Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
FY 13 Food for Progress Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111
LiberiaL Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) 
Phase 111 Project
Monrovia, Liberia
June 7, 2016
Liberia
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
Midterm Performance Evaluation 
of the FY 13 Food for Progress 
Livelihood Improvement for 
Farming Enterprise (LIFE) 
Phase III Project in Liberia
Midterm Evaluation Report 
Authors: 
Abraham Billy 
Emmanuel Johnson Nimbuen 
Thomas B. Kanneh 
B. Yourfee Kamara
Decontee Peters
Bernard D. Togba, Jr.
Programme Management Solutions
Submitted by: 
Programme Management Solutions 
Ashmun Street, Monrovia 
Liberia
Evaluation Director: 
Bernard D. Togba, Jr. 
Submitted to: 
David Parker, MBE 
Chief of Party/LIFE III 
ACDI/VOCA 
Monrovia, Liberia
Evaluation Manager: 
Vekeh L. Donzo 
Project Managers: 
Augusttine Laveleh 
Deputy Chief of Party/LIFE III 
ACDI/VOCA
This study was conducted under RFP Number: ACDI/VOCA-LIFE-005/2016 with ACDI/VOCA 
Liberia. The study was funded under United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
FCC-669-2013/040-00-A. 
Cover photo: LIFE III Cocoa nursery in Gorbo Wrogba, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia by Decontee Peters, 
PMS.
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS
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
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The midterm evaluation of the Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) III 
was conducted under the direction of the Monitoring and Evaluation Team of 
ACDI/VOCA. 
We would like to thank the M&E Team, Vekeh L. Donzo, Mawata Kenneh, Emmanuel 
Isaiah, Bahnavileh Jones, Macklin Korvah and Alex Rotchi, for their guidance and support 
throughout the study. We would also like to thank Mr. David Parker (COP), Mr. Michael 
Titoe, Augustine S. Laveleh, CWAP, Catalayst, Rural Agriculture Alternative, and 
WIENCO for their valuable contributions to the study. 
We are grateful and appreciative for the help and support from all survey participants 
and key informants as well as the ACDI/VOCA staff. 
The entire PMS worked on this survey from inception to completion and our thanks 
goes to them. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 i | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... ii
ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................... ii
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Evaluation Purpose, Objectives and Questions ...................................................................... 2
1.3. Overview of LIFE III Activities .................................................................................................... 3
2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Evaluation approach ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Sampling methodology .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3. Data Collection Team Composition and Training ............................................................ 5
2.4. Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................ 5
2.5. Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................................... 6
2.6. Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 6
3. EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 7
3.1: Training: Improved Farm Management .............................................................................. 7
3.2: Capacity Building: Producer groups / Cooperatives ...................................................... 9
3.3: Financial Services: Facilitate Agricultural Lending ........................................................ 9
3.4: Inputs: Develop agro dealers ................................................................................................. 10
3.1.5: Market Access: Improved Market Information ..........................................................12
3.1.6: Indicator Overview ................................................................................................................12
3.3. Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.3.1. Relevance ...................................................................................................................................14
3.3.2. Effectiveness and Efficiency ...............................................................................................15
3.3.3. Sustainability ............................................................................................................................17
5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 18
6. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sample Distribution per County 
Table 2: Project Indicators Mid-term values, compared to baselines and LOP target
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 ii | P a g e 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Farmer Field School in Session 
Figure 2: Map of Project Areas 
Figure 3: Cocoa nursery- Douyee town, Tchien District, Grand Gedeh County 
Figure 4: Cocoa seed garden: Loyee, Nimba County 
ANNEXES
Annex 1: GIS Map/Coordinates of Project Sites Visited 
Annex 2: Photographs of Sites Visited 
Annex 3: Listed of Town Visited during the Evaluation 
Annex 4: List of FGDs and Participants 
Annex 5: List of KIIs and Contact Details 
Annex 6: List of Documents Reviewed 
Annex 7: Evaluation Protocols and Tools 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 iii | P a g e 
ACRONYMS
ADS Automated Directives System
CAC County Agriculture Coordinator
CARI Central Agriculture Research Institute
CDA Cooperative Development Agency
CWAP Center for Women Agriculture Program
DQA Data Quality Assessment
FAAB Farming as a Business
FAD Food Assistance Division
FAS Foreign Agriculture Service
FFS Farmer Field School
FOB Free on Board
FFP Food for Progress
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GIS Geographic Information System
GOL Government of Liberia
GPS Global Positioning System
IDQA Internal Data Quality Assessment
IP Implementing Partner
IPS Improved Production System
KII Key Informant Interview
LBA Local Buying Agents
LIFE Livelihood Improvement of Farming Enterprise
LOP Life of Project
MELP Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MT Metric Ton
NGO Non-governmental Organization
OCBD Office of Capacity Building and Development
PMP Performance Management Plan
PMS Program Management Solutions
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal 
ROM Result Oriented Management
SOCODEVI Société de Coopération pour le Développement International 
TPS Traditional Production System
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 iv | P a g e 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With funding from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), ACDI/VOCA 
implements the LIFE III project in Bong, Nimba, Lofa, Gbarpolu, Grand Gedeh, and River 
Gee counties. Specifically, ACDI/VOCA empowers 10,000 smallholder cocoa farmers, 
farmer organizations, and suppliers in these six counties to improve livelihoods by 
increasing the productivity, profitability, quality, and marketability of Liberian cocoa. The 
project is being implemented through the following five components: 
1. Training: Improved Farm Management 
2. Capacity Building: Producer Groups/Cooperatives 
3. Financial Services: Facilitate Agricultural Lending 
4. Inputs: Develop Agro-dealers 
5. Market Access: Improved Market Information 
ACDI/VOCA monetized 11,900 metric tons of rice and use the proceeds from the sale to 
implement the third and final phase of the LIFE interventions. Challenges faced in monetizing 
the commodity donated by the USDA delayed the implementation of the project by at least 
nine months. In addition to the delay in monetizing the commodity, the Ebola outbreak also 
affected the start of the LIFE III project. The Ebola outbreak in 2014 diverted the national 
agenda from post-war development to the fight against Ebola. These uncontrolled situations 
caused the project to delay for more than a year before it commenced implementation. 
The fundamental activity for the LIFE III’s intervention was to establish farmer field school 
that will train smallholder cocoa farmers on good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa 
production. The first phase of these FFS began June 2015, approximately one year to the 
end of the project, while the second phase of the FFS began in March 2016 to August 2016. 
ACDI/VOCA commissioned Program Management Solutions (PMS) to conduct a 
midterm evaluation of the Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) III 
Project. The purpose of the LIFE III midterm evaluation was to determine the relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness of the project as well as the progress made towards 
sustainability of results. Furthermore, to assess whether the project is on track to 
meeting its targeted goals and objectives; and to discuss necessary modifications or mid￾course corrections that may be necessary to effectively and efficiently meet the stated 
goals and objectives. This report summarizes findings from the evaluation team. 
Key evaluation findings include: 
 LIFE III has successfully managed farmer trainings at FFS through which 2,423 cocoa 
farmers completed the first phase and approximately 3,500 additional cocoa farmers are 
being trained during the time of data collection for this evaluation. The trainings are 
intended for farmers to change their farming method from the Traditional Production 
System (TPS) to the modern Improved Production System (IPS) system; however, data 
collected from farm observation showed that 59% of the surveyed farmers has adopted 
and applied good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa production. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 v | P a g e 
 Review of the project’s database and available source documents showed that 2,461 
(1298 men; 1163 women) farmers have received loan through 18 value-chain 
financing arrangements which is halfway to achieving the LOP target. However, loan 
disbursement by financial institutions remained a challenge, though the project has 
overcome some of the hurdles between the lending institutions and the farmers.
 The project has made significant progress on its performance indicators as compared 
to the baseline values; there are significant achievement on 17 of the 25 indicators 
while eight of the indicators remain far below the initial LOP targets. 
 Smallholder cocoa farmers’ access to cocoa market price has been improved 
significantly as a result of the project activities; however, during FGDs, some farmers 
reported that due to dishonesty of the leadership of farmers groups, most farmers 
do not trust the Warehouse Receipt Program (WRP) – a system in which individual 
farmers keep their produce with the group to sell in bulk for better price. As the 
result, farmers have begun to sell individually to middle buyers which lead to 
undermining the market price. 
 The project seriously emphasized on gender mainstreaming. The evaluation team 
finds out from literature review that there was gender assessment conducted to 
ensure that gender issues are integrated throughout the project cycle. Moreover, the 
project assigned a Gender Focal Person to encourage women’s participation in all 
project’s activities. Besides, sub-grantees were required to register at least 40% 
women at the FFS; however, women participation has increased to 37% above the 
baseline value. The team gathered that the low women representation in the overall 
project beneficiary number is largely due to the male-dominated farmer groups 
inherited by the LIFE III project. The women represent only 23% of the group 
membership while 77% are men
Conclusions 
This report provides analytical findings on data collected through LIFE III midterm 
evaluation on cocoa productivity; financial services to producer groups, and availability of 
agricultural inputs. The results of the evaluation were used to determine the progress 
made in achieving the LIFE III project’s objectives. The evaluation concludes the following 
based on data collected for the midterm evaluation: 
 Knowledge of more than half of project targeted beneficiaries is increased on 
improved agricultural techniques and technologies; but not all of them is using the 
knowledge to increase farm productivity. 
 The project has successfully increased cocoa farmers’ access to value-chain financial 
services; however, agricultural loan from financial institutions remain a challenge.
 The LIFE III project remains relevant to improving cocoa production in Liberia. The 
project’s objectives align with the Government of Liberia’s vision for building the 
Liberia cocoa sectors. Also, smallholder cocoa farmers find the project useful, 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 vi | P a g e 
relevant and necessary for improving the sector and their livelihoods; however, there 
are need to strengthen the coordination and partnership among the cocoa value 
chain stakeholders as well as donor – funded projects.
 There is significant progress be made in achieving most of the project targets; 
however, there remain challenges in reaching initial LOP targets for some of the 
indicators. The project will have to vigorously engage the activities required for 
those indicators otherwise would not be able to reach its targets based on the time 
left for implementation; 
 Use of improved farm management practices is slowly increasing even though the 
project has made significant effort in training smallholder farmers on Farming as a 
Business concept. 
 The commercial nurseries initiative is a sustainable way of ensuring that farmers get 
access to improve planting materials. 
 Smallholder cocoa farmers’ knowledge on cocoa price and grading system is 
increased as the result of LIFE III market information dissemination platform. Up to 
60% of the farmers have access to market information. 
 The project has cardinal approach to sustain its implementation strategies. The 
evaluation team confirmed that there was sustainability approach underlying each of 
the project’s components. However, there are needs to strengthen those 
approaches.
Recommendations 
In view of the analyses, contextual and conclusions provided in this report, the 
evaluation team would make the following recommendation: 
 To rapidly increase annual cocoa production of smallholder, there is a significant 
work required in term of upgrading and rehabilitating the mass of cocoa farms;
 With limited time to project completion, there is serious need for enhancing project 
activities to meet LOP targets that have not been reached;
 The project should continue to strengthen its engagement with private sector 
partners so that improved varieties of saplings / seedlings will continue to be available 
in Liberia. Increased cooperation with the private sector will help in the 
sustainability of technology transfer initiatives. 
 To ensure gender – balance, LIFE III should continue its engagement with farmer 
groups across the project operational counties to encourage women participation in 
the cocoa value chain. 
 There is overall overlap in the different categories of institution in the cocoa sector, 
therefore, the Cocoa Sector Technical Working Group (CSTWG) which comprise 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 vii | P a g e 
of all stakeholders should strengthen coordination and partnership among cocoa 
value chain stakeholders including donor-funded project. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 1 | P a g e 
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Context 
In spite of relatively favorable market access conditions, the Liberian cocoa export value 
chain is affected by constraints so severe they have prevented it from meeting the 
requirements of international markets. Fundamental challenges present during the pre-war 
era persist today and in some cases have become exacerbated. Cocoa farmers, who make 
up a significant portion of cash crop production, are some of the poorest and most food 
insecure populations in Liberia. On the supply side, the absence of a well-functioning inputs 
market has led to a high dependency on imports and increased operating costs. The cocoa 
tree stock in the country is largely dilapidated and old. As is the case with other agricultural 
sectors, farming equipment is in short supply. For instance, the shortage of scales at the 
farm-gate level has led to wide discrepancies in terms of volume across the value chain. 
Technological and mechanization levels are very low. Other important supply-side 
weaknesses include an impoverished and outdated human capital base, and weak 
organization levels among sector stakeholders. 
The sector faces significant challenges in terms of the business environment and institutional 
support. As in the case of other sectors, the trade support network of the cocoa sector is 
weak. Institutions such as the Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation (LPMC) are in dire 
need of an overhaul. The extension services branch of the Ministry of Agriculture has been 
struggling to maintain a technical presence in the field, due to which best practices and 
technical innovations have been slow to gain ground. Given how important strong economic 
institutions are for growth, Liberia in general – and the cocoa sector in particular – can use 
this situation to build a fundamentally different and equitable institutional structure that will 
catalyse a better future for the estimated 30,000 smallholders involved in the sector1
. 
To support the recovery of the Liberian cocoa sector, ACDI/VOCA received funding from 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement LIFE III project in Bong, 
Nimba, Lofa, Gbarpolu, Grand Gedeh, and River Gee counties. Specifically, ACDI/VOCA 
empowers 10,000 smallholder cocoa farmers, farmer organizations, and suppliers in these 
six counties to improve livelihoods by increasing the productivity, profitability, quality, and 
marketability of Liberian cocoa. The project is being implemented through the following five 
components: 
1. Training: Improved Farm Management 
2. Capacity Building: Producer Groups/Cooperatives 
3. Financial Services: Facilitate Agricultural Lending 
4. Inputs: Develop Agro-dealers 
5. Market Access: Improved Market Information 
USDA donated 11,900 metric tons of rice to ACDI/VOCA to monetize and use the 
proceeds from the sale to implement the third and final phase of the LIFE interventions. 
Challenges faced in monetizing the commodity donated by the USDA delayed the 
implementation of the project by at least nine months. In addition to the delay in monetizing 
the commodity, the Ebola outbreak also affected the start of the LIFE III project. The Ebola 
outbreak in 2014 diverted the national agenda from post-war development to the fight 
 
1
 Liberia National Cocoa Strategy 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 2 | P a g e 
against Ebola. These uncontrolled situations caused the project to delay for more than a 
year before it commenced implementation. The project design was reviewed after the 
monetization of the commodity and the Ebola outbreak. 
The fundamental activity for the LIFE III project is the farmer field school through which 
smallholder cocoa farmers are trained on good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa 
production. The first phase of these FFS began June 2015, approximately one year to the 
end of the project. The 10 months long training modules were condensed and delivered for 
seven months while the second phase of the FFS is running for five months beginning in 
March 2016 to August 2016. The project signed a fixed obligation grant with eight local 
agro-institutions to manage training sessions at the total of 186 farmer field schools across 
the six project counties. 
1.2 Evaluation Purpose, Objectives and Questions
The purpose of the LIFE III midterm evaluation is to assess whether targeted 
beneficiaries are receiving services as expected; assess whether the project is on track 
to meeting its targeted goals and objectives; document initial lesson learned; and discuss 
necessary modifications or mid-course corrections that may be necessary to effectively 
and efficiently meet the stated goals and objectives. The specific objectives of the LIFE III 
mid-term evaluation are to: 
 Assess the project’s progress in meeting its expected results and the likelihood of 
attaining its outcomes as defined in the agreed Performance Monitoring Plan 
(PMP); 
 Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation approaches used by the 
project in service delivery; 
 Review the appropriateness and usefulness of performance indicators described 
in the project document in assessing the project’s progress;
 Assess how the project is integrating women and youth in its interventions and 
whether both men and women are benefiting equally from project interventions; 
 Provide suggestions and recommendations on areas the project should focus in 
its remaining year of implementation; 
 Identify measures/mechanisms for sustainability put in place by the project; 
 Assess the effectiveness of project monitoring and evaluation system in facilitating 
achievement of results and project delivery, and; 
 Assess how project monitoring data is used in decision making and adaptive 
management. 
Evaluation Questions 
The midterm evaluation was geared towards providing answers to the below learning 
questions: 
Relevance 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 3 | P a g e 
 What are the prevailing project context and its significance to project 
implementation? 
 How are the different stakeholders involved in the project delivery? 
 Are the technologies and practices being promoted by the project well established 
and well suited to the local environments? 
 Are the project objectives, and activities still in line with and the beneficiary, 
community, governance and needs and priorities? 
 Does the project design (i.e. priorities, outcomes, outputs and activities) address the 
stakeholder needs that were identified? 
Effectiveness and Efficiency 
 What progress has the project made in achieving its respective objectives as outlined 
in its performance plan? 
 How effective are implementation approaches used by the implementing partner in 
achieving intended objectives/results and reaching scale? 
 To what extent have women and youth been integrated into the design and 
implementation of the project activities? 
 To what extent have activities reached scale in terms of; outreach, to direct 
beneficiaries and indirect beneficiaries; adoption of new technologies and practices 
and adoption of innovative business models? 
 Is the project making sufficient progress towards its planned objectives? 
 Have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc.) been allocated 
strategically to achieve outcomes? 
 What are the strengths, weakness and challenges in project implementation 
(management, staff capacity, coordination and reporting) and what strategies have 
been employed to overcome them? 
Sustainability 
 What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure sustainability of program results? 
 What is the level of overall viability of the expected outcomes and signs of 
sustainability of the same? 
1.3. Overview of LIFE III Activities
LIFE III is the final phase of the Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprise (LIFE) 
program, started in 2008 and concluding in August 2016. The eight million USDA 
monetization funded project empower smallholder cocoa farmers, farmer organizations, 
and suppliers to improve livelihood by increasing the productivity, profitability, quality, 
and marketability of Liberian cocoa. 
Literature review showed that under LIFE I and II, ACDI/VOCA facilitated the 
development of 30 new smallholder farmer groups which have developed good 
reputations for improved democratic governance, good management principles and a 
focus on cocoa production and marketing. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 4 | P a g e 
Moreover, the program was instrumental in developing Liberia’s 2010 National Cocoa 
Sector Development Strategy, supports local civil and government capacity to act for the 
benefit of cocoa farmers, and has built the capacity of CARI to found the national cocoa 
breeding program in collaboration with ARS – USDA Miami and the West Africa Cocoa 
Breeding group. LIFE III has been critical to the successful transition from a cocoa sector 
in rapid decline for over 30 years to a vibrant sector attracting GOL and private sector 
investment and the formalization and growth of strong farming cooperatives and private 
sector input providers throughout the cocoa belt of Liberia. 
LIFE III program aligns with Food for Progress Strategic Objective 1 by increasing farm￾level productivity. ACDI/VOCA signature approaches – Farmer Field schools (FFS) and 
Farming as a Business (FaaB) trainings – are tailored to increase application of new 
agriculture techniques and technologies, improve crop diversification, and strengthen 
farm management practices. The project increases farmers’ access to cocoa markets by 
strengthening their business management capacity, increasing the use of post – harvest 
facilities, establishing market linkages, and facilitating the dissemination of market 
information. Key activities highlighted delivered up to date include: 
2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
PMS employed mixed data collection and analysis methods to provide answers to the 
evaluation questions. Data was collected in all of the project’s six counties – Grand 
Gedeh, Lofa, Nimba, River Gee, Bong, and Gbarpolu – by two sub teams. PMS utilized 
data collection and analysis methods to adequately provide answers to the evaluation 
questions. 
2.1. Evaluation approach
The evaluation plan followed set protocols and a highly qualified team. The plans were 
agreed upon and approved for implementation. The sub-sections below discuss the plan 
in detail. 
2.2. Sampling methodology
With a 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level, the evaluation team determined a 
sample size of 372 from LIFE III project’s 10,000 targeted cocoa farmers. The sample 
size was calculated based on the sample size calculation formula. After the sample size 
was determined, the sample was then proportionally distributed across the six LIFE III 
project counties. The evaluation team then employed simple random sampling to 
determine respondents for the survey in each county based on the sample allotted to 
the county. 
Table 1: Sample Distribution per County 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 5 | P a g e 
County
Total FFS 
beneficiary per 
county
Percentage of the 
total population 
per county
Number of selected 
respondents per county 
disaggregated by sex
M F Total
Grand Gedeh 566 20% 58 16 75
River Gee 346 12% 37 9 46
Gbarpolu 239 9% 18 14 32
Lofa 661 24% 65 23 88
Bong 497 18% 46 20 66
Nimba 494 18% 54 12 66
Total 2803 100% 278 94 372
Participants for the key informant interviews and the focus group discussions were 
purposefully selected based on their level of knowledge of the project, and experience. 
The selection also considered the different stratifications within the targeted counties, 
ensuring that participants for the key informant interviews and the focus group 
discussions were true representations of the different stratifications. 
The team also conducted 13 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 112 Individuals (25 
females and 87 males) and interviewed 21 key informants (19 males, two females) across 
the six counties 
2.3. Data Collection Team Composition and Training
The evaluation was conducted by a team of four evaluators and 10 Research 
Assistants/Enumerators. To enable timely data collection, the team was divided into two 
sub-teams, each comprising an Agricultural Economist, an M&E/Research Specialist, and 
five Research Assistants/Enumerators. One team conducted data collection in River 
Gee, Grand Gedeh and Nimba Counties; while the other carried out data collection in 
Lofa, Gbarpolu and Bong Counties. The evaluation team also conducted key informant 
interviews in Monrovia. The Evaluation Team Leader, an Agricultural Economist, was 
responsible for the overall supervision of the entire data collection process. 
2.4. Data Collection Methods
Data collection began by reviewing key project documents including the project’s 
Performance Management Plan (PMP), progress reports, baseline report among others. 
Using standardized semi-structured interview templates, 22 Key Informant Interviews 
(KIIs) were conducted with the project stakeholders, including farmers, LIFE III 
management and staff, County Agriculture Coordinators and partners’ staff. Each 
interview was conducted by two interviewers, ensuring cross-referencing and data 
quality.
In addition to the KIIs, 13 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) totaling 112 persons with 
women groups, farmers’ cooperatives/associations. standardized FGD guides were used 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 6 | P a g e 
to conduct each session. Where holding a FGD was not tenable, the team employed 
group interviews/meetings to gather data from many people at once. 
The evaluation team also collected quantitative data from 372 LIFE III beneficiaries, using 
a standardized questionnaire. To maintain consistency, the team used the same 
questionnaire used during the baseline survey. 
Additionally, the evaluation team collected waypoints of farming sites, using GPS devices. 
The evaluation team also observed and photographed the beneficiary farming activities at 
the various locations that were visited by the team. 
2.5. Data Analysis Procedures
The evaluation team employed both quantitative and qualitative techniques to analyse 
the data collected from the field. 
Quantitative analysis was based on data collected through the mini survey from 372 
project beneficiaries. Using Excel Afterwards, the team compared the processed data 
from the mid-term evaluation with the project’s baseline data and Life of Project (LOP) 
targets. The results are presented in a table, indicating the observed trends. 
For the qualitative analysis, the evaluation team transcribed and reviewed the audio files 
from KIIs and FGDs, carefully checking audio files to ensure accuracy. Afterwards, the 
team carried out analysis, using a five-step process to organize the data, find and 
organize ideas, build over-arching themes, cross-check to test reliability and validity by 
examining within each transcript and across others to determine if issues are 
corroborated or refuted. Together with information gathered from the desk review, 
explanations and interpretations were given to findings, on which to base conclusions. 
2.6. Limitations
The evaluation design is strengthened by the triangulation of data collection methods 
and sources. The evaluation employed mixed methods to collect the evaluation data, and 
reached out to diverse group of project beneficiaries and other stakeholders. 
However, this design and some issues that underlie the findings of this are summarized 
in this session. These are concerns that could possibly distort the results: 
 Majority of the respondents did not have invoice to authenticate the self-reported 
data on the quantity of cocoa sold. The self-reported data could be overstated or 
understated by the farmer, which could lead to misrepresentation of the actual 
baseline value for income generated and farm production. Moreover, some farmers 
are selling more than they can harvest from their own farm, they gathered cocoa 
from other smaller farmers. The production data of those farmers could mistakenly 
include production of other farmers. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
 Adoption of improved husbandry techniques was determined by the enumerator’s 
observation and judgment; therefore, wrong judgment on the application of 
improved techniques could lead to misrepresentation in the data.
 Secondary data were used to provide context to some of the survey findings and to 
compare situations in some instances. The quality of those data was not verified the 
evaluation team. 
3. EVALUATION FINDINGS
This section presents the findings from the midterm evaluation on the long term goal 
and short term aims. Issues of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability are 
addressed throughout the next section. 
3.1: Training: Improved Farm Management 
Increasing agricultural productivity or yield is critical to economic growth and 
development of farmers. This can be achieved by using improved agricultural 
technologies and management systems. The result framework of the LIFE III project 
hypothesized that by increasing the knowledge of farmers on improved techniques and 
technologies, it will lead to application of improved cocoa husbandry technique; and 
subsequently increase in productivity. Considering this theory, data was collected to 
prove the given hypothesis. 
From the project’s SharePoint database and available source documents; it was 
confirmed that 2,423 cocoa farmers graduated from 83 FFS after 7months long training 
on improved cocoa husbandry techniques; and also, there are additional 3500 farmers 
registered and being trained at 103 farmer field schools on good agricultural practices 
for sustainable cocoa production during data collection. 
Figure 1: Farmer Field School in Session 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 8 | P a g e 
To further test the hypothesis, direct observation was done on the farm of 372 sampled 
FFS graduates, the data collected from those direct farm observations showed that 59% 
of the farmers are applying at least three of the five recommended improved cocoa 
techniques which is higher than the baseline value (31%); however, there were 
inadequate crop management on most of the farms as well as pests and diseases were 
damaging the cocoa pods. The map below show GPS waypoint of farm observed. 
Figure 2: Map of Project Areas 
Through household interviews and FGDs, the team asked “why the farmers were not 
applying the techniques learned from the FFS” and 72% of the respondents attributed 
the disapplication of the recommended practices to their inability to buy inputs such as 
agro-chemicals, hired labor etc. 
However, the evaluation team gathered that the project has already planned 
complementary approaches to mitigate the reported problems of low application of 
recommended technologies. The project has established value-chain arrangement with 
local agro-dealers to supply inputs to farmers; and also, the project is working through 
farmer groups to organize communal labor task force to conduct rotational 
rehabilitation on each member’s farm. 
In a key informant interview with WIENCO – a local agro-dealer company partnering 
with the project to implement farmer field school; the team gathered that WIENCO has 
established a value-chain agreement with farmers to supply package of agro-inputs 
including fertilizer, pesticides, and fungicides and spraying can. The agro-chemicals 
provided by WIENCO through the facilitation of the project are recommended by the 
Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), Tafo and Central Agricultural Research 
Institute (CARI) of Liberia. WIENCO has at least two storehouses in each of LIFE III 
operational counties where smallholder cocoa farmers can access the package. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 9 | P a g e 
3.2: Capacity Building: Producer groups / Cooperatives 
LIFE III continues its capacity building efforts in collaboration with the Cooperative 
Development Agency (CDA) – a government bureau responsible for strengthening 
cooperatives in the country. Cooperative development is a suitable way of increasing 
farmers’ chances by creating linkages with commercial banks and other financial 
institutions; and to enhance the marketability of cocoa from smallholder farmers at 
higher price through joint negotiation and bulk selling. 
The baseline report highlighted that there was limited operation support to the CDA 
staff which has hampered routine supervision thereby leading to proliferation of poor 
managed cooperatives; however, information gathered from key informant interviews 
showed that there was enhanced partnership between the LIFE III project and the CDA. 
As the result of this partnership, the project has conducted up to 90 joint supervision 
visits against the zero baseline value. Besides, 19 farmer associations were strengthened 
and certificated as Cooperative, which give them legal status to benefit from loans given 
by financial institutions. Furthermore, the baseline reported that CDA staff had no 
advanced training on cooperative governance and administration; financial management 
and conflict resolution. Literature review of the project documents during this midterm 
evaluation revealed that 19 (14 men; five women) staff of the CDA was trained by LIFE 
III on various topics including financial management, cooperative governance and 
administration. 
The baseline also reported that farmer groups had poor management structures which 
contributed to the continuous reduction in membership with high risk of the groups 
collapsing; however, the evaluation team gathered that the project provided training to 
129 farmers (118 men; 11women) representing the leadership of 30 farmer groups 
across the six project counties. These trainings have repaired the poor management 
styles of the leadership thereby increasing the group’s membership by 21% above from 
the baseline value. 
LIFE III has made significant progress on implementing the activities under this 
component of the project and it has reached the LOP target for five of the six 
performance indicators underlying the objective; however, the project is yet to 
implement pilot grants to groups for artisanal processing of byproducts from cocoa 
subgrades. The evaluation team was informed during the KII that RFP was advertised for 
the recruitment of sub-grantees to implement this activity. 
3.3: Financial Services: Facilitate Agricultural Lending 
The project identified farmer’s access to agricultural lending to be a cardinal point in the 
cocoa value chain. Agricultural lending underpins the efforts to build vibrant producer 
groups that are able to conduct variety of business activities with their members. The 
project engages this objective with two-dimensional approaches – a) establishing Village 
Saving and Loan Clubs; and, b) facilitating value-chain financing including pre-financing 
partnerships between associations and buyers and input-credit mechanisms with agro￾dealers. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 10 | P a g e 
The baseline reported that 37 Village Savings and Loan Clubs (VSLCs) were established 
in the project communities; and none of the clubs was certified as credit union by the 
CDA; hence, could not affiliate with Liberian National Credit Union Association 
(LCUNA) to benefit from larger loan provided by the Central Bank of Liberia. However, 
literature review of the project’s documents revealed that eight credit unions were 
established while 12 additional were being assessed for possible certification which totals 
20 credit unions thereby exceeding the LOP target. 
The baseline report finds out that 12 value chain arrangements were made by previous 
LIFE interventions benefiting approximately 2,297 (1,838 men, 459 women) farmers. At 
baseline, none of such arrangements was made under this third phase of the project; 
however, the midterm evaluators gathered from literature review that 18 of such 
arrangements were made against the LOP target of 20. These arrangements have 
benefited 2,461 (1298 men; 1163 women) farmers halfway to achieving the LOP target 
of 5000 with the total of four hundred and ninety thousand, one hundred and fifty – six 
($ 490, 156) United States dollars disbursed which is nine times higher than the LOP 
target. 
3.4: Inputs: Develop agro dealers
The project is expanding its technical assistance to agro dealers in Liberia to provide 
short, medium and long term solutions such as improved seed, side grafting and 
commercial cocoa nurseries. Technology transfer initiatives was identified to be an 
important step to offset the technology gap that continues to restrict the Liberian cocoa 
sector in terms of processing capabilities and increases in production yields. Therefore, 
LIFE III intensified its capacity building in nursery management to four of the eight private 
partners sub-granted for management of the farmer field schools. The project provided 
assistance to the grantees for the establishment of sustainable commercial cocoa 
nurseries in the six project operational counties to produce hybrid seedlings to be sold 
at affordable price to cocoa farmers giving preference to project beneficiaries. 
The midterm evaluators noted that the four institutions trained 74 (52 men; 22 women) 
persons to maintain and nourish 800,000 cocoa seedlings at 37 commercial nurseries in 
the six counties. The germinated seedlings will be sold to smallholder farmers at an 
affordable price subsidized by the project. Waybill from the research institute in Ghana 
showed that five varieties of cocoa seeds (52.42; 77; pan 150; 85; 67) were imported and 
planted at the project sponsored nurseries. See picture below of care and maintenance 
of cocoa nurseries.
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 11 | P a g e 
Figure 4: Cocoa nursery- Douyee town, Tchien District, Grand Gedeh County 
To sustain the production of hybrid cocoa seedlings in Liberia, LIFE III has facilitated the 
establishment of cocoa seed garden at the government-owned Central Agriculture 
Research Institute (CARI) in Suakoko, Bong County; and private-owned seed garden in 
Saclepea, Nimba County managed by CWAP. Through collaboration with USDA – ARS 
and University of Reading, the project has excitingly increased the number of new 
improved cocoa varieties to 25 varieties far above the project LOP target. The 
evaluation team visited CWAP five-acreage cocoa seed garden in Nimba County where 
five varieties of seeds are planted
 
Figure 5: Cocoa seed garden: Loyee, Nimba County 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 12 | P a g e 
Furthermore, the evaluation team also had an interview with WIENCO – an agricultural 
company that specializes in the importation and distribution of high quality agro- inputs –
it was revealed that nine kinds of improved cocoa specific agro-chemicals are available to 
farmers. WIENCO has at least two storehouses in each of LIFE III operational counties. 
The company provides technical support to farmers and a package that comprise of 
fertilizer, pesticides, fungicide and a spraying – can to farmer with one acres of cocoa 
farm. Farmers are organized in a group of 20 individuals. 
The agro-chemicals provided by WIENCO through the facilitation of the project are 
recommended by the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), Tafo and Central 
Agricultural Research Institute (CARI) of Liberia. The below table contains new kinds of 
improved planting material available to farmers. 
No. Insecticides Herbicides Fungicides Fumigants Supplement Seed 
Treatment
1 Confidor 200SL Lumax 537.5 Ridomil gold 
plus 66 Phostoxin Cropmax Apron star 
42WS
2 Karate 5EC Touchdown 
360SL
Nordox super 
75WG
3.1.5: Market Access: Improved Market Information 
LIFE III has improved on its channel of disseminating cocoa market price to smallholder 
farmers. The baseline reported that the way in which market information was being 
disseminated to smallholder farmers was rudimentary. The project was printing and 
distributing hardcopies to farmer which was ineffective and inefficient way of 
broadcasting cocoa price thereby making it very difficult to cover larger farmer 
population. Triangulation of survey data to those of the KII revealed that significant 
progress have been made to reaching more farmers with cocoa market information. 
The evaluation showed that 59% of the farmers have access to market information 
which is 86% progress toward achieving the LOP target. The project through the Liberia 
Broadcasting System (LBS) signed MOU with local radio stations to disseminate cocoa 
market price in 10 local dialects. Most farmers have been reached through those radio 
programs. 
3.1.6: Indicator Overview 
The table below provides an overview on the current status of all LIFE III Project 
indicators. 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 13 | P a g e 
Table 2: Project Indicators Mid-term values, compared to baselines and LOP target
Component/ 
Activity Performance Indicators Baseline 
value
LOP 
Target
Mid-term 
Value
% 
Achieved
A. Training: 
Improved Farm 
Management
Kilograms of cocoa harvested per 
hectare 180kg 500kg 204kg 41%
Number of farmers receiving 
training under LIFE III 0 5590
4497
(3106 men; 
1391 women)
80%
Number of hectares subject to 
improved cocoa husbandry 
techniques
0 8,000 1,211 ha 15%
Number of individuals trained in 
income diversification activities (i.e. 
community vegetable gardens, 
livestock management)
0 10,000 3,840
(2,651 men; 
1,189 women)
38%
Number of cocoa farmers applying 
improved farm management 
techniques
0 9,000 5900 66%
Number of farmers receiving 
training in Farming as a Business 
principle
0 10,000
2,780
(2,079 men; 
701 women) 28%
Number of demonstration sites 
established 0 144 187 130%
Number of Farmer Field days held 0 6 0 0%
B. Capacity 
Building: Producer 
Groups/
Cooperatives
Number of CDA field staff 
completing capacity-building 
training in farmer organization 
outreach, assessment and support
0 12
19
(15 men; 4 
women)
158%
Number of farmers implementing 
pilot grants to groups for artisanal 
processing capacity to produce 
byproducts from sub grade cocoa.
0 90 0 0%
Number of members of project￾sponsored farmer associations 
established under the three phases 
of LIFE
4,782 10,000
6022 (4643 
men; 1379 
women)
60%
Certification of new cooperatives 
by CDA 0 13 13 100%
Number of leadership of producer 
groups received training 0 103
129
( 118 men; 11 
women)
125%
Joint supervision visits with CDA to 
producer groups. 0 30 90 300%
C. Financial 
Services: Facilitate 
Agricultural 
Lending
Cocoa farmers accessing financial 
services 0 5000
2461
(1298 men; 
1163 women)
49%
Total value of loans disbursed to 
farmer associations by financial 
institutions (USD)
0 $ 50,000 $ 490,156 980%
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 14 | P a g e 
Component/ 
Activity Performance Indicators Baseline 
value
LOP 
Target
Mid-term 
Value
% 
Achieved
Value-chain financing arrangements 
for the sale of cocoa in a given 
season (not cumulative)
0 20 18 90%
Number of Village Savings and 
Loans Clubs certified as credit 
unions
0 17 8 47%
D. Inputs: Develop 
Agro-dealers
Local businesses or associations 
providing new agricultural packages 0 8 8 100%
New or improved kinds of planting 
material and cocoa-specific 
fertilizer, pesticides or fungicides 
available to farmers
0 4 28 700%
Number of public-private 
partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance
0 4 8 200%
Cocoa seedlings distributed or sold 
to farmers as a result of the project 
activities.
0 2,200,000 200,000 9%
E. Market Access: 
Improved Market 
Information
Cocoa nurseries established that 
provide improved, reasonably 
priced planting material available to 
smallholder farmers
0 18 37 205%
Number of cocoa farmer 
associations that regularly provide 
updated market information to 
their members
1 25 30 120%
Number of farmers who are able to 
access current prices for cocoa 0 7,000 6022 86%
 
3.3. Evaluation Criteria 
The OECD-DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance were used during the 
midterm evaluation: 
3.3.1. Relevance 
LIFE III project is contributing to USDA’s food for progress strategic objective 1 to 
increase agricultural productivity. The project’s hypothesis is that, by increasing the use 
of improved cocoa husbandry techniques and technologies and equally improving farm 
management, cocoa yield will increase; which will ultimately increase farmer’s income. 
The baseline report identified the low yield of cocoa as a major constraint affecting the 
livelihood of smallholder cocoa farmers. This high decline in cocoa productivity was due 
to old aged trees. 56% of the farmers surveyed during the baseline said that their cocoa 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 15 | P a g e 
trees were planted more than 25 years ago. As a consequence of long years of neglect, 
cocoa farms degenerated into secondary forest. 
The Government of Liberia and IMF estimated in the PRS paper that real GDP from the 
cocoa sector decline by 79.5% during the crisis in Liberia. The decline was felt across in 
all sectors. Agricultural production dropped as people fled their farms and the 
supporting infrastructure collapsed. 
To tackle this challenge, the Liberian government through its Ministry of Agriculture 
identified the below outcomes as key challenges to the transformation of the Liberian 
agricultural sector: 
 Increasing crop yield by adopting improved agricultural techniques and technologies; 
 Improving access to seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs, and strengthening linkages to 
output markets, primarily by rebuilding farm-to-market roads; 
 Restoring value chains and increasing community and MSME participation in supply 
and value chains; 
 Strengthening key agricultural institutions that were destroyed during the conflict; 
 Providing greater opportunities for women and youth in agriculture, especially in the 
formal sector. 
Literature review of LIFE III project’s documents showed that the project activities and 
outputs are consistent with the development objectives of the cocoa sector. 
The traditional production system (TPS) used by cocoa farmers before were basic and 
unsophisticated and contributed to low productivity. There was overall lack of 
understanding of and expertise with, sustainable land management techniques and best 
practices such as Global Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). LIFE III sponsored farmer 
field schools have increased farmers knowledge on improved agricultural techniques and 
technologies which has increased the adoption rate to 59%. 
Furthermore, it is highlighted in Liberia National Cocoa Strategy that technology transfer 
initiatives is an important step to offset the technology gap that continues to restrict the 
Liberian cocoa sector in terms of processing capabilities and increases in production 
yields. LIFE III is significantly contributing to this effort through the establishment of 
cocoa nurseries that produce high yield cocoa varieties for replanting of old aged trees. 
The project is also collaborating with CDA to strengthen farmer groups that collapse 
during long years of civil crisis. Those groups are the driving force behind the marketing 
of smallholder produce for better price. LIFE III has contributed massively to building 
value-chain linkages between farmer groups; cocoa exporters and agro-dealers to benefit 
their members. 
3.3.2. Effectiveness and Efficiency 
Implementation of project activities was delayed by one year due to delay in 
monetization; and then the Ebola pandemic in Liberia. The fundamental activity for the 
LIFE III project is the farmer field school through which smallholder cocoa farmers are 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 16 | P a g e 
trained on good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa production. The first phase 
of these FFS began June 2015, approximately one year to the end of the project. The 10 
months long training modules were condensed and delivered for seven months while the 
second phase of the FFS is running for five months beginning in March 2016 to August 
2016. Despite the project robust effort to complete its project activities; the outcomes 
of most of the activities may not be realized in the lifetime of the project. The LOP 
target for farmer training has been 80% completed; the training curriculum are standard 
which proves the quality of the training. Increased in farmer’s knowledge on good 
agricultural practices has consequently increased adoption of improved technologies; and 
also increased the average yield per hectare. The project implemented the trainings in a 
cost-efficient manner by sub-contracting eight local institutions to manage the farmer 
field school. These sub-grantees provided 37% leverage contribution on the average. 
Another component of the LIFE III project that has been effective and efficient is the 
capacity building of producer groups/cooperatives. Findings during the baseline survey 
showed that producer groups were poorly performing because of the non-compliance of 
their members to the bylaws and constitution which was primarily because of poor 
management by the leadership. The baseline report further explained that the 
membership of producer groups was continuously reducing causing high risk of the 
groups collapsing which could undermine the warehouse receipt program and other 
cooperative development efforts. On the contrary, LIFE III along with CDA has 
successfully strengthened the groups by providing training to the leadership on various 
topics including good governance. As the result, farmer groups have become vibrant in 
managing the day-to-day affairs of the various groups thereby increasing their 
membership by 21% above the baseline value. The capacity building initiatives in 
collaboration with CDA has been cost and time efficient. The project share staff-time 
with CDA. 
Furthermore, it was reported in the baseline that limited operational support to CDA 
field staff has constrained routine supervision. The average supervision rate per farmer 
group was twice biannually, which also contributed to existence of poor managed farmer 
associations resulting to distrust in the groups. LIFE III provided leadership training to 
CDA field staff and conducted monthly joint supervision visits using ACDI/VOCA’s “M4 
Assessment Tool” which is used to peruse the membership, management, money and 
marketing of farmer groups. As the result, 19 farmer groups were transformed to 
cooperatives. 
LIFE III project also achieved its results on increasing farmer’s opportunities for 
agriculture lending. The project has facilitated 18 value–chain financing arrangement with 
the total disbursement of $490,156 USD benefiting 2,461 farmers. Despite some of the 
LOP targets under this objective have not been completed; there a significant progress 
made. The project also used an alternative measure in providing agricultural loan 
through informal financial institution such as credit unions. To date, the project made
possible the transformation of eight credit unions while additional 12 were being 
assessed for possible credit union certification. 
 
Establishing hybrid cocoa nurseries closer to farmers has been very helpful in farm 
rehabilitation effort to replace old-aged cocoa trees thereby increasing farm-level 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 17 | P a g e 
productivity. The project facilitated these nursery developments by soliciting up to 70% 
leverage contribution from local businesses. Besides, the project partnership with 
WIENCO has increased farmers’ access to agro-chemicals with no direct investment by 
the LIFE III project. 
The baseline reported that the channel use previously in disseminating cocoa price was 
ineffective and inefficient. Broadcasting price information by distributing printouts of 
cocoa price was rudimentary; therefore, did not cover larger population of the farmers. 
LIFE III has been successful in reaching out larger population of the farmers via Radio. 
The project has reached 86% of it’s LOP targets. 
3.3.3. Sustainability 
The evaluation team further directed its research efforts to discover the extent to which 
project activities are likely to continue after the closure of the LIFE III project. Data 
gathered from literature review, KII and FGDs informed the midterm evaluators on the 
sustainability efforts that underlay each project objectives. The project exit strategies 
include: 
 Training: Improved Farm management: Training modules offered at the FFS 
have unarguably increased the knowledge of farmers on improved cocoa husbandry 
technology. 59% of farmers who graduated from those farmer field schools have 
applied the recommended technologies on their farms thereby increasing the average 
production to 204kg/ha. 
o To sustain the above results, LIFE III partnered with eight local agro-dealers 
to leverage the management of farmer field schools. The capacity of those 
sub-grantees was strengthened on basic accounting principles and proposal 
writing. In addition, the local agro- institutions were encouraged to hire lead 
farmers from the targeted communities who served as co-facilitators in each 
of the farmer field schools; as the result, smallholder cocoa farmers will 
continuously receive extension services from their peers to further build their 
expertise on good agriculture practices. 
o Three of the sub-grantees have signed Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with the Community Colleges in Nimba and Lofa Counties for 
internship program. The colleges are assigning their prospective graduates to 
work with those local agro-institutions so that they are prepared for 
extension services. 
 Capacity building: producer groups/cooperatives: Leadership training 
provided to 30 cooperatives have strengthened good governance and conflict 
resolution skills among farmers; as the result, the membership of producer groups 
has increased consequently leading to increase in the production capacity of the 
groups. 
o The project’s collaboration with the CDA to assess and strengthen farmer 
groups is a guaranteed way of building the functionality of producer groups 
across the country. In a key informant interview with CDA staff, they 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 18 | P a g e 
informed the team that they have acquired better knowledge from joint 
supervision visits with the LIFE III staff; and that they were prepared to 
continue assessing and training the cooperatives. 
 Financial Services: Facilitate Agricultural Lending: Linking farmer groups to 
value-chain actors resulted to an unprecedented increase in the amount of loan 
disbursed to smallholder farmers enabling them to solve their domestic financial 
needs and also investment on their farms. 
o In addition, the project is establishing 20 credit unions that will sustainably 
provide agriculture loan to their members. By transforming VSLCs to credit 
unions, LIFE III uplifted the barriers that impede farmers from receiving loan 
from the Central Bank of Liberia. 
 
 Inputs: Develop Agro dealers: Establishing commercial nurseries across the 
countries has contributed significantly to replanting unproductive farms and also 
expanding the size of farms in other areas. The evaluation team discovered that 
farmers were happy with the new variety of cocoa beans produced at the project 
sponsored nurseries. The commercializing the production of hybrid cocoa seedlings 
is an approach to sustain development of cocoa nurseries. 
o Furthermore, the cocoa seed gardens will be used to supply improved seeds 
to the commercial nurseries thereby reducing the cost of importing seeds 
from Ghana and Ivory Coast. 
5. CONCLUSIONS
This report provides analytical findings on data collected through LIFE III midterm evaluation 
on household socio-economic status; cocoa productivity; financial services to producer 
groups, and availability of agricultural inputs. The results of the survey were used to 
determine the progress made in achieving the LIFE III project’s objectives. The evaluation 
concludes the following based on data collected for the midterm evaluation: 
 The LIFE III project remains relevant to improving cocoa production in Liberia. The 
project’s objectives align with the Government of Liberia’s vision for building the Liberia 
cocoa sectors. Also, smallholder cocoa farmers find the project useful, relevant and 
necessary for improving the sector and their livelihoods; 
 There is significant progress be made in achieving most of the project targets; however, 
there remain challenges in reaching initial LOP targets for some of the indicators;
 Engagement with private institution is a sustainable way of building the capacity of 
farmers as well as strengthening local organization to continue extension services to 
smallholder farmers. LIFE III has progressively build the business knowledge of those 
local institutions. 
 Increasing farmers’ knowledge on improved agricultural techniques and technology is an 
important steps towards increasing farm productivity; 
Midterm Performance Evaluation Report 
Livelihood Improvement for Farming Enterprises (LIFE) Phase 111 Project 
LIFE III Midterm Evaluation – PMS September 1, 2016 19 | P a g e 
 Acquiring agricultural loan from formal financial institution such as bank has proven to 
be challenging; therefore, an ideal way of increasing farmer’s access to agricultural loan is 
through value-chain pre-financing arrangements and/or rural lending initiatives such as 
credit unions etc. 
 Commercial nurseries are sustainable way of increasing farmer access to improved 
agricultural inputs rather than investing in community –owned nurseries. 
 An ideal way of disseminating cocoa price is through radio broadcast in local dialects 
instead of printing and distributing cocoa price. Radio broadcast cover larger farmer 
populations. 
 Poor management of producer groups undermines the functionality of the groups. 
There is high risk of the group collapsing if the leadership is not properly trained in 
good governance, conflict resolutions and other leadership topics. 
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the analyses, contextual and conclusions provided in this report, the 
evaluation team would make the following recommendation: 
 There is overall overlap in the different categories of institution in the cocoa sector, 
therefore, the Cocoa Sector Technical Working Group (CSTWG) which comprise 
of all stakeholders should strengthen coordination and partnership among cocoa 
value chain stakeholders including donor-funded project. 
 To rapidly increase annual cocoa production of smallholder, there is a significant 
work required in term of upgrading and rehabilitating the mass of cocoa farms. 
Therefore, the project should complement its training effort at the farmer field 
schools with support to the graduates to conduct communal labor scheme (kuu 
system) in which farmers will rotationally enforce the application of improved cocoa 
husbandry techniques on each other’s farm. 
 Increased cooperation with the private sector will help in the sustainability of 
technology transfer initiatives. Therefore, the project should strengthen its 
engagement with private sector partners so that improved varieties of saplings / 
seedlings will continue to be available in Liberia. 
 To ensure gender – balance, LIFE III should continue its engagement with farmer 
groups across the project operational counties to encourage women participation in 
the cocoa value chain.