................15
VI. Data Analysis, Management and Presentation ...........................................................................15
VII. GIS Data and Reporting...............................................................................................................15
VIII. Results and Discussion...............................................................................................................19
IX. Lessons Learned...........................................................................................................................49
X. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................49
XI. Recommendation.........................................................................................................................50
Appendix A: Profile of Household Survey Respondents...................................................................54
Appendix B: Impact Estimates..........................................................................................................55
Appendix C: Household Socio-Economic Profile...............................................................................61
Appendix D: Production per Hectare per Commodity......................................................................68
Appendix E: Technology Adoption per Commodity..........................................................................71
Appendix F: Farm Management and Practices.................................................................................80
Appendix G: Access to Credit and Financing.....................................................................................89
Appendix H: Access to Market..........................................................................................................96
Appendix I: Findings and Perceptions of Other Stakeholders ..........................................................99
Appendix J: Control of Resources...................................................................................................150
Appendix K: Women and Youth......................................................................................................156
Appendix L: Perception of Key Informants.....................................................................................163
Appendix M: Overall Assessment ...................................................................................................170
2
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cacao Production Data
Figure 2. Coconut Production Data
Figure 3. Coffee Production Data
Figure 4: GIS Map – Household Survey
Figure 5: GIS Map – VCA Survey (MFI)
Figure 6: GIS Map – VCA Survey (BDS)
Figure 7: GIS Map – VCA Survey (IS)
Figure 8: GIS Map – VCA Survey (Nursery Operators)
Figure 9: GIS Map – VCA Survey (Trader/Processor)
Figure 10. Difference-in-differences estimate of the annual farm income (in PhP) of farmers
Figure 11. Difference-in-differences estimate of the annual total income (in PhP) of farmers
Figure 12. Difference-in-differences estimate of the Cacao yield (in kg) per hectare per year
Figure 13. Difference-in-differences estimate of the Coconut yield (in kg) per hectare per year
Figure 14. Difference-in-differences estimate of the Coffee yield (in kg) per hectare per year
Figure 15: Average area planted (hectares) for cacao, by province
Figure 16: Average trees per hectare of Cacao, by province 
Figure 17: Type of cacao produce
Figure 18: Average area planted (hectares) for coconut, by province
Figure 19: Average trees per hectare of coconut, by province
Figure 20: Type of coconut produce
Figure 21: Average area planted (hectares) for coffee, by province
Figure 22: Average trees per hectare of coffee, by province
Figure 23: Type of coffee produce
Figure 24: Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Cacao
Figure 25: Percentage of respondents who applied the Cacao technologies and perceived changes in 
the farm
Figure 26: Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Coconut
Figure 27: Percentage of respondents who applied the Coconut technologies and perceived changes 
in the farm
Figure 28: Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Coffee
Figure 29: Percentage of respondents who applied the Coffee technologies and perceived changes in 
the farm
Figure 30: Cost of Cacao production per cropping
Figure 31: Sources of financing for Cacao production
Figure 32: Cost of coconut production per cropping
Figure 33: Sources of financing for coconut production 
Figure 34: Cost of coffee production per cropping
Figure 35: Sources of financing for coffee production 
Figure 36: Percentage of respondents assistedby MinPACT
Figure 37: Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries that received financial services
Figure 38: Effect of the access of financial services
Figure 39: Market of cacao produce
Figure 40: Market for coconut produce
Figure 41: Market of coffee produce
3
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated parameters of the farm income regression model 
Table 2. Estimated parameters of the total income regression model 
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARBO Agrarian Reform Beneficiary Organization
ARSK Agraryong Reporma Samahang Kababaihan
BCS Bansalan Co-operative Society
BPI Bureau of Plant Industry
BPMAC Barcelona Primary Multi-Purpose Agricultural Co-operative
CBU Capital Build-Up
CMU Central Mindanao University
COCOLINK Coconut Industry Cluster Link, Inc.
CAO City Agriculturist Office
CDA Co-operative Development Administration
CSI Chokolate de San Isidro
DA Department of Agriculture
DAP Development Academy of the Philippines
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DID Difference-in-Differences
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
DSIP Detailed Survey Implementation Plan
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
FACOMA Sindangan Facoma Community Multi-Purpose Co-operative
FARMCO-OP Foundation for Agrarian Reform Co-operatives in Mindanao
FEDCO Federation of Co-operatives
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FOGs Fixed Obligation Grants
FPA Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority
HH Household
ITMPC Inhandig Tribal Multi-Purpose Co-operative
JORIFA Jose Rizal Farmers Association
KII Key Informant Interview
KFI Kennemer Foods International
KSCFMPC Katipunan Small Coconut Farmers Multi-Purpose Co-operative
LAMPCO Laak MPC Co-operative
LGU Local Government Unit
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MACOFED Macabatug Co-operative Federation
MAMPCO Maragusan Multi-Purpose Co-operative
MAO Municipal Agriculturist Office
MARBMCO Magastos Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Co-operative
MASS-SPEC Mindanal Alliance for Self-Help Societies
MILALITTRA Miarayon-Lapok-Lirongan-Tinaytayan Tribal Association
MinDA Mindanao Development Authority
4
MinPACT Mindanao Productivity for Agricultural Commerce and Trade
MPC Multi-Purpose Co-operative
NAGMASID Nagkahiusang Mag-uumasa San Isidro Co-operative
NELECOFAPA New Leyte Cacao and Coffee Farmers Association
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous People
NICO Nabunturan Integrated Co-operative
NOMIARC Northern Mindanao Integrated Agricultural Research Center
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAO Provincial Agriculturist Office
PCA Philippine Coconut Authority
PEF Peace and Equity Foundation
PHF Post-harvest Facilities 
PO People's Organization 
PPS Probability Proportional to Size 
PRDP Philippine Rural Development Program
RFP Request For Proposal 
SASCOFAMCO Salug Small Coconut Farmers Multi-Purpose Co-operative
USAID US Agency for International Development
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USPD United Sugarcane Planters of Davao Savings and Credit Co-operative
VCA Value Chain Actors
3Cs Coffee, Cacao, Coconut
5
I. Executive Summary
This report contains the endline evaluation findings of the project entitled “Mindanao 
Productivity for Agricultural Commerce and Trade (MinPACT)” funded by the USDA 
and implemented by ACDI/VOCA from October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2018. MinPACT 
aimed to increase the incomes of smallholder cocoa, coconut and coffee farming 
families in Southern and Western Mindanao. The project strategy to achieve the 
results framework Strategic Objectives of 1) Increased Agriculture Productivity, and 2) 
Expanded Trade of Agriculture Products was to:
• Improve the competitiveness of coffee, cocoa, and coconut value chains; 
• Strengthen local capacity of farmers and other value chain actors and the 
services available for improved production, post-harvest systems, practices
and product quality;
• Facilitate enhanced financial services, including insurance and credit 
availability for farmers and agribusiness service providers;
• Increase market access, opportunities, and efficiency of agricultural 
products and services.
The evaluation study was based on the Scope of Work and the underlying market 
systems development approach that considered such system components as a) how 
the producers and the buyers interact in the value chain, b) formal and informal norms 
and practices affecting the system, and c) 
the indirect services that help make the 
market system work. The Evaluation 
Team used the difference-in-differences 
(DiD) analysis method1
,
2
to compare 
baseline data of beneficiaries and the
control group with the endline data of 
beneficiaries and the control group. Thus, 
the evaluation used both quantitative and 
qualitative methods for data gathering, 
processing and analysis. For the 
quantitative part, the study covered 995 
household survey respondents and 80 
Value Chain Actors (VCA) survey 
respondents while the qualitative part 
engaged 64 key informants and 29 focus 
groups.
The key findings include the following:
• The difference-in-differences (DiD) estimate is positive for farm income and 
yield of coffee, cacao and coconut. However, only the increase in cacao yield
is statistically significant.
1 www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/difference-difference-estimation
2 http://web.mit.edu/teppei/www/teaching/Keio2016/06dd.pdf
According to Columbia University Mailman 
School of Public Health “DID is typically used 
to estimate the effect of a specific intervention, 
such as large-scale program implementation, 
by comparing the changes in outcomes over 
time between a population that is enrolled in a 
program (the intervention group) and a 
population that is not (the control group). DID 
requires data from pre-/post-intervention. The 
approach removes biases in post-intervention 
period comparisons between the treatment and 
control group that could be the result from 
permanent differences between those groups, 
as well as biases from comparisons over time 
in the treatment group that could be the result.
of trends due to other causes of the outcome.” 
6
• There is significantly higher farm income among those farmers in the MinPACT 
areas (treatment) than in the control group after MinPACT project intervention. 
However, DiD results suggest that there is no significant difference in income 
among men and women, families of different sizes and amongst farmers with 
different marital status between treatment and control group.
• The increased income of farmers reached by MinPACT was highly attributed to 
improved farm practices, particularly pruning, sleeving (cacao), “pick-ripe-only’ 
(coffee), fermentation and drying. These resulted in cacao and coffee beans 
with better quality and higher grade, which commanded higher market prices. 
Farmers and cooperatives alike consider the use of post-harvest facilities (PHF) 
like the all-weather dryer provided by MinPACT as great help, but it was noted 
that on-site PHFs will be needed to support greater volumes in the future.
• Although there was no immediate income from newly-planted cacao trees
among treatment farmers, the fertilization of the soil was likely an important
factor in the increases in coconut yield and that of other crops in the area 
(banana, vegetables). The greater number of whole nuts plus thicker coconut 
meat resulted in more kilos of copra sold to the market.
• Farmers with existing coffee, cacao, or coconut, commonly referred to as the
3Cs that qualified or were certified by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) as 
producers of quality planting material for seedling production generated 
additional income as a result of increased demand from 3Cs nurseries.
• Cost-saving contributed to increased farm income among MinPACT
beneficiaries. For example, a farmer can avail themselves of technical services 
for free from their member co-op technicians trained by MinPACT instead of 
paying for such services from private providers. The provision of these services
by co-ops is often embedded in into the cost of other co-op products, e.g. 
seedlings and other inputs, loans, buying of coffee, cacao, or coconut, etc.
However, where the cost is not embedded, and it is done on a voluntary basis 
by fellow members a modest allowance from co-op operations should be built￾in to help ensure long-term sustainability. 
• In terms of total income, difference-in-differences estimates show no significant 
difference in total income because of the high non-farm income (salary, 
honorarium, remittances and non-farm enterprises) of the control group. 
Moreover, the total income is also not significantly different between male and 
female, age, marital status and the 3Cs being cultivated in the farm. But 
families with more educated family head and higher number of family members 
have significantly higher total income.
• Families reached by MinPACT reported higher total income from their 
involvement in the expanded production and marketing activities of the project.
7
• The MinPACT beneficiaries have statistically significant higher yield per hectare 
per year of cacao compared to the control group after the project. The 
difference-in-difference estimate shows that there is a significant increase in 
the mean differences of yield after the MinPACT project.
• The MinPACT project was able to increase the production of coconut, but not 
enough to be statistically significant. The increase in coconut yield is because 
of the shared benefits for the fertilization of the intercropped cacao, as opposed 
to where coconut is not managed.
• There was a decline in the productivity of coffee in both groups (due to climate 
conditions – El Nino or drought in 2016 caused falling of leaves and cherries
and the effect manifested in the 2017 to 2018 yield data). Comparison of yield 
after the project shows that MinPACT beneficiaries have statistically significant 
higher yield compared to the yield of farmers in the control group. However, the 
difference-in-differences estimate shows no significant difference in the yield of 
coffee.
• MinPACT improved the regulatory capacities of various stakeholders and value 
chain actors to meet international quality standards (e.g. Cooperative
Development authority (CDA) assessment of cooperatives, BPI and Philippine 
Coconut Authority (PCA) accreditation of nurseries, Central Mindanao 
University (CMU) coffee cupping/ grading laboratory, quality assurance of 3C 
products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Trade and 
Industry (DTI) and other authorities). Related to this, one unexpected change 
worthy of note is the shift from rules and regulations for compliance by both
service provider and client in enhancing competitiveness through quality and 
added value (e.g. healthy options for certified organic products).
• Overall, MinPACT succeeded in improving 3Cs productivity in terms of 
increased number of hectares planted, increased number of 3Cs trees, 
increasing quality standards of 3C products from farm-to-market/plate, 
improving the economic condition of its beneficiaries, transferring technological 
know-how and good agricultural practices, strengthening co-op management 
capabilities, and influencing industry network systems to support sustained 
sector growth. However, the ultimate goal of reaching volume and consistency 
of quality that satisfy market demand is not yet evident at project-end.
The key recommendations include the following:
• Farm Production: The crop specific credit programs initiated under MinPACT 
should be tracked and if proven effective expanded to new credit cooperatives, 
banks and other MFIs. The approach to production finance where agricultural 
inputs and technical support are part of a credit package which projects returns 
based on proper management offers great potential especially in collaboration
and coordination with various value chain actors (government programs, 
8
financing institution, traders, processors) to meet market demand both in terms 
of volume and quality.
• Nursery Operations: The emphasis on co-op established and managed 
nurseries to help ensure a direct and continual relationship with farmer 
clients/members and to help obtain and maintain quality assurance 
accreditation (co-ops are tax-exempt) and linkage with institutional buyers 
including government entities for financial sustainability is a good approach and 
should be continued. Independent private nurseries should also be supported
and solutions to the private nursery tax evasion issue, which limits quality 
assurance accreditation, should be pursued, including elimination or reduction 
of threshold at the policy/regulatory level and or tax reform for micro, small, or 
medium agriculture enterprises.
• Post-harvest/ Processing Facilities: The MinPACT project facilitated provision 
of working capital through co-ops, along with equipment, post-harvest and 
processing facilities and hands-on training and support materials through 
incentive in-kind grants and tie-ups with government programs and various VCA 
and investors. Incentive in-kind grants are useful to kick-start investment but 
should be used in a limited basis and be linked to government and market￾based solutions. Incentive in-kind grants should be continued but the priority 
should be on facilitating access to credit and linking beneficiaries with 
government programs and market-led investments. 
• Marketing: Facilitating the establishment of value chain specific trade and 
technical fairs along with support in the participation in trade and technical fairs
by project beneficiaries, increased their knowledge and understanding of 
market dynamics, requirements, buyer expectations. The provision of technical 
assistance and training on product development, packaging, pricing, 
distribution and trade (through DTI and industry networks), as well as the 
promotion and use of contracts between buyers and sellers proved to be 
effective in building knowledge and trust. These three strategies, trade and 
technical fairs, marketing skills training and technical assistance, and the 
promotion of buyer contracts should be continued. 
• Financing: Facilitating access to credit through select banks, government 
programs, and most importantly credit cooperatives, including supporting credit
cooperatives to pilot crop specific loan products was a good approach, though 
the pilots need to be tracked to determine scalability among other credit 
cooperatives. Overall increased access to working capital is needed, to cover 
cost of production, product development and marketing; financial institutions 
need to consider assets other than land-ownership collaterals, including buyer 
contracts, warehouse receipts, among others.
• Management Capacities: Improved agribusiness management skills in 
marketing, accounting and financing, leadership and client or membership
services proved to be effective in improving business efficiency, product 
volume and quality, and market share. Continued provision of training, 
technical assistance, coaching, and mentoring of micro, small, and medium
9
enterprises, including cooperatives and industry organizations is 
recommended, along with the continued linking to management support 
services through cooperative federations, government agencies and 
programs, and public and private educational and training institutions. Industry 
associations like CIDAMI, Cocolink, and PCC can further collaborate in 
launching alternative platforms for learning and exchange other than annual 
summits.
• Industry development: Capacity building of industry organizations that can 
promote sector development and advocate on behalf of value chain actors
should be continued, often the difference of a well-developed industry (sector) 
in a country is the level of institutionalism and organization. If existing 
institutions or organizations are not functioning properly or don’t have the buy￾in or trust of all value chain actors, restructuring, renaming, or starting-over 
would be advised. 
• Research and development: The linkage with public and private universities to 
create standardized curriculum, research trials to determine the most 
appropriate varieties based on climate change and market demands, and 
increased university led training and extension should be expanded upon for all 
three crops. 
• Behavior change: Communication strategies and engagement approaches for 
training and awareness which took into consideration gender, rural and urban 
differences, and ethnic diversity proved affective under MinPACT, including in 
the context of participatory workshops, technical manuals, crop specific trade 
fairs and expos, supplementation training tarpaulins, videos, news 
conferences, etc. These strategies should be continued to advocate for 
technology adoption, access and utilization of financing services, and 
monitoring and evaluation for accountability and learning.
10
II. Background/Brief Project Description, Context and Rationale
An evaluation team from the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) 
conducted the final evaluation of the four-year project entitled “Mindanao Productivity 
for Agricultural Commerce and Trade (MinPACT)”. The baseline study of the project 
was undertaken in February 2015, while the mid-term evaluation was done in May 
2017. The final evaluation study was conducted from July to October 2018.
The MinPACT project, a four-year, $9M project funded by the USDA Food for Progress 
and implemented by ACDI/VOCA aimed to increase the incomes of smallholder cocoa, 
coconut, and coffee farming families in Southern and Western Mindanao. The project 
strategy to achieve the results framework Strategic Objectives of 1) Increased 
Agriculture Productivity, and 2) Expanded Trade of Agriculture Products was to a) 
improve the competitiveness of coffee, cocoa, and coconut value chains; b) strengthen 
local capacity of farmers and other value chain actors and the services available for 
improved production, post-harvest systems, practices and product quality; c) facilitate 
enhanced financial services, including insurance and credit availability for farmers and 
agribusiness service providers; and d) increase market access, opportunities, and 
efficiency of agricultural products and services.
The project was introduced at a time when the cocoa, coconut and coffee industries 
in the country experienced a generally downward trend, especially in terms of yield 
per hectare. 
Figure 1. Cacao Production Data
11
For the past ten years (2007-2017), the Philippines increased its cacao production 
from 5,237 metric tons in 2007 to 7,009.10 metric tons in 2017. In Mindanao, cacao 
production also increased from 4,661 metric tons in 2007 to 6,363 metric tons in 2017. 
Although the area planted nearly doubled for the Philippines and Mindanao during the 
same period (see figure 1), the yield per hectare in Mindanao drastically reduced from 
0.43 metric ton per hectare in 2007 to 0.21 metric ton per hectare in 2017. 
During the same period, coconut production decreased from 14,852,926 metric tons 
in 2017 to 14,049,131 metric tons in 2017 (see figure 2). In Mindanao, coconut 
production also decreased from 9,124,427 metric tons in 2007 to 8,437,742 metric 
tons. Decreased production occurred despite the increase in area planted: from 
3,359,776.50 hectares in 2007 to 3,612,304.29 hectares in 2017 for the Philippines, 
and from 1,740,299.50 hectares in 2007 to 1,835,829 hectares in 2017 for Mindanao. 
In terms of yield, the national data showed a decrease from 4.42 metric ton per hectare 
in 2007 to 3.89 metric ton per hectare in 2017. For Mindanao, yield also decreased 
from 5.16 metric ton per hectare in 2007 to 4.64 metric ton per hectare in 2017. 
Figure 2. Coconut Production Data
12
During the same period, coffee production in the Philippines significantly decreased 
from 97,876 metric tons in 2007 to 62,077 metric tons in 2017 (see figure below). For 
Mindanao, the data showed a significant decrease from 73,173 metric tons in 2007 to 
50,948 metric tons in 2017. The area planted to coffee also decreased during the same 
period from 123,974 hectares in 2007 to 112,843 hectares in 2017 for the Philippines, 
and from 83,057 hectares in 2007 to 73,617 hectares in 2017 for Mindanao. In terms 
of yield, data showed a decrease of 0.24 metric ton per hectare for the Philippines, 
and 0.22 metric ton per hectare for Mindanao from 2007 to 2017.
The key factors affecting the performance of these industries include unfavorable 
weather conditions3
, senile trees, low soil fertility, access to quality and affordable
inputs (planting material, fertilizers, pesticides), limited control of pests and diseases, 
limited skills and technical know-how, etc. Some of these factors are being addressed 
at the national level by the Philippine government though investments identified in the 
coffee and cacao industry roadmaps for the period 2017-2022.
III. Purpose, Objectives and Expected Use of the Study
The independent final evaluation study aimed to take stock of the project’s 
accomplishments, reflect on the causal pathway of the intervention, review the 
sustainability measures, as well as document the project design and implementation 
weaknesses, lessons learned and best practices. Specifically, the Evaluation Team 
was expected to:
• Document key lessons learned.
3
FAO expands El Niño response in Mindanao. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/philippines/news/detail/en/c/433730
Figure 3. Coffee Production Data
13
• Assess the extent of achievement of project objectives, the positive and 
negative changes, sustainability measures put in place and relevance of the 
project intervention.
• Review the project’s effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness.
• Provide an independent eye to assess whether the assumptions of the Project￾Results Framework still hold true.
In addition to the evaluation questions specified in the scope of work, the study 
assessed the following: 
• Relevance - extent to which the project interventions met the needs of the 
project beneficiaries and aligned with the country intended and unintended 
impacts; identify attribution of the project's internment’s development goals, 
objectives, and strategies; extent to which the project was designed taking into 
account the economic, cultural and political context and existing relevant 
program activities. 
• Effectiveness -extent to which the project has achieved its objectives. 
Effectiveness should also assess the extent to which the interventions 
contributed to the expected results or objectives. 
• Efficiency - extent to which the project resources (inputs) have led to the 
achieved results; whether the same results could have been achieved with 
fewer resources or whether alternative approaches could have been adopted 
to achieve the same results. 
• Impact - assessment of the medium and long-term effects (direct or indirect, 
positive or negative, intended and unintended) of a project intervention; extent 
to which the effects are due to the project intervention and not to other factors. 
• Sustainability - assessment of the likelihood that the benefits of the project will 
endure over time after the completion of the project; extent to which the project 
has planned for the continuation of project activities, developed local ownership 
for the project, and developed sustainable partnerships. 
Moreover, the study probed the project’s underlying market systems development 
approach, including such system components as a) how the producers and the buyers 
interact in the value chain, b) formal and informal norms and practices affecting the 
system, and c) the indirect services that help make the market system work. Thus, the 
study also looked into the value chain actors and the system change evaluation 
elements, namely the system of interest (boundaries, relationships, perspectives), 
system change intervention (governance, theory of change, intended outcomes), and 
the system change evaluation (stakeholders, purposes, methods). 
The expected uses of the study include the following: a) take stock of project 
achievements and reflect on the development objective/causal pathway that guided 
the design and implementation of project interventions; b) review the sustainability 
measures to ensure that accrued benefits will continue after the project; c) document 
the design and implementation weaknesses, lessons learned and best practices to 
benefit future interventions, and d) integrate lessons gained from the project in 
designing related interventions. 
14
IV. Study Methodology, Survey Sampling and Data Collection Techniques
The Evaluation Team used the difference-in-differences (DiD) method to compare the 
outcomes or impacts for the treatment and control groups with the baseline and 
endline as time periods as described in the Inception Report. The treatment group was 
the project beneficiaries, while the control group was not a project beneficiary, detail 
of selection process and group make-up appears in the subsequent paragraphs. 
Through the DiD method, the Evaluation Team undertook an endline study, and then 
compared and measured the differences of the endline and baseline study findings of 
the treatment and control group.
The selection of respondents was done using the multi-stage sampling design based 
on geographical location, type of commodity and gender. The endline sample size was 
based on the population of 15,396 beneficiaries reached by MinPACT. Using the same 
sample size determination calculation in the baseline survey, a total of 995 were 
targeted for the interview. The parameters used in the sample size calculation were 
95% confidence interval, 0.5 population proportions, and 3% accuracy level. The total 
sample size of 995 was divided into two: 332 individuals from the control group, and 
663 individuals from the treatment group. 
The 995-sample size was distributed proportionally to the sample provinces of the final 
evaluation survey. The sample for the control group was taken from the Registry 
System of Basic Sector in Agriculture (RSBSA) in the sample provinces. Propensity 
score was used to match the control and treatment group based on individual 
characteristics.
The study targeted 24 producer organizations (POs) or co-operatives directly assisted 
by MinPACT. The treatment sample size was proportionally distributed by co￾operatives and by commodity based on the number of beneficiaries.
In addition to the household/ farmer-level survey, 80 value chain actors across the 
study sites were surveyed to assess the influence of MinPACT had on other 
stakeholders.
Qualitative evaluation methodology was designed to complement the quantitative 
survey results. Primarily, the qualitative piece of the whole evaluation exercise was
intended to generate qualitative data focusing on the impacts and outcomes and/or 
learning questions. These data included the perceptions and opinions of critical project 
stakeholders. 
The qualitative data were collected using Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus 
Group Discussions (FGDs). A total of 64 key informants representing partner 
government agencies, Fixed Obligation Grants (FOGs), local government units 
(LGUs), producer organizations and selected value chain actors from the private 
sector were targeted for the interview. On the part of the MinPACT Project Team, eight
key staff served as key informants. The targeted participants to the FGDs were 
representatives of 20 producer organizations, two sector groups (nursery operators 
and input suppliers), and seven youth groups. 
15
Some target respondents (from the baseline), however, were replaced for certain 
reasons such as non-existence (deceased, migrated, closed operations), declined to 
participate since not catering to 3Cs (e.g. Trader/Processor), and need to gather 
information related to interventions in Control Areas to help explain their movements.
V. Survey Team Management and Operations
Survey team management and operations followed the same track as discussed in the 
Inception Report and as detailed in the Deployment Plan. A team of enumerators were 
deployed per site; pro-rated based on target and difficulty of access. Simultaneous 
deployment was done with the aim of reaching the targets in approximately 10-15 
days. However, the timetable for data-gathering was extended due to additional 
procedures (10% pre-test across sites), peace and order situation, weather conditions, 
availability of target respondents, and logistics.
VI. Data Analysis, Management and Presentation
The study used the market systems as the overarching framework to appreciate, 
interpret and analyze the DiD findings. The statistical analyses were complemented 
and triangulated with qualitative data mainly through review of related literature, 
focused group discussions and interviews. The quantitative data gathered 
comprehensive information from the respondents, while the qualitative data generated 
opinions and perceptions. 
The quantitative and qualitative instruments were pilot-tested as part of the training of 
the enumerators and the field team supervisors. Quantitative data collection and 
management included the use of Magpi (http://home.Magpi.com), a mobile data 
collection platform. This required the provision of tablets to the enumerators and the 
uploading of data online. The Magpi platform also helped in data storage, monitoring, 
and basic presentation.
All data generated from the FGDs and KIIs were audio recorded and transcribed. Data 
checks were done to ensure that the FGD and KII transcripts are verbatim. The 
electronic version was checked against the written documentation to prevent errors 
and gaps in the data entry. Themes were then developed and used to triangulate the 
quantitative data.
VII. GIS Data and Reporting
Data generated from the Household and VCA surveys were automatically reported/ 
uploaded in the Magpi platform. The GIS maps and the corresponding web links 
included in this section show the real-time and actual location of respondents across 
the study sites.
16
Household Survey
Figure 4: GIS Map – Household Survey
VCA Survey: Micro-Finance Institutions
Figure 5: GIS Map – VCA Survey (MFI)
17
VCA Survey: Business Development Service Providers
Figure 6: GIS Map – VCA Survey (BDS)
VCA Survey: Input Suppliers
Figure 7: GIS Map – VCA Survey (IS)
18
VCA Survey: Nursery Operators
Figure 8: GIS Map – VCA Survey (Nursery Operators)
VCA Survey: Processors
Figure 9: GIS Map – VCA Survey (Trader/Processor)
19
VIII. Results and Discussion
This section contains the findings from the field with details provided in the 
Appendices. These are anchored on MinPACT’s key performance indicators as 
outlined in the Project’s Results Framework and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). 
Mainly, the data and discussions in this section are clustered into three aspects, to wit:
• Strategic Objective (SO) 1 – Improving Agricultural Productivity.
• Strategic Objective (SO) 2 – Expanding Trade including observations on market 
systems development.
• Other thematic results and overall assessment based on the evaluation 
parameters (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.
A. Strategic Objective 1
Data pertinent to indicators under SO 1 were largely generated from the Household 
Survey that covered 995 farmers. The profile of the respondents shows that there is
equitable distribution of males and females between the treatment and control groups 
and that the average years of education of the respondents from the treatment group 
is 9 years and 8 years in the control group. Majority of the respondents both from the 
control and treatment groups are married and the average family size both in the 
control and the treatment group is 4. (See Appendix A for details).
A.1 Impact Estimates – Income and Production
The impact estimation used the difference-in-differences (DiD) approach. DiD
estimates are based on the difference in the changes in the outcome between 
treatment and control (untreated) groups overtime. It removes any differences in the 
indicator between groups that are present at the baseline and also removes the effects 
of general trends affecting both treatment and control observations. Data from the 
baseline survey and final evaluation survey were utilized for the analysis. 
DiD provides unbiased estimates of program impact if the “parallel trends” assumption 
holds, that the outcome variable follows the same trajectory overtime in both groups 
without the MinPACT interventions. Unfortunately, this assumption cannot be tested 
(Ryan et al. 2015)4, however, this assumption is more likely to hold if a matching 
method, such as propensity score matching has been used to control for the 
observable causes of differences in trajectory. 
4 Ryan, A. M., J. F. Burgess, Jr., and J. B. Dimick. 2015. Why We Should Not Be Indifferent to Specification Choices for 
Difference-in-Differences. Health Services Research. 50 (4). pp. 1211–1235. https://www.ncbi. 
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545355/pdf/hesr0050-1211.pdf.
20
Prior to DiD estimation propensity score matching is conducted. The propensity scores 
generated is used to match the control and treatment observations. Those 
observation within the common support (control observation with score lower than the 
lowest observed value of the treatment are unused, while observations in the 
treatment group with score higher than the highest value in the control are also 
dropped) were utilized for the DiD estimation of the MinPACT outcomes. 
Five (5) outcomes of interest of the MinPACT project were subjected to the difference￾in-difference analysis, to wit: 1) Household income - farm income and total income 
(including non-farm income); and 2) Production per hectare per commodity – 3Cs 
(cacao, coconut and coffee).The results of the DiD estimation on these five outcomes 
are presented below with details on the 3Cs yield in Appendix B.
Farm Income
Result of the DiD estimation on farm income as the outcome variable shows that there 
is a small increase in farm income, however, it is not statistically significant (Figure 
10). Result of the pooled regression adjusted for heteroscedasticity shows that older 
and more educated farmers have higher farm income. Results suggest that there is 
no significant difference in income among men and women, family with different sizes 
and among farmers with different marital status. Also, there is no significant difference 
in farm income across farmers cultivating the 3Cs. The F-Statistic shows that the 
model is highly significant (Table 1).
Figure 10. Difference-in-differences estimate of the annual farm income (in PhP) of farmers
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
21
Table 1. Estimated parameters of the farm income regression model 
Variables Estimated Coefficient Robust Std. Error P-Value
Time -4125.2ns 6452.1 0.5230
Treatment 5228.0 ns 6037.3 0.3870
DiD 2749.4 ns 6989.0 0.6940
Sex -595.5 ns 3052.6 0.8450
Age 474.2*** 109.3 0.0000
Marital Status 3933.5 ns 3689.9 0.2870
Education (in 
Years) 2418.9*** 469.9 0.0000
Household Size 906.7ns 809.3 0.2630
Cacao 2049.1 ns 9024.7 0.8200
Coconut -4489.6 ns 8039.8 0.5770
Coffee -4603.9 ns 5876.7 0.4330
Intercropping -3337.2 ns 9634.8 0.7290
Constant 3912.2 ns 19870.8 0.8440
R-squared 0.0300 F(11,1673) 4.6900
Prob> F 0.0000
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
The general increase in on-farm income of small farmers in both treatment and control 
sites is due to various interventions that boost agricultural production and trade in 
accordance with national thrusts and priorities, particularly those that promote food 
security, livelihood, watershed rehabilitation, and micro-entrepreneurial capacity. 
These are embodied in statutory instruments like the Agency Strategic Roadmaps 
(e.g. DA, PCA and DTI), the Philippine Cacao Challenge, and the Philippine 
Development Plan (PDP) 2016-2022, among others, which call for government 
budgetary allocation and investments from external sources. MinPACT contributed to 
the development of the 3Cs roadmaps and complemented the implementation of 
these. Specifically, MinPACT provided agricultural inputs to producers, as well as 
funded numerous capacity-building activities that paved the way to the sector’s entry 
to the world market. In parallel, MinPACT facilitated linkages for agricultural lending 
and marketing. All these contributed to increases in farm income.
According to government sources, there have been massive investments in the 3Cs 
sector in the last three years from production to marketing. On the production side, 
three (3) of the biggest government programs providing investments in the 3Cs sector 
are the High-Value Commercial Crop Program (HVCCP) and the Philippine Rural 
Development Program (PRDP) of the DA, the Participatory Coconut Re-Planting 
Program (PCRP) of PCA, and DENR’s Watershed Rehabilitation Program (including 
reforestation in IP ancestral domains and forest buffer zones where coffee production 
is highly viable). On the market side, the DPWH and DTI jointly build farm-to-market 
roads, while the DA and DTI provide trainings on post-harvest handling, processing, 
and organizing of trade events. All these benefit farmers in both the treatment and 
control areas, providing explanation to the general movement in the 3Cs sector.
22
Farmers reached by MinPACT generally had greater income from farm production 
because they received agricultural inputs and accessed farm support on top of 
provisions from the government. They also participated in trade events where their 
products reached the world market, though not yet on large scale. 
A classic example on how MinPACT contributed to increased farm income are stories 
of MinPACT model farmers who adopted intercropping of cacao in areas with existing 
coconut trees (e.g. FEDCO, NICO, BCS), and thus received cacao seedlings from 
MinPACT and DA, and sourced fertilizers through in-kind loan from the co-ops where 
they belong. While there was no immediate income from newly-planted cacao trees, 
the fertilization of the soil caused increases in the yield of coconut and other crops in 
the area (banana, vegetables). The greater number of whole nuts plus thicker coconut 
meat resulted in more kilos of copra sold to the market. Thus, a MinPACT model 
farmer that received seedlings, trainings, and were facilitated access to fertilizer and 
other inputs and opted to apply the technology advocated by the project, harvested 
greater yield that resulted in more farm income.
Among the beneficiaries with existing coffee and cacao trees (before MinPACT), the 
increase in income of farmers reached by MinPACT was highly attributed to improved 
farm practices, particularly pruning, sleeving (cacao), “pick-ripe-only’ (coffee), 
fermentation and drying. These resulted in cacao and coffee beans with better quality 
and higher grade, which commanded higher market prices. For example, in the case 
of BACOFA and MILALITTRA which traditionally produced Arabica, before MinPACT 
where green coffee beans (GCB) had parchment, the price was P80-100 per kilo; after 
MinPACT, without parchment, GCB now sells at P300-400 per kilo. Meaning, even 
with relatively the same volume produced by existing coffee trees, the improved quality 
of the GCB leads to greater income by virtue of the price difference.
On the supply side, farmers with existing 3Cs that passed as source materials for 
seedling production also generated additional income as a result of increased demand 
from 3Cs nurseries. These are farmers with trees that passed BPI and PCA inspection 
as mother palms (coconut) and scion grove for grafting (cacao), and high-quality wild 
lings (coffee).
Another factor that contributed to increased farm income among MinPACT 
beneficiaries are cost-savings from production to marketing as gathered from FGDs. 
For example, a farmer can avail of technical services for free from co-op technicians 
trained by MinPACT instead of paying for such services from private providers. Also, 
with knowledge gained on good agricultural practices (GAP), they use organic wastes 
(composting) as fertilizers instead of buying for such inputs all the time. (Refer to costs 
of production in the survey results for estimates of cost-savings). 
Better farm-to-market roads paved by the government and private corporations (e.g. 
plantations in Bukidnon) also contributed in less wastage in transporting raw farm 
products to buyers or processing sites. Before, due to rough and muddy roads during 
rainy season that limit transportation, there were cases of dried coffee/cacao beans 
getting molds due to moisture that reduced quality and marketability of the products.
Farmers, particularly those without storage facility, shared that better roads enabled 
them to bring their products to buyers at less transportation cost, or buyers go to the 
sites more often to purchase their products.
23
Total Income
In terms of total income, result shows that farmers in the MinPACT areas have 
significantly higher total income before and after the MinPACT project. The farmer 
beneficiaries of MinPACT have more access to non-farm income and activities like 
remittances, as daily/common laborer, and wholesale and retail trade (including 
market vending, sidewalk vending and peddling, small shop) compared to the non￾MinPACT areas. However, the impact estimate (DiD) shows no significant difference 
in the differences of mean of total income.
Figure 11. Difference-in-differences estimate of the annual total income (in PhP) of farmers
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
In terms of the subgroup impact, it shows that total income is not significantly different 
between male and female, age, marital status and the kind of 3Cs being cultivated in 
the farm. On the other hand, families with more educated family head and higher 
number of family members have significantly higher total income. (Table 2)
Table 2. Estimated parameters of the total income regression model 
Variable
Estimated 
Coefficient
Robust Std. Error P-Value
Time -1191.2 ns 8888.9 0.8930
Treatment 21268.7*** 8036.7 0.0080
DiD -3970.2 ns 10774.3 0.7130
Sex -2938.7 ns 5693.0 0.6060
Age 341.9 ns 198.2 0.0850
Marital Status 10496.9 ns 6546.9 0.1090
Education (in 
Years) 7903.3*** 1054.7 0.0000
Household Size 5985.9*** 1332.7 0.0000
Cacao 14984.6 ns 15637.4 0.3380
24
Coconut -2917.0 ns 13534.0 0.8290
Coffee -17801.2 ns 12248.3 0.1460
Intercropping -6516.6 ns 17609.9 0.7110
Constant -37628.9 ns 34504.5 0.2760
R-squared 0.0836 F(11,1665) 7.6600
Prob> F 0.0000
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
Details of income and the socio-economic status and livelihood activities of the survey 
respondents and their families are contained in Appendix C.
Families reached by MinPACT reported higher income from their involvement in the 
expanded production and marketing activities brought about by the Project. As told by 
FGD participants, in a typical farm household, everyone shares in the chores (Filipino 
culture of “tulong-tulong”). This happened all the more with greater work due to 
intercropping and crop diversification where division of labor in the family became 
necessary, i.e., women and children had to take part in planting, pruning, sleeving, 
harvesting, processing (e.g. tablea-making) and selling of farm products to local 
buyers. Children get paid when they prune and sleeve another farmers’ lot, usually on 
weekends only for a few hours when there are no classes in school. In Philippine 
culture, children normally help-out in non-intensive farming activities as part of family 
livelihood/ enterprise. Some adult out-of-school youth also got opportunity to earn from 
farm and nursery operations based on prevailing wage rates in the locality.
Whether amongst MinPACT beneficiaries or not, the increased production of 3Cs had 
a ripple effect in the local economy. As an example, a youth participant from 
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative (NICO), whose family had limited resources to 
earn a living, was able to take advantage of the proliferation of buyers of milled cacao 
(cocoa) in the local market. From initially trading dried beans to selling milled cacao/ 
cocoa, they were able to earn a net increase in income of P35/kg. 
Production per hectare: cacao yield
The yield of cacao was converted to dried beans (kg/hectare/year). The Difference in 
difference estimator is significant at 1% with the treatment having a positive effect. 
Result suggests that there is a significant increase in the mean differences of yield 
between the MinPACT beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries before and after the project. 
This implies that the MinPACT project created a positive impact in the cacao sector.
25
Figure 12. Difference-in-differences estimate of the Cacao yield (in kg) per hectare per year
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
The increased yield in cacao mostly came from those planted before MinPACT and 
those rehabilitated since the cacao trees planted under MinPACT are not yet bearing 
fruits (1-2 years of age; cacao peaks at 3-5 years). The farmers attribute the increase 
to proper farm management (pruning, sleeving, grafting). As one farmer related, before 
MinPACT his cacao harvest for one cycle was at an average of 20 kg of dried beans. 
When he did regular pruning and applied fertilizers, the same are coverage and 
number of cacao trees produced 35 kg of dried beans, or an increase of 15 kg in one 
cycle.
With the 50 seedlings per farmer planted under MinPACT, even mortality of around 
5%, there is an expected significant rise in cacao yield in the next 2-3 years (2020-
2022).
Production per hectare: coconut yield
In terms of coconut production, the DiD estimator shows positive effect, but it is not 
statistically significant. The MinPACT project was able to increase the production of 
coconut, but not sufficient to be statistically significant. Generally, coconut farmers do 
not practice fertilization because it is an added cost, unless they are provided for free 
by the government and other actors, or part of a contract-growing arrangement with 
processors like Franklin Baker. Farmers appreciate fertilization and the increased yield 
as a result but for coconut producers without disposable income, they apply only 
limited amounts or just once a year. Most of the time, they count on government 
subsidies or inputs from partner traders/processors.
On a whole, the coconut industry experienced a downfall in overall yield due to climate 
conditions, i.e., El Nino or drought in 2015/ 2016 the effect of which was felt in 2017. 
26
Further, according to PCA, cutting of senile trees for the conversion of lands into 
residential and commercial purposes comes as a major factor in decreasing 
production over time. While there are efforts at re-planting, depending on the variety it 
typically takes 6-10 years before new trees become productive.
Figure 13. Difference-in-differences estimate of the Coconut yield (in kg) per hectare per year
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
Production per hectare: coffee yield
The difference-in-differences estimate shows positive effect in the yield of coffee 
(Figure 14) but not sufficient to be statistically significant. It was observed that there is 
a decline in the productivity of coffee in both groups. The difference-in-differences
estimate shows no significant difference in the yield of coffee before and after the 
project. 
27
Figure 14. Difference-in-differences estimate of the Coffee yield (in kg) per hectare per year
Note: * significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, *** Significant at 1%, andns not significant
The yield from coffee also comes from existing trees before MinPACT. Areas covered 
by the project report more space planted but it will take 3-5 years before yields could 
be seen.
Just like the coconut industry, the coffee sector also suffered from the negative effects 
of changes in weather patterns. The drought in 2015/1016 caused pre-mature falling 
of leaves and cherries (“nalagas”). 
In other areas like Inhandig in Bukidnon, while the quality of their coffee is of the 
highest grade, the community cannot significantly increase production apparently due 
to their lack of capacity to shoulder maintenance costs (e.g. labor for pruning and 
nursery operations). The tribal head said their income is just enough to cover food, 
education and basic needs; no disposable income for farm production. When asked 
about access to agricultural loans to beef up financial capacity, a representative of 
Inhandig said “taking a loan” is not a practice of the tribe; instead, they live within their 
means.
In the case of BACOFA, some coffee farmers accordingly did not easily adopt pruning. 
They refused to cut old coffee trees which they considered as “inheritance and must 
be kept intact”. Others, on the other hand, wanted to see benefits of new technologies 
first, or the attitude of “to see is to believe”.
A.2 Production per Commodity
The amount of crop yield and income is largely a function of the physical area planted 
and the number of trees therein. Over the duration of MinPACT, a significant increase 
in area planted happened by virtue of the seedlings provided (e.g. 50 seedlings of 
cacao per farmer) and other material inputs. Many of the farmers covered by MinPACT 
also availed of additional seedlings from government programs on top of their own 
28
purchases or arrangements made with co-ops and traders/ processors. The graphs 
below show the averages in area planted, number of trees and type of produce per 
commodity. (See Appendix D for details).
Cacao Production
Figure 15: Average area planted (hectares) for cacao, by province after MinPACT project.
Figure 16: Average trees per hectare of Cacao, by province after MinPACT project.
1.5
1
0.9 0.9
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
0.6
1 1 1
0.8 0.8
1.1 1
-0.8
0.1 0.2
0
-0.5
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
954
361
638
426 493
354
212
473
85
502 548
443
331 329
159
380
-869
140
-90
16
-161
-25 -53 -92
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
29
Figure 17: Type of cacao produce after MinPACT project.
Coconut Production
Figure 18: Average area planted (hectares) for coconut, by province after MinPACT project.
81
29.7
67
16.3 10 3.7 6 1.5
118
43.2
256
62.3
Freq. % Freq. %
Control Treatment
Wet Beans Fermented Beans Dried Beans
2.1
2.9
1.4
0.9
1.8
2.7
1.6
2
0
1.8
0.9
1.7
1.4
2.4
2.8
1.9
-2
-1.1
-0.5
0.8
-0.4 -0.3
1.3
0
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
30
Figure 19: Average trees per hectare of coconut, by province after MinPACT project.
Figure 20: Type of coconut produce after MinPACT project.
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
25
8.5 18
3.8
131
44.6
136
29
162
55.1
301
64.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Freq. % Freq. %
Control Treatment
Whole Nut (Green) Whole Nut (Matured) Copra
31
Coffee Production
Figure 21: Average area planted (hectares) for coffee, by province after MinPACT project.
Figure 22: Average trees per hectare of coffee, by province after MinPACT project.
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8
1.2
0.5
5.8
1.1
0.2 0.1 0.1
0.8
1.2
0.1
5.4
0.5
Bukidnon Compostela
Valley
Davao City Davao del
Norte
Davao del
Sur
Davao
Oriental
Zamboanga
del Norte
Overall
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
698 703
1331
811
267
836
1332
396
588
800
589
492
119
813
634
-307
-743
800
589
-319 -147
-22
Bukidnon Compostela
Valley
Davao City Davao del
Norte
Davao del
Sur
Davao
Oriental
Zamboanga
del Norte
Overall
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
32
Figure 23: Type of coffee produce after MinPACT project.
A.3 Technology Adoption
Technology adoption, or the learning and application of farm management and 
practices, is another crucial factor that determine the level of productivity both in terms 
of volume and quality. MinPACT provided various trainings and exposure trips to 
farmers to facilitate technology transfer and adoption of world-class standards. 
This section presents the findings from the perspective of farmers surveyed.
Generally, farmers who adopted the technologies introduced by MinPACT 
experienced more harvest than before. As earlier mentioned, for example, the 
intercropping of cacao with existing coconut trees increased the yield of the latter due 
to fertilization.
MinPACT areas optimized 3Cs production by way of intercropping, crop diversification, 
utilizing open spaces, applying soil fertilization, and post-harvest processing to a 
certain extent. Generally, even as MinPACT beneficiaries may have fewer hectares 
covered and number of trees per hectare, they produce more because of good farm 
practices, including fertilization. The succeeding graphs depict the adoption rates of 
farmers of farm technologies introduced by MinPACT. More findings are contained in 
Appendix E.
2
7.1
37
20 19.8
71.4
112
59.9
0
8 4.3
Freq. % Freq. %
Control Treatment
Green Cherries Dried Beans Fermented Beans
33
Figure 24: Farmers technology adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for 
cacao.
* Adoption rate among cacao farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
***Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10)
Figure 25: Percentage of respondents who applied the Cacao technologies and perceived changes in 
the farm
34
Figure 26: Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Coconut.
* Adoption rate among coconut farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
***Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10)
Figure 27: Percentage of respondents who applied the Coconut technologies and perceived changes 
in the farm
35
Figure 28: Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Coffee
* Adoption rate among coffee farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
***Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10)
Figure 29: Percentage of respondents who applied the Coffee technologies and perceived changes in 
the farm
Under MinPACT, adoption of farm technology happened at different levels. First, the 
TOT enabled farmer leaders and technicians to increase their knowledge and skills.
Second, technicians employed by government agencies, cooperatives, or other 
private service providers and select farmer leaders trained other farmers. Then, 
trained farmers would impart to other members of the family and community. 
36
According to key informants, some of those who participated in the TOT did not train 
others for lack of confidence on the technicalities of farming and non-provision of 
allowance. It may be noted that farmer leaders were expected to train others on 
voluntary basis. In the government, cooperatives, and private corporations, farm 
technicians have allowances.
Although the Household Survey revealed high adoption rate of technologies and farm 
practices introduced by MinPACT, farmers themselves and authorities say that there 
is a need for continuous training and education plus advocacy for GAP. Behaviors of 
farmers used to traditional farming methods cannot change overnight for certain 
reasons like the “plant-and-forget” attitude (no fertilization and sleeving), “inheritance 
value” of old coffee trees (no cutting/pruning), and overuse of inorganic fertilizers. 
Moreover, intercropping/ diversification with cacao does not easily get “buy-in” due to 
its long gestation period; farmers prefer cash crops that yield faster like banana and 
vegetables, especially those who have no other source of income.
In some areas, technology adoption was affected by the delivery of seedlings. The 
establishment of nurseries had to follow proper proposal, procurement, and 
construction processes which ranged from 5-10 months and once the nurseries were
operational it took on average 9-months before seedlings can be released to farmers. 
In some cases, the receiving of seedlings was long after the production training was 
provided by MinPACT and so some farmers said they have forgotten the “how-to”.
Another story told was that a farmer trained on nursery operations failed to impart the 
proper application of fertilizers to a colleague which resulted in seedling mortality 
(Katipunan Co-op). In other areas, more women attended the trainings, and even with 
their efforts to share what they learned some technical knowledge was not transferred 
to the men who do much of the farm work.
More of the findings on the involvement of farmers and their general farm management 
and practices including access to post-harvest facilities (PHF) are contained in 
Appendix F.
A.4 Credit and Financing 
The cost of production and marketing of farm produce among smallholder 3C farmers 
is seen as a challenge especially because they do not have disposable income. 
Agricultural lending facilities offer solution but not many farmers resort to it. Under 
MinPACT, farmers that opted to expand their productive capacity through 
intercropping/ diversification required greater working capital to cover material inputs, 
labor cost and post-harvest processes.
Adoption of technology and certain management practices also is not without cost. For 
example, Inhandig has good quality Arabica coffee owing to its elevation (1,400 –
1,800 meters above sea level) and the varieties. For Inhandig to be able to meet the 
demand of the world market, it has to sustain the application of technology from seed 
to market over time. Unfortunately, the Tribe does not have the financial capacity to 
support growth of coffee production in the area. Similarly, in the case of MILALITTRA 
with a 200-hectare production area, processing needs to be on-site to retain a 
consistent high-grade quality GCB. As Hineleban puts it, it takes a lot of resources 
37
(technology, human and financial capital included) to ensure consistency of volume 
and quality that would satisfy the demand for specialty coffee in the world market.
Similarly, with the increased farm activities, farmers resorted to borrowing to help 
finance farm operations as well as their day-to-day needs. While MinPACT assisted 
its beneficiaries to access agricultural loans from formal lending facilities (co-ops, 
banks and non-bank institutions), not many availed of such loans for many reasons 
like collaterals (LBP), IP values against borrowing (Inhandig Tribe), and dependency 
on government support (conditional cash transfer and other public welfare programs). 
As a measure to address collateral issues, the government has opened a new lending 
facility through the ACPC (Agricultural Credit Policy Council) which considers fruit 
trees as collateral.
Details on the cost of production and the sources of financing per crop are given in the 
figures below while more data on the borrowing activities of farmers are contained in
Appendix G.
Figure 30: Cost of Cacao production per cropping
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Labor cost Cost of Inputs Transportation Postharvest Other cost Total
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
38
Figure 31: Sources of financing for Cacao production
Figure 32: Cost of coconut production per cropping
132
3 5 1
11 6
94.3
2.1 3.6 0.7 7.9 4.3
173
13 16
2
8 9
88.7
6.7 8.2 1 4.1 4.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Control Freq. Control % Treatment Freq. Treatment %
0.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
3,000.00
4,000.00
5,000.00
6,000.00
7,000.00
8,000.00
9,000.00
Control
Treatment
diff (T-C)
39
Figure 33: Sources of financing for coconut production
Figure 34: Cost of coffee production per cropping
Figure 35: Sources of financing for coffee production
285
10 12 6 17 6
96.9
3.4 4.1 2 5.8 2
415
13 23 9
34 31
88.5
2.8 4.9 1.9 7.2 6.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Control Freq. Control % Treatment Freq. Treatment %
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Labor cost Cost of Inputs Transportation Poshharvest Other cost Total
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
1 3.6 1 3.6 5 0 1 3
17.9
0 3.6 10.7
164
7
13 4 3 8
87.7
3.7 7 2.1 1.6 4.3
Control Freq. Control % Treatment Freq. Treatment %
40
Among MinPACT beneficiaries who were assisted by the Project in seeking financial 
services, many perceived that it helped in enhancing agricultural productivity and 
income as seen in the figures below.
Figure 36: Percentage of respondents assisted by MinPACT that were linked to financial services
Figure 37: Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries that received financial services
Figure 38: Effect of the access of financial services
Bukidnon Compostela 
Valley Davao City Davao del 
Norte Davao del Sur Davao Oriental Zamboanga del 
Norte Grand Total
Treatment No 69 80 65 37 94 74 73 492
Treatment Yes 20 28 8 16 20 11 49 152
Treatment % Yes 3.1 4.3 1.2 2.5 3.1 1.7 7.6 23.6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600 Axis Title
Percentage of respondents that has been assisted/linked to financial services through MinPACT project.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Bukidnon Compostela 
Valley
Davao City Davao del 
Norte
Davao del Sur Davao Oriental Zamboanga 
del Norte
Grand Total
Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries received financial services as result of the MinPACT 
linkage to financial services.
Treatment No Treatment Yes Treatment % Yes
37
9
3 2
7 2
5
80.4
19.6
6.5 4.3
15.2
4.3
10.9
Enhance/Increase crop 
productivity and 
income
Better farm fertility 
through improved 
quality of land and 
water resources
Reduce post-harvest 
losses
Enhance/Increase 
marketability/quality 
of farm produce
Increase market value 
(price) of products
Align with quality 
standards
Others
Effect of the access to the financial services of MinPACT beneficiaries
Freq. %
41
B. Strategic Objective 2 – Expanding Trade
B.1 Access to Market
A big part of MinPACT interventions had to do with linking farmer producers directly to 
key players on the demand side of the value chain. In the process, the aim is to 
eliminate traditional middlemen such that farmers will gain more for their produce. As 
can be seen in the figures below, though, farmers find their market among local buyers.
Figure 39: Market of cacao produce
Figure 40: Market for coconut produce
128
91.4
176
90.3
12 8.6 2 1
12 8.6 2 1.4 3 2 1.5 1
Freq. % Freq. %
Control Treatment
local buyer intermediary processor consolidator/exporter
2 0.7 13 2.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Freq. % Freq. %
Control Treatment
local buyer
intermediary
processor
consolidator/exporter
42
Figure 41 : Market of coffee produce
As revealed by the survey, MinPACT beneficiaries generally sell more in the form of 
dried beans (cacao), GCB (coffee) and copra (coconut) which is reflective of their 
capacity to produce and sell. For cacao, MinPACT beneficiaries cannot yet go into 
chocolate-making because of the high investments in processing and working capital. 
So, at the most, they only produce and package tablea. For coconut, while some earn 
from whole nuts, most farmers go into copra production for added-value and other by￾products like husks and coal. For coffee, only those provided with post-harvest 
equipment produce GCB (co-op level) while individual farmers sell their cherries to the 
nearest trader/processor in the community.
The increased production in 3Cs made farmers deal with the market through different 
channels. Traditionally, farmers sell their harvest to intermediaries or middlemen at 
farm-gate prices which are much lower than market prices. MinPACT assisted its 
beneficiaries to directly engage consolidators, traders, and processors to increase 
their income. While there have been remarkable direct linkages with the big players 
like Franklin Baker (coconut), Kennemer International Foods (cacao) and Hineleban 
(coffee), many smallholder farmers cannot yet maintain consistency of the required 
volume and quality. Further, due to freight costs and risks of wastage in transporting 
their products from farm-to-market, especially the hard-access upland coffee areas, 
farmers still sell to traditional middlemen and traders who pick up on-site or at the 
nearest point-of-sale. Details of their experiences and assessment are contained in 
Appendix H. 
B. 4 Other Observations – Market Systems Development
MinPACT market development influence was evident to other stakeholders in the 
value chain. Their perceptions are contained in Appendix I.
18
64.3
157
84
1 2 3.6 4 2.1 7.1 0 0 1 3 0.5 1.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Freq. % Freq. %
Control Treatment
local buyer intermediary processor consolidator/exporter
43
VCA players reached or engaged by MinPACT registered positive changes in terms 
of increased level of operations (e.g. greater volume of cacao beans and whole nuts 
for trading/processing, increased inventory of agricultural inputs, increased 
manpower), improved operational and management capacities (e.g. access to credit 
and financing for working capital, compliance with business registration and 
accreditation requirements), extension/ expansion of new services that cater to 3C￾specific requirements (e.g. private-owned/operated nurseries), and direct linkage with 
farmer producers (consolidation, economies of scale). Altogether, this resulted in a 
more dynamic market system and contributed to a vibrant local economy at least in 
the areas covered by MinPACT.
Overall, MinPACT made significant influence in spurring improvements in important 
elements of the market system as highlighted below.
Resources: Increased Use and Investment
• Raw materials – used in nursery operations and production (seedling bag, 
soil, pruned leaves as organic fertilizers).
• Processing – conversion of harvests to various forms, i.e., value-adding.
• Land use: a) Intercropping/ diversification/optimization of areas with available 
space; b) Expansion- planting of 3Cs in unutilized areas (including IP 
ancestral domains and buffer zones declared by the DENR); c) Nursery – use 
of idle lots of co-ops.
• Budgetary Allocation: a) Government regular programs and special projects -
nursery operations, farm inputs, post-harvest facilities, farm-to-market roads, 
allowances of farm technicians, non-strop trainings, agricultural loans, and 
trade promotion; b) Co-ops- allocation for agricultural loans in-cash and in￾kind; and c) Other VCA - allocation of funds and resource mobilization for 
continuous support to contract-growing, marketing, product innovation and 
research and development
Roles
• Individual farmers –participation in government and non-government agri￾related programs (planting of high-value commercial crops), training/ adoption 
of non-traditional farm technologies, access to micro-credits, direct selling to 
consolidators.
• POs/Co-ops – expansion of membership/ clientele and array of services to 
include nursery operations, contract growing with members (co-op-managed), 
provision of technical services, lending and marketing.
• Government + SUC – industry development; policy and program development; 
regulation for quality assurance; promotion of agri-related higher education and 
continuing curriculum development (agronomics).
• Other VCA - expansion of clientele and technical services (co-op/ farm 
management); demand-driven product innovation; advocacy for government 
support (incentives).
44
• Women – participation in production, processing and marketing; involvement in 
social entrepreneurship.
• Youth – participation in production, processing and marketing; aim for formal 
education and/or related training.
Relationships
• Direct Linkage / Contract-growing - Processors and Co-ops/ Farmers; Co-ops 
and Farmers (e.g. Franklin Baker and Katipunan Co-op, Kennemer Foods 
International and POEMCO).
• Institutional networks as mechanisms of collaboration and convergence for 
technical assistance, product development, trade promotion, learning 
exchange, etc. (e.g. CIDAMI, Cocolink, Provincial Coffee Council).
• Regular inter-agency consultation meetings.
Rules
• Adherence to production protocols and quality control/ standards (e.g. co-op
assessment by CDA, nursery accreditation by BPI and PCA, fertilization and 
pest management by FPA).
• Clustering approach - PRDP clusters in Zamboanga del Norte where co-ops 
are assigned to nursery operation (Pinan) or processing/ marketing (FACOMA 
and POEMCO).
Results
• Increased area planted with 3C (hectares) – increased demand for farm inputs 
(production side).
• Increased number of farmers and co-ops that ventured in 3C production and 
processing (dried beans).
• Resiliency against natural calamities (e.g. buffer seedling production by 
government-operated nurseries).
• Massive investments in 3Cs production and infrastructure support (government 
and private corporations).
Crowding-in
• Development of coffee-specific business loan policy by Rizal Micro Bank 
(character loan, no collaterals to individual farmers for amount below P50,000); 
co-op machineries and equipment as collateral (e.g. P300K loan to Kape
Maramag).
• Increased demand for record-keeping and audit services from Model Co-op
Network by POs/Associations becoming co-operatives (CDA compliance) –
those provided with the “Sell More for More” Training.
• Increased demand for coffee cupping/grading services from CMU (licensed 
coffee grader courtesy of MinPACT Training).
• Increased demand for fertilizers was noted by Agri-Input Suppliers (indicated 
by the increased inventory and distribution network like that of ATLAS 
Fertilizers, Inc.).
45
• Increased demand for seedlings (private buyers, walk-ins).
• Increased number of coffee shops placing orders to Co-ops (e.g. BACOFA, 
Inhandig, Milalittra).
Copying
• More benchmarking activities – visitors from across the nation and abroad (e.g. 
Hineleban model farm and CMU cupping laboratory).
• Technology transfer – trained farm technicians cascade knowledge to other 
farmers including women and the youth (e.g. grafting).
Sector Growth
• Household incomes increased with the additional sources from 3C production 
and processing, but not yet at the level of disposable income.
• Co-op Income – additional source of income (nursery, consolidation, 
processing), but not yet at significant level.
• Market prices of specialty coffee significantly increased through quality 
assurance and coffee grading (e.g. rare variety; the higher the elevation, the 
sweeter the coffee like that of Inhandig in Mt. Kitanglad).
Backward and Forward Linkages
• Employment generation brought about by nursery operations and expansion of 
farm areas cultivated.
• The revival of the cacao industry increased transactions with government (e.g. 
Kennemer Foods International providing seedlings to LGUs by virtue of its 
accreditation and bid qualification and CIDAMI providing technical services to 
PRDP-funded trainings).
• Sustained partnerships between suppliers and the government for farm inputs 
(e.g. PCA and ATLAS Fertilizers); suppliers collaborate (instead of competing) 
to complete all the necessary materials in 3Cs – providing options to buyers
• Agri-Input Suppliers serve as “MFI” by providing in-kind loans to Co-ops.
Other Indirect Impact
• Promotion of health benefits of coffee, cacao and coconut boosted demand for 
these products (e.g. coconut water as energy drink – being developed by 
Franklin Baker).
• Increased importation of raw materials for manufacturing of inorganic fertilizers 
(nutritional requirements of plants and trees that cannot be sourced from 
organic matters).
C. Thematic Results and Overall Assessment
Part of the developmental perspective of MinPACT is anchored on the principles of 
inclusion and participation, thereby promoting participatory decision-making 
processes in the household, particularly as regards access and control of resources. 
46
In the same manner, MinPACT promotes gender awareness as well as promotion and 
mainstreaming of women and youth participation in development. More of this section 
is contained in Appendices J and K.
On control of resources, the study found out that among MinPACT beneficiaries, the 
father, followed by the mother, have higher decision-making power on different issues 
including resource management and development planning, budgeting, participation 
in community development projects and activities, formulation of ordinances related to 
agriculture and trade, membership in committees, revenue generation and others 
Overall, joint decision-making between the father and the mother ranked third when it 
comes to issues including resource management and development planning, 
budgeting, participation in community development projects and activities
On women, the Study noted significant changes on the roles (duties) of women that 
can be attributed to MinPACT. On one hand women appreciate their economic 
empowerment through their involvement in farm activities and in generating income 
for the household (productive roles). However, some women perceive unfair 
distribution of household (reproductive) roles because they still do much of the work 
at home. On another note, it was gathered in the FGDs and KII that women played 
more prominent roles in farm management, technology adoption (model farmer) and 
enterprise activities. 
Among the youth, their involvement in MinPACT highlighted in the FGDs was in 
planting of seedlings, harvesting, and nursery operations.
Overall Assessment
This section presents the overall assessment of the study participants in terms of the 
evaluation parameters. The general perceptions of the household respondents are 
presented here with related notes from other sources (key informants, FGD 
participants and VCA players). More information is contained in Appendices L and M.
Relevance
The relevance of MinPACT is all the more emphasized by the government sector in 
recognition of its major contributions in moving forward the national agenda on 
agricultural productivity and trade promotion.
According to key informants from the government at all levels, MinPACT largely 
contributed to reviving the cacao industry, as well as the development and 
implementation of strategic plans toward meeting the Philippine Cacao Challenge 
(Cacao Roadmap). In the intercropping of cacao with coconut-planted areas, 
MinPACT likewise contributed in improving coconut yield though on a limited scale. 
For coffee, the biggest contribution of MinPACT as recognized by the government and 
other stakeholders is the introduction of specialty coffee with corollary cupping/grading 
technology based on world-class standards. While it is still early to see impact in terms 
of volume, MinPACT has made great strides in promoting quality of 3Cs products that 
can compete in the world market 
47
Further, the government credits MinPACT with strengthening institutional capacities 
of cooperatives, farmer associations, VCA players and industry groups and networks 
at various levels, and in facilitating direct market linkages between producers and 
processors/ consumers.
The high ratings given by the government is tantamount to MinPACT having 
addressed the felt needs of the 3Cs sector which stretches from production to 
marketing assistance. This is also to say that the interventions are deemed 
appropriate.
Efficiency
The cooperatives covered by MinPACT claim improvements in their business 
processes and practices. Some of the positive changes mentioned include financial 
management with the help of computerized systems as part of MinPACT support 
(accounting, bookkeeping and inventory), development of manuals and business 
plans through the Sell More for More trainings, improved management and decision￾making capabilities of Co-op Officers, ability to link with government partners and other
market players, expanded loan facilities (in-kind and in-cash), and provision of 
technical support to farmers through the trained Co-op Technician.
Effectiveness
MinPACT interventions were very effective in that they brought about many positive 
changes, even though it has not yet fully achieved large-scale production and 
marketing (export level). Among the stand-out accomplishments of the Project are 
technology transfer, quality assurance, and institutional strengthening of various 
stakeholders.
Impact 
In terms of impact, while it is too soon to estimate outcomes on yield and income, 
MinPACT is widely credited for the adoption of technologies, bringing in expert 
knowledge on 3Cs, increased awareness of opportunities in the 3Cs, new products 
developed and marketed, and providing services and knowledge that the government 
and other stakeholders cannot fully provide.
Sustainability
There are many efforts and indications toward sustainability of MinPACT gains such 
as the capacity building of industry associations and cooperatives and their ability to 
provide services to their members, the installation of cupping laboratories and certified 
trainers that will continue to build local knowledge, integration with colleges and 
universities for pursuit of continuing research and development, and curriculum on 
3Cs, new product development and market penetration, transitioning of farmer 
48
associations into cooperatives, establishment and accreditation of nurseries, and 
institutionalized industry conferences. However, the challenge on sustaining and 
expanding the 3Cs industry is still significant due to costs of production, shifts to cash 
crops, lack of PHF and working capital, among others.
Results Framework
Overall, the MinPACT Results Framework remains valid. An expanded trade of the 
3Cs requires increased 3Cs productivity, better products to sell, increased access to 
markets, and improved transaction efficiency. Each of these strategies is supported 
by the lower level strategies, e.g., improved farming techniques, improved marketing, 
increased access to funds and inputs, etc. 
If at all, the possible opportunities to enhance the results framework include the 
following:
• Revisit the time frame allotted for the results to happen. As the report showed, 
some crops need more time to show evidences of increased yield.
• Consider how traditional practices and culture-influenced beliefs can be 
effectively changed among some small system actors so that they become as 
competitive as the others within a specified period. 
• Integrate in the project design a more purposive approach to develop local 
champions or advocates who can help sustain the gains of the project.
• Clarify the important assumptions for the each of the identified strategic 
results taking into consideration the local conditions, customs and risks, 
among others.
49
IX. Lessons Learned
Following are some lessons that can be drawn from the above results and discussions:
• Increasing production requires continuous maintenance (fertilization, 
rejuvenation of soil quality). One-time or short-term provision of agricultural 
inputs is not enough, especially for smallholder farmers with minimal resources.
• Adoption of farm technology takes time due to behavioral/cultural and other 
factors (e.g. to-see-is-to-believe and plant-and-forget attitudes).
• Linkage with the market was done, but farmers/ co-ops are not yet ready to 
meet the growth in demand (no harvest from newly-panted trees yet).
• Farmers tend to shift to other crops that provide immediate income like banana 
and vegetables because newly-planted cacao and coffee trees takes 3-5 years 
to peak.
• Specialty market for coffee and cacao requires consistency in terms of volume 
and quality. This remains a challenge across the value chain.
• Co-ops with nursery become competitors of partners that have existing nursery 
operations, e.g., POEMCO and Kennemer Foods International.
• Agricultural lending requires solutions to systemic factors like collaterals, 
indigenous culture, absorptive capacity of farmers and the risks involved.
X. Conclusions
Based on the findings, the Evaluation Team concludes that overall:
• MinPACT partly achieved its objectives of increasing agricultural productivity as 
evidenced by increased number of hectares planted with 3Cs, and more yield 
and income from existing 3C trees (before MinPACT). However, the increased 
area has not translated into additional household income since 3C trees planted
during the project take years to become fully productive. 
• MinPACT gained recognition from the government and other stakeholders for 
its contribution in promoting and achieving quality standards of 3Cs products 
as well as on good agricultural practices. The same is true in terms of 
organization-level quality seals.
• MinPACT interventions are fully aligned with national development goals and 
priorities and it has significantly contributed to the substantive implementation 
of strategic industry-level initiatives on 3Cs.
• MinPACT has caused significant ripple effects in the local economy as 
exemplified by increased demand for agricultural inputs, crowding-in of industry 
players like specialty coffee shops and cocoa-based consumer goods.
• MinPACT introduced innovations and state-of-the-art technologies in the 3Cs 
industry that promote competitiveness in the world market (e.g. chocolate 
making, coffee cupping/grading).
• MinPACT promoted mutual benefits among industry players, thereof 
strengthening collaboration and coordination and contributing to country goals.
50
XI. Recommendation
Based on the findings and discussions above, the Evaluation Team gives the following 
recommendations, which all key stakeholders may consider within their respective 
mandates, including the institutionalized industry networks (CIDAMI, Cocolink, PCBI
or Provincial Coffee Councils):
Farm Production: 
▪ The crop specific credit programs initiated under MinPACT should be tracked 
and if proven effective expanded to new credit cooperatives, banks and other 
MFIs. 
▪ The approach to production finance where agricultural inputs and technical 
support are part of a credit package which projects returns based on proper 
management offers great potential especially in collaboration and coordination 
with various VCA actors (government programs, financing institution, 
Traders/Processors) to meet market demand both in terms of volume and 
quality.
Nursery Operations: 
▪ The emphasis on co-op established and managed nurseries to help ensure a 
direct and continual relationship with farmer clients/members and to help obtain 
and maintain quality assurance accreditation (co-ops are tax-exempt) and 
linkage with institutional buyers including government entities for financial 
sustainability is a good approach and should be continued. 
▪ Independent private nurseries should also be supported and solutions to the 
private nursery tax evasion issue, which limits quality assurance accreditation,
should be pursued, including elimination or reduction of threshold at the 
policy/regulatory level and or tax reform for micro, small, or medium agriculture 
enterprises.
Post-harvest/ Processing Facilities: 
▪ The MinPACT project facilitated provision of working capital through co-ops, 
along with equipment, post-harvest and processing facilities and hands-on 
training and support materials through incentive in-kind grants and tie-ups with 
government programs and various value chain actors and investors this 
approach should continue with emphasis on facilitation resources and capacity 
building. 
▪ Incentive in-kind grants are useful to kick-start investment but should be used 
in a limited basis and be linked to government and market-based solutions. 
Incentive in-kind grants should be continued but the priority should be on 
facilitating access to credit and linking beneficiaries with government programs 
and market-led investments. 
Marketing: 
▪ Facilitating the establishment of value chain specific trade and technical fairs 
along with support in the participation in trade and technical fairs by project 
beneficiaries, increased their knowledge and understanding of market 
dynamics, requirements, buyer expectations and should be continued. 
▪ The provision of technical assistance and training on product development, 
51
packaging, pricing, distribution and trade (through DTI and industry networks), 
as well as the promotion and use of contracts between buyers and sellers 
proved to be effective in building knowledge and trust. These three strategies, 
trade and technical fairs, marketing skills training and technical assistance, and 
the promotion of buyer contracts should be continued. 
Financing: 
▪ Facilitating access to credit through select banks, government programs, 
and most importantly credit cooperatives, including supporting credit 
cooperatives to pilot crop specific loan products was a good approach, 
though the pilots need to be tracked to determine scalability among other 
credit cooperatives. Overall increased access to working capital is needed, 
to cover cost of production, product development and marketing; financial 
institutions need to consider assets other than land-ownership collaterals, 
including buyer contracts, warehouse receipts, among others. 
Management Capacities: 
▪ Improved agribusiness management skills in marketing, accounting and 
financing, leadership and client or membership services proved to be 
effective in improving business efficiency, product volume and quality, and 
market share. Continued provision of training, technical assistance, 
coaching, and mentoring of micro, small, and medium enterprises, 
including cooperatives and industry organizations is recommended, along 
with the continued linking to management support services through 
cooperative federations, government agencies and programs, and public 
and private educational and training institutions. 
▪ Industry associations like CIDAMI, Cocolink, and PCC can further 
collaborate in launching alternative platforms for learning and exchange 
other than annual summits.
Industry development: 
▪ Capacity building of industry organizations that can promote sector 
development and advocate on behalf of value chain actors should be 
continued, often the difference of a well-developed industry (sector) in a 
country is the level of institutionalism and organization. If existing institutions 
or organizations are not functioning properly or don’t have the buy-in or trust 
of all value chain actors, restructuring, renaming, or starting-over would be 
advised. 
Research and development: 
▪ The linkage with public and private universities to create standardized 
curriculum, research trials to determine the most appropriate varieties based 
on climate change and market demands, and increased university led 
training and extension should be expanded upon for all three crops. 
Behavior change: 
▪ Communication strategies and engagement approaches for training and 
awareness which took into consideration gender, rural and urban 
differences, and ethnic diversity proved affective under MinPACT, including 
52
in the context of participatory workshops, technical manuals, crop specific 
trade fairs and expos, supplementation training tarpaulins, videos, news 
conferences, etc. These strategies should be continued to advocate for 
technology adoption, access and utilization of financing services, and 
monitoring and evaluation for accountability and learning. 
53
Appendices 
54
Appendix A: Profile of Household Survey Respondents
There is equitable distribution of male and female respondents between the treatment and control 
groups (Table 1). Overall, the average years of education of respondents from the treatment 
group is 9 years and 8 years in the control group (Table 2). Majority of the respondents both from 
the control and treatment groups are married (Table 3) and the average family size both in the 
control and the treatment group is 4 (Table 4). 
Table 1. Distribution of respondents by sex
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Female 154 43.8 330 48.7
Male 197 56.0 346 51.1
LGBTQI 1 0.3 1 0.1
Table 2. Distribution of respondents by age and years of education, by province
Province Age Education (in years)
Control Treatment Control Treatment
Bukidnon 47 45 8 6
Compostela Valley 53 51 8 9
Davao City 59 52 9 9
Davao del Norte 49 55 7 8
Davao del Sur 55 53 9 9
Davao Oriental 56 53 8 8
Zamboanga del Norte 54 53 9 9
Overall 53 52 8 9
Table 3. Distribution of respondents by marital status
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Divorced/ separated 5 1.4 12 1.8
Married/ long term partner 287 81.5 535 79.0
Single/ never married 16 4.5 49 7.2
Widowed 44 12.5 81 12.0
Table 4. Average household/family size
Province Control Treatment
Bukidnon 4 4
Compostela Valley 5 4
Davao City 5 4
Davao del Norte 3 4
Davao del Sur 4 4
Davao Oriental 5 4
Zamboanga del Norte 3 3
Overall 4 4
55
Appendix B: Impact Estimates
1. Farm Income
56
57
2. Total Income
58
3. Cacao yield per hectare per year (Dried Beans)
59
4. Coconut Yield per hectare per year (Copra)
60
5. Coffee Yield per hectare per year
61
Appendix C: Household Socio-Economic Profile
Family Members
Across the seven provinces, the average age of family members of the respondents from the 
treatment group is 34 years while that of the control group is 35 years (See Table 1). Majority of 
the respondents from the treatment group are straight males (52.54%) and straight females 
(47.07%). The same is also true with the control group where 50.55% are straight male and 
48.94% are straight female (See Table 2).
Table 1. Average age of family members
Province Control Treatment
Bukidnon 32 29
Compostela Valley 33 33
Davao City 36 33
Davao del Norte 33 35
Davao del Sur 39 36
Davao Oriental 33 33
Zamboanga del Norte 38 37
Overall 35 34
Table 2. Distribution of family members by gender
Gender Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Bisexual (Male) 1 0.04
Gay 4 0.29 6 0.23
Lesbian 3 0.22 3 0.12
Straight Female 669 48.94 1213 47.07
Straight Male 691 50.55 1354 52.54
The primary activities of the treatment and the control groups are more or less the same both for 
the males and females. Majority of the family members of the respondents from both the treatment 
and the control groups are farmers (parents) and students (children) (See Table 3). Majority of 
the male and female respondents both from the treatment and control groups said that they have 
no secondary activities (See Table 4). 
Table 3. Primary activities of family members by sex
Items
Control Treatment
Female Male Female Male
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Farming 148 22.0 341 49.1 293 24.1 598 43.9
62
Household 
Activities 151 22.5 4 0.6 232 19.1 13 1.0
Trading 12 1.8 3 0.4 26 2.1 3 0.2
Off Farm Labor 8 1.2 34 4.9 51 4.2 87 6.4
School 188 28.0 173 24.9 342 28.1 396 29.1
Others 82 12.2 73 10.5 138 11.3 145 10.7
None 83 12.4 67 9.6 134 11.0 119 8.7
Table 4. Secondary activities of family members by sex
Items
Control Treatment
Female Male Female Male
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Farming 46 6.8 46 6.6 93 7.6 106 7.8
Household Activities 72 10.7 26 3.7 171 14.1 66 4.8
Off Farm Labor 6 0.9 24 3.5 23 1.9 57 4.2
Trading 8 1.2 8 1.2 7 0.6 7 0.5
School 11 1.6 12 1.7 10 0.8 24 1.8
Others 17 2.5 47 6.8 44 3.6 75 5.5
None 512 76.2 532 76.5 868 71.4 1026 75.4
Family and Farm Assets
There is no significant difference in terms of average number of items/assets respondents owned 
between the treatment and control groups (Table 5). There is no significant difference in the 
average number of farm animals’ respondents owned (Table 6) and in the percentage of 
respondents with access to farm land (Table 7), in the average number of parcels of land (Table 
8) in the treatment and control sites. Majority of the respondents from the treatment and control 
sites said that they inherited the land that they are farming Table 9). 
There is no significant difference in the farm size (hectares) between the treatment and control 
sites (Table 10). Majority of the farmers from the treatment site (78.3%) and the treatment site 
(83%) said that they own the land that they are farming (Table 11). Majority of the farmer 
respondents from the treatment sites (77.1%) and from the control sites (83.8%) said that they 
use their lands to plant multiple crops (Table 12).
There is no significant difference in terms of the average years of farming (Table 13) and 
percentage of productive land (Table 14) between the treatment and control sites. 
Table 5. Average number of items/assets respondents owned
Items Control Treatment diff (T-C)
a bicycle or trisikad 0.14 0.11 -0.04
a motorcycle or tricycle 0.77 0.70 -0.06
an animal-drawn cart 0.11 0.08 -0.03
a car or jeep or van 0.11 0.10 0.00
63
a tractor 0.01 0.02 0.01
a boat/banca with motor 0.04 0.02 -0.02
a radio / radio cassette 1.58 0.65 -0.93
a television 0.84 0.78 -0.06
a landline telephone 0.05 0.02 -0.04
a cellular phone 1.70 1.97 0.26
a personal computer 0.15 0.15 -0.01
a CD, VCD or DVD player 0.30 0.29 -0.02
Internet 0.04 0.06 0.03
Electricity 0.07 0.90 0.83
Table 6. Average number of farm animals’ respondents owned
Items Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Cows 0.4 0.4 0.0
Carabaos 0.3 0.2 0.0
Goats 0.6 0.4 -0.2
Sheep 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chickens/Ducks/gees 1.0 1.0 0.0
Horses 19.0 16.5 -2.6
Other farm animal 0.0 0.1 0.1
Table 7. Percentage of respondents with access to farm land, by province, by type
Province Control Treatment diff (T￾No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes C)
Bukidnon 1 49 98.0 2 88 97.8 -0.2
Compostela Valley 54 100.0 1 108 99.1 -0.9
Davao City 16 29 64.4 20 60 75.0 10.6
Davao del Norte 1 28 96.6 4 50 92.6 -4.0
Davao del Sur 6 64 91.4 25 106 80.9 -10.5
Davao Oriental 44 100.0 1 90 98.9 -1.1
Zamboanga del Norte 60 100.0 1 121 99.2 -0.8
Grand Total 24 328 93.2 54 623 92.0 -1.2
Table 8. Average number of parcels, by province, by type
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 1.29 1.39 0.10
Compostela Valley 1.31 1.36 0.05
Davao City 1.57 1.31 -0.26
Davao del Norte 1.46 1.34 -0.12
Davao del Sur 1.19 1.33 0.14
Davao Oriental 1.30 1.29 -0.01
Zamboanga del Norte 1.42 1.06 -0.36
Overall 1.34 1.28 -0.05
64
Table 9. Means of obtaining the land
Items
Control Treatment diff (T￾Freq. % Freq. % C)
Bought 55 15.6 114 16.8 1.2
CARP/ OLT 79 22.4 28 4.1 -18.3
Inheritance 177 50.3 421 62.2 11.9
Public land/ stewardship 10 2.8 42 6.2 3.4
Squatting 8 2.3 19 2.8 0.5
Table 10. Average farm size (hectares), by province, by type
Province Control Treatment
Bukidnon 2.3 2.2
Compostela Valley 2.0 2.4
Davao City 1.8 1.6
Davao del Norte 1.6 2.0
Davao del Sur 1.9 2.1
Davao Oriental 3.4 2.9
Zamboanga del Norte 1.6 2.0
Overall 2.1 2.2
Table 11. Land tenure, by type
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Amortizing owner 7 2.0 23 3.4
Caretaker 6 1.7 15 2.2
Leaseholder 0.0 2 0.3
Owner 292 83.0 530 78.3
Tenant 23 6.5 53 7.8
Table 12. Land use, by type
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Agroforest 3 0.9 16 2.4
Intercrop 295 83.8 522 77.1
Monocrop 29 8.2 80 11.8
Untilled land 1 0.3 5 0.7
Table 13. Average years of farming, by province, by type
Province Control Treatment
Bukidnon 24 26
Compostela Valley 25 21
Davao City 22 25
Davao del Norte 15 19
Davao del Sur 23 21
Davao Oriental 29 22
Zamboanga del Norte 20 18
65
Overall 23 21
Table 14. Percentage of productive land, by province, by type
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 92.6 82.4 -10.2
Compostela Valley 91.5 85.5 -6.0
Davao City 75.3 78.0 2.7
Davao del Norte 75.2 85.4 10.2
Davao del Sur 89.2 85.0 -4.1
Davao Oriental 73.1 78.4 5.2
Zamboanga del Norte 85.5 79.8 -5.7
Overall 84.8 82.1 -2.7
Family Livelihood Activities
Crop farming and gardening are the main livelihood of majority of the respondents from the 
treatment and control sites (Table 15). Overall rating to access of work/income generating activity 
of the respondents both from the treatment and control sites is average to good (Table 16). The 
average farm income of the respondents from the treatment sites is generally higher than that of 
the control sites (Table 17). The average non-farm income of the treatment group is also higher 
than that of the control group (Table 18). Both the treatment and control groups reported negative 
annual savings (Table 19). 
Table 15. Main livelihood activities of the respondents
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Products from Crop farming and gardening 312 88.6 557 82.3
Livestock and poultry raising (such as raising of carabaos, cattle, 
hogs, horses, chicken, ducks, etc. and the production of fresh milk, 
eggs, etc.) 
2 0.6 6 0.9
Fishing (such as capture fishing gathering fry, shells, seaweeds, 
etc. ; and culturing fish, oyster, mussel, etc.) 0.0 3 0.4
Charcoal making / Forestry, tree planting, firewood, small-scale 
logging, forestry products (cogon, nipa, rattan, bamboo , resin, 
gum, etc.) 
0.0 1 0.1
Hunting wild animals/birds 0.0 0.0
Wholesale and retail trade (including market vending, sidewalk 
vending and peddling, small shop) 4 1.1 12 1.8
Manufacturing/handicraft (such as mat weaving, tailoring, 
dressmaking) 0.0 1 0.1
Remittances 2 0.6 14 2.1
Daily/common labourer (agriculture, construction etc) 8 2.3 28 4.1
Skilled salaried employment (such as medical, teaching ,bank, 
government 11 3.1 13 1.9
Construction/ skilled labour (repair of a house, building/structure, 
etc.) 14. Pension, Government allowances (peace council member) 3 0.9 8 1.2
66
Unskilled salaried employment (assistant, hair dresser, massage, 
hotel staff, housemaid, laundry etc) 1 0.3 4 0.6
Transportation, storage and communication services (e.g., 
jeepneys or taxis, storage and warehousing activities, messenger 
services, etc.) 
1 0.3 3 0.4
Mining and quarrying (such as mineral extraction like salt making, 
gold mining, gravel, sand and stone quarrying, etc.) 0.0 1 0.1
Other 8 2.3 26 3.8
Table 16. Overall rating to access of work/income generating activity of the respondents
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Very Good 26 7.4 49 7.2
Good 180 51.1 338 49.9
Average 120 34.1 244 36.0
Bad 26 7.4 37 5.5
Very Bad 0.0 9 1.3
Table 17. Average farm income, by sources
Items Control Treatment
Livestock 56,000.00
Sales from Crops 47,954.26 55,205.17
Working on others farms 19,666.67 34,369.23
Others 36,333.33
Average 47,691.52 54,655.08
Table 18. Average non-farm income, by sources
Items Control Treatment
Honorarium 74,173.33 51,277.04
Nonfarm Enterprise you own 64,190.48 76,522.05
Remittances 43,714.29 37,564.12
Rent from properties 34,000.00 21,000.00
Salary 83,799.84 89,395.94
Sale of Assets 70,000.00 47,500.00
Others 53,391.07 72,983.77
Average 65,664.55 74,039.50
Table 19. Estimated annual income and expenditure (savings/dissavings), by province
Province
Control Treatment
Annual 
Income
Annual 
Expenditure
Savings/ 
dissaving
Annual 
Income
Annual 
Expenditure
Savings/ 
dissaving
Bukidnon
102,340.0
0
98,691.12 3,648.88 64,055.62 79,122.80 - 
15,778.91
Compostela 
Valley 97,570.37 93,959.11 3,611.26 135,312.9
8
100,044.33 29,061.63
67
Davao City 80,671.78 117,897.87 -
37,226.09 93,890.38 106,989.15 - 
14,272.40
Davao del 
Norte 81,698.28 77,786.90 3,911.38 105,700.0
0
126,579.56 - 
22,836.96
Davao del 
Sur 98,546.00 155,515.54 -
56,969.54 97,289.88 142,292.18 - 
52,429.01
Davao 
Oriental 75,840.91 81,786.00 - 
5,945.09 76,339.55 99,310.68 - 
24,648.92
Zamboanga 
del Norte 57,122.53 80,576.80 -
23,454.27 73,445.22 85,863.15 - 
14,825.97
Average 85,363.22 104,797.88 -
19,434.66
91,923.08 105,721.07 - 
17,056.71
68
Appendix D: Production per Hectare per Commodity
Cacao
There is insignificant difference in terms of cacao farm area (hectares) between the treatment and 
control areas (Table 1). However, there is significant difference in terms of average trees per 
hectare of cacao between the treatment and control areas. Overall, the control areas have more 
trees per hectare than the treatment area (Table 2), which is due to the presence of other crops 
in the same space, which is still good as to yield from diversified farming. In terms of cacao 
produce, the treatment sites are producing more dried beans (62.3%) compared to the control 
site (43.2%) (Table 3). 
Table 1. Average area planted (hectares) for cacao, by province
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 1.5 0.6 -0.8
Compostela Valley 1.0 1.0 0.1
Davao City 0.9 1.0 0.2
Davao del Norte 0.9 1.0 0.0
Davao del Sur 1.4 0.8 -0.5
Davao Oriental 1.2 0.8 -0.4
Zamboanga del Norte 1.4 1.1 -0.3
Overall 1.2 1.0 -0.2
Table 2. Average trees per hectare of Cacao, by province
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 954 85 -869
Compostela Valley 361 502 140
Davao City 638 548 -90
Davao del Norte 426 443 16
Davao del Sur 493 331 -161
Davao Oriental 354 329 -25
Zamboanga del Norte 212 159 -53
Overall 473 380 -92
Table 3. Type of cacao produce.
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Wet Beans 81 29.7 67 16.3
Fermented Beans 10 3.7 6 1.5
Dried Beans 118 43.2 256 62.3
Coconut
There is no difference in terms of coconut farm area (hectares) between the treatment and control 
areas (Table 4). However, there is significant difference in terms of average trees per hectare of 
69
coconut between the treatment and control areas. Overall, the control areas have more trees per 
hectare than the treatment area (Table 5). In terms of type of coconut produce, the treatment sites 
are producing more copra (64.2%) compared to the control site (55.1%) while the control site is 
producing more whole nut (44.6%) compared to the treatment site (29%)(Table 6).
Table 4. Average area planted (hectares) for coconut, by province
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 2.1 0.0 -2.0
Compostela Valley 2.9 1.8 -1.1
Davao City 1.4 0.9 -0.5
Davao del Norte 0.9 1.7 0.8
Davao del Sur 1.8 1.4 -0.4
Davao Oriental 2.7 2.4 -0.3
Zamboanga del Norte 1.6 2.8 1.3
Overall 2.0 1.9 0.0
Table 5. Average trees per hectare of coconut, by province
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 107 13 -94
Compostela Valley 226 215 -10
Davao City 167 77 -90
Davao del Norte 319 304 -15
Davao del Sur 187 142 -45
Davao Oriental 516 302 -214
Zamboanga del Norte 153 154 1
Overall 234 189 -44
Table 6. Type of coconut produce.
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Whole Nut (Green) 25 8.5 18 3.8
Whole Nut (Matured) 131 44.6 136 29.0
Copra 162 55.1 301 64.2
Coffee
There is insignificant difference in terms of coffee farm area (hectares) (Table 7) and in the 
average trees per hectare of coffee between the treatment and control areas (Table 8). In terms 
of coffee produce, the treatment sites are producing more green cherries (19.8%) compared to 
the control site (7.1%) while the control site is producing more dried beans (71.4%) compared to 
the treatment site (59.9%) (Table 9).
Table 7. Average area planted (hectares) for coffee, by province
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 0.5 0.7 0.2
70
Compostela Valley 0.6 0.7 0.1
Davao City 0.7 0.8 0.1
Davao del Norte 0.8 0.8
Davao del Sur 1.2 1.2
Davao Oriental 0.4 0.5 0.1
Zamboanga del Norte 0.4 5.8 5.4
Overall 0.6 1.1 0.5
Table 8. Average trees per hectare of coffee, by province
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 698 1332 634
Compostela Valley 703 396 -307
Davao City 1331 588 -743
Davao del Norte 800 800
Davao del Sur 589 589
Davao Oriental 811 492 -319
Zamboanga del Norte 267 119 -147
Overall 836 813 -22
Table 9. Type of coffee produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Green Cherries 2 7.1 37 19.8
Dried Beans 20 71.4 112 59.9
Fermented Beans 0.0 8 4.3
Appendix E: Technology Adoption per Commodity
Cacao
There are varying levels of adoption of technology introduced by MinPACT. Adoption rate among 
cacao farmers who learned the technology of plant spacing ranked highest at 82.1% followed by 
intercropping/diversification at 80.9% and application of fertilizer at 73.2%. The least adopted 
technology is soil sampling at 12.4%, rehabilitation at 20.6% and post-harvest 
techniques/practices at 20.8%. While adoption may be average to low among certain types of 
technology, the respondents’ ratings on the application are consistent. In a scale of 1-10, the 
respondents’ rated the application of technology between 7-8 (See Table 1). 
Based on available data (See Table 2), majority of the respondents is convinced on the benefits 
of the technology, but some of them were not able to apply the technology because it is 
laborious/time consuming and input intensive/expensive. Those who did apply the technology 
noticed positive changes in their farm in terms of quality of produce, productivity and marketability 
(See Tables 3-4). 
Table 1. Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Cacao
Technology
Learned the 
Technology
Applied the 
Technology Adoptio
n rate **
Ratin
g ***
Averag
e Trees
No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes *
IPDM 97 301 76.4 125 176 58.5 44.7 7.7 326
Mulching 123 271 68.8 109 162 59.8 41.1 7.8 343
Avoid slash and burn 124 270 68.5 132 138 51.1 35.0 7.8 356
Pruning 35 358 90.9 120 238 66.5 60.4 8.0 403
Farm Planning 100 292 74.1 92 199 68.2 50.5 8.0 360
Application of fertilizer 85 306 77.7 82 224 73.2 56.9 7.9 455
Weed Management 178 213 54.1 71 142 66.7 36.0 7.7 362
Intercropping/Diversification 119 272 69.0 52 220 80.9 55.8 8.1 350
Proper plant spacing 79 312 79.2 56 256 82.1 65.0 8.1 357
Rehabilitation 187 204 51.8 123 81 39.7 20.6 8.1 322
Soil Sampling 222 169 42.9 120 49 29.0 12.4 7.6 432
Proper harvesting 145 246 62.4 118 128 52.0 32.5 8.2 474
Postharvest 
techniques/practices 195 196 49.7 114 82 41.8 20.8 8.3 475
* Adoption rate among cacao farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
***Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10)
72
72
Table 2. Reasons for non-adoption of Cacao introduced technologies
Technology
Reasons 
Do not own a 
land (Tenure)
Input 
intensive/expensive
Laborious/time 
consuming
Not 
appropriate 
for the crop
Not 
convinced 
on the 
benefits of 
the 
technology
Others
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Freq
.
% Freq. %
IPDM 11 8.8 37 29.6 50 40.0 4 3.2 22 17.6 0 0.0
Mulching 2 1.8 14 12.8 26 23.9 47 43.1 2 1.8 15 13.
8
Avoid slash and burn 1 0.8 7 5.3 41 31.1 67 50.8 6 4.5 9 6.8
Pruning 0.0 5 4.2 16 13.3 78 65.0 2 1.7 17 14.
2
Farm Planning 1 1.1 6 6.5 39 42.4 31 33.7 6 6.5 7 7.6
Application of fertilizer 0.0 30 36.6 17 20.7 21 25.6 3 3.7 10 12.
2
Weed Management 0.0 6 8.5 41 57.7 17 23.9 2 2.8 4 5.6
Intercropping/
Diversification 2 3.8 4 7.7 19 36.5 21 40.4 0 0.0 5 9.6
Proper plant spacing 1 1.8 3 5.4 17 30.4 18 32.1 6 10.7 9
16.
1
Rehabilitation 1 0.8 9 7.3 39 31.7 48 39.0 2 1.6 22 17.
9
Soil Sampling 2 1.7 16 13.3 45 37.5 45 37.5 4 3.3 7 5.8
Proper harvesting 0.0 4 3.4 18 15.3 51 43.2 3 2.5 40 33.
9
Postharvest 
techniques/practices 1 0.9 2 1.8 30 26.3 45 39.5 1 0.9 34 29.
8
Table 3. Percentage of respondents who applied the Cacao technologies and perceived changes 
in the farm
Items
Is there a change?
No Yes %Yes
IPDM 25 150 85.2
Mulching 17 145 89.5
Avoid slash and burn 19 117 84.8
Pruning 24 214 89.9
Farm Planning 29 169 84.9
Application of fertilizer 17 207 92.4
Weed Management 8 133 93.7
Intercropping/diversification 18 202 91.8
Proper plant spacing 33 222 86.7
Rehabilitation 7 74 91.4
Soil Sampling 1 48 98.0
Proper harvesting 6 122 95.3
Postharvest techniques/practices 2 80 97.6
73
73
Table 4. Details of the perceived changes in the farm operation due to Cacao technologies
Items
Changes in….
Quality Productivity Cost Marketability
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
IPDM 15 123 82.0 81 54.0 5 8 5.3 11 7.3
Mulching 10 122 84.1 2 89 61.4 7 4 2.8 0 10 6.9
Avoid slash and 
burn 11 94 80.3 0 47 40.2 16 2 1.7 1 7 6.0
Pruning 12 177 82.7 1 125 58.4 20 2 0.9 0 26 12.1
Farm Planning 12 143 84.6 2 91 53.8 15 5 3.0 0 15 8.9
Application of 
fertilizer 12 171 82.6 2 131 63.3 15 15 7.2 0 17 8.2
Weed 
Management 8 112 84.2 1 77 57.9 10 4 3.0 1 3 2.3
Intercropping/di
versification 7 155 76.7 2 129 63.9 21 6 3.0 0 33 16.3
Proper plant 
spacing 11 189 85.1 3 129 58.1 14 6 2.7 0 19 8.6
Rehabilitation 7 56 75.7 0 46 62.2 8 1 1.4 0 5 6.8
Soil Sampling 5 36 75.0 0 28 58.3 2 3 6.3 0 1 2.1
Proper 
harvesting 5 101 82.8 0 80 65.6 9 2 1.6 0 8 6.6
Postharvest 
techniques/pract
ices
3 63 78.8 0 57 71.3 4 1 0 9 11.3
Coconut
Like in the case of cacao, there are varying levels of adoption of technology introduced for 
coconuts by MinPACT. Adoption rate among coconut farmers who learned the technology of 
intercropping/diversification is highest at 81.3% followed by proper plant spacing at 79.9% and 
application of fertilizer at 78.1%. The least adopted technology is pruning at 27.1%, soil sampling 
at 34.2% and rehabilitation at 37.3% (See Table 5). Compared to cacao farmers, coconut farmers 
are a bit more included to adopt new technologies. In a scale of 1-10, the average rating given 
by the respondents on the use of technology is 8 (See Table 6). 
Common reasons given by the respondents on why they did not adopt the technology introduced 
by MinPACT were as follows: a) the application of the technology is laborious, b) the use of the 
technology is expensive, and c) the technology is not appropriate for the crop (See Table 7).
Farmers who applied the technology introduced my MinPACT reported positive changes in their 
farm in terms of quality of produce, volume of production and marketability (See Tables 8).
74
74
Table 5. Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Coconut
Technology
Learned the 
Technology
Applied the 
Technology Adoptio
n rate **
Ratin
g ***
Averag
e Trees
No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes *
IPDM 96 149 60.8 52 96 64.4 39.2 8.1 256
Mulching 109 135 55.1 57 78 57.8 31.8 8.1 269
Avoid slash and burn 146 98 40.0 51 47 48.0 19.2 8.2 227
Pruning 137 107 43.7 77 29 27.1 11.8 8.3 202
Farm Planning 98 146 59.6 44 102 69.9 41.6 8.3 239
Application of fertilizer 93 151 61.6 33 118 78.1 48.2 8.2 195
Weed Management 137 105 42.9 30 75 71.4 30.6 8.2 186
Intercropping/Diversification 99 144 58.8 27 117 81.3 47.8 8.3 195
Proper plant spacing 84 159 64.9 32 127 79.9 51.8 8.4 228
Rehabilitation 159 83 33.9 52 31 37.3 12.7 8.2 224
Soil Sampling 169 73 29.8 48 25 34.2 10.2 8.2 229
Proper harvesting 124 118 48.2 26 92 78.0 37.6 8.5 203
Postharvest 
techniques/practices
138 104 42.4 33 71 68.3 29.0 8.4 209
* Adoption rate among cacao farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
***Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10)
75
75
Table 6. Reasons for non-adoption of Coconut introduced technologies
Technology
Reasons 
Do not own a 
land (Tenure)
Input 
intensive/expensive
Laborious/time 
consuming
Not 
appropriate 
for the crop
Not 
convinced 
on the 
benefits of 
the 
technology
Others
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
IPDM 2 3.8 2 3.8 23 44.2 19 36.5 2 3.8 4 7.7
Mulching 2 3.5 3 5.3 21 36.8 24 42.1 0.0 7 12.3
Avoid slash and burn 1 2.0 1 2.0 19 37.3 25 49.0 1 2.0 4 7.8
Pruning 1 1.3 0 0.0 21 27.3 49 63.6 0.0 6 7.8
Farm Planning 1 2.3 0 0.0 16 36.4 15 34.1 2 4.5 4 9.1
Application of fertilizer 1 3.0 11 33.3 13 39.4 5 15.2 1 3.0 2 6.1
Weed Management 1 3.3 5 16.7 18 60.0 6 20.0 0.0 0.0
Intercropping/
Diversification 0.0 4 14.8 8 29.6 7 25.9 2 7.4 6 22.2
Proper plant spacing 1 3.1 1 3.1 12 37.5 10 31.3 0.0 8 25.0
Rehabilitation 0.0 1 1.9 25 48.1 17 32.7 2 3.8 6 11.5
Soil Sampling 0.0 5 10.4 26 54.2 13 27.1 3 6.3 1 2.1
Proper harvesting 0.0 3 11.5 13 50.0 6 23.1 1 3.8 3 11.5
Postharvest 
techniques/practices 0.0 3 9.1 20 60.6 8 24.2 0.0 1 3.0
Table 7. Percentage of respondents who applied the Coconut technologies and perceived 
changes in the farm
Items
Is there a change?
No Yes %Yes
IPDM 7 89 92.7
Mulching 10 68 87.2
Avoid slash and burn 1 46 97.9
Pruning 29 100.0
Farm Planning 14 88 86.3
Application of fertilizer 8 110 93.2
Weed Management 5 69 92.0
Intercropping/diversification 8 109 93.2
Proper plant spacing 20 106 83.5
Rehabilitation 1 30 96.8
Soil Sampling 2 23 92.0
Proper harvesting 8 83 90.2
Postharvest techniques/practices 2 69 97.2
76
76
Table 8. Details of the perceived changes in the farm operation due to Coconut technologies
Items
Changes in….
Quality Productivity Cost Marketability
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Decr
ease
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
IPDM 6 66 74.2 2 52 58.4 1 6 6.7 1 7 7.9
Mulching 2 51 75.0 4 47 69.1 5 3 4.4 0 5 7.4
Avoid slash and 
burn 0 36 78.3 1 30 65.2 9 1 2.2 0 6 13.0
Pruning 0 21 72.4 1 19 65.5 0 2 6.9 0 2 6.9
Farm Planning 5 69 78.4 2 48 54.5 4 5 5.7 0 11 12.5
Application of 
fertilizer 2 84 76.4 1 89 80.9 6 8 7.3 0 15 13.6
Weed 
Management 0 52 75.4 1 52 75.4 2 3 4.3 0 5 7.2
Intercropping/di
versification 1 82 75.2 3 75 68.8 6 5 4.6 0 22 20.2
Proper plant 
spacing 4 81 76.4 2 73 68.9 5 3 2.8 0 16 15.1
Rehabilitation 1 21 70.0 1 19 63.3 0 2 6.7 0 4 13.3
Soil Sampling 1 18 78.3 0 16 69.6 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
Proper 
harvesting 3 64 77.1 0 63 75.9 0 5 6.0 1 10 12.0
Postharvest 
techniques/pract
ices
1 50 72.5 0 55 79.7 0 6 8.7 0 18 26.1
Coffee
Like in the case of cacao and coconut farmers, there are varying levels of adoption of technology 
introduced for coffee by MinPACT. Adoption rate among coffee farmers who learned the 
technology of proper plant spacing is highest at 77.8% followed by farm planning at 75.3%, 
intercropping/diversification at 63.8% and application of fertilizer at 63.6%. The least adopted 
technology is soil sampling at 28.3%, post-harvest techniques/practices at 31.3% and mulching 
at 34.6% (See Table 9). In a scale of 1-10, the average rating given by the respondents on the 
use of technology is 7-8 (See Table 10). 
Common reasons given by the respondents on why they did not adopt the technology introduced 
by MinPACT were as follows: a) the application of the technology is laborious, b) the use of the 
technology is expensive, and c) the technology is not appropriate for the crop (See Table 11).
Same as in the cacao and coconut industry, farmers who applied the technology introduced my 
MinPACT reported positive changes in their farm in terms of quality of produce, volume of 
production and marketability (See Tables 12).
77
77
Table 9. Adoption rate and rating of MinPACT introduced technologies for Coffee
Technology
Learned the 
Technology
Applied the 
Technology Adoptio
n rate **
Ratin
g ***
Averag
e Trees
No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes *
IPDM 45 81 64.3 49 32 39.5 25.4 7.6 564
Mulching 48 78 61.9 51 27 34.6 21.4 7.9 751
Avoid slash and burn 65 61 48.4 36 25 41.0 19.8 7.6 595
Pruning 49 77 61.1 37 40 51.9 31.7 7.9 620
Farm Planning 37 89 70.6 22 67 75.3 53.2 8.0 569
Application of fertilizer 27 99 78.6 36 63 63.6 50.0 8.4 618
Weed Management 54 72 57.1 27 45 62.5 35.7 7.9 618
Intercropping/Diversification 57 69 54.8 25 44 63.8 34.9 8.3 486
Proper plant spacing 36 90 71.4 20 70 77.8 55.6 7.9 472
Rehabilitation 110 16 12.7 8 8 50.0 6.3 7.4 170
Soil Sampling 73 53 42.1 38 15 28.3 11.9 8.3 729
Proper harvesting 47 79 62.7 32 47 59.5 37.3 7.8 607
Postharvest 
techniques/practices 59 67 53.2 46 21 31.3 16.7 8.0 778
* Adoption rate among cacao farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
***Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10
78
78
Table 10. Reasons for non-adoption of Coffee introduced technologies
Technology
Reasons for non-adoption
Input 
intensive/expensive
Laborious/time 
consuming
Not 
appropriate for 
the crop
Not convinced 
on the benefits 
of the 
technology
Others
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
IPDM 18 36.7 15 30.6 10 20.4 1 2.0 3 6.1
Mulching 18 35.3 18 35.3 12 23.5 0.0 3 5.9
Avoid slash and burn 2 5.6 23 63.9 8 22.2 0.0 3 8.3
Pruning 1 2.7 20 54.1 12 32.4 0.0 4 10.8
Farm Planning 0.0 15 68.2 2 9.1 1 4.5 3 13.6
Application of fertilizer 22 61.1 7 19.4 3 8.3 0.0 4 11.1
Weed Management 1 3.7 22 81.5 2 7.4 1 3.7 1 3.7
Intercropping/Diversification 0.0 20 80.0 2 8.0 2 8.0 1 4.0
Proper plant spacing 0.0 8 40.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 8 40.0
Rehabilitation 0.0 1 12.5 6 75.0 0.0 1 12.5
Soil Sampling 12 31.6 21 55.3 4 10.5 0.0 1 2.6
Proper harvesting 1 3.1 13 40.6 3 9.4 1 3.1 14 43.8
Postharvest 
techniques/practices
7 15.2 25 54.3 1 2.2 0.0 13 28.3
Table 11. Percentage of respondents who applied the Coffee technologies and perceived 
changes in the farm
Items Is there a change?
No Yes %Yes
IPDM 0 32 100.0
Mulching 1 26 96.3
Avoid slash and burn 0 25 100.0
Pruning 0 40 100.0
Farm Planning 1 66 98.5
Application of fertilizer 3 59 93.7
Weed Management 0 45 100.0
Intercropping/diversification 1 43 97.7
Proper plant spacing 2 68 97.1
Rehabilitation 0 8 100.0
Soil Sampling 0 15 100.0
Proper harvesting 0 47 100.0
Postharvest techniques/practices 1 20 95.2
79
79
Table 12. Details of the perceived changes in the farm operation due to Coffee technologies
Items
Changes in….
Quality Productivity Cost Marketability
Dec
reas
e
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Dec
reas
e
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Dec
reas
e
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
Dec
reas
e
Incr
eas
e
% 
Incre
ase
IPDM 2 27 84.4 0 22 68.8 4 4 12.5 0 5 15.6
Mulching 1 21 80.8 0 20 76.9 2 4 15.4 0 8 30.8
Avoid slash and 
burn 0 22 88.0 0 18 72.0 1 4 16.0 0 1 4.0
Pruning 0 33 82.5 0 35 87.5 6 6 15.0 0 7 17.5
Farm Planning 1 59 89.4 0 43 65.2 4 8 12.1 0 19 28.8
Application of 
fertilizer 1 55 93.2 0 42 71.2 5 7 11.9 0 15 25.4
Weed 
Management 0 42 93.3 0 30 66.7 4 7 15.6 0 9 20.0
Intercropping/d
iversification 0 37 86.0 0 32 74.4 5 9 20.9 0 10 23.3
Proper plant 
spacing 1 60 88.2 0 41 60.3 5 5 7.4 0 9 13.2
Rehabilitation 0 6 75.0 0 6 75.0 1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
Soil Sampling 0 12 80.0 0 11 73.3 1 2 13.3 0 3 20.0
Proper 
harvesting 1 40 85.1 0 34 72.3 3 13 27.7 0 16 34.0
Postharvest 
techniques/pra
ctices
1 16 80.0 0 14 70.0 0 2 10.0 0 7 35.0
80
80
Appendix F: Farm Management and Practices
Application of Farm Techniques
Majority of the respondents (84.3%) from the treatment site said that they participated in the 
training for farmers and agribusiness service providers (Table 1). There is a slight significant 
difference in terms of planting materials used by the treatment and control groups (Table 2). 
Treatment groups use more clone/hybrid materials compared to the control sites. However, there 
is no significant difference in terms of their sources of planting materials (Tables 3-5). 
Overall, 67.8% MinPACT beneficiaries leveraged seedling from MinPACT partners (Table 6) while 
44.3% of the beneficiaries said that they also received seedlings from the Department of 
Agriculture (Table 7). 
Overall, there is no significant difference in terms of the use of synthetic and organic fertilizer 
among cacao and coconut farmers in the treatment and control areas. However, in the coffee 
farms, more farmers (34.3%) prefer to use synthetic fertilizer over organic fertilizer (Table 8). 
Leading factors considered in decision on the type and amount of fertilizer to apply include 
recommendation from DA, recommendation from MinPACT and influence by neighbors (Table 9). 
There is no significant difference in terms of considerations before applying fertilizer, in the access 
to post-harvest facilities and post-harvest practices for cacao between the treatment and control 
areas (Table 10-12). However there is a slight difference in the post-harvest practices from 
coconut in terms of cleaning/ de-husking. Farmers from the treatment sites tend to practice 
cleaning/de-husking more often than that the farmers from the control site (Table 13). 
There is a significant difference in the post-harvest practices between the treatment and control 
sites for coffee. Farmers from the treatment sites tend to practice pulping more often than farmers 
from the control sites (Table 14).
There is no significant difference in terms of post-harvest losses by farmers before and after 
MinPACT (Table 15). 
There is no significant difference in the percentage of respondents with farm covered by crop 
insurance between the treatment and control sites (Table 16).
There is no significant change in the percentage of respondents who change cultivated crops for 
the last 3 years both in the treatment and control sites (Table 17). Factors that influence the 
decision to change cultivated crops include influence of MinPACT (8.2%) and market price of the 
produce (7.7%) (Table 18). 
There is no significant difference in terms of percentage of respondents with farm certification 
between the treatment and control sites (Table 19). 
Table 1. MinPACT beneficiaries involvement or /any member of the family in MinPACT project
Items Freq. %
Training for farmers and agribusiness service providers 571 84.3
81
81
Financial services to facilitate agricultural lending and insurance 112 16.5
Market access to enhance market opportunities and efficiency for agricultural 
products and services. 86 12.7
Capacity building for improved post-harvest systems for producer groups and 
agribusiness 71 10.5
Grants for improving post-harvest systems 109 16.1
Capacity building for improved post-harvest handling practices 100 14.8
Supportive grants for trained beneficiaries (inputs, plants, tools, trade shows, 
group development) 158 23.3
Value chain analysis and development 31 4.6
Others 67 9.9
Table 2. Type of planting materials, by crop, by type
Items Cacao Coconut Coffee
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Control
Clone/Hybrid 161 56.1 43 14.6 8 21.1
Traditional 104 36.2 212 72.1 27 71.1
Propagated 77 26.8 49 16.7 8 21.1
Treatment
Clone/Hybrid 312 62.3 95 20.3 72 33.80
Traditional 171 34.1 307 65.7 132 61.97
Propagated 154 30.7 99 21.2 48 22.54
diff (% T-C)
Clone/Hybrid 6.2 5.7 12.75
Traditional -2.1 -6.4 -9.08
Propagated 3.9 4.5 1.48
Table 3. Sources of Cacao planting materials
Sources
Control Treatment diff (% 
Freq. % Freq. % T-C)
Accredited and Certified Nurseries 133 46.3 209 41.7 -4.6
Unaccredited and Uncertified 
Nurseries 1 0.3 2 0.4 0.1
Unaccredited Nurseries 0.0 5 1.0 1.0
Own 110 38.3 152 30.3 -8.0
Friends/Community 54 18.8 50 10.0 -8.8
Others 36 12.5 74 14.8 2.2
Table 4. Sources of Coconut planting materials
Sources
Control Treatment diff (% 
Freq. % Freq. % T-C)
Accredited and Certified Nurseries 57 19.4 80 17.1 -2.3
Unaccredited and Uncertified 
Nurseries 0.0 6 1.3 1.3
Unaccredited Nurseries 2 0.7 6 1.3 0.6
Own 240 81.6 348 74.5 -7.1
Friends/Community 70 23.8 83 17.8 -6.0
82
82
Others 10 3.4 24 5.1 1.7
Table 5. Sources of Coffee planting materials
Sources
Control Treatment diff (% 
Freq. % Freq. % T-C)
Accredited and Certified Nurseries 6 15.8 70 32.9 17.1
Unaccredited and Uncertified 
Nurseries 0.0 1 0.5 0.5
Unaccredited Nurseries 0.0 2 0.9 0.9
Own 24 63.2 137 64.3 1.2
Friends/Community 8 21.1 73 34.3 13.2
Others 7 18.4 29 13.6 -4.8
Table 6. Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries leveraged seedling from MinPACT partners, by 
province
Province No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 23 67 74.4
Compostela Valley 32 77 70.6
Davao City 25 55 68.8
Davao del Norte 14 40 74.1
Davao del Sur 58 73 55.7
Davao Oriental 32 59 64.8
Zamboanga del Norte 33 88 72.1
Overall 217 459 67.8
Table 7. Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries received seedlings, by sources
Partners Freq. % Average No. of Seedlings
LGUS 48 7.1 208
DA 300 44.3 196
DENR 14 2.1 267
CENRO 2 0.3 28
Others 178 26.3 197
Table 8. Type of fertilizer used, by crop, by type
Items
Cacao Coconut Coffee
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Control
Synthetic 143 49.8 114 38.8 0 0.0
Organic 122 42.5 115 39.1 18 47.4
Treatment
Synthetic 243 48.5 153 32.8 73 34.3
Organic 203 40.5 197 42.2 97 45.5
diff (% T￾C)
Synthetic -1.3 -6.0 34.3
Organic -2.0 3.1 -1.8
Table 9. Factors considered in decision on the type and amount of fertilizer to apply
Items
Control Treatment diff (% 
Freq. % Freq. % T-C)
83
83
Soil testing 40 11.4 103 15.2 3.9
Cost of fertilizer 41 11.6 71 10.5 -1.2
Influence by neighbours 90 25.6 140 20.7 -4.9
Recommendation of DA 122 34.7 214 31.6 -3.0
Recommendation from MinPACT 0 0.0 214 31.6 31.6
Others 51 14.5 60 8.9 -5.6
Do not apply fertilizer 84 23.9 188 27.8 3.9
Table 10. Considerations before applying fertilizer
Items
Control Treatment diff (% 
Freq. % Freq. % T-C)
Calendar dates 96 27.3 186 27.5 0.2
done at the first sight of pest, etc. 22 6.3 63 9.3 3.1
Based on crop growth 129 36.6 247 36.5 -0.2
Upon recommendation by DA 
technician 83 23.6 100 14.8 -8.8
Upon recommendation of MinPACT 0 0.0 150 22.2 21.9
Done when pest exceed acceptable 
level 2 0.6 5 0.7 0.2
Others 13 3.7 18 2.7 -1.0
Table 11. Access to post-harvest facilities
Items
Control Treatment diff ( T-C) Freq. % Freq. %
% with access to storage facility 12 3.4 52 7.7 4.3
Cost of Storage facility 3,463.64 71,923.04 68,459.40
% with access to fermentation Facility 6 1.7 13 1.9 0.2
Cost of fermentation facility 3,333.33 40,326.67 36,993.33
% with access to dryer 31 8.8 91 13.4 4.6
Cost of dryer facility 5,311.39 9,744.85 4,433.46
Table 12. Percentage of respondents practicing Cacao postharvest practices
Items
Control Treatment diff ( T-C) Freq. % Freq. %
Pod Breaking 12 4.2 28 5.6 1.4
Fermentation 51 17.8 104 20.8 3.0
Drying 46 16.0 114 22.8 6.7
Sorting/classifying 10 3.5 22 4.4 0.9
Grading 9 3.1 21 4.2 1.1
Storage 18 6.3 14 2.8 -3.5
Others 37 12.9 197 39.3 26.4
Table 13. Percentage of respondents practicing Coconut postharvest practices
Items
Control Treatment diff ( T-C) Freq. % Freq. %
Cleaning/Dehusking 135 45.9 264 56.5 10.6
84
84
Grading 51 17.3 100 21.4 4.1
Sorting/classifying 51 17.3 83 17.8 0.4
Splitting 68 23.1 123 26.3 3.2
Drying 136 46.3 248 53.1 6.8
Storage 12 4.1 35 7.5 3.4
Others 2 0.7 2 0.4 -0.3
Table 14. Percentage of respondents practicing Coffee postharvest practices
Items
Control Treatment diff ( T-C) Freq. % Freq. %
Pulping 1 2.6 30 14.1 11.5
Fermentation 0 0.0 8 3.8 3.8
Washing 2 5.3 10 4.7 -0.6
Drying 18 47.4 89 41.8 -5.6
Hulling 2 5.3 21 9.9 4.6
Polishing 2 5.3 21 9.9 4.6
Grading 5 13.2 25 11.7 -1.4
Sorting/classifying 8 21.1 46 21.6 0.5
Storage 0 0.0 11 5.2 5.2
Others 1 2.6 6 2.8 0.2
Table 15. Post-harvest losses, before and after MinPACT
Crops
Control Treatment diff (T￾Before Now diff B-N Before Now diff B-N C)
Cacao 15.9 12.0 -3.8 14.3 11.3 -3.0 0.8
Coconut 16.2 15.0 -1.2 16.0 14.8 -1.2 0.0
Coffee 15.6 16.0 0.4 14.9 14.2 -0.7 -1.1
Table 16. Percentage of respondents with farm covered by crop insurance
Province
Control Treatment Diff (T￾No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes C)
Bukidnon 33 17 4.9 89 1 0.2 -4.7
Compostela Valley 53 1 0.3 93 16 2.5 2.2
Davao City 44 1 0.3 75 5 0.8 0.5
Davao del Norte 27 2 0.6 43 11 1.7 1.1
Davao del Sur 54 16 4.6 131 0.0 -4.6
Davao Oriental 40 4 1.2 87 4 0.6 -0.5
Zamboanga del 
Norte 58 2 0.6 116 6 0.9 0.4
Overall 309 43 12.4 634 43 6.7 -5.7
Table 17. Percentage of respondents who change cultivated crops for the last 3 years
Province
Control Treatment Diff (T￾No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes C)
Bukidnon 42 8 2.3 69 21 3.3 0.9
Compostela Valley 54 0.0 107 2 0.3 0.3
85
85
Davao City 33 12 3.5 67 13 2.0 -1.4
Davao del Norte 29 0.0 53 1 0.2 0.2
Davao del Sur 70 0.0 123 8 1.2 1.2
Davao Oriental 44 0.0 81 10 1.5 1.5
Zamboanga del 
Norte 30 30 8.6 74 48 7.4 -1.2
Overall 302 50 14.4 574 103 15.9 1.5
Table 18. Factors that influence the decision to change cultivated crops
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Market Price of the produce 23 6.6 50 7.7
Accessibility of Market 16 4.6 25 3.9
Fertilizer requirements 8 2.3 10 1.5
Laborious 4 1.2 8 1.2
Vulnerability to pest and deseases 6 1.7 19 2.9
Shift to crops with support 6 1.7 13 2.0
Market preference 5 1.4 19 2.9
As influence of MinPACT 0 0.0 53 8.2
Others 6 1.7 4 0.6
Table 19. Percentage of respondents with farm certification
Province
Control Treatment Diff (T-C) No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 39 11 3.2 90 0.0 -3.2
Compostela Valley 54 0.0 108 1 0.2 0.2
Davao City 43 2 0.6 78 2 0.3 -0.3
Davao del Norte 24 5 1.4 36 18 2.8 1.3
Davao del Sur 68 2 0.6 130 1 0.2 -0.4
Davao Oriental 44 0.0 91 0.0 0.0
Zamboanga del 
Norte 60 0.0 122 0.0 0.0
Overall 332 20 5.8 655 22 3.4 -2.4
Table 20. Type of farm certification
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
GAP 3 0.9 1 0.1
Organic 16 4.5 21 3.1
Under Fair Trade 2 0.6 2 0.3
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Overall, 59.4% of the MinPACT beneficiaries attended management trainings (Table 21). In a 
scale of 1-10 where 10 is the highest, the ratings given by the respondents for management 
practices application/adoption is between 7 to 8 (Table 22). Common reasons from adopting the 
practices were the following a) easy to follow, b) helpful in decision making, c) 
86
86
professionalize/formalize the farm operation, c) enhances efficiency of the operation and others 
(Table 23). On the other hand, the common reasons from not adopting the practices were the 
following a) very hard to follow and apply, b0 lack of equipment/tools to apply the practice, c) does 
not think this is helpful in my operation, d) inconvenient, d) time consuming, e) did not fully 
understand the management practices and others (Table 24). 
Table 21. Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries attended management trainings
Province
No 
response
No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 22 15 53 7.8
Compostela Valley 20 18 69 10.2
Davao City 5 12 38 5.6
Davao del Norte 35 7 11 1.6
Davao del Sur 31 18 82 12.1
Davao Oriental 3 31 57 8.4
Zamboanga del Norte 14 16 92 13.6
Overall 130 117 402 59.4
Table 22. Management practices applied and adoption rate
Items
Applied? Adoption 
Rate**
Rating 
No Yes *** % 
Yes*
Input, Output, and Labor Needs Computation 195 145 36.1 21.4 7.6
Business practices (related to the management of land, 
crops, equipment, facilities, transportation) 248 269 66.9 39.7 8.0
Use of Information Technology (including computers and 
GPS) 406 98 24.4 14.5 8.3
Financial planning, cash flow, balance sheet, income 
statements, variable and fixed agents 292 221 55.0 32.6 8.0
Record Keeping (including financial and production 
documents, receipts and expenses, maintaining and using 
inventories, etc)
234 277 68.9 40.9 8.7
Gender Equity/Equality/Development/mainstreaming 246 264 65.7 39.0 8.1
* Adoption rate among cacao farmers who learned the technology
**Adoption rate from the total sample
*** Rating on the application of the technology (The lowest is 1 and the highest is 10)
87
87
Table 23. Reasons for practicing/applying the management practices
Table 24. Reasons for not applying management practices
Items
Input, 
Output, and 
Labor Needs 
Computation
Business 
practices 
(related to the 
management 
of land, crops, 
equipment, 
facilities, 
transportation)
Use of 
Information 
Technology 
(including 
computers 
and GPS)
Financial 
planning, 
cash flow, 
balance 
sheet, 
income 
statements, 
variable 
and fixed
agents
Record 
Keeping 
(including 
financial 
and 
production 
documents, 
receipts and 
expenses, 
maintaining 
and using 
inventories, 
etc)
Gender Equity/ 
Equality/ 
Development/ 
mainstreaming
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Very hard to follow and apply 41 21.0 39 15.7 28 6.9 15 5.1 39 16.7 25 10.2
Lack of equipment/tools to apply the practice 42 21.5 34 13.7 32 7.9 8 2.7 40 17.1 22 8.9
Does not think this is helpful in my operation 20 10.3 24 9.7 21 5.2 4 1.4 28 12.0 10 4.1
Inconvenient 55 28.2 57 23.0 43 10.6 7 2.4 66 28.2 23 9.3
Items
Input, Output, 
and Labor 
Needs 
Computation
Business 
practices 
(related to the 
management of 
land, crops, 
equipment, 
facilities, 
transportation)
Use of 
Information 
Technology 
(including 
computers and 
GPS)
Financial 
planning, cash 
flow, balance 
sheet, income 
statements, 
variable and 
fixed agents
Record 
Keeping 
(including 
financial and 
production 
documents, 
receipts and 
expenses, 
maintaining 
and using 
inventories, 
etc)
Gender Equity/ 
Equality/ 
Development/ 
mainstreaming
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Easy to follow 101 69.7 75 27.9 18 18.4 48 21.7 91 32.9 116 43.9
Helpful in decision making 65 44.8 51 19.0 12 12.2 55 24.9 75 27.1 117 44.3
Professionalize/formalize the farm operation 34 23.4 34 12.6 9 9.2 37 16.7 42 15.2 86 32.6
Enhances efficiency of the operation.. 53 36.6 28 10.4 12 12.2 34 15.4 44 15.9 88 33.3
Others 0 0.0 2 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.5 4 1.4 5 1.9
88
88
Time consuming 103 52.8 88 35.5 55 13.5 18 6.2 117 50.0 40 16.3
Did not fully understand the management practice 22 11.3 23 9.3 11 2.7 5 1.7 13 5.6 14 5.7
Others 84 43.1 88 35.5 6 1.5 42 14.4 89 38.0 137 55.7
89
89
Appendix G: Access to Credit and Financing
Costs and Financing for 3Cs Production
Cacao
There is a significant difference in terms of the total cost of cacao production per cropping between 
the treatment and the control sites. The total cost of production per cropping is higher in the 
treatment site than in the control site (Table 1). There is insignificant difference in terms of sources 
of financing for cacao production between the treatment and the control areas (Table 2). 
Table 1. Cost of Cacao production per cropping
Cost Items Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Labor cost 808.24 1,307.14 498.91
Cost of Inputs 1,943.97 1,617.33 - 326.64
Transportation 176.00 267.83 91.83
Postharvest 2,302.59 1,036.43 - 1,266.16
Other cost 471.60 2,494.38 2,022.78
Total 5,702.40 6,723.10 1,020.70
Table 2. Sources of financing for Cacao production
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Sale of farm produce 132 94.3 173 88.7
Business or other investment 3 2.1 13 6.7
Off-farm employment 5 3.6 16 8.2
Remittances 1 0.7 2 1.0
Loans/borrowings 11 7.9 8 4.1
Others 6 4.3 9 4.6
Coconut
There is a significant difference in terms of the total cost of coconut production per cropping 
between the treatment and the control sites. The total cost of production per cropping is higher in 
the treatment site than in the control site (Table 3). There is insignificant difference in terms of 
sources of financing for cacao production between the treatment and the control areas (Table 4). 
Table 3. Cost of coconut production per cropping
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Labor cost 2,141.21 2,612.96 471.76
Cost of Inputs 1,520.89 1,827.03 306.14
Transportation 402.59 456.93 54.35
Poshharvest 1,192.94 1,562.38 369.45
Other cost 671.74 1,819.20 1,147.47
Total 5,929.36 8,278.51 2,349.15
90
90
Table 4. Sources of financing for coconut production
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Sale of farm produce 285 96.9 415 88.5
Business or other 
investment 10 3.4 13 2.8
Off-farm employment 12 4.1 23 4.9
Remittances 6 2.0 9 1.9
Loans/borrowings 17 5.8 34 7.2
Others 6 2.0 31 6.6
Coffee
There is a very significant difference in terms of the total cost of coffee production per cropping 
between the treatment and the control sites. The total cost of production per cropping is higher in 
the treatment site than in the control site (Table 5). There is a significant difference in terms of 
sources of financing for cacao production between the treatment and the control areas (Table 6). 
Table 5. Cost of coffee production per cropping
Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Labor cost 280.00 2,073.52 1,793.52
Cost of Inputs 1,645.00 9,594.39 7,949.39
Transportation 156.67 309.30 152.64
Poshharvest 2,400.00 1,299.50 - 1,100.50
Other cost 350.00 1,013.00 663.00
Total 4,831.67 14,289.71 9,458.05
Table 6. Sources of financing for coffee production
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Sale of farm produce 1 3.6 164 87.7
Business or other 
investment 1
3.6 7
3.7
Off-farm employment 5 17.9 13 7.0
Remittances 0 0.0 4 2.1
Loans/borrowings 1 3.6 3 1.6
Others 3 10.7 8 4.3
General Borrowing
There is no significant difference in terms of indebtedness between the respondents from the 
treatment and the control group. Overall, 36.2% of the respondents from the control group said 
that they have debts while 33.7% of the respondents from the control group said that they have 
debts (See Table 7). Majority of the respondents from the treatment group borrow money from 
91
91
the cooperatives/paluwagan (58.5%) while those from the control group usually borrow money 
from credit facilities/entities such as traders (29.1%) and cooperatives (16.2%) and micro finance 
institutions (15.4%) (See Table 8). Both the treatment and control group respondents usually 
access bigger loan amounts from banks (See Table 9). The average overall interest rate of loans 
accessed by the treatment group is 4.28% per month and 4.95% for the control group (See Table 
10). Overall, majority of the treatment respondents are paying their debts on a monthly basis 
(38.5%) while majority from the control group are paying their debts at agreed terms of either 
daily/every other/others (48.7%)(See Table 11).
Table 7. Percentage of respondents with debt
Province
Control Treatment
No
Refuse 
to 
answer
Yes % Yes No
Refuse 
to 
answer
Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 23 17 10 20.0 65 16 9 10.0
Compostela Valley 23 3 28 51.9 40 68 63.0
Davao City 13 10 20 46.5 28 18 27 37.0
Davao del Norte 17 12 41.4 21 32 60.4
Davao del Sur 40 4 23 34.3 66 4 45 39.1
Davao Oriental 20 6 18 40.9 46 5 34 40.0
Zamboanga del Norte 47 7 6 10.0 99 4 19 15.6
Overall 183 47 117 33.7 365 47 234 36.2
Table 8. Sources of debt
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
5/6 Borrowing 6 5.1 4 1.7
Banks 13 11.1 15 6.4
Cooperatives/Paluwagan 19 16.2 137 58.5
Local lender/ pawnshop 7 6.0 7 3.0
Microfinance Institutions/ MFIs 18 15.4 20 8.5
Relatives/friends 15 12.8 25 10.7
Traders/ processors 34 29.1 16 6.8
Others 11 9.4 22 9.4
Table 9. Amount of debt by sources
Sources Control Treatment
5/6 Borrowing 4,000.00 3,000.00 
Banks 160,076.92 141,642.86 
Cooperatives/Paluwagan 46,147.06 41,432.89 
Local lender/ pawnshop 7,714.29 26,428.57 
Microfinance Institutions/ MFIs 45,277.78 12,050.00 
Relatives/friends 7,186.67 23,114.29 
92
92
Traders/ processors 19,968.75 13,021.43 
Others 51,872.73 46,923.40 
Average (Overall) 42,982.20 40,766.71 
Table 10. Average interest rate by sources
Sources Control Treatment
5/6 Borrowing 14.00 15.00
Banks 1.91 2.68
Cooperatives/Paluwagan 4.56 3.67
Local lender/ pawnshop 6.43 4.71
Microfinance Institutions/ MFIs 4.56 6.38
Relatives/friends 6.79 5.26
Traders/ processors 4.48 4.50
Others 3.73 4.05
Average (Overall) 4.95 4.28
Table 11. Terms of payment by sources
Items
Control Treatment
Monthly Weekly Yearly Others Monthly Weekly Yearly Others
5/6 Borrowing 3 2 1 1 2
Banks 1 1 11 3 6 3 2
Cooperatives/
Paluwagan 9 1 1 6 46 7 21 58
Local lender/ pawnshop 3 4 4 2 1
Microfinance 
Institutions/ MFIs 4 12 2 2 16 2
Relatives/ friends 7 1 2 5 11 3 7
Traders/ processors 9 23 7 1 6
Others 2 1 8 15 3 3
Grand Total 37 20 4 57 90 39 24 81
Percentage 31.6 17.1 3.4 48.7 38.5 16.7 10.3 34.6
There is a slightly significant difference in the reason for borrowing money between the 
respondents from the treatment and the control group. Majority of the respondents both from the 
treatment group said that they borrow money to purchase farm inputs/finance the farm (65.8%
treatment) and to buy food (35%). On the other hand, 54.7% of the control group respondents 
said that they borrow money to purchase farm inputs/finance the farm and 35.9% said that they 
borrow money to buy food (see Table 12).
Table 12. Reasons for borrowing
Reasons Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
To buy food 42 35.9 82 35.0
Purchase farm inputs/ finance the farm 64 54.7 154 65.8
Illnesses 16 13.7 23 9.8
Community activity 2 1.7 3 1.3
Others 32 27.4 57 24.4
93
93
There is a slightly significant difference between the treatment and control group in terms of the 
number of respondents who said that they have savings. Around 36.4% of the respondents from 
the treatment group said that they have savings while 27.1% of the respondents from the control 
group said that they have savings (See Table 13). Majority of the respondents (45.5%) from the 
treatment group said that they keep their savings in their cooperatives/paluwagan while majority 
of the respondents from the treatment group (43.6%) said that they keep their savings at home 
or in their piggy bank (See Table 14).
Table 13. Percentage of respondents with savings
Province
Control Treatment
No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 46 4 1.2 74 16 2.5
Compostela Valley 42 12 3.5 67 41 6.3
Davao City 31 12 3.5 42 31 4.8
Davao del Norte 18 11 3.2 31 22 3.4
Davao del Sur 44 23 6.6 55 60 9.3
Davao Oriental 32 12 3.5 58 27 4.2
Zamboanga del Norte 40 20 5.8 84 38 5.9
Grand Total 253 94 27.1 411 235 36.4
Table 14. Means of savings
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
At home/piggy bank 41 43.6 78 33.2
Banks 32 34.0 71 30.2
Cooperatives/Paluwagan 23 24.5 107 45.5
Others 9 9.6 13 5.5
There is no significant difference in terms of engagement as control growing/farming between the 
treatment and control groups. Across all sites, less than 10% of the respondents, both from the 
treatment and control groups, engage in contract growing (See Table 15). 
Table 15. Percentage of respondents engaged in contract growing/farming
Province
Control Treatment
No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 43 7 2.0 90 0.0
Compostela Valley 43 11 3.2 95 13 2.0
Davao City 37 6 1.7 70 3 0.5
Davao del Norte 25 4 1.2 47 6 0.9
Davao del Sur 65 2 0.6 111 4 0.6
Davao Oriental 44 0.0 82 3 0.5
Zamboanga del Norte 59 1 0.3 120 2 0.3
Grand Total 316 31 8.9 615 31 4.8
94
94
Across all treatment areas, 23.6% of the respondents said that they have been assisted/linked to 
financial services through MinPACT project (See Table 16). Out of those who said that they were 
linked by MinPACT to financial services, 30.3% said that they received financial services as result 
of the MinPACT assistance (See Table 17). Around 80.4% of those who were able to access 
financial services through the assistance of MinPACT said that they experienced 
enhanced/increased crop productivity and income because of the financial infusion (See Table 
18). Of the total number of respondents who were able to access financial services through the 
help of MinPACt, 71.7% perceived that amount of loan that they were able to access is sufficient 
to address the identified needs of their farms (See Table 19).
When asked to rate the effectiveness of the MinPACT supported credit facilities, majority (38.1%) 
of the respondents said that it is effective while 28.6% said that it is not effective and 28.9% said 
that it is not applicable (See Table 20). 
Table 16. Percentage of respondents that has been assisted/linked to financial services through 
MinPACT project.
Province
Treatment
No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 69 20 3.1
Compostela Valley 80 28 4.3
Davao City 65 8 1.2
Davao del Norte 37 16 2.5
Davao del Sur 94 20 3.1
Davao Oriental 74 11 1.7
Zamboanga del Norte 73 49 7.6
Grand Total 492 152 23.6
Table 17. Percentage of MinPACT beneficiaries received financial services as result of the 
MinPACT linkage to financial services.
Province
Treatment
No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 20 3 2.0
Compostela Valley 9 24 15.8
Davao City 8 1 0.7
Davao del Norte 13 4 2.6
Davao del Sur 18 3 2.0
Davao Oriental 11 0.0
Zamboanga del Norte 39 11 7.2
Grand Total 118 46 30.3
Table 18. Effect of the access to the financial services of MinPACT beneficiaries
Items Freq. %
Enhance/Increase crop productivity and income 37 80.4
Better farm fertility through improved quality of land and water 
resources 9 19.6
Reduce post-harvest losses 3 6.5
Enhance/Increase marketability/quality of farm produce 2 4.3
95
95
Increase market value (price) of products 7 15.2
Align with quality standards 2 4.3
Others 5 10.9
Table 19. Percentage of those who have accessed to financial services perceived that amount of 
loan availed is sufficient.
Province No Yes %Yes
Bukidnon 3 100.0
Compostela Valley 8 14 58.3
Davao City 1 100.0
Davao del Norte 4 100.0
Davao del Sur 3 100.0
Zamboanga del Norte 2 8 72.7
Grand Total 10 33 71.7
Table 20.Overall rating on the effectiveness of MinPACT-supported credit.
Ratings
Treatment
Freq. %
Very effective 24 3.7
Effective 246 38.1
Not effective 185 28.6
Not Applicable 187 28.9
96
96
Appendix H: Access to Market
Cacao Market
Majority of treatment respondents (90.3%) and control respondents (91.4%) prefer to sell their 
produce to local buyers (Table 1). Common reasons given for selling to local market are as 
follows, a) it is the closest market, b) local market offers the best price, and c) payment for cash 
advances (Table 2). 
Table 1. Market of Cacao produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
local buyer 128 91.4 176 90.3
Intermediary 12 8.6 2 1.0
Processor 12 8.6 3 1.5
consolidator/exporter 2 1.4 2 1.0
Table 2. Reasons for choosing the market to sell the produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
It is the closest market 118 84.3 149 76.4
it had the best prices 37 26.4 49 25.1
payment for cash advances 9 6.4 6 3.1
Others 11 7.9 184 94.4
Coconut Market
Majority of treatment respondents (88.3%) and control respondents (96.9%) prefer to sell their 
produce to local buyers (Table 3). Common reasons given for selling to local market are as 
follows, a) it is the closest market, b) local market offers the best price, and c) payment for cash 
advances (Table 4).
Table 3. Market of coconut produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
local buyer 285 96.9 414 88.3
Intermediary 19 6.5 10 2.1
Processor 7 2.4 5 1.1
consolidator/exporter 2 0.7 13 2.8
Table 4. Reasons for choosing the market to sell the produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
It is the closest market 263 89.5 393 83.8
it had the best prices 57 19.4 83 17.7
97
97
payment for cash advances 28 9.5 27 5.8
Others 10 3.4 28 6.0
Coffee Market
Majority of treatment respondents (84%) and control respondents (64.3%) prefer to sell their 
produce to local buyers (Table 5). Common reasons given for selling to local market are as 
follows, a) it is the closest market, b) local market offers the best price, and c) payment for cash 
advances (Table 6). 
Table 5. Market of coffee produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
local buyer 18 64.3 157 84.0
Intermediary 1 3.6 4 2.1
Processor 2 7.1 1 0.5
consolidator/exporter 0 0.0 3 1.6
Table 6. Reasons for choosing the market to sell the produce
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
It is the closest market 18 64.3 143 76.5
it had the best prices 2 7.1 36 19.3
payment for cash 
advances 0 0.0 5 2.7
Others 4 14.3 19 10.2
Assessment on Market Access
There is no significant difference is terms of percentage of respondents who felt that they get the 
desired sales of their products (Table 7). Common possible causes given by respondents for not 
getting the desired sales of their products were as follows a) poor market, b) poor farm to market 
access, c) losses on handling, and d) no post-harvest facilities (Table 8). The average overall 
assessment of the respondents both from the treatment and control sites on the access to the 
market is average to good (Table 9). Overall, the treatment sites are farther from the market by 
12 minutes as compared to the control sites (Table 10).
Table 7. Percentage of respondents felt that they get the desired sales of their products
Province
Control Treatment diff (T￾No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes C)
Bukidnon 26 24 6.8 41 49 7.2 0.4
Compostela Valley 23 31 8.8 53 56 8.3 -0.5
Davao City 24 21 6.0 55 24 3.5 -2.4
98
98
Davao del Norte 20 9 2.6 39 14 2.1 -0.5
Davao del Sur 52 18 5.1 70 58 8.6 3.5
Davao Oriental 22 22 6.3 43 48 7.1 0.8
Zamboanga del Norte 51 9 2.6 89 33 4.9 2.3
Overall 218 134 38.1 390 282 41.7 3.6
Table 8. Possible causes of not getting the desired sales of the products
Reasons
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Poor market 133 37.8 211 31.2
Poor farm to market access 73 20.7 98 14.5
Losses on handling 66 18.8 100 14.8
No post-harvest facilities 35 9.9 70 10.3
Others 127 36.1 302 44.6
Table 9. Overall assessment on the access to market
Items
Control Treatment
Freq. % Freq. %
Very good 12 3.4 41 6.1
Good 175 49.7 291 43.0
Average 135 38.4 275 40.6
Bad 28 8.0 51 7.5
Very Bad 1 0.3 7 1.0
Table 10. Average time (in minutes) to access the nearest market by walking
Province Control Treatment diff (T-C)
Bukidnon 98 93 -5
Compostela Valley 94 100 6
Davao City 267 253 -14
Davao del Norte 123 92 -31
Davao del Sur 47 116 69
Davao Oriental 100 102 1
Zamboanga del Norte 197 211 15
Overall 128 140 12
99
99
Appendix I: Findings and Perceptions of Other Stakeholders
1. VCA Processors
Survey respondents were 41.9% processors and 58.1% traders (Table 1). Overall, the average 
number of fulltime employees of VCA respondents is 14 while the average number of part-time 
employees is 5 (Table 2). 84.6% of respondent processors and 100% of the traders said that 
they experienced peak and lean seasons (Table 3-4). 
Table 1. Role in the value chain and type of business
Items Processor Traders
Freq. % Freq. %
Retailer 1 3.2 8 25.8
Wholesaler 9 29.0 9 29.0
Others 3 9.7 1 3.2
Grand Total 13 41.9 18 58.1
DETAILS OF OPERATION
Table 2. Average employment, fulltime and part-time, by type, by sex
Items
Fulltime Employee Part-time Employee
Aver. Employee Male Female
Aver. 
Employee Male Female
Processor 21 15 6 10 9 2
Traders 9 6 3 3 1 2
Overall 14 10 4 5 2 2
Table 3. Percentage of respondents experienced peak and lean season
Peak/Lean
Processor
No 2
Yes 11
% Yes 84.6
Trader
No 0
Yes 18
% Yes 100
Overall
No 2
Yes 29
% Yes 93.5
Table 4. Months of peak and lean
Months
Peak Lean
Processor Trader Overall % 
Overall Processor Trader Overall % 
Overall
All Year 3 3 6 19.4 4 2 6 19.4
January 1 4 5 16.1 5 9 14 45.2
February 0 2 2 6.5 5 8 13 41.9
March 2 5 7 22.6 5 8 13 41.9
April 2 1 3 9.7 5 8 13 41.9
100
100
May 3 2 5 16.1 5 7 12 38.7
June 3 4 7 22.6 6 5 11 35.5
July 2 2 4 12.9 6 7 13 41.9
August 3 2 5 16.1 4 7 11 35.5
September 6 9 15 48.4 1 4 5 16.1
October 6 11 17 54.8 2 0 2 6.5
November 7 12 19 61.3 2 0 2 6.5
December 7 11 18 58.1 2 1 3 9.7
The average volume of inputs for processing 984 kgs at Php 92/kilo for cacao, 216,000 kgs at 
Php 9.96/kilo for coconut and 1,125.3 kgs at Php 206.875/kilo for coffee (Table 5). 
Table 5. Volume of inputs for processing (in Kgs) and Price (PhP/Kg)
Inputs
Average Volume 
(In Kgs)
Average Price 
(PhP/Kg)
Cacao 984.0 92
Cacao (Wet Beans) 8,100.0 34.5
Tableya 1,200.0 112
Coconut 216,000.0 7.96
whole nut 13,866.7 5
Baker 600.0 5
Coconut sap 50.0 100
Coffee 1,125.3 206.875
The average volume of outputs is 754.3 kgs at Php 106.43/kilo for cacao, 208,700 kgs at Php 
10.06/kilo for coconut and 525.3 kgs at Php 80.00-200.00/kilo for coffee (Table 6). 
Table 6. Average volume of outputs (in Kgs) and Price (PhP/Kg)
Outputs
Volume Price Price Mark-up (%)
Kgs Liters Others Kg Liter Others Kg Liter Others
Cacao 754.3 106.43 8.6
Cacao (Dried 
Beans) 140.0 58.33 6.7
Cacao (Wet 
Beans) 200.0 35 10.0
Cacao 
Fermented 5,000.0 140.00 30.0
Tableya 852.0 26,103.0 300.00 75.00 30.0 10.0
Coconut 208,700.0 10.06 19.8
Copra 22,200.0 25.30 13.6
Coconut sugar 30.0 100.00 10.0
Coconut syrup 50.0 115.00 10.0
Charcoal 20,000.0 17.00 8.0
Coco Coir 35,622.0 10.00 20.0
Whole nut 600.0 40,000.0 5.40 6.10 75.0 10.0
Coffee 525.3 24.0 80.00 200.00 14.0 180.0
Coffee Powder 
(Repacked) 1,600.0 300.00 25.0
101
101
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT
The sources of inputs are direct from the farmers, middlemen/assemblers and supermarkets 
(Table 7). In terms of certification, only 2/31 has quality certification specifically certification on 
HACCP, ISO and GMP.
Table 7. Sources of inputs, by type
Items
Within the 
province
Outside the 
province
Outside the 
Mindanao
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Direct from the farmers 1 3.2 24 77.4 0.0
Middlemen/Assemblers 19 61.3 0 0.0 1 3.2
Supermarket 11 35.5 2 6.5 1 3.2
Majority of the VCA respondents are registered at the business licensing office (100%) and the 
Department of Trade and Industry (88.9%) while the others are registered with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, the Bureau of Food and Drugs and others (Table 8). 
Majority of the respondents said that they encountered problems on capitalization (44.4%), lack 
of awareness on how to get loans from financial intermediaries (27.8%), lack of access to credit 
(16.7%) and others (Table 9). 
Overall, 41.9% of the respondents said that they have their own R7D/product development facility 
and business plans (Table 10-11). 
Problems encountered in marketing including lack of information on marketing strategies, low 
awareness of consumers on the product, lack of government programs on general promotions of 
commodities (Table 12). 
Overall, 54.8% of the respondents said that they have plans to expand their business (Table 13). 
Factors considered for business expansion include profitability, price of the product, input prices 
and others (Table 14). 
Table 8. Percentage of respondent registered, by type
Items
Processor Traders Overall
Freq
. %
Freq
. %
Freq
. %
Business Licensing Office (from the LGU for the 
license to operate) 12
92.
3 18
100.
0 30
96.
8
Department of Trade and Industry ( registration 
business name of single proprietorship) 10
76.
9 16 88.9 26
83.
9
Security and Exchange Commission (for 
registration the corporations) 6
46.
2 1 5.6 7
22.
6
Bureau of Food and Drugs (for the permit to 
operate) 4
30.
8 1 5.6 5
16.
1
Others 2
15.
4 1 5.6 3 9.7
102
102
Table 9. Problems encountered in running the business
Items
Processor Traders Overall
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Lack of capital 5 38.5 8 44.4 13 41.9
Lack of awareness to get loans from 
financial
intermediaries 1 7.7 5 27.8 6 19.4
Lack of financial assistance on 
expanding production. 4 30.8 3 16.7 7 22.6
Others 4 30.8 12 66.7 16 51.6
Table 10. Percentage of respondents with own R&D/product development
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 8 5 38.5
Traders 10 8 44.4
Overall 18 13 41.9
Table 11. Percentage of respondents with business plan
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 6 7 53.8
Traders 12 6 33.3
Grand Total 18 13 41.9
Table 12. Problems encountered in marketing
Items
Processor Traders Overall
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Lack of information on marketing strategies 4 30.8 10 55.6 14 45.2
Low awareness of consumers on the product 7 53.8 7 38.9 14 45.2
Lack of government programs on general 
promotions of commodities. 1 7.7 6 33.3 7 22.6
Others 4 30.8 7 38.9 11 35.5
Table 13. Percentage of respondents with plans to expand the business
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 2 11 84.6
Traders 12 6 33.3
Overall 14 17 54.8
Table 14. Factors considered for business expansion
Items
Processor Traders Overall
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Profitability 2 15.4 6 33.3 8 25.8
Price of the 
product 9
69.2 9
50.0 18 58.1
Input prices 69.2 1 50.0 1 58.1
Others: 3 0.0 6 5.6 9 3.2
103
103
ACCESS TO CREDIT AND FINANCING
Overall, 29% of the respondents said that they have existing debts (Table 15). Major credit 
sources are banks, cooperatives, micro finance institutions and traders/processors (Table 16). 
The average amount of debt is 1,375,000.00 for processors and 1,508,333.33 for traders (Table 
17). The average interest rate is 4% (Table 18).
Table 15. Percentage of respondents with debt
Items
Refuse to 
answer
No Yes % Yes
Processor 6 4 3 23.1
Traders 3 9 6 33.3
Grand Total 9 13 9 29.0
Table 16. Sources of debt
Items Processor Traders Overall % 
Overall
Banks 2 4 6 19.4
Cooperatives/ Paluwagan 1 1 3.2
MicroFinance Institutions/ 
MFIs 1 1 3.2
Traders/ processors 1 1 3.2
Table 17. Average amount of debt, by source
Items Processor Traders Overall 
Banks 
 
2,650,000.00 
 
3,425,000.00 
 
3,166,666.67 
Cooperatives/ Paluwagan 
 
100,000.00 
 
100,000.00 
MicroFinance Institutions/ 
MFIs 
 
100,000.00 
 
100,000.00 
Traders/ processors 
 
1,000,000.00 
 
1,000,000.00 
Average 
 
1,375,000.00 
 
1,508,333.33 
 
1,091,666.67 
Table 18. Average interest rate (%) by source
Items Processor Traders Overall
Banks 11.3 1.5 5.4
Cooperatives/ Paluwagan 5.0 5.0
MicroFinance Institutions/ MFIs 2.0 2.0
Traders/ processors - -
Average 7.6 1.9 4.0
ACCESS TO INFORMATION/TECHNOLOGY
Only 1/31 processor has access to information specifically information on improved farm 
machineries and post-harvest management practices. In term of information to market, only 1/31 
stated accessed to this information specifically on price and promotion.
104
104
INVOLVEMENT WITH MINPACT
A. Relevance
29% of the respondent said that they participated in the provision of agricultural supplies/ inputs/ 
equipment/ seedling to theMinPACT Project (Table 19). Most of them (67.7%) said that they 
participated for less than a year (Table 20). Around 25.8% of those who participated said that 
they noticed changes in skills and behavior brought about by the MinPACT project in their 
organization (Table 21). 
When asked to rate in a scale of 1-5 (1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest) the extent MinPACT 
project influenced increased volume in sales in the sector of trader/processor, 29% rated 1, 25.8% 
rated 2, 19.4% rated 3, 22.6% rated 4 and 3.2% rated 5 (Table 22). On the extent MinPACT 
project influenced changes product quality in the sector of trader/processor, 29% of the 
respondents rated 1, 25.8% rated 2, 19.4% rated 3, 19.4% rated 4 and 6.5% rated 5 (Table 23). 
On the extent MinPACT project influenced changes in post-harvest handling in the sector of 
trader/processor, 29% rated 1, 25.85 rated 2, 22.6% rated 3, 16.1% rated 4 and 6.5% rated 5 
(Table 24).
Table 19. Percentage of respondent participated in the provision of agricultural supplies/ inputs/ 
equipment/ seedling to the MinPACT project
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 5 8 61.5
Traders 17 1 5.6
Grand Total 22 9 29.0
Table 20. Years of partnership with the MinPACT Project
No. Years Processor Traders Overall % Overall
Less than 1 year 5 16 21 67.7
1 1 1 3.2
2 1 1 3.2
3 2 2 6.5
4 2 1 3 9.7
5 1 1 2 6.5
6 1 1 3.2
Table 21. Percentage of respondent noticed any changes in skills and behavior brought about by 
the MinPACT project to your organization
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 7 6 46.2
Traders 16 2 11.1
Grand Total 23 8 25.8
Table 22. The extent MinPACT project influenced increased volume in sales in the sector of
trader/processor
Rating Processor Traders Overall % Overall
1 1 8 9 29.0
2 3 5 8 25.8
3 2 4 6 19.4
4 6 1 7 22.6
105
105
5 1 1 3.2
Note: 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest
Table 23. The extent MinPACT project influenced changes product quality in the sector of 
trader/processor
Rating Processor Traders Overall % Overall
1 1 8 9 29.0
2 3 5 8 25.8
3 2 4 6 19.4
4 5 1 6 19.4
5 2 2 6.5
Note: 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest
Table 24. The extent MinPACT project influenced changes in post-harvest handling in the sector 
of trader/processor
Rating Processor Traders Overall % Overall
1 1 8 9 29.0
2 3 5 8 25.8
3 3 4 7 22.6
4 4 1 5 16.1
5 2 2 6.5
Note: 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest
B. Efficiency
Overall, 29% of the respondents perceived that project is flexible to accommodate suggestions 
from the organization/sector (Table 25). When asked to rate from 1-5 (1 as the lowest and 5 as 
the highest) their average level of satisfaction with the MinPACT Project, 29% rated 1, 25.8% 
rated 2, 22.6% rated 3, 19.4% rated 4 and 3.2% rated 5 (Table 26).
Table 25. Percentage of respondents perceived that project is flexible to accommodate 
suggestions from the organization/sector.
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 7 6 46.2
Traders 15 3 16.7
Overall 22 9 29.0
Note: Answers for open ended questions, please refer to the database.
C. Effectiveness
Overall, 45.2% of the respondents observed that there are signs of new cocoa, coffee, coconut 
industry players that imitate program sponsored business models/interventions as a result of 
project facilitation (Table 26).
Table 26. Percentage of respondents observed that there are signs of new cocoa, coffee, coconut 
industry players that imitate program sponsored business models/interventions as a result of 
Project Facilitation
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 5 8 61.5
106
106
Traders 12 6 33.3
Overall 17 14 45.2
Note: Answers for open ended questions, please refer to the database.
Table 26. Average level of your satisfaction with the MinPACT Project
Rating Processor Traders Overall % Overall
1 1 8 9 29.0
2 3 5 8 25.8
3 2 5 7 22.6
4 6 6 19.4
5 1 1 3.2
Average Rating 3.2 1.8 2.4
Note: 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest
D. Impact
Overall, 9.7% of the respondents perceived changes in norms and behaviors among 
traders/processesor (Table 27) and 22.6% of respondents noticed changes in the capacity of 
youth and women participation (as processor) in agriculture and economic activities in your area 
in the last 4 years (Table 28) due to MinPACT. 
Overall, 29% of the respondents said that there are new technologies, systems, processes and 
protocols adopted brought about by the MinPACT Project (Table 29).
Overall, 32.3% of respondents perceived that the project attained its intended results (Table 30). 
Perceived impacts of the MinPACT project to processor/traders include positive changes in the 
business transactions and norms and expansion in the market network systems while the 
negative impacts include disruption on the demand and supply patterns and contraction/distortion 
in the market network systems (Table 31). 
Overall, 12.9% of the respondents said that they r observed unintended results brought about by 
MInPACT (Table 32).
Table 27. Percentage of respondents perceived changes in norms and behaviors among 
traders/processors due to MinPACT.
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 12 1 7.7
Traders 16 2 11.1
Overall 28 3 9.7
Table 28. Percentage of respondents changes in the capacity of youth and women participation 
(as processor) in agriculture and economic activities in your area in the last 4 years
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 7 6 46.2
Traders 17 1 5.6
Overall 24 7 22.6
107
107
Table 29. Percentage of respondents that there are new technologies, systems, processes and 
protocols adopted brought about by the MinPACT Project
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 8 5 38.5
Traders 14 4 22.2
Overall 22 9 29.0
Table 30. Percentage of respondents perceived that the project attained its intended results
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 5 8 61.5
Traders 16 2 11.1
Overall 21 10 32.3
Table 31. Perceived impacts of the MinPACT project to processor/traders 
Items Processor Traders Overall % 
Overall
Positive changes in the business transactions and 
norms
8 3 11 35.5
Disruption on the demand and supply patterns 6 3 9 29.0
Expansion in the market network systems 7 5 12 38.7
Contraction/distortion in the market network 
systems 5 3 8 25.8
Table 32. Percentage of respondents observed unintended results brought about by MInPACT
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 10 3 23.1
Traders 17 1 5.6
Overall 27 4 12.9
E. Sustainability
Overall, 19.4% of the respondents are aware of any interventions made to facilitate sustainability 
of project gains (Table 33) and 16.1% believe that there efforts that the project made to ensure 
continuity of these interventions after the project exits (Table 34). 
Overall, 19.4% of respondents believe that there is adequate level of human and institutional 
capacity in place in order to ensure continuity services to clients even after the project ends (Table 
35), 38.7% of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is replicable (Table 
36) and 38.7% of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is scalable 
(Table 37). 
Overall, 38.7% of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is sustainable 
(Table 38). 
Table 33. Percentage of respondents aware of any interventions made to facilitate sustainability 
of Project gains
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 9 4 30.8
108
108
Traders 16 2 11.1
Overall 25 6 19.4
Table 34. Percentage of respondents believe that there efforts that the project made to ensure 
continuity of these interventions after the project exits
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 9 4 30.8
Traders 17 1 5.6
Overall 26 5 16.1
Table 35. Percentage of respondents believe that there is adequate level of human and 
institutional capacity in place in order to ensure continuity services to clients even after the project 
ends
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 10 3 23.1
Traders 15 3 16.7
Overall 25 6 19.4
Table 36. Percentage of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is 
replicable
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 6 7 53.8
Traders 13 5 27.8
Overall 19 12 38.7
Table 37. Percentage of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is 
scalable
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 6 7 53.8
Traders 13 5 27.8
Overall 19 12 38.7
Table 38. Percentage of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is 
sustainable
Items No Yes % Yes
Processor 6 7 53.8
Traders 13 5 27.8
Overall 19 12 38.7
109
109
2. VCA Input Supplier
Survey respondents were retailer, wholesaler and government institutions. Chemical/fertilizer 
suppliers were 50.0% retailers and 37.5% wholesaler. Pesticides/herbicides/fungicides suppliers 
are 15.7% retailers and 25% wholesalers. Seedlings providers are 33.33% retailers and 25% 
wholesalers (Table 39). 
Table 39. Role in the value chain and type of business
Items
Retailer Wholesaler Gov't Inst. Overall
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Chemical/Fertilizer 6 50.0 3 37.5 0.0 9 42.9
Pesticides/ herbicides/ 
fungicides 2 16.7 2 25.0 0.0 4 19.0
Seedlings 4 33.3 2 25.0 1 100.0 7 33.3
Others 0.0 1 12.5 0.0 1 4.8
Total 12 100.0 8 100.0 1 100.0 21 100.0
Details of Operations
Overall, the average number of fulltime employees of VCA respondents is 9 while the average 
number of part-time employees is 9 (Table 2). 84.6% of respondent processors and 100% of the 
traders said that they experienced peak and lean seasons (Table 40). Overall, operations is 
deemed stable all year round (Table 41). Average volume of stock of major fertilizers and plant 
protection products is 2,072.7 kgs for chemical fertilizer, 1,356.7 for organic fertilizer, 153 liters 
for chemical inseticides and 1.25 liters of herbicides (Table 42).
19% of the respondents offer financial services to customers (Table 43).
Overall, 65% of the respondents are registered with the business licensing office of the LGU, 
60% are registered with the Department of Trade and Industry (Table 44). Major problem 
encountered in conducting business is lack of capital (Table 45) while the major problem 
encountered during marketing are lack of information on marketing strategies and low 
awareness of consumers on the product (Table 46). 45% of the retailer and 25% of the 
wholesaler wants to expand business (Table 47). 
Table 40. Average employment, fulltime and part-time, by type, by sex
Items
Fulltime Employee Part-time Employee
Aver. 
Employee Male Female Aver. 
Employee Male Female
Government 
(NOMIARC) 30 10 20
Retailer 3 2 2 4 2 2
Wholesaler 14 9 5 17 8 9
Grand Total 9 5 4 9 5 4
110
110
Table 41. Months of peak and lean
Items
Peak Lean
Retailer Wholesaler Overall % 
Overall Retailer Wholesaler Overall % 
Overall
All Year 10 6 16 80.0 1 0 1 5.0
January 1 2 3 15.0 6 3 9 45.0
February 2 0 2 10.0 4 3 7 35.0
March 1 0 1 5.0 5 4 9 45.0
April 3 0 3 15.0 5 4 9 45.0
May 1 3 4 20.0 5 1 6 30.0
June 4 3 7 35.0 6 1 7 35.0
July 1 1 2 10.0 5 1 6 30.0
August 5 1 6 30.0 4 1 5 25.0
September 2 3 5 25.0 6 1 7 35.0
October 4 1 5 25.0 3 2 5 25.0
November 3 3 6 30.0 4 1 5 25.0
December 7 3 10 50.0 1 1 2 10.0
Table 42. Average volume of stock of major fertilizers and plant protection products 
Items Volume Price Price mark-up (%)
Kgs Liters Others Kg Liter Others Kg Liter Others
Cacao 
Seedlings 7666.7 18.33 28.3
Chemical 
Fertilizers 2072.7 7.6 1500.0 316.27 281.00 500.00 12.4 24.0 2.5
Chemical 
Insecticides 153.0 655.00 20.0
Coconut 
Seedlings 3500.0 15.00 2.5
Coffee 
Seedlings 10000.0 20.00 5.0
Feeds 5000.0 28.00 0.5
Fungicide 8.0 4.75 8.0
Harvester 100.0 500.00 10.0
Herbicides 125.0 500.00 -
Organic 
Fertilizer 1356.7 203.33 113.3
Table 43. Percentage of respondents financial services to customers
Item No Yes % Yes
Government 
(NOMIARC) 1 0.0
Retailer 9 3 25.0
Wholesaler 7 1 12.5
Grand Total 17 4 19.0
111
111
In terms of certification, only 1/21 have ISO certification, while 4/21 have certification from 
PhilGeps, DENER, DTI, FDI and BPI.
Table 44. Percentage of respondent registered, by type
Items Retailer Wholesale
r
Overal
l
% 
Overall
Business Licensing Office (of theLGU for the 
license to operate) 8 5 13 65.0
Department of Trade and Industry ( business 
name of single proprietorship) 8 4 12 60.0
Security and Exchange Commission (for the 
registration of the corporation) 3 2 5 25.0
Bureau of Food and Drugs (for the permit to 
operate, if relevant) 2 2 10.0
Bureau of Plant Industry (for nursery accreditation) 1 3 4 20.0
Fertilizers and Pesticides Authority (for permit to 
operate) 5 4 9 45.0
Others 3 3 15.0
Table 45. Major operational problems do you encountered in running the business
Items Retailer Wholesaler Overall % Overall
Lack of capital 7 3 10 50.0
Lack of awareness to get loans from 
financial
intermediaries
2 2 10.0
Lack of financial assistance on 
expanding production. 4 2 6 30.0
Table 46. Marketing problems encountered in selling products
Items Retailer Wholesaler Overall % Overall
Lack of information on 
marketing strategies 4 3 7 35.0
Low awareness of 
consumers on the product 2 5 7 35.0
Table 47. Percentage of respondents with plans to expand the business
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 3 9 45.0
Wholesaler 3 5 25.0
Grand Total 6 15 75.0
Table 48. Factors considered for business expansion
Items Retailer Wholesaler Overall % Overall
Profitability 5 6 11 55.0
Price of the 
product 7 3 10 50.0
Input prices 3 3 6 30.0
Others: 5 2 7 35.0
112
112
ACCESS TO CREDIT AND FINANCING
Overall, 28.6% of the respondents have debts (15.7% retailer, 50% wholesaler) (Table 49). 
Sources of loans are banks, cooperative and relatives/friends (Table 50). 
Table 49. Percentage of respondents with debt
Items No Refuse to 
answer
Yes % Yes
Retailer 6 4 2 16.7
Wholesaler 3 1 4 50.0
Overall 10 5 6 28.6
Table 50. Sources of debt
Source Retailer Wholesaler Overall % Overall
Banks 2 2 10.0
Cooperatives/ 
Paluwagan 2 2 10.0
Relatives/ 
friends 1 1 5.0
Other 1 1 5.0
Table 51. Average amount of debt, by source
Source Retailer Wholesaler Overall Overall
Banks
 
1,000,000.00 
 
1,000,000.00 
 
1,000,000.00 
Cooperatives/ 
Paluwagan
 
275,000.00 
 
275,000.00 
 
275,000.00 
Relatives/ 
friends
 
5,000,000.00 
 
5,000,000.00 
 
5,000,000.00 
Other
 
100,000.00 
 
100,000.00 
 
100,000.00 
Overall
 
275,000.00 
 
1,775,000.00 
 
1,275,000.00 
 
1,275,000.00 
Table 52. Average interest rate (%) by source
Source Retailer Wholesaler Grand Total
Banks 1.0 1.0
Cooperatives/ 
Paluwagan 2.5 2.5
Relatives/ friends 2.0 2.0
Other 0.0 0.0
Table 53. Financial challenges do you encountered
Items Retailer Wholesaler Overall % Overall
Lack of 
knowledge on 
loan application. 2 1 3 15.0
Lack of collateral 5 3 8 40.0
Default 2 1 3 15.0
Others 5 5 10 50.0
113
113
ACCESS TO INFORMATION/TECHNOLOGY
Overall, 55% of the respondents have access to information on various (agricultural) events 
(Table 54). Only 38.1% are aware of the value chain.
Table 54. Percentage of respondent with access to information on various (agricultural) events
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 7 5 25.0
Wholesaler 2 6 30.0
Overall 10 11 55.0
Table 55. Sources of Information
Source Freq. %
Newspaper 2 10.00
Television 2 10.00
Cellphone 4 20.00
Internet 3 15.00
Friends/Religious Leaders/Local 
Leaders 2 10.00
NGOs, civil society 3 15.00
Reference materials/ FITS Center 2 10.00
Demonstration farms 1 5.00
Others 4 20.00
Table 55. Type of information 
Items Freq. %
About the Product 7 35.0
Price 5 25.0
Promotion activities 6 30.0
Place for market 1 5.0
Table 56. Percentage of respondents who are aware of value chain
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 7 5 41.7
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Grand Total 13 8 38.1
ASSISTANCE/EXISTENCE OF OTHER PROJECTS
Table 57. Percentage of respondents who are beneficiary of any foreign and locally funded 
projects
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 9 3 25.0
Wholesaler 8 0.0
Grand Total 17 4 19.0
Note: Answers on open ended questions and details of “others”, please refer to the database.
114
114
INVOLVEMENT WITH MINPACT
A. Relevance
Table 58. Years of partnership with the MinPACT Project
Years Retailer Wholesaler Overall % Overall
Less than 
a year
5 2 8 40.0
1 2 2 4 20.0
2 1 1 5.0
3 3 1 4 20.0
4 1 1 2 10.0
5 2 2 10.0
Table 59. Percentage of respondents who perceived overall results of MinPACT project in 
different development priorities
Items No Yes % Yes
Peoples organizations 8 13 61.9
Industry Sectors 7 14 66.7
Local Government 
Units 7 14 66.7
Other value Chain 
Actors 10 11 52.4
Individual Producer 7 14 66.7
Note: Answers on open ended questions, please refer to the database.
B. Efficiency
Table 60. Percentage of respondents who perceived that MinPACT is efficient on the following 
areas
Items
Don’t 
Know
Very 
Inefficient Inefficient Neither Efficient Very 
Efficient
% 
Efficient
Delivery of 
the Inputs, 
PHF, other 
goods, 
seedlings
9 1 1 2 6 2 38.10
Technical 
services, farm 
visits, 
meetings, 
consultations
10 1 1 5 3 1 19.05
Trainings, 
cross visits, 
exposure 
programs, 
(TOTs)
9 1 1 6 2 2 19.05
Referals, 
Advisory 10 1 2 5 2 1 14.29
115
115
Services, 
Marketing 
Service
Credit 
facilitation, 
loans
10 1 2 5 2 1 14.29
Table 61. Percentage of respondents who perceived that MinPACTwas implemented in the 
most efficient way
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 8 4 33.3
Wholesaler 3 5 62.5
Overall 11 10 47.6
Table 62. Percentage of respondents perceived that project is flexible to accommodate local 
suggestions as possible delivery system alternative
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 8 4 33.3
Wholesaler 7 1 12.5
Overall 15 6 28.6
Table 63. In partnership with MinPACT was the delivery of interventions is timely as scheduled
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 8 4 33.3
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Overall 15 6 28.6
Table 64. In partnership with MinPACT was the delivery of interventions is appropriate to the 
needs of beneficiaries
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 9 3 25.0
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Overall 16 5 23.8
Table 65. In partnership with MinPACT was the delivery of interventions is responsive to 
adjustment to local conditions
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 9 3 25.0
Wholesaler 5 3 37.5
Overall 15 6 28.6
Table 66. In partnership with MinPACT was the delivery of interventions is demand driven
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 5 7 58.3
116
116
Wholesaler 4 4 50.0
Overall 9 12 57.1
C. Effectiveness
Table 67. Average level of perceived influenced on the behavior(norms) and practices(rules and 
regulations) of the coconut, cocoa, coffee industry and its producer organizations and farmers 
along the following areas
Items Average Rating
Adoption of new technology in production 2.5
Adoption of good agricultural practices 2.6
Application of quality standards 2.6
Use of volume & quality based contracts 2.5
Use of product information/market segmentation 2.3
Use of inventory system 2.3
Clear and transparent governance system 2.3
Developed business plans and management systems that are 
functional 2.2
Improved financial literacy among beneficiary producers 2.3
Use of Formal Credit and Funding institutions 2.3
Improved & appropriate quality inputs, tools, planting materials 
and post-harvest facility to achieve national/international 
standards 2.3
Improved nursery/seedling quality standards to meet market 
demands 2.3
Table 68. Percentage of respondents perceived signs of new cocoa, coffee, coconut industry 
players “crowding-in” as a result of Project Facilitation
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 10 2 16.7
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Overall 16 5 23.8
Table 69. Perceived level of satisfaction on the following areas
Items
Very 
Dissatisfie
d
Dissatisfie
d
Neithe
r
Satisfie
d
Very 
Satisfie
d
% 
Satisfie
d
Discuss clearly the 
objectives, targets, 
proposed activities, 
timelines and delineation of 
roles
1 2 11 5 2 33.3
Involve you in major 
decision-making points 1 3 10 5 2 33.3
Accommodate reasonable 
changes in schedule, 1 3 11 4 2 28.6
117
117
arrangements, activities, 
priorities
Transfer knowledge and 
provide advice on 
improving organizational 
processes, systems, etc
1 4 10 4 2 28.6
Communication/coordinatio
n, including frequency and 
quality
1 3 11 4 2 28.6
Debriefing of learning 
session (after each 
important activity)
1 3 9 6 2 38.1
D. Impact
Table 70. Percentage of respondents who perceived changes in your organization and the 
industry players as a result from the Project
Items No Yes % Yes
Adoption of new norms and behaviors 15 6 28.57
New business practices/models 17 4 19.05
New support functions (ICT, market finders, 
brokers) 19 2 9.52
New financial products, insurance system, 
credit sources 19 2 9.52
Farming and processing system 16 5 23.81
Environmental consciousness and standards 17 4 19.05
Inclusion of women, youth, marginalized 
groups (IPS etc) 19 2 9.52
Value addition activities 16 5 23.81
Transfer of technologies and best practices 16 5 23.81
New market opportunities 17 4 19.05
Increase in product referrals, inquiries, etc. 18 3 14.29
Expanded Sales, Productivity 15 6 28.57
Table 71. Percentage of respondents perceived changes in the demand of their services as a 
result of the partnership/relationship with MinPACT
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 7 5 41.7
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Overall 14 7 33.3
Table 72. Perceived impacts of the MinPACT project to input suppliers
Items No Yes % Yes
Disruption in the market 19 2 9.5
Crowding in 18 3 14.3
Scaling up services to 
producer groups either by 
government, other NGOs
12 9 42.9
118
118
Adoption/replication of 
approaches and technologies 
by other Pos
11 10 47.6
E. Sustainability
Table 73. Percentage of respondents aware of any interventions made to facilitate sustainability 
of Project gains
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 8 4 33.3
Wholesaler 5 3 37.5
Grand Total 14 7 33.3
Table 74. Percentage of respondents believe that there efforts that the project made to ensure 
continuity of these interventions after the project exits
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 9 3 25.0
Wholesaler 7 1 12.5
Overall 17 4 19.0
Table 75. Percentage of respondents believe that there is adequate level of human and 
institutional capacity in place in order to ensure continuity services to clients even after the project 
ends
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 8 4 33.3
Wholesaler 7 1 12.5
Overall 16 5 23.8
Table 76. Percentage of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is 
replicable
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 5 7 58.3
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Overall 12 9 42.9
Table 77. Percentage of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is 
scalable
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 5 7 58.3
Wholesaler 7 1 12.5
Overall 13 8 38.1
119
119
Table 78. Percentage of respondents believe that the results under the MinPACT Project is 
sustainable
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 5 7 58.3
Wholesaler 4 4 50.0
Overall 10 11 52.4
Table 79. Percentage of respondents perceived gaps in the sector that need to be addressed.
Items No Yes % Yes
Retailer 6 6 50.0
Wholesaler 6 2 25.0
Grand Total 13 8 38.1
120
120
3. VCA Nursery Operators
The average number of fulltime employees per nursery operator is 11 while the average number 
of part-time employees is 16. Most of the fulltime employees are female while most of the part￾time employees are male (Table 80). Around 20% of the nursery operators offer financial 
services to customers (Table 81). Peak months of operation is July to August (Table 82). 60% of 
the nursery operators have business license issued by the LGUs while 40% are registered with 
the DTI and 20% registered with the SEC. Only 20% are registered with the Bureau of Plant 
Industry (for nursery accreditation) (Table 83).
In terms of certification, only 1 out of 5 has a certification with GAP. 
Three (3) respondents said, “Yes, they have certification”, but only 1 provided an answer, the 2 
did not provide specific certification. The other 2 do not have certification.
Major problem encountered by the nursery operators is lack of capital (Table 84). 
Table 80. Average employment, fulltime and part-time, by type, by 
sex
Items
Fulltime Employee Part-time Employee
Aver. 
Employee Male Female Aver. 
Employee Male Female
Retailer 2 1 1 2 1 1
Wholesaler
Other 16 4 12 27 15 12
Grand Total 11 3 8 16 9 7
Table 81. Percentage of respondents financial services to 
customers
Item No Yes % Yes
Retailer 1 0 0
Wholesaler 1 0 0
Other 2 1 33.3
Grand Total 4 1 20.0
121
121
In terms of certification, only 1 out of 5 has a certification with GAP. 
Three (3) respondents said, “Yes, they have certification”, but only 1 provided an answer, the 2 
did not provide specific certification. The other 2 do not have certification.
Table 83. Percentage of respondent registered, by type
Items Retailer Wholesaler Others % 
Overall
% 
Overall
Business Licensing Office (of theLGU for the 
license to operate) 0 0 3 3 60
Department of Trade and Industry ( business
name of single proprietorship) 0 0 2 2 40
Security and Exchange Commission (for the 
registration of the corporation) 0 0 1 1 20
Bureau of Food and Drugs (for the permit to 
operate, if relevant) 0 0 0 0 0
Bureau of Plant Industry (for nursery 
accreditation) 0 1 0 1 20
Fertilizers and Pesticides Authority (for permit to 
operate) 0 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0 0
*Others- both retailer and wholesaler
Table 82: Peak of Operations
Months
Peak Lean
Retailer Wholesaler Others Frequency
% 
Overall Retailer Wholesaler Others Frequency
% 
Overall
All Year 1 1 20.0 1 1 20.0
January 1 1 20.0 1 1 2 40.0
February 1 1 20.0 1 1 2 40.0
March 1 1 2 40.0 1 1 2 40.0
April 1 1 2 40.0 1 20.0
May 1 1 20.0 1 20.0
June 1 1 20.0 0 0.0
July 1 2 3 60.0 0 0.0
August 1 2 3 60.0 0 0.0
September 1 1 2 40.0 1 1 20.0
October 1 1 20.0 1 1 2 40.0
November 1 1 20.0 1 1 2 40.0
December 1 1 20.0 1 1 2 40.0
122
122
Table 84. Major operational problems do you encountered in running the business
Items Retailer Wholesaler Others Overall % 
Overall
Lack of capital 0 0 1 1 20
Lack of awareness to get loans from financial
0 0 0 0 0
Intermediaries
Lack of financial assistance on expanding production. 0 0 0 0 0
Others 1 1 2 4 80
Note: Retailer- no current orders / Wholesaler- marketing due to low production of cacao 
seedlings/ Others- due to calamity or rainy season
4. VCA Business Development Service Providers
DETAILS OF OPERATION
Table 85. Average employment, full time and part-time, by type, by sex
Items Full Time Part-time
Male 271 27
Female 228 22
Overall 499 49
Table 86. Percentage of employees by department (as of January 2018)
Department/Office %
Management 31.79
Operations/Services 53.77
Finance and Admin 24.79
Table 87. Respondents with part-time 
employees
Items Frequency %
Yes 3 33.33
123
123
No 6 66.67
Overall 9 100.00
Table 88. Number of part time employees 
Items Frequency %
Male 22 44.90
Female 27 55.10
Overall 49 100.00
Table 89. Respondents who increase/decrease of employees during 
peak time 
Items Increase Decrease
Yes 2 2
No 4 4
%Yes 33.33 33.33
Table 90. Months of peak and lean season
Month
Peak Lean
Frequency Overall % Frequency
Overall 
%
All year 0 0 0 0
January 1 14.29 3 50.00
February 2 28.57 1 12.50
March 4 80.00 1 12.50
April 1 12.50 2 28.57
May 0 0.00 2 28.57
June 2 28.57 2 28.57
July 1 12.50 1 12.50
124
124
August 1 12.50 2 28.57
September 0 0.00 1 12.50
October 1 12.50 3 50.00
November 1 12.50 0 0.00
December 2 28.57 0 0.00
Table 91. Clients per month
Frequen
cy %
Less than 10 per 
month 2 22.22
11 to 20 per month 0 0.00
21 to 30 per month 0 0.00
31 to 50 per month 0 0.00
More than 50 per 
month 7 77.78
REGISTRATION
Table 92. Registered business
Items Frequency %
Yes 8 88.89
No 1 11.11
Overall 9 100.00
Table 93. Registration with offices/organizations
Office/organizations Frequency %Yes
Business Licensing Office (from the LGU for the 
license to operate) 4 44.44
125
125
Department of Trade and Industry ( registration 
business name of single proprietorship) 3 33.33
Security and Exchange Commission (for 
registration the corporations) 3 33.33
Bureau of Food and Drugs 1 11.11
Bureau of Plant Industry 1 11.11
Fertilizers and Pesticides Authority 2 22.22
Others 4 44.44
Table 94. Major operational problems in running the business
Problem Frequency %Yes
Lack of capital 0 0.00
Lack of awareness to get loans from financial 
institutions 1 11.11
Lack of financial assistance in expanding 
production 3 33.33
Others (lack of financial support, financial 
collection issues) 6 66.67
Table 95. Offering of new services
Items Create/offer new 
services every 
year
If yes, developing 
new services 
internally (not 
outsourced)
Yes 6 6
No 3 0
%Yes 66.67 100
126
126
Table 96. Have own business plan 
Items Frequency
Yes 4
No 5
%Yes 44.44
Table 97. Marketing problems encountered in promoting services
Problem Yes %Yes
Too many competitors offering similar/cheaper 
services 3 33.33
Clients do not value the benefits of BDS 3 33.33
Clients are not aware of the services 4 44.44
Want free services (i.e. government) 4 44.44
Others (Documents for collection are thrown 
away, no proper collection/loan documentation) 1 11.11
Table 98. Plans to expand your business in the next 2 or 
3 years
Items Frequency
Yes 4
No 5
%Yes 44.44
Table 99. Factors that might affect expansion
Factors Frequency %Yes
Number of clients 4 44.44
Types of services requested/asked by clients 4 44.44
Service/Professional fees 2 22.22
127
127
Others (POs, Number of personnel to work in the 
company without financial capability) 3 33.33
ACCESS TO CREDIT AND FINANCING
Table 100. Do you currently have any 
debt? 
Frequency
Yes 1
No 8
%Yes 11.11
Table 101. Source of credit
Source Frequency %
Relatives/friends 0 0.00
NGOs 0 0.00
Cooperatives/Paluwagan 0 0.00
Local Gov't Units (LGUs) 0 0.00
Local lender/ pawn shop 0 0.00
5-6 Borrowing 0 0.00
Banks 1 100.00
Others 0 0.00
Table 102. Amount borrowed
Amount Frequency %
<100,000 0 0.00
101,000 to 500,000 0 0.00
1,000,000 to 3,000,000 0 0.00
>3,000,000 1 100.00
128
128
Challenges Frequency %
Lack of knowledge on loan application. 2 22.22
Lack of collateral 1 11.11
Default 1 11.11
Others (government funds, lack of collectors/no 
employees, financial capacity for filling 
bankruptcy, just finishing DAR project, over 
liquidity) 6 66.67
ACCESS TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Table 103. Access to information on various 
events
Items Frequency
Yes 7
No 2
%Yes 77.78
Table 104. Principal sources of information
Source Frequency %
Radio 4 44.44
Newspaper 3 33.33
Television 2 22.22
Cellphone 2 22.22
Internet 6 66.67
Friends/Religious Leaders/Local 
Leaders 3 33.33
NGOs, civil society 2 22.22
Reference materials/ FITS Center 4 44.44
129
129
Demonstration farms 4 44.44
Table 105. Access to business information
Type of Business Information
Frequenc
y %Yes
Related to marketing agricultural products 4 44.44
Related to agricultural technology 5 55.56
Related to accessing finance 3 33.33
Related to policy and advocacy on agriculture, 
investment, trade 4 44.44
Related to infrastructure and logistics 3 33.33
Related to information 3 33.33
Related to training and technical assistance 5 55.56
Table 106. Knowledge on 
value chain
Items Frequency
Yes 9
No 0
%Yes 100
ASSISTANCE/EXISTENCE OF OTHER PROJECTS
Table 107. Beneficiary of any foreign and locally funded projects
Items Frequency
Yes 7
No 2
%Yes 77.78
130
130
Table 108. Assistance (Financial, operational, and marketing) needed to improve 
operation, market reach/base and profitability
Type of Assistance Frequency %Yes
Need additional technical staff (subject matter specialists or 
experts) 5 55.56
Need additional capability building activities for existing staff 4 44.44
Need additional funds to support operating expenses (since fees 
from services are not sufficient) 5 55.56
Need more networking to promote services to intended 
beneficiaries 5 55.56
Need to create/upgrade offerings to cater to more clientele 4 44.44
Need personnel to help recover the foundation and face bank cases 1 11.11
INVOLVEMENT WITH MINPACT
A. RELEVANCE
Table 109. Capacity/role in the MinPACT 
Project
Capacity/role Frequency %
Technical assistance/training 5 55.56
Grants (financial, in-kind) 4 44.44
Partner development 1 11.11
Facilitation on the process of required 
documents to the POs 1 11.11
Table 110. Years of partnership with MinPACT 
Years Frequency %
less than 1 year 3 33.33
131
131
1 0 0
2 2 22.22
3 4 44.44
Table 111. MinPACT overall results as contributor to the development priorities of 
organizations/offices
Organization/Office Frequency %Yes
Peoples organizations 7 77.78
Industry sectors 7 77.78
Local government units 6 66.67
Other value chain actors 7 77.78
Individual producer 7 77.78
Table 112. Interventions to increase productivity
Intervention Frequency %
Development of varieties used 1 11.11
Assistance/additional farm implements inputs 3 33.33
Technical and financial support to project 
beneficiaries 3 33.33
Constant monitoring 1 11.11
Formal orientation 1 11.11
Registration with concerned authorities 1 11.11
Extension of project intervention 1 11.11
Table 113. Interventions to increase productivity
Intervention Frequency %
Enterprise development and marketing 
assistance 2 22.22
132
132
Identification of new buyer 1 11.11
Copra dryer assistance 1 11.11
Better financing and collection system 1 11.11
Expansion of production areas 1 11.11
Addition of another product of commodity 1 11.11
B. EFFICIENCY
Table 114. Delivery of Project Support and Services 
Project Support and Services
Very 
Inefficient
Inefficien
t Efficient
Very 
Efficient Neither
Don't 
Know
Delivery of the Inputs, PHF, other 
goods, seedlings 0 1 1 2 1 4
Technical services, farm visits, 
meetings, consultations 1 1 1 2 1 3
Training, cross visits, exposure 
programs, (TOTs) 1 0 2 2 1 3
Referrals, Advisory Services, 
Marketing Service 2 1 0 2 2 2
Credit facilitation, loans 1 1 1 2 2 2
Table 115. Project Implementation 
Items Frequency %Yes
Efficient 6 66.67
Flexible 6 66.67
Table 116. Evidence for efficiency
Evidence Frequency %
Planting activities 1 11.11
Provision of all training 1 11.11
133
133
Late implementation of nursery specifically 1 11.11
Once attended the stakeholder 1 11.11
Farmers are improving in produce 1 11.11
Completeness of the value chain, continuation 
the project with assistance from other value 
chain actors 1 11.11
Given free training and seminar to improved the 
institution 1 11.11
Table 117. Instances showing flexibility 
Instance Frequency %
Direct from the farmer 1 11.11
Seminars conducted in nice venues 1 11.11
Output base results 1 11.11
Given inputs and equipment 1 11.11
Table 118. Delivery of interventions 
Frequency %Yes
Timely as scheduled 3 33.33
Appropriate to their needs 5 55.56
Responsive to adjustment to local conditions 4 44.44
Demand driven 4 44.44
134
134
C. EFFECTIVENESS
Table 119. Level of influence of MinPACT on the behavior(norms) and practices (rules and regulations) of 
the coconut, cocoa, coffee industry and its producer organizations and farmers
Areas
Rating
1 2 3 4 5 Average
Adoption of new technology in production 0 4 1 2 2 3.22
Adoption of good agricultural practices 0 3 2 1 3 3.44
Application of quality standards 1 3 1 2 2 3.11
Use of volume & quality-based contracts 1 3 3 0 2 2.89
Use of product information/market 
segmentation 1 3 3 0 2 2.89
Use of inventory system 1 3 3 0 2 2.89
Clear and transparent governance system 0 3 2 1 3 3.44
Developed business plans and 
management systems that are functional 1 3 2 1 2 3.00
Improved financial literacy among 
beneficiary producers 1 3 2 1 2 3.00
Use of Formal Credit and Funding 
institutions 2 2 2 1 2 2.89
Improved & appropriate quality inputs, tools, 
planting materials and post-harvest facility 
to achieve national/international standards 2 2 2 0 3 3.00
Improved nursery/seedling quality standards 
to meet market demands 2 2 2 0 3 3.00
Table 120. Signs of new cocoa, coffee, coconut industry players “crowding-in” as a result of project 
facilitation
Items Frequency
Yes 3
No 6
135
135
%Yes 33.33
Table 121. Increase in the production and productivity in the three crop sectors (cacao, coconut, coffee) 
as a result of MinPACT’s intervention 
Frequency %
Increase in production 2 22.22
Increase in production but poor collection 
system 1 11.11
Thru gap 1 11.11
Only coconut production has increased 1 11.11
No change 2 22.22
Starting to develop commodity 1 11.11
Table 122. New services available to producers and other value chain actors 
Service Frequency %
Post harvest equipment and facilities 3 33.33
Machineries and building 1 11.11
Community-based protection and management 1 11.11
Credit facilities and business development 
services to cooperatives 1 11.11
Table 123. Relationship with ACDI-VOCA or MinPACT project officers/staff.
Items
Rating
1 2 3 4 5 Average
1. Discuss clearly the objectives, targets, 
proposed activities, timelines and delineation 
of roles 0 0 4 2 3 3.89
2. Involve you in major decision-making 
points 0 1 4 1 3 3.67
136
136
3. Accommodate reasonable changes in 
schedule, arrangements, activities, priorities 0 0 4 2 3 3.87
4. Transfer knowledge and provide advice on 
improving organizational processes, systems, 
etc 0 0 4 2 3 3.87
5 Communication/coordination, including 
frequency and quality 0 0 4 2 3 3.87
6. Debriefing of learning session (after each 
important activity 0 0 4 2 3 3.87
D. IMPACT
Table 124. Changes resulting from the MinPACT 
Project
Changes Frequency %Yes
Adoption of new norms and behaviors 2 22.22
New business practices/models 3 33.33
New support functions (ICT, market finders, 
brokers) 3 33.33
New financial products, insurance system, credit 
sources 3 33.33
Farming and processing system 3 33.33
Environmental consciousness and standards 2 22.22
Inclusion of women, youth, marginalized groups 
(IPS etc) 3 33.33
Value addition activities 3 33.33
Transfer of technologies and best practices 2 22.22
New market opportunities 3 33.33
Increase in product referrals, inquiries, etc. 2 22.22
Expanded Sales, Productivity 2 22.22
137
137
Table 125. Changes in the demand for your services as a result of your partnership/relationship with 
MinPACT
Items Frequency
Yes 3
No 6
%Yes 33.33
Table 126. Effects brought about by approaches and technologies introduced by MInPACT 
Items Frequency %Yes
Disruption in the market 0 0.00
Crowding in 2 22.22
Scaling up services to producer groups either 
by government, other NGOs 2 22.22
Adoption/replication of approaches and 
technologies by other POs 3 33.33
Table 127. Unintended results brought about by the project 
Items Frequency
Yes 1
No 8
%Yes 11.11
E. SUSTAINABILITY
Table 128. Awareness on interventions made to facilitate 
sustainability of project gains
Frequency
Yes 4
No 5
138
138
%Yes 44.44
Table 129. Organizations/agencies who initiated interventions for sustainability of project 
gains
Organizations/agencies Frequency %
Government agencies 2 22.22
Private agencies and institutions 2 22.22
NGOs 1 11.11
Table 130. Adequacy of level of human and institutional 
capacity in place to ensure continuity of good practices 
resulting from the project interventions
Items Frequency
Yes 4
No 5
% 44.44
Table 131. Replicability, scalability and sustainability of the results under 
the MinPACT Project 
Items Frequency %Yes
Replicable 5 55.56
Scalable 3 33.33
Sustainable 5 55.56
Table 132. Efforts for replicability
Items Frequency %
Addition of interventions of the project 1 11.11
Identification of needs and assessment 1 11.11
Implementation to more farmers 1 11.11
139
139
Dissemination and proper information on the 
process 1 11.11
Catering the needs of the community 1 11.11
Table 133. Efforts for scalability
Items Frequency %
Focusing on increasing the farmers income 1 11.11
Direct measurement of the portfolio 1 11.11
due to the demand and the needs 1 11.11
Table 134. Efforts for sustainability
Items Frequency %
Planting and giving a new technologies 1 11.11
Referring to the strong POs 1 11.11
Training other farmers 1 11.11
Introduction and development of commodity 1 11.11
For farmers it is sustainable 1 11.11
Table 135. Factors that can hinder the sustainability of project gains
Items Frequency
Yes 5
No 4
%Yes 55.56
Table 136. Remaining market system gaps in the three crop sectors 
that are weak or need to be addressed
140
140
Items Frequency
Yes 2
No 7
%Yes 22.22
141
141
5. VCA Micro-Finance Institutions
Details of 
Operations
Table 137. Average employment, fulltime and part￾time, by type, by sex
Items
Fulltime Employee Part-time Employee
Male Female Total 
Employee
Average 
(Total) Male Female Total 
Employee
Average 
(Total)
Lending-Finance 
Coop 122 92 214 30.6 2 1 3 3.0
Micro Finance 
Institution 112 118 230 76.7 0 0 0 0.0
Others (Universal 
Bank & Savings and 
Credit Coop)
15 29 44 22.0 0 0 0 0.0
Savings bank/Rural 
Bank/Community 
Bank
26 6 32 32.0 0 0 0 0.0
Traders/Buyers/Shop 
Owners 7 3 10 10.0 13 2 15 15.0
Grand Total 282 248 530 15 3 18
Table 138. Months 
of peak
Items
Peak
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universa
l Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/
Community 
Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Total % Total
All Year 1 1 7.1
January 1 1 7.1
February 0 0.0
March 1 1 2 14.3
April 1 1 7.1
May 1 1 7.1
June 2 1 1 4 28.6
July 1 1 7.1
August 1 1 7.1
September 2 1 1 4 28.6
October 1 1 2 14.3
November 1 1 1 3 21.4
142
142
December 4 1 1 6 42.9
Table 139. Lean 
Months 
Items
Lean
Lendin
g￾Financ
e Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institutio
n
Others 
(Univers
al Bank 
& 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/
Communit
y Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Total % Total
All Year 0 0.0
January 2 1 3 21.4
February 2 1 3 21.4
March 2 2 14.3
April 2 1 3 21.4
May 2 1 3 21.4
June 1 1 7.1
July 2 1 3 21.4
August 2 1 1 4 28.6
September 1 1 2 14.3
October 1 1 2 14.3
November 1 1 2 14.3
December 0 0.0
Table 140. Commodities
Items
Commodity
Cacao Coconut Coffee Total % 
Total
Lending-Finance Coop 3 5 10 18.0 39.1
Micro Finance Institution 2 2 5 9.0 19.6
Others (Universal Bank & 
Savings and Credit Coop) 2 2 6 10.0 21.7
Savings bank/Rural 
Bank/Community Bank 1 1 2 4.0 8.7
Traders/Buyers/Shop 
Owners 1 1 3 5.0 10.9
Grand Total 9 11 26 46.0 100
143
143
Table 141. Individual borrowers
Items
Individual Borrowers
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universal 
Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/Community 
Bank
Traders/Buyers/
Shop Owners Total Average 
Total
Farmers 5339 116 2889 20 50 8414 601.0
Non-Farmers 1285 870 2885 23 0 5063 361.6
Table 142. Coop
Items
Coop
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universal 
Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/Community 
Bank
Traders/Buyers/
Shop Owners Total Average 
Total
Farmers 10 0 11 0 0 21 1.5
Non-Farmers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Table 143. Source of Funds
Items
Source of Funds
Lendin
g￾Financ
e Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institutio
n
Others 
(Univers
al Bank 
& 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/
Communit
y Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Total % Total
Government 3 0 2 0 0 5 35.7
Commercial Banks 0 1 0 1 1 3 21.4
Foundations-no for 
rofit sector 2 1 0 0 0 3 21.4
Bilateral/Multilateral 2 0 0 0 0 2 14.3
Others 4 1 1 0 0 6 42.9
Total 11 3 3 1 1 19
Note: Others – Share deposits, Savings & share capital of the members, RCBC Mother Bank
In terms of certification, only 2/14 have ISO certification, while 7/21 have certification from PCA, 
Foccus, BSP, CDA, DTI and SEC.
144
144
Table 144. Percentage of respondent registered, by type
Items
Lendin
g￾Financ
e Coop
Micro 
Financ
e 
Instituti
on
Others 
(Universal 
Bank & 
Savings and 
Credit Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/Comm
unity Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Overall
% 
Overal
l
Business Licensing 
Office (of the LGU 
for the license to 
operate)
4 3 1 0 1 9 64.3
Department of Trade 
and Industry ( 
business name of 
single 
proprietorship)
2 2 1 0 1 6 42.9
Security and 
Exchange 
Commission (for the 
registration of the 
corporation)
2 1 1 0 0 4 28.6
Department of 
Finance 1 0 0 0 0 1 7.1
Bangko Sentral ng 
Pilipinas 1 2 1 1 0 5 35.7
Others 6 1 0 0 0 7 50.0
Note: Others are registered under CDA
Table 145. Major operational problems do you encountered in 
running the business
Items
Lendin
gFinan
ce 
Coop
Micro 
Financ
e 
Instituti
on
Others 
(Univer
sal 
Bank & 
Saving
s and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/
Communit
y Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Overall % Overall
Lack of 
funding/limited 
loan portfolio
2 1 0 0 0 3 21.4
Lack of access by 
potential clients 
(proximity, 
affordability and 
eligibility)
0 1 1 0 0 2 14.3
145
145
Low level of usage 
of the financial 
services 
(regularity, 
frequency and 
patterns of use)
0 2 0 0 0 2 14.3
Increasing level of 
defaults 2 0 0 1 0 3 21.4
Others 0 0 1 0 1 2 14.3
Table 146. Financial Plan
Items
Lendin
gFinan
ce 
Coop
Micro 
Financ
e 
Instituti
on
Others 
(Univer
sal 
Bank & 
Saving
s and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/
Communit
y Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Overall % Overall
Do own financial 
plans 2 1 0 0 0 3 21.4
Extend Technical 
Support 0 1 1 0 0 2 14.3
Have a business 
plan 0 2 0 0 0 2 14.3
Increasing level of 
defaults 2 0 0 1 0 3 21.4
Others 0 0 1 0 1 2 14.3
146
146
Table 147. Marketing problems 
Items
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universal 
Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/Community 
Bank
Traders/Buyers/
Shop Owners Overall % 
Overall
Lack of 
information on 
the financial 
services/products 
offered
4 1 1 0 0 6 42.9
Low awareness 
among potential 
clients
3 1 1 0 0 5 35.7
High level of 
interest rate/fees 0 1 0 1 0 2 14.3
Others 2 1 0 0 1 4 28.6
Note: Others- Competitors esp those with lower rates
Table 148. Factors considered for business expansion
Items
Lendin
g￾Financ
e Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universal 
Bank & 
Savings 
and Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rura
l Bank/
Communit
y Bank
Traders/
Buyers/
Shop 
Owners
Overall % 
Overall
Profitability 2 0 1 1 0 4 28.6
Number of potential 
clients 5 1 1 0 0 7 50.0
Overall business 
environment 5 0 2 0 0 7 50.0
Fees and other 
service charges 1 1 0 0 0 2 14.3
Others 1 1 1 0 1 4 28.6
147
147
ACCESS TO CREDIT AND FINANCING
Table 149. Percentage of respondents with debt
Items No Refuse to 
answer
Yes % Yes
Lending-Finance Coop 4 1 2 14.3
Micro Finance Institution 2 0 1 7.1
Others (Universal Bank & Savings and 
Credit Coop) 1 1 0 0.0
Savings bank/Rural Bank/Community 
Bank 0 1 0 0.0
Traders/Buyers/Shop Owners 0 0 1 7.1
Total 7 3 4
Table 150. Sources of debt
Source
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universal 
Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Rural 
Bank/Community 
Bank
Traders/Buyers/
Shop Owners Overall % 
Overall
Banks 1 1 2 14.3
Cooperatives/ 
Paluwagan 1 1 10
Government 
Assistance 1 1 5
Other 1 1 5
Note: Other- Foundation not for profit sector
Table 151. Average amount of debt, by source
Source
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universa
l Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Ru
ral 
Bank/Co
mmunity 
Bank
Trade
rs/Buy
ers/Sh
op 
Owne
rs
Overall % Overall
Banks
 
600,000.0
0 
 
15,00
0,000.
00 
 
15,600,
000.00 
148
148
Cooperatives/ 
Paluwagan
 
1,000,000
.00 
 
1,000,0
00.00 
Government 
Assistance
 
100,000.0
0 
 
100,00
0.00 
Table 152. Financial challenges do 
you encounter
Items
Lending￾Finance 
Coop
Micro 
Finance 
Institution
Others 
(Universa
l Bank & 
Savings 
and 
Credit 
Coop)
Savings 
bank/Ru
ral 
Bank/Co
mmunity 
Bank
Traders
/Buyers
/Shop 
Owners
Overall % Overall
Outdated financial 
systems 3 1 4 28.6
High operational costs 
versus loans released 
or collection rate
4 3 1 8 57.1
Default 4 1 1 6 42.9
Others 1 1 2 14.3
Note: Others- Need more processing plants, stocks get stored in shop and in trucks/ 
Competition from other coops
ACCESS TO INFORMATION/TECHNOLOGY
Table 153. Percentage of respondent who use online mobile phone
Items No Yes % Yes
Lending-Finance Coop 6 1 7.1
Micro Finance Institution 3 0 0.0
Others (Universal Bank & Savings and 
Credit Coop) 1 1 7.1
Savings bank/Rural Bank/Community 
Bank 1 0 0.0
Traders/Buyers/Shop Owners 1 0 0.0
Table 154. Percentage of respondent who have access to agri 
technology
Items No Yes % 
Yes
Lending-Finance Coop 4 3 21.4
Micro Finance Institution 1 2 14.3
149
149
Others (Universal Bank & Savings and Credit 
Coop) 1 1 7.1
Savings bank/Rural Bank/Community Bank 0 1 7.1
Traders/Buyers/Shop Owners 0 1 7.1
Total 6 8
Table 155. Access to Agriculture
Source Freq. %
Radio 1 7.1
Newspaper 1 7.1
Television 0 0.0
Cellphone 5 35.7
Internet 5 35.7
Friends/Religious Leaders/Local 
Leaders 2 14.3
NGOs, civil society 1 7.1
Reference materials/ FITS Center 4 28.6
Demonstration farms 0 0.0
Others 1 7.1
Note: Others- LGU/CDA/ NATCCO
Table 156. Access to Information
Item Freq. %
Financial Products 6 42.9
Pricing 3 21.4
Promotion 6 42.9
Potential Clients 3 21.4
Others 1 7.1
Note: Others- Trainings
150
150
Appendix J: Control of Resources
Overall, among MinPACT beneficiaries, the father, followed by the mother have higher decision￾making power on different issues including resource management and development planning, 
budgeting, participation in community development projects and activities, formulation of 
ordinances related to agriculture and trade, membership in committees, revenue generation and 
others (Table 1-2). There is no significant difference in the percentage of family members’ 
participation in decision making between treatment and control groups (Table 3). 
Table 1. Involvement of family members in decision making on the different issues among 
MinPACT Beneficiaries
Item
Mother Father Both mother 
& father Children All members 
of the family
Fre
q.
% Freq. % Freq. %
Fre
q.
%
Fre
q.
%
Resource management and 
development planning 248 38.4 323 50.0 168 26.0 65 10.1 35 5.4
Budgeting 504 78.0 322 49.8 255 39.5 80 12.4 51 7.9
Participation in community 
development projects and 
activities 236
36.5
247
38.2 123 19.0
82
12.7 35
5.4
Formulation of ordinances 
related to agri and trade 89 13.8 144 22.3 47 7.3 32 5.0 9
1.4
Membership in committees 159 24.6 195 30.2 70 10.8 51 7.9 14 2.2
Revenue 
generation/livelihood 
engagement 142
22.0
181
28.0 78 12.1
38
5.9 15
2.3
Participation in community 
meetings/events 233 36.1 215 33.3 99 15.3 75 11.6 22 3.4
Farm management 301 46.6 465 72.0 221 34.2 114 17.6 63 9.8
What to plant (Commodities 
to produce) 130 20.1 238 36.8 71 11.0 41 6.3 13 2.0
Participating in technical 
trainings/meetings 171 26.5 214 33.1 79 12.2 38 5.9 13 2.0
Allocation of size of land for 
each produce 91 14.1 193 29.9 51 7.9 30 4.6 9
1.4
How much price to sell 
product 122 18.9 204 31.6 64 9.9 36 5.6 6
0.9
Where and quantity to sell 
(selling decision) 111 17.2 207 32.0 60 9.3 31 4.8 8
1.2
What inputs to 
procure/purchase 108 16.7 218 33.7 62 9.6 39 6.0 10 1.5
What Farming equipment to 
buy 127 19.7 248 38.4 74 11.5 39 6.0 11 1.7
Use of farming equipment 113 17.5 237 36.7 59 9.1 47 7.3 12 1.9
Choice of technology 97 15.0 179 27.7 54 8.4 31 4.8 8 1.2
Borrowing money for 
production 146 22.6 147 22.8 70 10.8 27 4.2 12 1.9
Used of borrowed funds 127 19.7 122 18.9 58 9.0 28 4.3 10 1.5
Whom to hire and how much 
labor to pay (labor sourcing) 117 18.1 190 29.4 62 9.6 30 4.6 10 1.5
151
151
Storage of products 58 9.0 127 19.7 32 5.0 23 3.6 8 1.2
How and Where to spend 
farm earnings 226 35.0 192 29.7 122 18.9 74 11.5 32 5.0
Table 2. Involvement of family members in decision making on the different issues among non￾MinPACT Beneficiaries
Item
Mother Father Both mother 
& father Children All members 
of the family
Freq. % Freq. %
Fre
q.
%
Fre
q.
% Freq. %
Resource management 
and development 
planning 125
36.0
150
43.2 77 22.2
27
7.8 10
2.9
Budgeting 289 83.3 170 49.0 136 39.2 47 13.5 30 8.6
Participation in 
community 
development projects 
and activities 85
24.5
104
30.0 43 12.4
26
7.5 6
1.7
Formulation of 
ordinances related to 
agri and trade 40
11.5
66
19.0 22 6.3
16
4.6 6
1.7
Membership in 
committees 67 19.3 90 25.9 32 9.2 29 8.4 10 2.9
Revenue 
generation/livelihood 
engagement 61
17.6
77
22.2 34 9.8
26
7.5 8
2.3
Participation in 
community 
meetings/events 90
25.9
101
29.1 43 12.4
30
8.6 7
2.0
Farm management 142 40.9 240 69.2 97 28.0 65 18.7 27 7.8
What to plant 
(Commodities to 
produce) 58
16.7
111
32.0 36 10.4
24
6.9 6
1.7
Participating in technical 
trainings/meetings 56 16.1 93 26.8 30 8.6 23 6.6 6
1.7
Allocation of size of land 
for each produce 39 11.2 91 26.2 26 7.5 20 5.8 6
1.7
How much price to sell 
product 57 16.4 106 30.5 26 7.5 20 5.8 4
1.2
Where and quantity to 
sell (selling decision) 60 17.3 96 27.7 33 9.5 20 5.8 6
1.7
What inputs to 
procure/purchase 50 14.4 97 28.0 29 8.4 18 5.2 6
1.7
What Farming 
equipments to buy 58 16.7 130 37.5 35 10.1 19 5.5 6
1.7
Use of farming 
equipments 52 15.0 127 36.6 29 8.4 26 7.5 5
1.4
Choice of technology 52 15.0 104 30.0 28 8.1 22 6.3 7 2.0
Borrowing money for 
production 86 24.8 73 21.0 40 11.5 20 5.8 8
2.3
Used of borrowed funds 78 22.5 64 18.4 38 11.0 18 5.2 7 2.0
152
152
Whom to hire and how 
much labor to pay (labor 
sourcing) 61
17.6
98
28.2 37 10.7
18
5.2 5
1.4
Storage of products 35 10.1 63 18.2 21 6.1 15 4.3 5 1.4
How and Where to 
spend farm earnings 131 37.8 101 29.1 78 22.5 32 9.2 20 5.8
Table 3. Difference (%) in family members’ participation in decision making between treatment 
and control groups
Item Mother Father Both mother & 
father
Child
ren
All members of 
the family
Resource management and 
development planning 2.4 6.8 3.8 2.3 2.5
Budgeting -5.3 0.9 0.3 -1.2 -0.8
Participation in community 
development projects and activities 12.0 8.3 6.6 5.2 3.7
Formulation of ordinances related to 
agri and trade 2.2 3.3 0.9 0.3 -0.3
Membership in committees 5.3 4.2 1.6 -0.5 -0.7
Revenue generation/livelihood 
engagement 4.4 5.8 2.3 -1.6 0.0
Participation in community 
meetings/events 10.1 4.2 2.9 3.0 1.4
Farm management 5.7 2.8 6.3 -1.1 2.0
What to plant (Commodities to 
produce) 3.4 4.9 0.6 -0.6 0.3
Participating in technical 
trainings/meetings 10.3 6.3 3.6 -0.7 0.3
Allocation of size of land for each 
produce 2.8 3.7 0.4 -1.1 -0.3
How much price to sell product 2.5 1.0 2.4 -0.2 -0.2
Where and quantity to sell (selling 
decision) -0.1 4.4 -0.2 -1.0 -0.5
What inputs to procure/purchase 2.3 5.8 1.2 0.8 -0.2
What Farming equipment to buy 2.9 0.9 1.4 0.6 0.0
Use of farming equipment 2.5 0.1 0.8 -0.2 0.4
Choice of technology 0.0 -2.3 0.3 -1.5 -0.8
Borrowing money for production -2.2 1.7 -0.7 -1.6 -0.4
Used of borrowed funds -2.8 0.4 -2.0 -0.9 -0.5
Whom to hire and how much labor to 
pay (labor sourcing) 0.5 1.2 -1.1 -0.5 0.1
Storage of products -1.1 1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.2
How and Where to spend farm 
earnings -2.8 0.6 -3.6 2.2 -0.8
Most of the respondents said that there is consultation of family head to family members on 
different issues among MinPACT beneficiaries (Table 4-5). There is no significant difference in 
the percentage of respondents who said that there is consultation of family head to family 
members on different issues between treatment and control groups (Table 6).
153
153
Table 4. Extent of consultation of family head to family members on different issues among 
MinPACT beneficiaries
Items
All the Time Most of the 
Time Few Times Never
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Resource management and 
development planning 125 19.3 275 42.6 205 31.7 40 6.2
Budgeting 121 18.7 292 45.2 182 28.2 50 7.7
Participation in community 
development projects and 
activities
108 16.7 276 42.7 222 34.4 39 6.0
Formulation of ordinances 
related to agri and trade 67 10.4 210 32.5 257 39.8 111 17.2
Membership in committees 79 12.2 234 36.2 250 38.7 82 12.7
Revenue generation/livelihood 
engagement 183 28.3 128 19.8 265 41.0 69 10.7
Participation in community 
meetings/events 112 17.3 263 40.7 227 35.1 43 6.7
Farm management 161 24.9 239 37.0 208 32.2 37 5.7
What to plant (Commodities to 
produce) 197 30.5 152 23.5 253 39.2 43 6.7
Participating in technical 
trainings/meetings 94 14.6 256 39.6 251 38.9 44 6.8
Allocation of size of land for 
each produce 93 14.4 218 33.7 280 43.3 54 8.4
How much price to sell product 79 12.2 225 34.8 243 37.6 98 15.2
Where and quantity to sell 
(selling decision) 95 14.7 224 34.7 264 40.9 62 9.6
What inputs to 
procure/purchase 102 15.8 243 37.6 241 37.3 59 9.1
What Farming equipment to buy 92 14.2 224 34.7 252 39.0 77 11.9
Use of farming equipment 85 13.2 226 35.0 252 39.0 82 12.7
Choice of technology 89 13.8 174 26.9 202 31.3 180 27.9
Borrowing money for 
production 87 13.5 166 25.7 197 30.5 195 30.2
Used of borrowed funds 90 13.9 195 30.2 262 40.6 98 15.2
Whom to hire and how much 
labor to pay (labor sourcing) 73 11.3 165 25.5 241 37.3 166 25.7
Storage of products 68 10.5 202 31.3 264 40.9 111 17.2
How and Where to spend farm 
earnings 129 20.0 244 37.8 222 34.4 50 7.7
154
154
Table 5. Extent of consultation of family head to family members on different issues among non￾MinPACT beneficiaries
Items
All the 
Time
Most of 
the Time
Few 
Times Never
Fre
q.
%
Fre
q.
%
Fre
q.
%
Fre
q.
%
Resource management and development planning 47 13.
5
164 47.
3
110 31.
7
26 7.5
Budgeting 53 15.
3
163 47.
0
102 29.
4
29 8.4
Participation in community development projects 
and activities 33 9.5 153 44.
1
118 34.
0
43 12.
4
Formulation of ordinances related to agri and trade 26 7.5 126 36.
3
114 32.
9
81 23.
3
Membership in committees 28 8.1 135 38.
9
118 34.
0
66 19.
0
Revenue generation/livelihood engagement 90 25.
9
62 17.
9
136 39.
2
59 17.
0
Participation in community meetings/events 33 9.5 145 41.
8
125 36.
0
44 12.
7
Farm management 64 18.
4
133 38.
3
112 32.
3
38 11.
0
What to plant (Commodities to produce) 96 27.
7
75 21.
6
134 38.
6
42 12.
1
Participating in technical trainings/meetings 32 9.2 123 35.
4
131 37.
8
61 17.
6
Allocation of size of land for each produce 26 7.5 126 36.
3
144 41.
5
51 14.
7
How much price to sell product 31 8.9 123 35.
4
131 37.
8
62 17.
9
Where and quantity to sell (selling decision) 31 8.9 133 38.
3
137 39.
5
46 13.
3
What inputs to procure/purchase 34 9.8 123 35.
4
142 40.
9
48 13.
8
What Farming equipment to buy 33 9.5 127 36.
6
129 37.
2
58 16.
7
Use of farming equipment 27 7.8 123 35.
4
129 37.
2
68 19.
6
Choice of technology 24 6.9 100 28.
8
114 32.
9
109 31.
4
Borrowing money for production 23 6.6 104 30.
0
109 31.
4
111 32.
0
Used of borrowed funds 26 7.5 113 32.
6
139 40.
1
69 19.
9
Whom to hire and how much labor to pay (labor 
sourcing) 28 8.1 85 24.
5
141 40.
6
93 26.
8
Storage of products 24 6.9 111 32.
0
129 37.
2
83 23.
9
How and Where to spend farm earnings 54 15.
6
127 36.
6
125 36.
0
41 11.
8
155
155
Table 6. Difference (%) in the extent of consultation of family head to family members on different 
issues between treatment and control (T-C) groups
Items All the 
time
Most of the 
Time
Few 
Times Never
Resource management and development planning 5.8 -4.7 0.0 -1.3
Budgeting 3.5 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6
Participation in community development projects and 
activities 7.2 -1.4 0.4 -6.4
Formulation of ordinances related to agri and trade 2.9 -3.8 6.9 -6.2
Membership in committees 4.2 -2.7 4.7 -6.3
Revenue generation/livelihood engagement 2.4 1.9 1.8 -6.3
Participation in community meetings/events 7.8 -1.1 -0.9 -6.0
Farm management 6.5 -1.3 -0.1 -5.2
What to plant (Commodities to produce) 2.8 1.9 0.5 -5.4
Participating in technical trainings/meetings 5.3 4.2 1.1 -10.8
Allocation of size of land for each produce 6.9 -2.6 1.8 -6.3
How much price to sell product 3.3 -0.6 -0.1 -2.7
Where and quantity to sell (selling decision) 5.8 -3.7 1.4 -3.7
What inputs to procure/purchase 6.0 2.2 -3.6 -4.7
What Farming equipment to buy 4.7 -1.9 1.8 -4.8
Use of farming equipment 5.4 -0.5 1.8 -6.9
Choice of technology 6.9 -1.9 -1.6 -3.5
Borrowing money for production 6.8 -4.3 -0.9 -1.8
Used of borrowed funds 6.4 -2.4 0.5 -4.7
Whom to hire and how much labor to pay (labor 
sourcing) 3.2 1.0 -3.3 -1.1
Storage of products 3.6 -0.7 3.7 -6.7
How and Where to spend farm earnings 4.4 1.2 -1.7 -4.1
156
156
Appendix K: Women and Youth
There is a significant difference in the level of awareness and empowerment among women and 
youth in the community between control and treatment after the MinPACT project. Across all sites, 
55.6% of women and youth from the treatment sites and 43.4% from the control sites said that 
they are aware of program empowering women and youth in the community (See Table 1). The 
higher level of awareness on the treatment sites may be due to the gender related trainings 
provided by the project, the women-friendly farm practices promoted by the project and equal 
access to MinPACT support, (See Tables 2-8). Meanwhile, there is no significant difference in 
terms of the number of women and youth who hold leadership position in MinPACT groups and 
other groups, before and after the project (See Table 9). 
Table 1. Awareness of respondents on program empowering women and youth in the community
Items
Control Treatment
No Yes % Yes No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 29 19 39.6 29 60 67.4
Compostela Valley 31 22 41.5 56 50 47.2
Davao City 14 28 66.7 27 48 64.0
Davao del Norte 5 2 28.6 6 9 60.0
Davao del Sur 29 12 29.3 29 56 65.9
Davao Oriental 15 22 59.5 30 30 50.0
Zamboanga del Norte 31 13 29.5 56 39 41.1
Overall 154 118 43.4 233 292 55.6
Table 2. Participation in the gender first training conducted in the cooperative/association.
Items No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 40 49 55.1
Compostela Valley 74 32 30.2
Davao City 41 34 45.3
Davao del Norte 12 3 20.0
Davao del Sur 62 23 27.1
Davao Oriental 50 10 16.7
Zamboanga del Norte 35 60 63.2
Overall 314 211 40.2
Table 3. Percentage of respondents participated in the gender training felt the benefits in their 
organization.
Items No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 47 95.9
Compostela Valley 3 29 90.6
Davao City 3 30 88.2
Davao del Norte 3 100.0
Davao del Sur 4 19 82.6
Davao Oriental 5 5 50.0
Zamboanga del Norte 6 54 90.0
Overall 21 187 88.6
157
157
Table 4. Awareness of women-friendly farm practices promoted by MinPACT
Items No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 41 48 53.9
Compostela Valley 87 19 17.9
Davao City 45 30 40.0
Davao del Norte 13 2 13.3
Davao del Sur 70 15 17.6
Davao Oriental 52 8 13.3
Zamboanga del Norte 52 43 45.3
Overall 360 165 31.4
Table 5. Awareness of the kinds of women-friendly practices
Items Freq. %
Inclusion of women and youth in technical training, leadership skills, etc. 131 79.4
Equal access to credit or gender-specific window 91 55.2
Equal access to advice/mentor/extension 67 40.6
Equal access to input supply 80 48.5
Representation in decision-making bodies (cooperative, association, group) 76 46.1
Gender division of labor 91 55.2
Representation in marketing-related activities 54 32.7
Flexible working arrangements (productive and reproductive 
responsibilities) 53 32.1
Others 1 0.6
Table 6. Do women in the family have equal access to MinPACT support? 
Items No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 19 65 73.0
Compostela Valley 61 45 42.5
Davao City 28 47 62.7
Davao del Norte 11 4 26.7
Davao del Sur 42 32 37.6
Davao Oriental 23 37 61.7
Zamboanga del Norte 42 53 55.8
Overall 226 283 53.9
Table 7. Average number of women and youth members of the family are involved in MinPACT 
project.
Province Average
Bukidnon 1.01
Compostela Valley 0.58
Davao City 0.65
Davao del Norte 0.29
Davao del Sur 0.58
Davao Oriental 0.97
Zamboanga del Norte 0.69
Overall 0.72
158
158
Table 8. Modality of knowledge from trainings attended by women/youth.
Items Freq. %
Share the training materials 277 52.8
Demonstrate the knowledge/skills in the farm to 
husband/father/son 208 39.6
Not shared/transferred at all 27 5.1
Others 4 0.8
Table 9. Average number of women and youth who hold leadership position in MinPACT groups 
and other groups.
Province
MinPACT Groups Other Groups
Before After diff Before After diff
Bukidnon 0.21 0.15 -0.06 0.07 0.14 0.07
Compostela Valley 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.03
Davao City 0.27 0.31 0.04 0.17 0.24 0.07
Davao del Norte 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07
Davao del Sur 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.10
Davao Oriental 0.12 0.37 0.25 0.12 0.25 0.13
Zamboanga del 
Norte 1.27 2.71 1.43 1.58 2.67 1.09
Overall 0.35 0.65 0.30 0.37 0.63 0.26
There is a significant difference in terms of perceived fair distribution of duties in the household 
to allow women to have meaningful participation in community activities, before and after 
MinPACT (See Table 10).
Table 10. Percentage of respondents perceived fair distribution of duties in the household to allow 
women to have meaningful participation in community activities, before and after MinPACT.
Province
Before After Diff No Yes % No Yes %
Bukidnon 44 45 50.6 8 81 91.0 40.4
Compostela Valley 21 85 80.2 9 97 91.5 11.3
Davao City 21 54 72.0 8 67 89.3 17.3
Davao del Norte 2 13 86.7 2 13 86.7 0.0
Davao del Sur 16 69 81.2 8 77 90.6 9.4
Davao Oriental 12 48 80.0 3 57 95.0 15.0
Zamboanga del 
Norte 55 40 42.1 34 61 64.2 22.1
Overall 171 354 67.4 72 453 86.3 18.9
There is a significant increase in the extent of women’s participation in different areas between 
the treatment areas and the control areas (See Table 11). The relative increase in participation 
among women due to MinPACT interventions can be seen the areas of resource management 
and development planning, budgeting, participation in community development projects and 
activities, Formulation of ordinances related to agriculture and trade, membership in committees, 
159
159
revenue generation/livelihood engagement, farm management, selection of commodities to 
produce, allocation of size of land for each produce, what inputs to procure/purchase, use of 
farming equipment, choice of technology, borrowing money for production, hiring of farm help, 
salaries of farm help, storage of products and in the spending to farm earnings. 
Table 11. Change in Women extent of participation in different areas
Items
In General Relative change due to MinPACT
Neve
r
Few 
Tim
e
Mos
t of 
the 
time
All 
the 
tim
e
Sam
e
Decreas
e
Increas
e
% 
Increas
e
Resource management and 
development planning 51 227 207 37 318 5 199 37.9
Budgeting 50 149 225 98 283 5 234 44.6
Participation in community 
development projects and 
activities 54 200 221 47 284 9 229 43.6
Formulation of ordinances 
related to agri and trade 141 212 146 23 339 16 167 31.8
Membership in committees 87 221 178 36 302 14 206 39.2
Revenue 
generation/livelihood 
engagement 90 193 214 25 327 12 183 34.9
Farm management 57 223 158 83 299 10 212 40.4
What to plant (Commodities 
to produce) 83 224 169 45 298 12 211 40.2
Allocation of size of land for 
each produce 94 236 156 35 341 12 168 32.0
How much price to sell 
product 120 218 154 29 337 10 174 33.1
Where and quantity to sell 
(selling decision) 99 223 161 38 346 6 169 32.2
What inputs to 
procure/purchase 87 215 184 34 326 5 189 36.0
Use of farming equipments 101 225 162 32 335 6 179 34.1
Choice of technology 108 208 178 26 332 8 180 34.3
Borrowing money for 
production 163 166 154 37 368 12 140 26.7
Used of borrowed funds 160 168 155 37 370 10 140 26.7
Whom to hire and how 
much labor to pay (labor 
sourcing) 104 207 168 41 359 8 153 29.1
Storage of products 146 220 132 22 374 11 135 25.7
How and Where to spend 
farm earnings 78 167 200 75 304 12 204 38.9
A slight majority of the respondents perceived that MinPACT does not promote participation of 
the youth (See Table 12) while a large majority of the respondents said that youth in the family do 
160
160
not have equal access to MinPACT support (See Table 13). There is a slight increase in the extent 
of youth participation in different areas (See Table 14). Overall, 34.7% of the respondents 
perceived that youth are motivated to continue farming due to exposure/participation to MinPACT 
(see Table 15). In the case of Davao Oriental, the farmers have the general sentiment and 
observation that many of the youth are more inclined to non-farm livelihood sources due to the 
intensive labor and working capital requirements. Some of the youth, on the other hand, would 
like to continue farming as a source of income but most of them expressed preference to more 
formal employment off-farm, given the opportunity, saying income from the farm is not enough 
since they do not own big parcels of farmlands.
Table 12. Percentage of respondents perceived that MinPACT promotes participation of the youth
Province No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 18 66 74.2
Compostela Valley 59 47 44.3
Davao City 36 39 52.0
Davao del Norte 10 4 26.7
Davao del Sur 40 34 40.0
Davao Oriental 50 10 16.7
Zamboanga del Norte 55 40 42.1
Overall 268 240 45.7
Table 13. Percentage of respondents perceived that youth in the family have equal access to 
MinPACT support
Province No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 41 43 48.31
Compostela Valley 86 20 18.87
Davao City 43 31 41.33
Davao del Norte 11 3 20.00
Davao del Sur 55 19 22.35
Davao Oriental 45 15 25.00
Zamboanga del Norte 55 40 42.11
Overall 336 171 32.57
Table 14. Change in Youth extent of participation in different areas
Items
In General Relative change due to MinPACT
Neve
r
Few 
Tim
e
Mos
t of 
the 
time
All 
the 
tim
e
Sam
e
Decreas
e
Increas
e
% 
Increas
e
Resource management 
and development planning 219 229 65 7 415 7 97 18.5
Budgeting 235 197 72 15 406 12 101 19.2
Participation in community 
development projects and 
activities 235 189 83 12 390 13 116 22.1
Formulation of ordinances 
related to agri and trade 279 171 65 4 418 12 89 17.0
161
161
Membership in committees 254 177 81 7 401 12 106 20.2
Revenue 
generation/livelihood 
engagement 248 178 87 6 410 12 97 18.5
Farm management 207 199 86 27 390 12 117 22.3
What to plant 
(Commodities to produce) 234 188 88 9 398 13 108 20.6
Allocation of size of land for 
each produce 246 191 76 6 405 13 101 19.2
How much price to sell 
product 256 187 71 5 404 12 103 19.6
Where and quantity to sell 
(selling decision) 249 195 69 6 417 9 93 17.7
What inputs to 
procure/purchase 251 181 83 4 405 8 106 20.2
Use of farming equipment 243 196 73 7 412 11 96 18.3
Choice of technology 244 194 76 5 402 16 101 19.2
Borrowing money for 
production 324 150 41 4 449 16 54 10.3
Used of borrowed funds 326 140 46 7 453 10 56 10.7
Whom to hire and how 
much labor to pay (labor 
sourcing) 267 177 70 5 423 13 83 15.8
Storage of products 277 177 57 8 410 13 96 18.3
How and Where to spend 
farm earnings 228 189 90 12 402 14 103 19.6
Table 15. Percentage of respondents perceived that youth are motivated to continue farming due 
to exposure/participation to MinPACT
Province No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 35 53 59.6
Compostela Valley 70 36 34.0
Davao City 48 27 36.0
Davao del Norte 9 5 33.3
Davao del Sur 56 26 30.6
Davao Oriental 53 7 11.7
Zamboanga del Norte 67 28 29.5
Overall 338 182 34.7
Overall, 57.7% of respondents perceived that MinPACT interventions address the needs of 
women (See Table 16) while 34.1% perceived that MinPACT interventions address the needs of 
youth. This implies that the interventions of the project are felt more by women than by the youth 
(See Table 17).
Table 16. Percentage of respondents perceived that MinPACT interventions address the needs 
of women
Province No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 19 69 77.5
162
162
Compostela Valley 44 62 58.5
Davao City 35 40 53.3
Davao del Norte 8 6 40.0
Davao del Sur 36 46 54.1
Davao Oriental 42 18 30.0
Zamboanga del Norte 33 62 65.3
Overall 217 303 57.7
Table 17. Percentage of respondents perceived that MinPACT interventions address the needs 
of youth
Province No Yes % Yes
Bukidnon 37 50 56.2
Compostela Valley 61 45 42.5
Davao City 53 22 29.3
Davao del Norte 11 3 20.0
Davao del Sur 61 21 24.7
Davao Oriental 55 5 8.3
Zamboanga del Norte 62 33 34.7
Overall 340 179 34.1
163
163
Appendix L: Perception of Key Informants
Sixty-four (64) key informants were engaged by the study which includes 14 National Government 
Agencies (10 Regional and 4 Provincial), Local Government Units (12), Traders/Processors (9), 
MFI (6), BDS (5), FOG (3), POs/Coops (11), and Input Suppliers (4). Since the respondents had 
different levels of involvement and knowledge about MinPACT, not all provided ratings. For those 
who had direct participation in MinPACT, and gave ratings, the scores are summarized below.
Relevance
On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest, the government sector gave a high rating as regards 
relevance to the 3Cs crop sector (see Table 1). NGAs gave a rating of 4.8, which is reflective of 
MinPACT’s alignment with development plans at the national and local levels and in terms of
addressing the felt needs of the 3Cs industry. The PLGUs, on the other hand, gave a rating of 5 
on addressing industry needs while they gave 4.4 and 4.6 as to alignment with local and national 
plans, respectively.
Table 1: Relevance to the crops sector
Items RATING
NGA PLGU
Felt needs of the crop industry (beneficiaries) 4.83 5
Local Development Plans (LGU/barangay) 4.83 4.4
National Agricultural Development Plan 4.83 4.6
Philippine Development Plan 4.83 4.6
As to influence on relevant stakeholders, NGAs gave MinPACT a rating of 4.5 across sectors. 
PLGUs gave a higher rating of 4.67 on the Project’s influence to industry players and national 
government agencies, and slightly lower at 4.33 on influence to LGUs (see Table 2).
Table 2: Influence on stakeholders
Items RATING
NGA PLGU
LGUs 4.5 4.33
National government agencies 4.5 4.67
Industry players 4.5 4.67
The government sector sees high relevance on the different interventions made by MinPACT to 
the 3Cs sector with a rating of 4 to 4.8 (see Table 3). Generally, NGAs gave higher ratings from 
4.5 to 4.8 while PLGUs gave a rating of 4 to 4.5.
Table 3: Relevance of interventions to the three crop sectors
Items RATING
NGA PLGU
Agri/Farm technology trainings 4.8 4.5
164
164
Organizational management trainings 4.75 4.5
Exposure trips 4.8 4.5
Participation to conferences, summits, market 
encounters 4.8 4.5
Grants and provisions of inputs and PHFs 4.8 4
Printed materials(brochures, techno guide, 
manuals) 4.8 4
Financial education, linking to formal lending 
institutions 4.5 4.5
Marketing assistance 4.5 4
Marketing services, technical advisory services 4.5 4
On the part of Traders/Processor, the influence of MinPACT to their sector reveals an average 
rating of 3.5 (see Table 4), which signals that more remains to be done on addressing the needs 
of this sector. MinPACT apparently did not extensively engage Traders/Processors except those 
that are members of the industry networks like CIDAMI and Cocolink.
Table 4: Influence of MinPACT to the changes in the Trader/Processor sector
Rating Frequency
1
2
3 1
4 1
5
Average 3.5
For the key informants that gave a rating on the level of satisfaction with MinPACT 
including its beneficiary organizations, the average score is 4 (see Table 5).
Table 5: Satisfaction with MinPACT, including its beneficiary organizations
Rating Frequency
1
2
3
4 2
5
Average 4
Efficiency
As regards efficiency, the key informants gave MinPACT implementing partners a score of 2.5 
(see Table 6), while they gave MinPACT varied ratings on direct implementation of project support 
and services (see Table 7). Input Suppliers (IS) and BDS respondents saw credit facilitation the 
165
165
least efficient at 2.67 while the lone MFI respondent gave a score of 5. For other services, the 
MFI respondent gave a rating of 5 but the IS and BDS respondents gave a rating of 3.0 to 3.8.
Table 6: Efficiency of project partners in implementing the interventions
Items
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 Average
Project Partners 1 1 2.50
Contractors, Suppliers 1 1 2.50
Other Service Providers 1 1 2.50
Table 7: Level of efficiency of MinPACT in the delivery of support and services
Items
RATING
MFI
INPUT 
SUPPLIER BDS/FOG
Delivery of the Inputs, PHF, other goods, 
seedlings 5 3.33 3.50
Technical services, farm visits, meetings, 
consultations 5 3.33 3.80
Trainings, cross visits, exposure programs, 
(TOTs) 5 3.00 3.00
Referals, Advisory Services, Marketing Service 5 3.33 3.80
Credit facilitation, loans 5 2.67 2.67
Effectiveness
As regards MinPACT influence on behavior and practices, the respondents gave a high rating of 
4 to 5 in various indicators (see Table 8). On the level of satisfaction with MinPACT staff, the key 
informants gave a rating of 3.3 to 5 (see Table 9).
Table 8: Level of influence of MinPACT on behavior and practices of 3C industry and producer 
organizations
Items
RATING
NGA
PLG
U MFI
INPUT 
SUPPLI
ER
BDS/F
OG
Adoption of new technology in production 4.5 3.8 5 4.67 4.25
Adoption of good agricultural practices 4.5 3.8 5 4.67 4.00
Application of quality standards 4.67 3.8 5 4.67 4.25
Use of volume & quality-based contracts 4.33 3.2 4.33 3.75
Use of product information/market 
segmentation
4.33 4 3.67 3.75
Use of inventory system 4.6 4 5 3.67 4.00
166
166
Items
RATING
NGA
PLG
U MFI
INPUT 
SUPPLI
ER
BDS/F
OG
Clear and transparent governance system 4.67 3.8 5 3.67 4.50
Developed business plans and management 
systems that are functional
4.6 4 5 4.00 4.50
Improved financial literacy among beneficiary 
producers
4.67 4 5 4.00 4.25
Use of Formal Credit and Funding institutions 4.6 4 5 3.67 4.00
Improved & appropriate quality inputs, tools, 
planting materials and post-harvest facility to 
achieve national/international standards
4.83 4 5 4.00 4.75
Improved nursery/seedling quality standards to 
meet market demands
4.83 4 5 4.00
Increased productivity (yields, sales, orders) 4.67 3.8 5 4.50
Increased market shares, expand services 4.33 3.75 5 4.00
Table 9. Satisfaction of stakeholders with ACDI VOCA or MinPACT project officers/staff
Items
RATING
NGA PLGU MFI
INPUT 
SUPPLIE
R
BDS/
FOG
Discuss clearly the objectives, targets, 
proposed activities, timelines and 
delineation of roles
3.8 4.67 5.00 3.75 5.00
Involve you in major decision-making 
points
3.8 3.5 5.00 3.25 4.50
Accommodate reasonable changes in 
schedule, arrangements, activities, 
priorities
3.8 4.33 5.00 3.75 4.50
Transfer knowledge and provide advice 
on improving organizational 
processes, systems, etc. 
3.2 4.67 5.00 3.50 5.00
Communication/coordination, including 
frequency and quality
4 4.33 5.00 3.50 4.50
Debriefing or learning session (after 
each important activity)
4 4 5.00 3.75 4.50
Participation of women and youth 3.8 4.67 5.00 3.75 4.00
167
167
Sustainability
Technology Adoption
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, the key informants gave high ratings. For cacao 
production, the highest pertains to pruning at 9.48 and the lowest is on post-harvest techniques 
at 6.4 (see Table 10). For coffee, the scores are higher from 8.33 to 10 (see Table 11) and for 
coconut, the ratings given vary from 7.75 to 10 (see Table 12). 
Table 10. Rating of Application of Technology on Cacao Production
Items
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0 Average
Pest Management 2 1 2 2 7.57
Disease management 1 3 1 2 8
Rehabilitation 1 1 1 1 2 7.83
Soil sampling 1 1 1 2 6.8
Mulching 1 3 2 8.17
Pruning 1 2 1 1 2 9.43
Farm planning 1 1 2 2 8.17
Application of fertilizer 1 1 1 1 1 2 7.57
Weed management 1 1 2 1 2 8
Farm diversification 1 1 1 3 8.33
Proper plant spacing 1 1 1 1 2 8
Proper harvesting 1 1 2 1 6.8
Post-harvest techniques/ 
practices 1 1 1 1 1 6.4
Table 11: Rating of Application of Technology on Coffee Production
Items Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average
Pest Management 1 1 1 8.67
Disease management 2 10
Rehabilitation 1 1 9.5
Soil sampling 1 1 1 7.67
Mulching 1 1 1 8.33
Pruning 1 1 1 8.33
Farm planning 1 2 9
Application of fertilizer 1 2 9
Weed management 1 1 1 8.67
Farm diversification 1 2 9
Proper plant spacing 1 2 9
Proper harvesting 1 1 8.5
168
168
Post-harvest 
techniques/ practices 1 1 8.5
Table 12. Rating of Application of Technology on Coconut Production
Items Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average
Pest Management 1 3 9.75
Disease management 1 3 9.75
Rehabilitation 1 3 9.5
Soil sampling 1 3 8.75
Mulching 1 1 1 1 7.5
Pruning 1 1 9.5
Farm planning 4 10
Application of fertilizer 1 3 9.5
Weed management 1 3 9.75
Farm diversification 1 3 8.75
Proper plant spacing 1 1 2 8.25
Proper harvesting 1 1 2 8.75
Post-harvest techniques/ 
practices 1 1 2 7.75
Management Practices
Management practices are also critical factors to sustainability. The respondents gave a variable 
rating of 5.83 to 9.14 on the different areas of management (see Table 13). Further, decision￾making in the family is another factor to consider, and majority of the respondents said they are 
involved most of the time and many are involved all the time (see Table 14).
Table 13. Rating on the Applied Management Practice
Items
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
Averag
e
Input, Output, and Labor Needs 
Computation 1 1 3 1 5.83
Business practices (related to the 
management of land, crops, equipment, 
facilities, transportation) 1 2 2 1 8.33
Use of Information Technology (including 
computers and GPS) 1 1 2 1 1 7.83
Financial planning, cash flow, balance 
sheet, income statements, variable and 
fixed agents 1 2 4 9
Record Keeping (including financial and 
production documents, receipts and 3 4 9.14
169
169
expenses, maintaining and using 
inventories, etc)
Gender 
Equity/Equality/Development/mainstreaming 1 2 4 8.71
Table 14. Involvement of Respondent in Decision Making in the Family
Purpose
Extent of Decision Making
Never
Few 
Times
Most of the 
Time
All the 
Time
Resource management and development 
planning 6 1
Budgeting 3 4
Participation in community development 
projects and activities 1 4 2
Formulation of ordinances related to agri 
and trade 1 4 2
Membership in committees 3 4
Revenue generation/livelihood 
engagement 1 3 2
Participation in community 
meetings/events 1 4 2
Farm management
- What to plant (Commodities to produce) 6 1
- Participating in technical 
trainings/meetings 5 2
- Allocation of size of land for each 
produce 5 1
- How much price to sell product 4 2
- Where and quantity to sell (selling 
decision) 4 2
- What inputs to procure/purchase 5 2
- What Farming equipments to buy 5 2
- Use of farming equipments 5 2
- Choice of technology 6 1
- Borrowing money for production 4 2
- Used of borrowed funds 3 3
- Whom to hire and how much labor to pay 
(labor sourcing) 5 2
- Storage of products 4 2
- How and Where to spend farm earnings 3 3
170
170
Appendix M: Overall Assessment
Relevance
In a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest, the respondents were asked to rate the relevance of 
the project in terms of productivity improvement and trade increase. The average rating given in 
terms of improved productivity is 3.55 while the average rating given in terms of increased trade 
is 3.46 (see Table 1). This is due to the fact that the expected additional yield and income from 
newly-planted 3Cs will yet be realized in the future, and it follows that market demand cannot yet 
be meet at existing volume of production. 
Majority of the respondents think that MinPACT contributed to the development efforts of the 
country. Around 77.2% of the respondents think that the project contributed to the local 
development (Barangay and Municipal level), 71.6% think that the projected contributed towards 
the achievement of the Provincial, Regional and National Development Plans, while 58.2% said 
that the project contributed towards the achievement of the Philippine Medium-Term Plan. 74.1% 
of the respondents said that the project contributed to poverty reduction while 74.2 said the project 
contributed to the development of their organization (See Table 2).
Table 1. Ratings on the relevance of MinPACT in Increasing productivity and trade
Rating
Improved Productivity Increased Trade
Freq. % Freq. %
1 13 1.9 16 2.3
2 51 7.3 69 9.9
3 249 35.7 263 37.7
4 309 44.3 279 40.0
5 76 10.9 71 10.2
Average 3.55 3.46
Note: 1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest
Table 2. Perception on the contribution of MinPACT on development efforts
Items Don’t Know No Yes % Yes
Local Development (Barangay/Municipal) 128 31 539 77.2
Regional/Provincial/National Development 
Plans 163 35 500 71.6
Philippine Medium-Term Plan 248 44 406 58.2
Poverty Reduction 151 30 517 74.1
Your organization 139 41 518 74.2
In a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest, the respondents gave the project an average of 3.44 
in terms on its influence on different market players (See Table 3). 
171
171
Table 3. Rate to what degree MinPACT intervention influenced the following:
Items 1 2 3 4 5 Average
Private sector participation 15 67 286 279 51 3.41
Local Government Units 10 55 294 272 67 3.47
Government Line Agencies 
(DA, DTI, etc.) 9 45 244 294 106 3.63
NGO’s, other Non-Government 
Actors 12 63 286 278 59 3.44
Note: 1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest
Efficiency
Majority of the respondents (74.9%) said that based on their experience and participation with the 
MinPACT project, the overall results of the project implementation contributed to the development 
of their organization (See Table 4). 
Table 4. In your experience and participation with the MinPACT project, did the overall results 
contribute to the development of your Peoples/Producer Organizations
Items Freq. %
Don’t Know 135 19.3
No 40 5.7
Yes 523 74.9
In a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest, majority of the respondents gave a rating of 3 when it 
comes to the efficiency of MinPACT project support and services. On the delivery of inputs, PHF, 
other goods and seedlings, the respondents gave an average rating of 3.54 and an average of 
3.46 on technical services, farm visits, meetings and consultations. On trainings, cross visits, 
exposure programs and Training of Trainors (TOTs), the respondents gave the project an average 
rating of 3.45. For referrals, advisory services and marketing services, the respondents gave the 
project an average rating of 3.24 and an average rating of 3.02 on credit facilitation and loans. 
For market information, the respondents gave the project an average rating of 3.24 and an 
average of 3.31 on information drives and promotions. For product development, the respondents 
gave the project an average rating of 3.4 (See Table 5).
Table 5. In the delivery of the Project Support & Services, please rate the efficiency of 
MiniPACT according to the following:
Items Ratings Average 1 2 3 4 5
Delivery of the Inputs, PHF, other goods, 
seedlings 10 64 245 295 84 3.54
Technical services, farm visits, meetings, 
consultations 15 75 255 281 72 3.46
Trainings, cross visits, exposure 
programs, (TOTs) 17 80 307 160 134 3.45
Referrals, Advisory Services, Marketing 
Service 16 108 300 237 37 3.24
172
172
Credit facilitation, loans 48 144 281 195 30 3.02
Market Information 19 122 274 237 46 3.24
Information drives, Promotion 14 94 301 239 50 3.31
Product development 13 78 291 251 65 3.40
Note: 1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest
Overall, 68.62% of the respondents said that the project was implemented in the most efficient 
way compared to other alternatives. Only 5.58% of the respondents said that the project was not 
implemented in the most efficient way while 25.79% said that they do not know if the project is 
flexible or not (See Table 6).
Table 6. Do you think that the project was implemented in the most efficient way compared to 
other alternatives?
Items Freq. %
Don’t know 180 25.79
No 39 5.59
Yes 479 68.62
In terms of flexibility, 68.05% of the respondents said that project is flexible enough to 
accommodate local suggestions as possible delivery system alternative. Only 5.16% said that the 
project is not flexible while 26.79% said that they do not know if the project is flexible or not (See 
Table 7). 
Table 7. Was the project flexible to accommodate local suggestions as possible delivery system 
alternative?
Items Freq. %
Don’t know 187 26.79
No 36 5.16
Yes 475 68.05
In a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is the highest, a large majority of the respondents rated the project as 
3 (45.42%) and 4 (34.81%). Around 5.44% of the respondents gave rating of 5 while 2.15% gave 
a rating of 1 and 12.18% of the respondents gave a rating of 2 (see Table 8).
Table 8. Rate the efficiency of Project partners, contractors and other (stakeholders) in 
implementing interventions in the field
Items
Project Partners Contractors, 
Suppliers
Freq. % Freq. %
1 10 1.43 15 2.15
2 77 11.03 85 12.18
3 282 40.40 317 45.42
4 282 40.40 243 34.81
5 47 6.73 38 5.44
Average 3.40 3.29
Note: 1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest
173
173
Effectiveness
Using a five-point scale where 5 is the highest and 1 as the lowest, the respondents were asked 
to rate the project on its level of influence the behavior (norms) and practices (rules and 
regulations) of the coconut, cocoa, coffee industry and its producer organizations and farmers. 
The average rating given by the respondents on the influence of the project on the adoption of 
new technology in production is 3.57, an average rating of 3.59 for influence on the adoption of 
good agricultural practices and an average of 3.48 on the its influence on the application of quality 
standards. 
For the project’s influence on the use of volume and quality-based contracts, the respondents 
gave the project an average rating of 3.27. The respondents also gave the project and average 
rating of 3.28 for its influence on the use of product information/market segmentation and an 
average rating of 3.17 on the use of inventory system. 
On its influence on the adoption clear and transparent governance system, the respondents gave 
the project a rating of 3.27, an average of 3.20 on its influence on the development of business 
plans and management systems that are functional, an average of 3.28 on its influence on the 
improvement if financial literary among beneficiary producers and 3.02 on the use of formal credit 
and funding institutions.
On the aspect related to farm inputs, the respondents rated the influence of the project at an 
average of 3.25 for improved and appropriate quality inputs, tools, planting materials and post￾harvest facility to achieve national/international standards, an average of 3.47 for improved 
nursery/seedling quality standards to meet market demands, an average rating of 3.45 for 
increase productivity (yields, sales, orders) and an average rating of 3.35 for increased market 
shares and expanded services. (See Table 9 for the ratings on influences on behavior and norms)
Table 9. To what level have MinPACT influenced the behavior (norms) and practices (rules and 
regulations) of the coconut, cocoa, coffee industry and its producer organizations and farmers
Items
Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 Average
Adoption of new technology in production 10 63 230 308 87 3.57
Adoption of good agricultural practices 9 65 231 289 104 3.59
Application of quality standards 14 65 267 275 77 3.48
Use of volume & quality based contracts 21 98 303 219 56 3.27
Use of product information/market segmentation 17 90 318 217 51 3.28
Use of inventory system 28 103 365 119 80 3.17
Clear and transparent governance system 16 101 304 231 46 3.27
Developed business plans and management systems that 
are functional 18 108 320 215 35 3.20
Improved financial literacy among beneficiary producers 18 98 302 226 50 3.28
Use of Formal Credit and Funding institutions 37 167 279 175 40 3.02
Improved & appropriate quality inputs, tools, planting 
materials and post-harvest facility to achieve 
national/international standards 23 102 293 230 46 3.25
174
174
Improved nursery/seedling quality standards to meet 
market demands 23 72 247 264 92 3.47
Increased productivity (yields, sales, orders) 13 72 268 277 68 3.45
Increased market shares, expand services 17 80 297 252 52 3.35
Note: 1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest
A large majority of the respondents or 70.77% said that they do not know/not aware of any signs 
of new cacao, coffee, coconut industry players that imitate program sponsored business 
models/interventions as a result of project facilitation while 20.06% said that there are now new 
players in the market which can be attributed as a result of project facilitation. Only 9.17% of the 
respondents said that they see signs of new cacao, coffee, coconut industry players that imitate 
program sponsored business models/interventions as a result of project facilitation (See Table 
10).
Table 10: Are there signs of new cacao, coffee, coconut industry players that imitate program 
sponsored business models/interventions as a result of Project Facilitation?
Items Freq. %
Don’t Know 494 70.77
No 140 20.06
Yes 64 9.17
A large majority or 73.64% of the respondents said that they do not know if there new services 
available to producers and other value chain actors while a9.91% said there is none. Only 6.45% 
of the respondents said that there are new services available to producers and other value chain 
actors (See Table 11). 
Table 11. Are there new services available to producers and other value chain actors?
Items Freq. %
Don’t Know 514 73.64
No 139 19.91
Yes 45 6.45
When asked to describe your relationship with ACDI-VOCA or MinPACT project officers/staff, 
large majority of the respondents said that they are satisfied with the way the project officers/staff 
deal with them. 72.78% of the respondents said that they are satisfied with the way that the project 
officers/staff explained the objectives, targets, proposed activities, timelines and delineation of 
roles, 69.34% said that they are satisfied with the way that they were involved in the project 
decision-making and 70.06% said that they are satisfied with the way the project officers/staff 
accommodate reasonable changes in the schedules, arrangements, activities and priorities.
76.65% of the respondents said that they are satisfied with the way that the project officers/staff 
handled the transfer of knowledge include the advice given on improving organizational 
processes, systems, etc., said that they are satisfied with the way the project while 70.20% said 
that they are satisfied with the frequency and quality of communication/coordination between 
them and the project officers/staff. 71.06% of the respondents also said that they are satisfied 
175
175
with how the project officers/staff handled the debriefing or learning sessions after each important 
activity. (See Table 12 for the satisfaction rating).
Table 12. Please describe your relationship with ACDI-VOCA or MinPACT project officers/staff. 
Please rate your satisfaction level on how they do the following:
Item
Rating % 
Satis
fied
Very 
Dissatisfi
ed
Dissatis
fied
Nei
the
r
Sati
sfie
d
Very 
Satisfi
ed
Explaining the objectives, targets, 
proposed activities, timelines and 
delineation of roles
14 17
6
448 60 72.7
8
Involving you in decision-making points 1 15 19
8
444 40 69.3
4
Accommodate reasonable changes in 
schedule, arrangements, activities, 
priorities
12 19
7
443 46 70.0
6
Transfer knowledge and provide advice 
on improving, organizational processes, 
systems, etc. 
1 20 14
2
479 56 76.6
5
Communication/coordination, including 
frequency and quality 1 15 19
2
458 32 70.2
0
Debriefing or learning session (after each 
important activity) 1 12 18
9
462 34 71.0
6
Impact
When asked about the impact of the project on their lives (see Table 13), 69.63% of the 
respondents said that the project facilitated the adoption of new norms and behaviors, 59.31% 
said that the project facilitated the adoption of new business practices and models, 42.55% said 
that the project facilitated new support functions (ICT, market finders, brokers), 45.70% said that 
if facilitated access to new financial products, insurance system and credit sources, 68.05% said 
that it facilitated new farming and processing system, 69.91% said that it helped foster 
environmental consciousness and standards and 65.90% said that it facilitated the inclusion of 
women, youth and marginalized groups (IPS etc.). On the processing of products, 61.75% said 
that the project helped them engage in value addition activities to increase income, 68.19% said 
that the project facilitated transfer of technologies and adoption of best practices, 57.74% said 
that the project facilitated the identification of new market opportunities, 55.01% said that it 
facilitated product referrals/inquiries and 61.46% said that the project helped them expand 
productivity and increase sales. 
Table 13. In the crop sector you belong (cacao, coconut, coffee), has MinPACT caused any 
changes (intended, unintended) among the industry players?
Items Don’t Know No Yes % Yes
Adoption of new norms and behaviors 159 53 486 69.63
New business practices/models 224 59 414 59.31
176
176
New support functions (ICT, market finders, 
brokers) 274 127 297 42.55
New financial products, insurance system, credit 
sources 258 121 319 45.70
Farming and processing system 169 54 475 68.05
Environmental consciousness and standards 166 44 488 69.91
Inclusion of women, youth, marginalized groups 
(IPS etc.) 181 57 460 65.90
Value addition activities 210 57 431 61.75
Transfer of technologies and best practices 170 52 476 68.19
New market opportunities 229 66 403 57.74
Increase in product referrals, inquiries, etc. 218 96 384 55.01
Expanded Sales, Productivity 205 64 429 61.46
Adoption of technologies, which is tantamount to a positive change in behavior, and changes in 
sales value and income are seen as a result of project intervention (see Table 14). 50.64% of the 
respondents said that members of their organization adopted new technologies, protocols, 
methods as a result of Project Intervention and 37.23% said that they notice an average real 
difference in the percentage of their organization’s sales value and income due to the project’s 
interventions. At the household level, 31.09% said that they experienced real difference % of their 
sales value and income due to the project’s Intervention.
Table 14. % adoption of technologies and changes in sales value and income as a result of Project 
Intervention
Items % Change
Average percentage members of your organization who have adopted new 
technologies, protocols, methods as a result of Project Intervention 50.64
Average real difference % has project Intervention made for your household in 
terms of sales value and Income 31.09
Average real difference % has project Intervention made for your 
organization/Cooperative in terms of sales value and Income 37.23
Sustainability
A good number of the respondents said that they intend to continue the good practices introduced 
by MinPACT even after the project ends (see Table 15). 61.60% said that they will continue to 
adopt new norms (like adherence high quality standards, hygiene, sanitation and waste 
management) and behaviors, 36.53% said that they will continue to practice new business 
practices and/models, 18.19% said that they will continue to engage ICT, market finders and 
brokers and 18.19% said that they will continue to access new financial products, insurance 
system and credit sources. 
In terms of farming technology and standards, 37.54% of the respondents said that they will 
continue to adopt innovative farming and processing system introduced by the project while 
70.92% said that they will continue to raise environmental consciousness and adhere to 
177
177
standards. On the participation of women, youth and the marginalized groups (IPs etc), 30.52% 
of respondents that they will continue to advocate for the inclusion and participation of women, 
youth and marginalized groups.
In the areas of processing and marketing, 38.97% of the respondents said that they will continue 
the value addition activities introduced by the project while 40.83% said that they will continue to 
practice transfer of technology and adopt best practices. 40.83% of the respondents said that they 
will continue to seek new market opportunities, 25.64% said that they will continue to expand 
productivity and sales. 
Table 15. After the MinPACT project, what practices does your household intend to continue and 
discontinue?
Items Don’t 
Know
Discontinue Continue
Freq. % Freq. %
Adoption of new norms and behaviors 134 134 19.2 430 61.60
New business practices/models 348 95 13.6 255 36.53
New support functions (ICT, market finders, 
brokers) 528 43 6.2 127 18.19
New financial products, insurance system, 
credit sources 474 46 6.6 178 25.50
Farming and processing system 358 78 11.2 262 37.54
Environmental consciousness and standards 70 133 19.1 495 70.92
Inclusion of women, youth, marginalized 
groups (IPS etc.) 438 47 6.7 213 30.52
Value addition activities 467 56 8.0 175 25.07
Transfer of technologies and best practices 342 84 12.0 272 38.97
New market opportunities 344 69 9.9 285 40.83
Increase in product referrals, inquiries, etc. 458 61 8.7 179 25.64
Expanded Sales, Productivity 417 50 7.2 231 33.09
Overall, 76.36% of the respondents said that MinPACT contributed to the attainment of their 
productivity and development aspirations (see Table 16).
Table 16. Do you think, MinPACT contributed to the attainment of these aspirations?
Items Freq. %
Don’t Know 123 17.62
No 42 6.02
Yes 533 76.36