April 2019
Foreign Agricultural Service, 
United States Department of 
Agriculture
Final Evaluation of the FY13 Food for Progress 
Timor-Leste Agribusiness Development Project
FCC-462-2013-028-00
April 2019
Prepared by PT Makna Consulting
Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia
For NCBA CLUSA 
Washington, DC 
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
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation i
Contents
Contents...................................................................................................................................................i
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................... v
List of Abbreviations and Common Translations................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................1
Overview .................................................................................................................................................4
Project Objectives...............................................................................................................................4
Project Components ...........................................................................................................................4
Purpose and Scope of the Final Evaluation.........................................................................................6
Structure of the Report.......................................................................................................................6
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................6
Project Updating and Stakeholder Interviews....................................................................................7
Survey Strategies.................................................................................................................................7
Survey Development and Sample Selection .......................................................................................8
Baseline Environment.............................................................................................................................8
Enabling Environment.........................................................................................................................8
Household Size................................................................................................................................9
School Enrollments .........................................................................................................................9
Basic Living Conditions....................................................................................................................9
Communications...........................................................................................................................11
Household Livelihoods......................................................................................................................11
Agricultural Incomes.....................................................................................................................11
Off-farm Incomes..........................................................................................................................12
TLADP Household Incomes...........................................................................................................12
Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................................14
Nurseries and Seedling Production...................................................................................................14
Farmer Numbers and Distribution....................................................................................................16
Tree Crops.....................................................................................................................................16
Seedling Survival Rates .................................................................................................................17
Cassava..........................................................................................................................................17
Crop Supply Chains ...........................................................................................................................17
Cloves............................................................................................................................................18
Cocoa.............................................................................................................................................18
Robusta Coffee..............................................................................................................................19
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation ii
Pepper...........................................................................................................................................19
Vanilla............................................................................................................................................20
Cassava..........................................................................................................................................20
Infrastructure....................................................................................................................................21
Organic Certification .........................................................................................................................22
Capacity Building and Training..........................................................................................................23
Impact Analysis.....................................................................................................................................24
Production.........................................................................................................................................24
Methods for Projecting Farm Output ...........................................................................................25
Yields of Targeted Commodities...................................................................................................26
Farmer Incomes................................................................................................................................26
Tree Crops.....................................................................................................................................26
Cassava..........................................................................................................................................27
Average Household Incomes ........................................................................................................28
Trade Volumes & Values...................................................................................................................28
Product Buyers..................................................................................................................................31
Beneficiary Satisfaction.....................................................................................................................31
Job Creation ......................................................................................................................................32
Rate of Return on TLADP Investment ...............................................................................................33
Multiplier Impact ..............................................................................................................................33
Regional Distribution of Income .......................................................................................................34
Robusta and Pepper Questions ........................................................................................................34
Sustainability.....................................................................................................................................35
Lessons Learned & Recommendations for Future Design................................................................36
Key Evaluation Questions .....................................................................................................................38
Summary Ratings ..............................................................................................................................38
Relevance..........................................................................................................................................40
Effectiveness.....................................................................................................................................40
Efficiency ...........................................................................................................................................42
Impact ...............................................................................................................................................43
Sustainability.....................................................................................................................................44
Annex 1. Scope of Work.......................................................................................................................45
Annex 2. Projected Employment Detail ...............................................................................................47
Annex 3. List of Interviews...................................................................................................................51
Annex 4. Indicator Performance Tracking Tables (IPTT)......................................................................52
Results Indicators..............................................................................................................................52
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation iii
Activity Indicators .............................................................................................................................59
Annex 5. Final Evaluation Survey Instrument ......................................................................................63
Annex 6. Field Interviews.....................................................................................................................87
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Distribution of TLADP Farmers: Overall & Random Sample......................................................8
Table 2 CCT Purchases of TLADP Crops (USD) ......................................................................................13
Table 3 Seedling Production by Type and Year.....................................................................................15
Table 4 Distribution of Total Seedlings by Type and District................................................................15
Table 5 Total TLADP Farmers by District...............................................................................................16
Table 6 Total TLADP Farmers by District and Crop ...............................................................................16
Table 7 Distribution of Farmers by District and Crop (%) .....................................................................16
Table 8 FES Seedling Survival Rates......................................................................................................17
Table 9 Cassava Projections..................................................................................................................21
Table 10 Infrastructure Investments ....................................................................................................22
Table 11 TLADP Farms with Organic Certification ................................................................................22
Table 12 Approximate Yield Timeline for Tree Crops...........................................................................24
Table 13 TLADP Farmers by Crop..........................................................................................................25
Table 14 CCT Purchases of TLADP Crops (KG).......................................................................................26
Table 15 Projected TLADP Farm Production 2019-2029 (MT)..............................................................26
Table 16 TLADP Projected Farmgate Revenues Tree Crops 2019-2029 ($)..........................................27
Table 17 Value of CCT Purchases 2014-2019........................................................................................28
Table 18 Projected TLADP Retail Production (MT) ...............................................................................29
Table 19 Total Projected TLADP Exports 2019-2029 ($).......................................................................29
Table 20 Product Buyers.......................................................................................................................31
Table 21 Projected Employment at Full Production .............................................................................32
Table 22 Estimated Rate of Return .......................................................................................................33
Table 23 Practical Elements of Sustainability .......................................................................................36
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation v
List of Figures
Figure 1 Household Size..........................................................................................................................9
Figure 2 % Children aged 5-12 enrolled in school...................................................................................9
Figure 3 % Children aged 13-18 enrolled in school.................................................................................9
Figure 4 Access to Piped Water (%) ......................................................................................................10
Figure 5 Access to Sanitation ................................................................................................................10
Figure 6 Households with Electricity.....................................................................................................10
Figure 7 Mobile Phone Ownership .......................................................................................................11
Figure 8 TLADP Average Annual Agricultural Income...........................................................................11
Figure 9 Number of animals sold 2018 (n=450 households) ................................................................12
Figure 10 Number of farmers selling livestock 2018 (n=450)...............................................................12
Figure 11 Average Annual Cash Grants and Off-farm Income 2018.....................................................12
Figure 12 Average Household Income 2018 .........................................................................................13
Figure 13 Distribution of TLADP Activities............................................................................................14
Figure 14 CCT Pepper Procurement......................................................................................................20
Figure 15 Farmers: What I Learned......................................................................................................23
Figure 16 Farmers: Lessons I Applied in My Gardens..........................................................................24
Figure 17 TLADP Average Farmer Income by Tree Crop.......................................................................27
Figure 18 TLADP Average Vanilla Income .............................................................................................27
Figure 19 Average Projected TLADP Crop Revenues and 2018 Household Incomes ...........................28
Figure 20 Projected Tree Crop Exports 2029 ........................................................................................30
Figure 21 Farmer Satisfaction with TLADP............................................................................................31
Figure 22 Reasons Farmers are Satisfied ..............................................................................................32
Figure 23 Reasons Farmers are Dissatisfied .........................................................................................32
Figure 24 Regional Distribution of TLADP Income (including cassava) 2029........................................34
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation vi
List of Abbreviations and Common Translations
CCT Cooperativa Café Timor
ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GOTL Government of Timor-Leste 
ICCRI Indonesian Cocoa and Coffee Research Institute
ILETRI Indonesian Legume and Tuber Research Institute
MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
MOCAF modified cassava flour
MTE Midterm Evaluation
municipio district (Timorese)
NCBA National Cooperative Business Association
posto (or posto 
administrativo)
sub-district (Timorese)
PPKKI Pusat Penelitian Kopi dan Kakao Indonesia (Indonesian Cocoa and Coffee 
Research Institute)
TLADP Timor-Leste Agriculture Development Project
WHO World Health Organization
USDA US Department of Agriculture
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 1
Executive Summary
The Timor-Leste Agribusiness Development Project (TLADP) ran from October 2013 through March 
2019 with USDA funding of just over $9.2 million. It was implemented by the National Cooperative 
Business Association (NCBA) in partnership with Cooperative Café Timor (CCT) and the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) in four districts. Farmers in one district (12 percent) have 
experience harvesting coffee commercially, but participants in the other three districts (88 percent) 
are primarily subsistence farmers with little-to-no exposure to commercial agriculture practices. 
Activities were organized around a) seedling production, b) farm production, c) crop supply chain 
development, and d) capacity building and training.
A network of 90 farmer nurseries were established which produced a) cloves, pepper and vanilla 
from local plant materials, and b) disease-resistant cocoa and high-yielding Robusta coffee from 
seeds developed at the Indonesian Cocoa & Coffee Research Institute (ICCRI). NCBA imported and 
distributed fresh stems of a new, high-starch variety (Ailuka I) of cassava developed through the 
Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILETRI), which were subsequently
propagated using harvested stems. Nearly two million tree & vine seedlings were produced and 
distributed to participating farmers during the project along with over four million cassava cuttings. 
Only one nursery owner plans to continue producing seedlings commercially after the project ends. 
They report that individual farmers will not pay for high-quality seedlings when they believe that the 
government or a project will supply them for free. The one continuing nursery owner agrees with 
this and operates on a scale large enough that projects and the government already buy from him. 
However, farmer nursery owners agreed they would be happy and able to restart activities 
whenever asked.
12,368 farmers (70 percent male, 30 percent female) participated in the project which suffered from 
the country’s worst-ever El Nino drought during its first two years. The final evaluation selected a 
random sample of farmers, measured their garden plots, counted all surviving seedlings and 
conducted a socio-economic survey. The results indicate that cassava farmers have prepared an 
estimated 796 hectares for cultivation (not all of which are being cultivated), and that between 59 
and 71 percent of the tree crops had survived and were on their way to producing commercial 
yields. 
The annual distribution of seedlings and varying growth rates of the trees means that initial harvests 
are expected to begin in 2019 with full, mature yields for all distributed seedlings occurring in 2029. 
A very conservative yield stream was projected (roughly half the Indonesian averages) to reflect 
Timor’s poor soil conditions, uneven water availability and organic cultivation. Total production for 
the tree crops was projected out ten years that incorporated the annual seedling distribution 
numbers, estimated survival rates and yield timelines.
Yields from tree crops are summarized in Table 15 which indicates sustained, mature tree crop yields 
are expected to total about 2 million tons per year. NCBA developed likely price scenarios for each 
crop over the next ten years from which farmgate prices were estimated, and TLADP farmers are 
expected to receive about $6.5 million annually in income from tree crops at mature yields. This 
averages out to about $400 per tree farmer (in 2029), an increase of 180 percent over 2018 average 
income from crops. Organic certification needs to be completed as trees become ready to yield 
commercial harvests and is now under way, with the first 575 crops on 527 farms successfully 
certified in 2018. The timing of the yields means the remainder of the certification will be 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 2
completed after the project closes, but CCT has planned and budgeted for the remaining 
certifications to be completed in the following four years.
The scenario for cassava production was less clear. While Timorese farmers are experienced 
cultivators of cassava as a fall-back crop for “hungry seasons,” this is a new commercial venture for 
NCBA and CCT, and the market for cassava products is dynamic. The original design concept was for 
annual sales of cassava to bridge the 2-6 year period required for the trees to begin yielding. 
However, farmers had different ideas, with only 30 percent of farmers taking cassava cuttings also 
taking tree seedlings. The final evaluation survey found closer to 90 percent of cassava farmers in 
the sample only cultivated cassava, with no tree crops.
CCT has experimented with production schemes that were acceptable to farmers and which will 
ensure a sound basis for supply and settled on a combination of a section of own-cultivated land, a 
section of supported contract farmers, and cash purchase from individual farmers of both fresh 
tubers and dried, chipped cassava. During the project period, CCT purchased a modest $150,000 of 
cassava from TLADP farmers while developing the supply chain and marketing aspects. They are 
now finalizing their first major buyer contract that will require an input of approximately 1,100 tons 
of tuber per year, with inquiries for additional monthly supply, and do not anticipate difficulties 
achieving this volume. Eastern Timor-Leste has vast uncultivated land suitable for cassava 
production, but the binding constraint for farmers is seasonal tractor services (provided by MAF) to 
open the land. 
TLADP provided resources to help develop supply chains for all the products, particularly processing 
and warehouse facilities. One existing facility in Dili was renovated for clove processing, and three 
larger warehouses were built in various locations around the country. In the far east of the country, 
a multipurpose facility was built to handle wet tuber peeling and chipping for cassava, a cherry 
pulping mill for Robusta coffee, and drying tunnels and warehousing for all commodities purchased 
there. The facility in Comoro provides space for processing cocoa, pepper and vanilla, and 
international laboratory testing of vanilla drying and curing during the past two seasons indicates 
very positive results. Finally, a warehouse and annex built outside of Dili houses CCT’s investment in 
the cassava flour and starch production line. 
All the supply chains were tested for one or more harvests and CCT is looking forward to commercial 
harvests starting in 2019. Based on yield projections of existing trees and processing conversion 
ratios, production of high-quality, traceable exports from the tree crops is expected to reach 1,000 
metric tons by 2029 with a value of more than $8 million annually. Petroleum is the largest export 
from Timor-Leste, with Arabica coffee number two at $26 million (2017 data) per year. TLADP’s 
exports will provide a 30 percent boost for agricultural exports within ten years, all from new, 
diversified products. 
CCT staff and all TLADP farmers received training & capacity building in land management, plant 
spacing, garden maintenance, product quality assurance and other aspects of successful commercial 
agriculture. TLADP extension workers were transitioned to CCT field staff and received extensive 
training in preparing for and managing organic certification, and have been working intensively with 
farmers on this. Buyers are very interested in this production – three containers of (non-organic) 
hand-picked, gourmet cloves were exported from farmers’ pre-existing clove trees, and samples 
from early cocoa yields were sent for flavor profiling. Production and exports should be sustainable
based on yields from existing trees, and at the program close a bilateral donor was exploring 
supporting continued farmer nursery operations to expand plantings further. The cassava contract 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 3
being finalized is with the local Heineken brewery, and once they have confirmed health and sanitary 
conditions on the production line, additional buyers are expected to follow.
CCT has developed a staffing needs plan for mature yield production and processing volumes. They 
foresee adding 112 full time positions and 80 seasonal positions. Eighty-seven percent of the full￾time jobs would be outside of the capital, Dili, where economic opportunities are very limited, and 
38 percent of the part time jobs.
Considering the uncertain returns on cassava – likely to be positive, but unknown – the rate of 
return was calculated using the realized project grant amount against the most conservative 
projection possible – projected farmgate returns to farmers for tree crops only. Using the ten-year 
projections, the rate of return (IRR) was calculated at 13 percent – a strong investment – even if 
there is no return on cassava. A sensitivity analysis yielded 11 percent when projected revenues 
were reduced by twenty-five percent, and fell to a marginally-acceptable 7 percent only when 
projections were halved. 
Experience with TLADP contains a number of good lessons for future design. First, the project 
timeframe was not well suited to the activities. All tree crops take time after planting to begin 
producing, and it is unrealistic to expect a project to develop nurseries, organize and train farmers to 
plant seedlings, and develop the supply chains and marketing structures within five years – before 
the trees begin yielding. A project like this one would ideally be implemented in two phases: 1) 
nursery development, farmer organization and planting, followed by (assuming benchmarks 
achieved) 2) investments in the supply chain, processing several years of initial yield and marketing.
Second, farmer nurseries were very successful. With basic training and support, farmers are able to 
manage medium and large scale seedling development. Decentralized nurseries reduce delivery 
stress on seedlings, build local ownership, and put more money into farmers’ pockets. They can also 
be quickly restarted on demand.
Third, think twice before adding an unknown crop or product to a project mix. NCBA and CCT both 
were familiar with spices, but neither had worked with cassava when it was introduced for income 
bridging. Moreover, cassava farmers didn’t demonstrate a strong interest in tree crops and vice 
versa, meaning the farmers, the crops and the nature of the support work are very different. It 
increases risks for the project.
Finally, be ready to do some socio-cultural research when you begin to help subsistence farmers
transition to commercial agriculture. Customary rules that have enabled them to survive without 
markets might present challenges for day-to-day farm management and long-term investment in 
land (i.e. trees). For example, rights to free-range cattle grazing present serious challenges and costs 
to farmers, and customary communal land rights could greatly complicate farmers’ incentives to 
invest and manage crops in ways that are considered efficient.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 4
Overview
Project Name Timor-Leste Agribusiness Development Project
Agreement Number FCC-472-2013-028-00
Donor United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Project Duration October 2013-March 2019
Funding $9,204,012.43
Implementing 
Organization
National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) 
Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA)
Partner Organization Cooperativa Café Timor (CCT) and Timor-Leste Ministry of 
Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF)
Geographic Coverage Aileu, Baucau, Lautem, Viqueque districts in Timor-Leste 
NCBA CLUSA implemented a multi-crop farming program in East Timor known as the Timor-Leste 
Agribusiness Development Project (TLADP) with funding from the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). TLADP began in October 2013 with an original anticipated project completion 
date of September 2017. Due to greater than expected resources from monetization activities, a 
project modification was approved by USDA in September 2017 with an expanded number of 
geographic areas and beneficiaries and a revised closing date of March 2019.
Project Objectives
Specific activity objectives contained in the project agreement include:
• Increased agricultural productivity of tree and high value horticultural crops through improved 
agricultural techniques and technologies, increased knowledge of the farmers, more availability 
of appropriate improved inputs, and further use of financing services.1
• Expanded trade of agricultural products by increasing the value of post-harvest products and 
access to markets through improved quality, increased efficiency, farmer procurement systems 
setup, enabling processing methods and process facility infrastructure development and 
improved marketing and market linkages.
Project Components
The project was implemented through four major components:
A. Seedling production. Seedlings were produced both in CCT nurseries and in contracted 
small farmer nurseries. Owners of contracted nurseries were provided with seeds, 
polybags, and training from the project to raise seedlings to suitable maturity after 
which they were purchased by CCT for distribution to project farmers. For cassava, 
individual farmers multiplied cuttings for their own use and for sale back to the project 
for further distribution. The seedling production component continued for all project 
crops through the final distribution period in January-March 2019.
B. Farm production. The project targeted 10,000 farmers to be trained in improved 
farming and post-harvest handling techniques adequate to produce commercial crops 
for eventual cooperative processing and value-adding. Farmers were granted seedlings 
from the project and benefited from cooperative post-harvest systems, equipment, and 
facilities, supported by 22 trained, local agricultural extension officers. Commercial crop 
1
Financing activities were not developed under the project and were dropped from the amended agreement.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 5
production focused on cassava, cloves, cocoa, Robusta coffee, black pepper and vanilla,
with fruit and moringa used to enhance domestic food security and local market sales. A 
portion of project cassava was intended for home consumption and local markets sales, 
while the remaining surplus - when available - was sold to the cooperative for value￾adding production including modified cassava flour (MOCAF) or animal feed. A cohort of 
farmers was selected to develop project demonstration farms (Demplots) for the local 
training of farmers in practical farming techniques. Organic farming methods for crops 
with viable international demand were promoted with the establishment of farmer 
groups linked to CCT ensuring eventual markets. NCBA CLUSA provided farmers training 
on organic certification for cloves, pepper, cocoa, vanilla and coffee to add value to 
crops as they begin to yield and attain critical volume mass.
C. Crop Supply Chain. To build on the distribution of crop seedlings and establishment of 
10,000 project farms, CCT and TLADP developed and expanded the cooperative’s 
sustainable crop procurement systems with an expansion of efficient supply chain 
management, processing, handling, transportation, value adding, and storage capacities 
of the new target crops of cassava, cloves, cocoa, pepper and vanilla. Prior to the 
project’s implementation, CCT had more than 20 years of experience processing and 
exporting Arabica and Robusta coffee, and this will expand with TLADP Robusta 
production. Seedlings were distributed yearly during 2014-2019, and planted trees take 
2-6 years to being yielding depending on the type. Some TLADP tree crops are expected 
to start yielding initial volumes over the years 2019-2024, and all will reach mature 
yields by 2029. However, by the last year of the project all supply chains had been
tested with the purchase and processing of harvests from pre-existing trees from TLADP 
farmers.2
 Under the project, TLADP built a cassava warehouse in Tibar; refurbished a 
clove processing area in an existing CCT building; constructed a multi-crop storage 
facility in Lautem and constructed a spice and cocoa storage processing and export
facility in Dili. A cassava wet processing facility in Lautem was completed, and a Robusta 
coffee wet processing unit was procured and is ready for installation when the yield is 
sufficient. The project procured two four-wheel-drive trucks for seedling distribution 
and crop transport purchased by CCT during the last year of the project, and CCT will 
allocate the appropriate amount of their existing truck fleet as production increases. 
CCT purchased limited volumes of cassava, cocoa, cloves, pepper and vanilla from 
project farmers – a result of early distribution of seedlings and from pre-project trees. 
Processing and export of project cassava, cloves, and vanilla commenced through CCT’s 
existing and enhanced supply and market chains. As domestic and export markets 
develop, farmers and project staff will receive timely feedback on market prices. Project 
extension staff are transitioning to farm certification and crop purchasing.
D. Capacity Building and Training. Farmers, staff, and cooperative agribusiness received
capacity building at all component levels of the project. Training was intended to 
underpin improvements in agricultural techniques, seedling and farm production, post￾harvest handling, cooperative development and organic/ethical trade certification (for 
export market crops), efficient supply chain management and marketing. 
2 Yield and value projections for the final project evaluation were extended to 10 years after project closing 
because of the delayed production timeline.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 6
Purpose and Scope of the Final Evaluation
The purpose of the Final Evaluation was to provide an independent assessment and analysis of the 
overall relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of TLADP using the USDA’s 
prescribed framework, and the degree to which TLADP has accomplished its objectives and results as 
outlined in the results framework. Further, NCBA identified five specific objectives in the TOR:
1. Assess the project’s performance in meeting the End of Project Activity and Results targets.
2. Assess the impact of the project for beneficiaries, including monetary and selected socio￾economic measures against the baseline and midterm evaluation results.
3. Assess the current and future value of sales and trade from the crops supported and the viability 
and quality of market connections.
4. Assess the sustainability of the project by reviewing the capacity of farmers and related 
agribusiness to continue to support the project’s crop production and assess the potential 
through to their production phases and possible further expansion.
5. Document best practices and lessons learned.
Structure of the Report
The main body of the report provides a general narrative assessment of the major project outcomes 
and achievements organized around the four central project components (seedling production, farm 
production, crop supply chains, and capacity building and training). This section includes an 
assessment of the enabling environment and household livelihoods in 2018 before the TLADP trees 
begin commercial production, an assessment of the forecasted impact on farmers, CCT and Timor￾Leste, and presents the estimated rate of return on the project from the results of the Final 
Evaluation Survey (FES).
Following this is a cross-referenced summary of results to the key evaluation questions utilized by 
USDA in their standard evaluation format, focusing on project relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
impact and sustainability. 
Methodology
The Timor-Leste Agriculture Development Project began in October 2013 and ended in March 2019, 
including approximately five and a half years of operations. Seedling distribution began in 2014 with 
just 5,000 cocoa seedlings, and the last seedlings (more than 700,000) reached farmers in early 
March 2019 before the project closed. As seen in Table 12 in the text below, the first yields from 
tree crops appear in years two to six (average 4 years), and mature yields are not realized until years 
five to twelve (average 8 years). A very few trees were produced in 2018, but the earliest 
commercial yield will begin in 2019 after the project closed. 
This makes two key USDA indicators, actual productivity (yield per tree) and annual sales by farms 
and firms, impossible to calculate in a meaningful way for the final evaluation. Calculating 
productivity for cassava was similarly challenging as the first significant sales contract was being 
finalized in March 2019, and procurement had not yet been scaled-up. As a result, the final 
evaluation survey focused on estimating a) the number of TLADP trees growing on farms, and b) the 
area of garden plots prepared for cassava planting. Conservative yield amounts and timelines were 
estimated in consultation with the field crop advisors, and the ten-year projections included in this 
analysis are based on these plus the estimated number and age of each type of tree.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 7
Project Updating and Stakeholder Interviews
The final evaluation consultant followed a process parallel to that used in the mid-term evaluation. 
Project documents were collected and reviewed, and periodic reports and updates obtained from 
NCBA in Washington, DC, Klaten, Indonesia and Dili, Timor-Leste. Interviews were conducted in Dili 
and during all field survey trips. The senior consultant also met with implementing partners for all 
ongoing donor-funded agriculture projects in Timor-Leste. A list of stakeholder interviews is 
contained in Annex X. 
Survey Strategies
To achieve the objectives of the final evaluation, the consultant employed a combination of 
quantitative and qualitative methods to gather data and information. 
A quantitative survey followed the basic structure of the mid-term evaluation and added a few 
refinements. 
• Extension workers measured all farm plots and counted TLADP tree crops of each type.
• Enumerators asked respondents a series of questions including questions linked to the baseline 
survey, detailed questions about crop harvests and sales and livestock sales during 2018.
A simple random sample survey process was followed with a confidence interval of 95 percent and 
an error level of five percent at the overall project (national) level. CCT reported there were 9,5763
participating farmers in the project distributed unevenly over the three active districts. Standard 
sampling formulas4
indicated a target sample size of 367, and the consultant followed the same 
procedure used in the mid-term evaluation of sampling 450 to adequately cover the minimum 
number and allow for any failed surveys.5
 The design of the sample selection did not allow for 
statistically valid comparisons between districts – stratification at that level would have required 
roughly tripling the total sample size, and this was not feasible due to budgetary and time 
limitations. During the analysis of the survey data, the consultant aggregated data at the national 
level, and did not weight the totals by district results. District results are presented for illustrative 
purposes only.
Qualitative techniques employed for the final evaluation included semi-structured interviews with 
key informants, stakeholders and selected individual and groups of beneficiaries. The questions 
asked were generally open-ended and intended to draw out their opinions and views on how the 
project might have been improved. Prior to field visits, a brief set of key questions were finalized for 
each type of stakeholder, and a general note-taking format was developed. Respondents were 
recruited using a purposeful sampling method in targeted districts and subdistricts. The interviews 
and discussions were conducted in multiple locations in each district and targeted sub-districts in 
parallel to the MTE Field Survey activities. They were conducted by the senior consultant and a 
Timorese research assistant fluent in Bahasa Indonesia hired by the senior consultant, plus one 
translator depending on the local language. The research assistant wrote summary notes in Bahasa 
3 As of November 17, 2018. The final number of registered farmers as of March 31, 2019 is 12,374, of which 
11,969 received commercial seedlings. The remainder received moringa and shade trees only.
4 The random sample calculator on http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp
was used to determine the appropriate sample size.
5 There were no failed surveys in the final evaluation, although one husband and one wife (both registered 
TLADP farmers) were consolidated into a single household for a total number of 449.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 8
Indonesia using an agreed structure,6
and the senior consultant consolidated these notes into the 
complete story. Field notes are attached in Annex 5.
Survey Development and Sample Selection 
The survey instrument was based on the instrument utilized in the mid-term evaluation to maximize 
comparability with that and the baseline survey. Some questions were expanded to yield more 
accurate responses, and some additional questions were included. The English language version of 
the survey is contained in Annex X, while the Excel file with both the English and Tetun versions is 
included in the file transfer. The draft survey instrument was submitted to NCBA before field work 
began as part of the Initiation Document. 
The method of random sample selection followed that used for the mid-term evaluation. In 
consultation with CCT’s IT and M&E specialists, an online random number generator 
(http://stattrek.com/statistics/random-number-generator.aspx) was used to select 450 numbers 
between 1 and 9,576. These were used to identify corresponding farmers to participate in the 
survey, and the lists were distributed to the relevant extension workers so they could invite them to 
participate and schedule visits. The distribution of all TLADP farmers and the Random Sample is 
summarized in Table 1. Twenty-eight percent of the random sample selection were female farmers, 
which is roughly equivalent to the 30 percent actual female farmer participation in TLADP and is 
considered representative of women farmers’ experience and views.
Baseline Environment
Respondents were asked a series of questions from which a picture of the overall environment could 
be obtained. They were questioned about their enabling environment and about household 
livelihoods, including the volume and value of agricultural production and sales (4 main crops, 
livestock and fishponds) during 2018, and all sources of off-farm income received during 2018. The 
objective was to develop a baseline average against which projected and actual future changes 
can be measured.
Enabling Environment
A variety of questions were included in the FES that were intended to provide a picture of socio￾economic conditions for TLADP farmers. In most cases these questions are comparable to questions 
6 The research assistant focused on details including dates and numbers, while the senior consultant captured 
the larger story. 
Table 1 Distribution of TLADP Farmers: Overall & Random Sample
all TLADP Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque Grand Total %
Male 1,221 1,041 3,831 2,261 8,354 70%
Female 266 364 2,259 726 3,615 30%
Total 1,487 1,405 6,090 2,987 11,969
12% 12% 51% 25%
Random 
Sample Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque Grand Total %
Male 63 38 129 93 323 72%
Female 11 12 71 32 126 28%
Total 74 50 200 125 449
16% 11% 45% 28%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 9
included in the 2015 TLADP Baseline Survey. Since seedlings are just starting to yield marketable 
product, it is unlikely for differences with the baseline survey to reflect changes in income. 
Differences can come from the impact of government policies or programs, general economic 
strengthening not related to TLADP, or self-selection biases of TLADP farmers.
Household Size
The size of TLADP households closely reflects the 
baseline survey results, with the average household 
size for the FES random sample being 7.1. 
School Enrollments
The baseline survey included questions on the 
number of school age children in each household but 
did not ask about school enrolments. Education is a 
key element in improving family welfare over the long 
term, and enrolments typically improve with 
household income. The FES survey broke down the 
enrollment questions into elementary and 
secondary age groups. School enrolments for 
primary-aged students in the FES random 
sample were relatively high at an average of 81 
percent but still well below where it should be. 
This is particularly true in Lautem, where only 72 
percent of primary-aged children are enrolled. 
Secondary enrolments were surprisingly high 
(an average of 76 percent of children aged 13-18 
are enrolled) considering many of these 
students need to either a) travel long distances 
daily, or b) board away from home in order to 
attend school, and both are expensive options in 
Timor-Leste. However, the results are consistent 
with responses from interviews – when asked 
how they used their earnings, “school costs” was 
always the immediate answer for households 
with children – families in Timor-Leste are 
strongly motivated to educate their children. As 
seedlings start yielding commercial production 
levels and household revenues increase, it would 
be logical to see enrolments increase. It is 
recommended to include questions on 
enrolments in any opportunity to survey TLADP 
households in another five or more years to 
confirm (or refute) this result.
Basic Living Conditions
Several questions were asked about basic living conditions, including availability of piped water in or 
near the house, access to sanitation (toilets), and access to electricity. 
88% 86%
72%
94%
81%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 2 % Children aged 5-12 enrolled in school
80%
89%
70%
80% 76%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 3 % Children aged 13-18 enrolled in 
school
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
FES Baseline
Figure 1 Household Size
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 10
Access to piped water is still a challenge in many rural 
areas in Timor-Leste – WHO/UNICEF calculates that 
only 55 percent of the total population has access to 
piped water7
, and that falls to just 45 percent of rural 
households. TLADP households have better access to 
water than both national averages and the Baseline 
sample in every district. The result is particularly 
striking in Baucau, where only 15 percent of the 
Baseline sample had access to piped water compared
to 78 percent for TLADP households.
Sanitation is also a challenge in Timor-Leste, with 
serious implications for health – WHO/UNICEF counts 
24 percent of the overall population who lack any 
sanitation facilities and practice open defecation.8
 The 
FES survey results for access to sanitation are similar to 
those for piped water: TLADP households have better 
access to sanitation in every district compared to the 
Baseline sample, with Baucau showing the biggest 
difference followed by Viqueque. The overall average 
of 80 percent for TLADP households is higher than the 
national average.
The results for household electricity connections 
are better than the Baseline survey report –
almost all TLADP households have electricity. 
Viqueque was the last district to be connected to 
the national electrical grid during 2017 which 
probably accounts for a large portion of the 
improved results there, and completion of that 
project could account for the better results 
overall. 
7 WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation 
(http://www.wssinfo.org/).
8
Ibid.
91%
78% 79%
64%
84%
15%
62%
38%
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque
FES Baseline
Figure 4 Access to Piped Water (%)
91% 80% 85%
65%
80%
24%
58%
34%
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque
Access to Sanitation
FES Baseline
Figure 5 Access to Sanitation
Figure 6 Households with Electricity
100%90% 98%100% 98% 92% 96%
69%
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque
FES Baseline
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 11
Communications
Handphone ownership in Timor-Leste is generally 
high, and the FES survey indicates an average of 80 
percent of TLADP households use one. The district 
numbers are somewhat higher than the baseline 
survey results except in Baucau.
More than half (58 percent) of TLADP households own 
televisions, more than double the average from the 
baseline survey (24.5 percent). 
Household Livelihoods
Respondents were asked a series of questions from 
which a picture of the overall economic environment could be obtained. These questions included 
their volume and value of agricultural production and sales (4 main crops, livestock and fishponds) 
during 2018, sales of TLADP crops before the program and in 2018, and all sources of off-farm 
income received during 2018. The objective was to develop a baseline average income against 
which the projected values of TLADP production can be measured.
Agricultural Incomes
The rural households of Timor-Leste are predominately agricultural, and even those with regular off￾farm employment are typically occupied with cultivation and rearing livestock, as well. The FES 
survey asked respondents about incomes obtained from their four most important crops plus 
livestock during 2018. Since TLADP trees had generally not begun producing, this should be 
considered the baseline income for future comparison.
The results show that raising and selling livestock generates substantially more household income 
than crop sales. This reflects two key aspects of agriculture in Timor-Leste: a) produce markets are 
generally undeveloped, and b) the traditional subsistence orientation of rural households. On the 
other hand, animals are essential for traditional clan activities and their limited number results in 
high prices. A buffalo can sell for up to $800, and mature pigs are commonly traded for $300-400. 
With such high prices, it is not surprising that 82 percent of respondents reported raising and selling 
livestock in 2018. Rural households in Timor-Leste depend heavily on livestock raising for cash 
incomes, and TLADP will assist in reducing that dependency. 
Figure 8 TLADP Average Annual Agricultural Income
235 
149 
220 
252 
223 
654 
1,059 
1,786 
1,402 
1,410 
Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Average
Crop Revenues Livestock Revenues
83%
70%
84%
75% 76% 75% 78%
67%
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque
FES Baseline
Figure 7 Mobile Phone Ownership
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 12
Off-farm Incomes
Households in Timor-Leste supplement their cash incomes through a variety of channels. Family 
members have off-farm employment in the civil service or the private sector. The government offers 
pensions to the elderly, and veterans and their families; education grants for school-aged children; 
and income supports for the disabled. Domestic remittances from family members working in Dili 
are important, and foreign remittances from family members (mainly young men) working overseas 
can add significant funds to rural communities.9
 On average, TLADP households add an extra $741 
annually through these cash resources, with wide variation among the districts.
TLADP Household Incomes
The total household income is made up of these three components: crop revenues, livestock sales 
and non-farm income. The average for all respondents is $2,374 per year.
9 Young men typically apply for a Portuguese passport and are recruited to work on 2-year contracts in Europe, 
often in Ireland and the UK.
Figure 11 Average Annual Cash Grants and Off-farm Income 2018
94 
-
258 
247 
106 
58 
100 
74 
72 
77 
65 
50 
-
-
7 
29 
25 
60 
44 
1 
103 
-
377 
397 
44 
102 
-
 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Average of Veterans Payments
Average of Old-age Pensions
Average of School Supports
Average of Disability Payments
Average of Dili Remittance
Average of Foreign Remittance
Average of Other Income
213
371
267
747
2,498
43
buffalo
cattle
goats
pigs
chickens
ducks
Figure 9 Number of animals sold 2018 
(n=450 households)
79
122
97
256
287
10
buffalo
cattle
goats
pigs
chickens
ducks
Figure 10 Number of farmers selling livestock 
2018 (n=450)
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 13
CCT committed to begin buying existing TLADP commodity production from farmers before TLADP 
seedlings began yielding commercial volumes. CCT has maintained data on purchases from TLADP 
farmers detailed in the table below.
Two questions emerge from these numbers: Why did clove purchases jump so sharply in 2018 when 
TLADP clove seedlings are not yet producing? Why did cassava purchases drop after 2015?
• The purchase pattern for cloves reflects the fact that Aileu was late to be formally included in 
TLADP and farmers in this district own many (most) of the pre-existing clove trees.
• There are two reasons for changing cassava purchases. Cassava prices dropped from $0.18 to 
$0.15/kg after the 2015 harvest and many farmers chose to leave the tubers in the ground to 
wait for the possibility of a better price next year – it is very price sensitive. Second, cassava is a 
completely new business line for CCT and NCBA, and they decided to limit cassava purchases 
while they sorted out processing issues and developed a buyer. 
Overall, 14 percent of TLADP farmers reported they sold product to CCT in 2018. 
Figure 12 Average Household Income 2018
Table 2 CCT Purchases of TLADP Crops (USD)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 total
Cloves - 156 42 1,351 61,675 63,224
Cocoa 152 782 - 884 910 2,727
Robusta - - - - - -
Pepper - - - - 3,648 3,648
Vanilla - 266 442 1,120 3,010 4,838
total tree 
crops
152 1,204 484 3,355 76,872 82,066
Cassava 4,802 115,549 13,769 8,143 7,629 149,892
total value $4,954 $116,753 $14,253 $11,497 $84,501 $231,958
$235 
$149 
$220 
$252 
$223 
$654 
$1,059 
$1,786 
$1,402 
$1,410 
$444 
$194 
$953 
$798 
$741 
 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Average
Crop Revenues Livestock Revenues Non-Farm Cash
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 14
Project Outcomes
Figure 13 Distribution of TLADP Activities
Nurseries and Seedling Production
The overall number of seedlings for the five commercial non-cassava crops produced by nursery 
owners and distributed to TLADP farmers is roughly equal to the target, as seen in Table 3. The 
variation between numbers targeted and produced for each type is a logical result, as farmers 
choose the seedlings they want to receive. The number of Robusta seedlings produced was the only 
type significantly below the target, and the lower corresponding production levels in the future 
could have implications for profitability. (See the section on Pepper and Robusta Questions later in 
this evaluation for more detailed discussion.)
Planting material came from a combination of improved, imported seed stock for cocoa and Robusta 
coffee, imported cutting materials for a new, high-starch cassava, clove seeds from established 
Timorese farmers, and pepper and vanilla cuttings from established Timorese growers. Cassava 
stems were imported the first year only, each cut into five cuttings, planted and harvested 9 months 
later. CCT purchased harvested stems from farmers for redistribution to the next round of farmers. 
This 5-to-1 stem to cutting ratio makes it very quick to scale up cassava production – for a total of 
4,251,334 cuttings distributed. Seeds for the disease-resistant cocoa and high-yielding Robusta were 
developed at ICCRI in Indonesia, and seeds were imported annually with support from MAF. Clove, 
pepper and vanilla materials were purchased from reliable, experienced local growers.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 15
CCT contracted a total of 90 farmer nursery owners 338 times over the life of the project. Ninety
nursery owners participating in the final project year had an average production of 8,000 seedlings 
each. Newer nursery owners were growing smaller numbers, and experienced nursery owners were 
interviewed who were growing up to 30,000 seedlings each. Both new and experienced nursery 
owners reported they had very few losses (counted in the tens) and the larger nursery owners were 
confident of their ability to manage such a large undertaking based on their previous success. 
As part of the FES, at least two current nursery owners were interviewed in each of Lautem, 
Viqueque and Aileu districts. All nursery owners from the largest to the smallest were pleased with 
the experience and were ready to work again on contract with CCT. However, only one nursery 
owner in Aileu said he would continue in the nursery business after TLADP closed. This owner had 
experience working in the Portuguese commercial nursery in Aileu, supplied seedlings to a variety of 
program buyers, and said program buying was the only way nurseries were a viable business. He 
agreed with the other nursery owners that individual farmers were not willing to buy seedlings but 
preferred to wait for an organized program to provide them. This is the same opinion voiced during 
the MTE.
The system of farmer-owned nurseries located throughout the project areas is a sensible strategy for 
several reasons.
• With basic training and support, farmers are capable of producing good quality seedlings. Based 
on feedback from nursery owners, the strategy of starting nursery owners with smaller, more 
manageable numbers and increasing the numbers annually diversifies risk, builds confidence and 
is effective. 
• Decentralized nurseries reduce the travel distance required for distribution thereby limiting 
stress on the seedlings, increasing quality on delivery and maximizing the likelihood of seedling 
survival.
Table 3 Seedling Production by Type and Year
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
TLADP 
total
EOP 
Target
cloves 4,242 23,781 20,378 11,859 15,700 75,960 45,000
cocoa 4,977 117,271 233,440 184,796 245,493 370,673 1,156,650 850,000
Robusta 450 62,503 117,185 151,056 295,560 626,754 1,000,000
pepper 4,241 7,513 27,994 23,231 34,080 97,059 100,000
vanilla 5,299 14,665 29,531 13,702 63,197 25,000
cassava
total 4,977 121,962 308,755 344,640 449,311 714,015 1,943,660 2,020,000
Table 4 Distribution of Total Seedlings by Type and District
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque Total
Cassava 181,999 3,091,124 978,231 4,251,354
Cloves 51,440 4,086 14,091 6,343 75,960
Cocoa 170,567 611,696 374,387 1,156,650
Robusta 104,770 353,826 168,158 626,754
Pepper 63,426 2,446 17,623 13,564 97,059
Vanilla 29,240 8,643 17,393 7,921 63,197
Total 144,106 472,511 4,105,753 1,548,604 6,270,974
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 16
• Decentralizing nurseries puts more cash in farmers’ pockets – another $74,000 this year, and a 
total of $205,000 over the six years of seedling distribution.
• Sourcing seedlings locally builds program ownership among farmers.
• Local nurseries can be reactivated and scaled-up on demand.
A comprehensive analysis of seedling production and distribution costs was completed as part of the 
FES, and the total cost of the target number of seedlings for 2019 was $224,000, or an average cost 
of $0.32 each (including bundles of cassava sticks).
Farmer Numbers and Distribution
The number of farmers included in TLADP in March 2019 
totaled 12,374, exceeding the project target of 10,000. 88 
percent of the farmers are located in the three primary 
target areas of Lautem, Viqueque and the area of Baucau 
adjacent to Viqueque. The distribution of crops among the 
districts is outlined in Table 6, where the totals do not sum 
to 12,374 because farmers typically multi-crop and took 
several types of seedlings.
Table 6 Total TLADP Farmers by District and Crop
Cassava Cloves Cocoa Robusta Pepper Vanilla
Aileu 0 890 0 0 1023 318
Baucau 71 86 812 470 48 104
Lautem 1296 462 3005 1732 585 265
Viqueque 491 120 1725 911 169 109
Total 1,858 1,558 5,542 3,113 1,825 796
Tree Crops
The FES survey repeated 
the same process 
employed in the MTE, 
counting all live trees on 
farms in the random 
sample, comparing these numbers with the number of seedlings of each type issued to these 
farmers, and calculating the seedling survival rates as listed in Table 8. While the district variations 
can provide valuable information to CCT and their extension workers on success and weaknesses, 
the district samples were too small to be statistically valid and the overall averages were applied 
to the total number of seedlings distributed in order to obtain project-wide projections of 
productive trees.
Based on the projected tree numbers, yields over time and projected prices, there are sufficient 
numbers of all tree crops for processing to be profitable for CCT. The number of trees for Robusta 
coffee and pepper will generate relatively low values for exports, and this issue is discussed in more 
detail in the section, “Robusta and Pepper Questions.”
Table 5 Total TLADP Farmers by 
District
District Number of 
Farmers %
Aileu 1,488 12%
Baucau 1,445 12%
Lautem 6,290 51%
Viqueque 3,141 25%
Total 12,374 100%
Table 7 Distribution of Farmers by District and Crop (%)
Cassava Cloves Cocoa Robusta Pepper Vanilla
Aileu 0% 57% 0% 0% 56% 40%
Baucau 4% 6% 15% 15% 3% 13%
Lautem 70% 30% 54% 56% 32% 33%
Viqueque 26% 8% 31% 29% 9% 14%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 17
Seedling Survival Rates
How do the seedling survival rates compare to the MTE results? The FES average counted survival 
rate was roughly comparable to the MTE rate for cloves and Robusta, and was lower for cocoa, 
pepper and vanilla. Arithmetically, this seems to be caused by very small tree counts for cloves in 
Baucau and Viqueque, and for surprisingly 
small counts for pepper and vanilla in 
Viqueque. Farmers have not been 
reporting higher seedling mortality rates 
over the past few years, so the underlying 
cause for this difference is unknown and is 
likely attributable to the random sampling 
process. To maintain the most conservative projections for farm revenues and exports in the 
analysis, the lower FES survival rates were applied.
Cassava
CCT and NCBA undertook substantial experimentation to find both cultivation and processing 
strategies that are commercially viable and feasible for the 1,858 TLADP cassava farmers. Cultivation 
is addressed here, while processing is addressed in the section below on supply chain development.
Based on the random sample included in the FES, TLADP farmers have prepared an estimated 796 
hectares for cassava cultivation (see the section on methodology in Project Yields and Revenues for 
more detail on estimation methods). 
In 2018, CCT reevaluated its strategy for cultivating and purchasing cassava as a result of farmers’ 
complaints about time for processing and the risks in drying.10
 CCT has developed a four-part 
strategy to ensure an adequate supply and improve commercial viability and address farmer 
concerns of tubers to the processing facility in Patoo:
1. CCT is negotiating to use 100 hectares of MAF land adjoining the facility, and CCT staff will 
cultivate 40 hectares directly. CCT has negotiated with the local MAF office to repair two of 
their inoperable tractors and will maintain it in exchange for priority use.
2. Sixty hectares will be cultivated by local farmers under contract to CCT. CCT will provide tractor 
services, fencing material, planting material and fertilizer, with costs reimbursed at the time of 
sale.
3. CCT trucks will pay full price and pick up fresh tubers from TLADP farmers located within 20 km 
of the Patoo facility.
4. CCT will buy fresh tubers from TLADP farmers further than 20 km with a transport charge, or 
they will pay full price for tubers delivered to the Patoo facility.
All four sources combined should provide a stable production base and overall adequate supply of 
cassava to meet the anticipated demand. 
Crop Supply Chains
Individual crop supply chains were discussed in detail in the midterm evaluation, and this section is 
intended to provide updated information and changes. The main challenges for CCT as they expand 
procurement will be coordinating organic certification while maintaining separate processing and 
10 Lautem has a different weather pattern than other areas of Timor-Leste and gets two lengthy seasons with 
intermittent rains. Increasing uncertainty on seasonal timing now makes sun-drying any product (cassava, 
cocoa or pepper) riskier in Lautem.
Table 8 FES Seedling Survival Rates
Cloves Cocoa Robusta Pepper Vanilla
Aileu 77% 81% 76%
Baucau 38% 58% 84% 50% 47%
Lautem 43% 69% 69% 51% 82%
Viqueque 10% 67% 58% 16% 25%
Total 71% 66% 65% 59% 68%
MTE 69% 74% 66% 79% 78%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 18
storage lines for organic and non-organic products. This will diminish the closer the certification 
process moves towards full coverage in approximately four years.
Cloves
As of March 2019, there were 1,558 TLADP clove farmers (71 percent men and 29 percent women), 
the fourth most popular crop among the five tree crops offered under TLADP. Table 7 indicates that 
Aileu will dominate clove production with 57 percent of producers, followed by another 30 percent 
in Lautem, and Viqueque and Baucau splitting the remaining small numbers of clove producers. 
Based on the calculated average seedling survival rate, 75,960 TLADP clove seedlings distributed 
through March 2019 are likely to result in an estimated 54,000 clove trees (using the FES calculated 
seedling survival rate of 71 percent). Initial commercial yields from TLADP trees are projected to 
start in 2021 with approximately 4,500 kg, reaching mature annual production above 300,000 kg in 
2029 (see Table 15).
Clove production was common during the Indonesian era (especially in Aileu), and most TLADP clove 
farmers have pre-existing trees. CCT has been purchasing cloves from these older trees throughout 
the project period, totaling $63,224 through March 2019.11
 Three shipments of hand-picked 
gourmet cloves have been sent to the McCormick Corporation in the US.
After the dried cloves are purchased from the farmers at the three buying stations in Patoo, 
Viqueque and Comoro, they are transported to CCT’s NT facility in central Dili where they are 
cleaned, sorted and graded. TLADP resources contributed to the refurbishment of the NT grading, 
packing and storage facility, although CCT is now moving all clove storage to the new TLADP-built 
facility in Comoro, Dili which is better equipped to handle large volumes. Bagged cloves will be 
packed in containers and delivered to the port directly from the Comoro facility. 
Cocoa
Cocoa has been the most popular crop among TLADP farmers with 5,542 farmers (45 percent of all 
farmers, of which 70 percent are male and 30 percent female) choosing to receive a total of 
1,156,650 cocoa seedlings. The FES tree count for sample farmers indicated a seedling survival rate 
of 66 percent. Surprisingly, more than half (54 percent) of all cocoa farmers are located in Lautem, 
and only 31 percent are in Viqueque where there is a strong, established cocoa-growing tradition 
from the Indonesian era. The remaining 15 percent of cocoa farmers are in Baucau.12
 
The supply chain for cocoa is straightforward. Cocoa is purchased from farmers in Lautem, Viqueque 
and Comoro in the form of bagged, dried beans. These are transported to the Comoro facility where 
they are tested for moisture content, cleaned and dried further as required and graded, bagged and 
stored. Bagged cocoa is containerized and delivered to the port directly from Comoro. No cocoa has 
been exported (just one bag inside a coffee container for testing in Australia). CCT has 2.5 metric 
tons of dried cocoa beans in storage at Comoro waiting to accumulate enough beans for a first 
export container requiring 13 metric tons.
Over the project period, CCT has purchased 1.58 tons of cocoa for $2,727 from TLADP farmers with 
existing trees, just over half CCT’s total procurement of cocoa of which was from TLADP farmers with 
pre-existing trees. During the past two years they have shipped TLADP cocoa samples from early￾yielding trees to potential buyers for flavor profiling. TLADP commercial yields are just beginning on 
11 These purchases from TLADP farmers are 18 percent of CCT’s total clove procurement over the project 
period. All clove purchases were processed and consolidated into the export shipments.
12 TLADP cocoa seedlings were not distributed in Aileu in order to avoid overlapping activities with another 
project.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 19
the earliest seedlings distributed, likely totaling around 40 tons in 2019 and all seedlings should 
reach their peak mature yields in 2026 producing over 400 tons. 
Robusta Coffee
Robusta coffee has been the second most popular crop among TLADP farmers with 3,113 farmers 
(69 percent male, 31 percent female) receiving 626,754 seedlings. The FES tree counts for sample 
farmers indicated a seedling survival rate of 65 percent. Fifty-six percent of Robusta farmers are 
located in Lautem, another 29 percent in Viqueque and the remaining 15 percent of growers are in 
Baucau.13
 
The current method of processing Arabica coffee will be used to process Robusta. Ripe cherries will 
be purchased from TLADP farmers (eventually all certified organic) in Lautem, Viqueque and Baucau 
which will be transported to the Patoo facility. CCT has used TLADP resources to purchase the same 
pulping mill used in other CCT coffee installations, and will allocated resources to construct and 
commission it in Patoo together with drying areas. The dried beans will be stored at Patoo. When 
CCT has finished the final processing and export of the Arabica crop in the NT facility, the system is 
cleaned, the bagged, dried Robusta beans will be brought from Patoo to NT, and the final stages of 
processing the Robusta beans can be completed prior to export. 
The first yields should begin in 2019 with about 19 tons of Robusta, gradually increasing to a total of 
a thousand tons when all distributed seedlings reach maturity in 2029. CCT has only bought Robusta 
once (in 2017) from non-TLADP farmers and managed the processing and sale without any difficulty. 
This product was sold to Royal Coffee (USA) and small coffee roasters in New Zealand, and TLADP 
production is likely to follow this route.
Pepper
A total of 1,825 farmers (71 percent male, 29 percent female) elected to grow pepper seedlings. The 
FES tree count of sample farmers indicated a seedling survival rate of 59 percent – the lowest of all 
types of seedlings. More than half of all pepper farmers (56 percent) located in Aileu. Lautem 
follows with 32 percent of pepper farmers, with Viqueque (9 percent) and Baucau (3 percent) taking 
the rest. 
The supply chain for pepper is similar to the ones used for cloves and cocoa. Farmers sell dried 
pepper to CCT at their buying locations in Patoo, Viqueque and Comoro. This is transported to the 
Comoro facility where it is tested for moisture content, dried further as required and cleaned, 
bagged and stored. When an adequate volume is collected, the pepper is shipped to Java where it 
undergoes a specialized cleaning process to meet phytosanitary requirements for human 
consumption, is consolidated with stocks there, packaged or bagged, containerized and exported.
13 No Robusta coffee seedlings were distributed in Aileu, as this area is dominated by Arabica production.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 20
CCT has traditionally purchased 
dried black pepper in Timor-Leste 
with the volumes typically moving 
together with the price: when 
prices are higher, farmers are more 
interested in drying and selling their 
pepper. This tends to reinforce the 
cyclical nature of the international 
price for pepper in the procurement 
values as seen in Figure 14 CCT 
Pepper Procurement. The increased 
volume in 2018 purchases despite 
the current low in the cyclical price is a result of TLADP pepper farmers’ first yields. Just under two 
tons of TLADP pepper was purchased this year – one year ahead of projections – and is expected to 
rise to 86 tons at mature production levels in 2025.
Vanilla
Of all the TLADP crops, the smallest number of farmers have chosen to plant vanilla: 796, or about 
6.5 percent of all farmers according to the TLADP MIS (73 percent male, 27 percent female). The 
largest proportion of vanilla farmers are located in Aileu and Lautem (40 percent and 33 percent of 
all vanilla farmers, respectively) where there was some experience with the crop during the 
Indonesian era. The remainder of the farmers are split evenly between Baucau and Viqueque. 
Considering the extremely high value of vanilla to farmers (it had a farmgate price of $57 per kg in 
2018), it is unclear why more farmers did not elect to plant vanilla. One reason might be the 
availability of water, as vanilla requires more water than the other tree crops and water in farmers’ 
gardens can be scarce. Another reason might be the perceived labor intensity of vanilla as each 
flower needs to be hand-pollenated in order to produce a bean. This reluctance might decline once 
farmers get a realistic picture of the labor input.
Farmers sell fully ripe green beans to CCT the day they are picked. During the harvest season, these 
will be transported daily to Comoro where the drying process starts immediately. A slow curing and 
drying process produces higher quantities of vanillin in each bean, and the carefully-managed
process takes about six weeks to complete. The dried beans are then graded, bundled, and air￾shipped to Java to be consolidated into larger export shipments. 
In 2018, CCT purchased a total of 7,028 kg of green beans in Timor-Leste, of which only 61 kg (less 
than 1 percent) came from TLADP farmers. TLADP procurement should rise rapidly starting in 2020 
and is projected to reach more than 100,000 kg by 2024. 
Cassava
The TLADP MIS counts 1,858 cassava farmers (69 percent male, 31 percent female). Based on the 
FES survey data, the total area ready for cassava planting is 796 hectares. The survey also indicates
that 70 percent (or about 560 hectares) of the total cultivation area for cassava is located in Lautem, 
supported by the MIS data showing that 70 percent of TLADP cassava farmers are located there. A 
further 26 percent of farmers are located in Viqueque, and just four percent in Baucau. Cassava was 
not distributed to farmers in Aileu district. 
Cassava was initially included in the crop mix design in order to give farmers the opportunity to grow 
a quick-return crop while waiting for the longer-term return on the tree crops, but actual behavior 
reveals that cassava farmers have generally chosen to focus on that one crop. Analysis of the mix of 
Figure 14 CCT Pepper Procurement
$7.00
$6.00
$3.50
$2.00
 -
 1,000
 2,000
 3,000
 4,000
 5,000
 6,000
 -
 1.00
 2.00
 3.00
 4.00
 5.00
 6.00
 7.00
 8.00
2015 2016 2017 2018
Kilograms
Farmgate Price per kg
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 21
crops TLADP farmers are growing in the random sample reconfirmed the results of the MTE, with 30 
of the 33 cassava farmers (91 percent) growing only cassava. 
CCT’s adaptive strategy for cassava production includes a MOCAF production and cassava starch 
production in Tibar that will produce MOCAF for domestic sale and consumption, where the 
warehouse and annex were supported by TLADP resources and CCT purchased the milling 
equipment. In consultation with Heineken, cassava starch processing has recently been upgraded to 
meet higher quality standards which will also benefit local retail sales of MOCAF. The second 
processing facility has now been built at Patoo, Lautem District with TLADP resources to produce 
dried cassava chip. This line takes fresh, wet tubers from TLADP farmers, peels and chips them, after 
which they are dried on platforms or in a drying tunnel. This dried product is converted into flour 
and fiber for export and domestic consumption at the Tibar cassava mill. This line became 
operational in March 2019 and should be able to process all cassava wet tuber production from 
Lautem. CCT will continue to purchase farmer dried cassava chip for farmers in Baucau and 
Viqueque. Any dried, chipped cassava produced by Viqueque farmers for a higher price will be 
transported to Tibar for further processing into MOCAF and cassava starch.
In 2018, CCT purchased 136 tons of mixed wet and dry cassava, virtually all of which came from 
TLADP farmers harvesting the improved, high-starch variety suitable for milling. Depending on the 
mix of wet vs. dried, the flour yield from these purchases would be between 45 and 120 tons of 
flour. This is a small fraction of the nearly 20 thousand tons of estimated potential tuber production, 
with an equivalent flour yield of 6,600 tons 
(33 percent by weight). Discussions with 
Heineken indicate their initial purchases will 
be approximately 30 tons of flour per 
month, or 360 tons per year, depending on 
sales. To fulfill this demand, CCT will have 
to count on buying approximately 1,100 
tons of wet tuber (not counting draw-down 
of flour stocks), which is substantially above 
current levels but feasible based on earlier 
procurement (see Table 14). Other regional Heineken installations have also expressed an interest 
in monthly purchases of cassava flour, and this will have to be worked into procurement and 
production plans once Heineken locally certifies the quality of the product.
The table above indicates that procurement will have to increase by three-to-six times the 2018 level 
in order to meet Heineken’s local needs, and CCT staff are confident this can be realized, especially 
with the new wet tuber processing line installed in Patoo. A CCT manager who worked on a previous 
CCT project in Same district commented that in his experience “supply of cassava is not the 
constraint – it’s the demand for the flour.” He is sure that if you let farmers know you’re ready to 
buy their tubers, they will show up with ample product. 
Infrastructure
CCT has used TLADP resources to build and renovate substantial a range of infrastructure to enable 
production and processing of the TLADP crops. All of the infrastructure listed in Table 10 is complete 
and operational, with the exception of the coffee cherry pulping mill that is being stored in the Patoo 
warehouse and will be installed when Robusta yields are available for purchase. All of these were 
essential investments and will play a role in CCT’s sustainable business development.
Table 9 Cassava Projections
cassava flour
CCT 2018 Procurement
136 tons 
mixed wet & 
dried
45-120 
tons
Potential full￾cultivation
20,000 tons
wet tuber 6,600 tons
Heineken T-L
1,091 tons
wet tuber 360 tons
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 22
Organic Certification
One of the key concerns of the MTE was CCT’s ability to achieve any 
number of organic certifications for TLADP farmers before the 
project closed. Organic certification can only be completed two 
years after the trees have been planted, and it would have been 
inefficient to start certification before a large number of the farms 
are ready for harvesting and a large number of on-farm crops can 
be inspected and certified in one external inspection process. The 
timelines for initial yields meant CCT would not have access to 
project funds for much of this costly activity. The FES found this process had been planned and 
Table 10 Infrastructure Investments
Location Buildings Equipment
Tibar Construction of 8,100 cubic meters 
to house the MOCAF production line 
and provide additional storage.
Construction of 4,680 cubic meters 
annex to the Tibar warehouse.
NT, Dili Renovation of 440 cubic meters for 
the processing and storage of cloves.
Comoro, Dili Construction of 11,300 cubic meters 
to house the cocoa drying and 
storage, vanilla drying and curing, 
clove storage, and pepper storage.
Patoo, Lautem Construction of 4,050 cubic meters 
to house the cassava wet tuber 
processing line, buying station for 
cloves, cocoa, Robusta cherries, 
pepper and vanilla green beans, 
semi-finished stock storage, plus 
additional area for drying of all 
commodities.
Renovated/constructed 
administrative and accommodation 
facilities.
Cassava wet tuber peeler and 
chipper.
Coffee cherry pulping mill.
Drying tunnels.
Baucau, 
Viqueque, Aileu
Renovated rented project office 
facilities as recommended in the 
MTE. These will be retained after 
the project closes and used for local 
administration and buying stations.
Other Purchase of two 4WD trucks for 
project operations, which have been 
transferred to CCT for crop 
transportation.
Table 11 TLADP Farms with 
Organic Certification
Cloves 164
Cocoa 267
Robusta 101
Pepper 19
Vanilla 24
Total 575
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 23
organized, with the first 575 farmers having successfully completed the process during 2018. 
Farmers have received training in this process and understand the need for certification in order to 
obtain higher organic and Fair Trade pricing from CCT – a strong incentive. Certification in Aileu is 
expected to be simpler than in other areas because most farmers are already certified organic 
Arabica producers and the TLADP commodities would be an expansion of this certification. 
However, farmers in Baucau, Lautem and Viqueque will be starting this process from a zero base. 
CCT has an ongoing working relationship with the certification organization and the basic strategy is 
as follows:
• An internal certification team has been established. 
• Twenty extension officers have been trained to transition to Internal Compliance Officers.
• A plan to add the new farms for cloves, coffee, pepper and vanilla has been created to begin
certification just prior to their first harvest.
• Organic certification for cocoa is likely, but will be decided depending on future commercial 
considerations.
• Processing of crops purchased from TLADP organic certified farms will be undertaken separately 
from non-organic farms to maintain trackability and organic status that will ensure the highest 
possible value is obtained for exports.
• Funds are being budgeted to support its completion during the four years after TLADP closes. 
Capacity Building and Training
The MTE recommended increased capacity building for extension workers and participating farmers, 
and this was reportedly followed up. Discussions with extension workers confirmed these activities 
had taken place, and the FES survey included questions about what the farmer-participants had 
learned as part of their participation in TLADP, and whether or not they applied those lessons on 
their farms. 
Questions were asked 
about lessons on plant 
spacing, garden 
maintenance, product 
quality assurance, group 
establishment and 
garden management. 
These lessons were 
apparently well-received 
in view of the proportion 
of farmers who said they 
applied what they 
learned in their gardens. 
The weaknesses in the 
lessons on land 
management are 
unclear, although the 
fact that more farmers reported they applied the lessons than learned them is a strong indicator 
that the weakness lies in the survey question.
Figure 15 Farmers: What I Learned
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Land management
Plant spacing
Garden maintenance
Product quality assurance
Group establishment
Garden management
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 24
Impact Analysis
One of the weaknesses of TLADP design and monitoring lies in the fact that the project investment 
period is limited, while tree crops can take time to begin yielding and even longer to reach their 
mature commercial yields. TLADP ceased field operations in March 2019, and farmers are likely to 
get their first tentative yields of some tree crops the following harvest season. Moreover, seedling 
production and distribution has continued every year of the project, with the final seedling 
distribution completed in early March 2019. While cassava can be harvested as an annual crop, the 
trees will take another two-to-six years to begin producing, as outlined in Table 12. 
One of the key objectives of the Final Evaluation was to develop projections for production levels, 
farmer incomes and exports during the decade after the project ended – based on evidence of 
seedling survival rates and projected market prices. 
Production
Among the six crops promoted under the project, cassava is unique. Cassava is an annual tuber all 
farmers of Timor-Leste are familiar with as a traditional staple crop which farmers have the option of 
leaving in the ground if they do not need or want to
harvest it in any given year. This is a valuable 
characteristic in a harsh environment subject to drought 
and food shortages, although it results in some 
uncertainty for CCT’s commercial processing activity as 
farmers can be very sensitive to price changes. For 
example, the drop in price for dried chipped cassava 
from $0.18 per kg to $0.15 per kg resulted in most 
farmers choosing to leave their existing crop in the 
ground and to reduce planting of new sticks. Output is 
very price sensitive and can change dramatically from 
one year to the next – both up and down. 
The current rate of cassava production and procurement is not a sound basis for projections for both 
supply and demand reasons. Investment in the new processing plant in Lospalos was completed in 
early 2019 which will enable wet tuber processing – although the price paid to farmers is lower, it is 
a popular option as peeling, chipping and drying is hard work, and the sale of wet tubers does not 
Figure 16 Farmers: Lessons I Applied in My Gardens
Table 12 Approximate Yield Timeline for 
Tree Crops
Commodity
Year 
of 
first 
yield
Year of 
mature 
yield
Estimated 
Lifespan
Years
Cloves 6 12 50
Cocoa 3 7 60
Robusta 4 10 100
Pepper 4 6 20
Vanilla 2 5 10
sources: NCBA Tree Crop Advisor, FAO
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Land management
Plant spacing
Garden maintenance
Product quality assurance
Group establishment
Garden management
Aileu Baucau Lautem Viqueque
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 25
depend on good weather to dry. On the demand side, CCT now has a firm domestic buyer ready for 
regular delivery and expressions of interest from reputable buyers outside Timor-Leste. The demand 
in global markets is unpredictable but the outlook is optimistic right now,14 and the supply response 
from farmers could be very quick. For these reasons, the cassava flour production output and values 
below should be considered indicative parameters.
On the other hand, output from tree crops is predictable. For the FES, the author worked with the 
NCBA Tree Crop Advisor to develop yield timelines for each of the tree crops, including the year of 
first yields and rates of increase up to mature yields (see Table 12). Among the TLADP tree crops, 
only vanilla has a relatively short, ten-year lifespan with slight declines in productivity during the last 
two years, but it also easy to propagate and has the shortest period to first yield (second year after 
planting). Projections of output and revenues from vanilla assume that 
farmers have an ongoing seedling development strategy for replanting 
and expansion, and a constant mature yield rate is assumed (based on 
field discussions, expansion and increased production is more likely).
Methods for Projecting Farm Output
A simple method was used to determine the maximum potential 
production levels for cassava. The FES survey included measurements 
for each of four possible plots used to plant TLADP seedlings. Cassava 
plots require full sun while the tree crops require shade trees, thus the 
cassava plots were used for cassava only. The total square meters for cassava plots in the FES 
random sample (both planted or fallow) were measured and averaged by the number of farmers 
growing cassava, and this number (4,284 m2
) was multiplied by the total number of TLADP cassava 
farmers (1,858 farmers). The resulting total of cassava-ready hectares for production is 796,15 with 
a realistic potential production of just under 20 thousand tons per year. This production level was 
used throughout, although increased demand and a rising price could induce farmers to open new 
land to cassava cultivation.
16
TLADP tree crop production is more predictable, as are the global markets for their output. The 
plots of the random sample of 450 farmers were measured and the number of TLADP trees of each 
type were counted. The number of seedlings distributed to these farmers was used to determine 
the seedling survival rate for each type of tree, and these rates were applied to the total number of 
seedlings distributed to all TLADP farmers to yield the total number of trees of each type. The 
numbers of trees were then applied to the yield stream to calculate total production by type. 
14 Beverage manufacturers are looking at cassava for beer and alcohol production, and cassava starch is being 
used to replace plastic in bag production. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/23/our￾research-found-that-climate-change-could-cause-beer-shortage-heres-why/?utm_term=.3833c621755f 
15 This is higher than the estimated 547 hectares calculated from the MTE survey.
16 There is ample unused land, especially in Lautem, that is suitable for cassava cultivation.
Table 13 TLADP 
Farmers by Crop
number
Cassava 1,858
Cloves 1,558
Cocoa 5,542
Robusta 3,113
Pepper 1,825
Vanilla 796
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 26
Yields of Targeted Commodities
As noted previously, 
TLADP tree crops are 
expected to begin 
yielding small amounts 
in 2019 and all seedlings 
distributed under the 
program will reach 
mature yields by 2020. 
CCT has been buying 
crops from TLADP 
farmers in the volumes (KG) shown in Table 14, but these were almost exclusively products from 
pre-existing trees. Some preliminary yields could have come from TLADP cocoa and vanilla trees in 
2018 (highlighted cells), although these would have been very small, first year yields. TLADP Robusta 
coffee and pepper are projected to begin producing in 2019, and cloves not until 2021.
The projected production yields 2019-2029 based on seedling distribution and maturation rates are 
shown in the table below.
Table 15 Projected TLADP Farm Production 2019-2029 (MT)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Cloves, 
dried - - 4.51 32.83 74.39 121.34 180.80 234.68 288.57 339.44 373.45
Cocoa, 
dried beans 43.46 80.88 140.05 228.06 289.61 347.66 392.32 419.19 419.19 419.19 419.19
Robusta 
Coffee, 
cherries 
19.18 29.37 48.55 121.72 228.65 312.02 468.20 634.21 779.84 925.47 1,021.85
Pepper, 
dried 1.25 4.73 16.48 33.85 59.07 76.02 86.10 86.10 86.10 86.10 86.10
Vanilla, 
green 
beans 
5.21 17.05 36.27 58.72 80.97 100.74 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75
Total 69.11 132.03 245.86 475.19 732.69 957.79 1,235.17 1,481.93 1,681.45 1,877.95 2,008.33
Farmer Incomes
Tree Crops
A detailed price projection was developed for each crop based on NCBA’s extensive experience and 
understanding of these international markets. Market prices were used to derive farmgate prices 
and applied to total projected production. Total TLADP farmer revenue by tree crop is found in 
Table 16, projected for the years 2019-2029.
The most recent distributions of vanilla seedlings will all reach mature productivity in approximately 
2024, and the price is projected to remain relatively stable at that level.17
 Pepper prices are 
historically cyclical, typically following a ten-year cycle: prices are currently low, are expected to rise 
through 2023-2024, and then decline again. As with the other crops, the general upward trend 
reflects increasing yields from maturing vines.
17 Assuming Madagascar avoids further hurricanes which have damaged vines and sent prices soaring the past 
few years.
Table 14 CCT Purchases of TLADP Crops (KG)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Cloves - 26 7 193 10,064
Pepper - - - - 1,820
Vanilla - 41 26 32 61
Cocoa 76 391 - 505 608
Robusta - - - - -
total tree 
crops
76 458 33 730 12,553
Cassava 28,246 491,632 75,845 52,435 136,522
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 27
Based on the seedlings distributed through March 2019 and assuming average survival rates as 
calculated in the FES survey, the 12,374 TLADP farmers should enjoy increased total annual revenues 
of over six million USD by 2029 when plantings are at mature yield levels. 
Table 16 TLADP Projected Farmgate Revenues Tree Crops 2019-2029 ($)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Cloves - - 27,083 196,965 446,340 728,061 1,084,779 1,408,085 1,731,391 2,036,642 2,240,675
Cocoa 73,888 137,491 238,081 387,705 492,329 591,026 666,951 712,626 712,626 712,626 712,626
Robusta 
Coffee 4,987 7,636 12,623 31,648 59,449 81,124 121,732 164,894 202,758 240,622 265,680
Pepper 2,508 16,554 82,413 203,106 413,524 456,127 430,492 301,344 172,197 172,197 301,344
Vanilla 267,318 699,888 1,190,751 1,638,765 2,259,529 2,811,470 3,007,062 3,007,062 3,007,062 3,007,062 3,007,062
Total 348,701 861,568 1,550,951 2,458,190 3,671,172 4,667,808 5,311,015 5,594,012 5,826,035 6,169,150 6,527,388
Average revenues per farmer were calculated based on total projected revenues and the number of 
farmers receiving each type of seedling. (Note the sum of all types in Table 13 is greater than the 
total 12,374 TLADP farmers because farmers often cultivate more than one crop.) The average 
incomes by tree crop are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18, where the cyclical nature of black pepper 
prices becomes very clear. Vanilla is shown separately because the very high price and relatively 
small number of farmers merits a different scale. 
Cassava
As noted above, predictions for farmer revenues and CCT revenues from cassava are less certain and 
a simple approach was taken to determine a conservative projection.
• Potential harvests of this annual crop were calculated based on measured plots TLADP 
farmers have prepared for cassava, regardless of their production or sales in 2018.
• Current prices for fresh tubers (sold to CCT and in the local markets) and dried chipped 
cassava were applied to the potential harvest.
• The current contract price for cassava flour was taken as a constant. 
 -
 50
 100
 150
 200
 250
 300
 350
 400
 450
 500
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
cloves cocoa Robusta pepper
 -
 500
 1,000
 1,500
 2,000
 2,500
 3,000
 3,500
 4,000
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Figure 17 TLADP Average Farmer Income by Tree Crop Figure 18 TLADP Average Vanilla Income
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 28
Based on these assumptions, cassava farmers have the potential to produce approximately 20 
thousand tons of Ailuka I (high starch) cassava tubers. From previous experience with cassava 
farmers in other districts where Ailuka I was introduced, CCT estimates that farmers will sell them 25 
percent of their production and sell 75 percent in local markets for a higher price. Using these 
parameters, TLADP cassava farmers have the potential to earn about $4 million per year at full 
production, although only about $350,000 would come from sales to CCT. This is an average income 
of roughly $2,200 per TLADP cassava farmer. 
In comparison, the value of CCT’s purchases from pre-existing trees plus the new variety cassava is 
shown in the table below.
Average Household Incomes
The farm revenue projections were combined with the FES survey results for household incomes 
from all sources (see Figure 12) to determine the impact TLADP crops will have. The total incomes 
per crop were weighted by the proportion of TLADP farmers growing each crop by district to obtain 
a district total value, and then divided by the number of farmers to get the weighted average. While 
the sample number in each district is insufficient to be statistically reliable, the overall weighted 
average in Figure 19 is a good general indicator. The additional income is broken into two parts: an 
average of $401 from tree crops (a reasonably confident projection), and a general potential for 
$331 from cassava (low confidence, could be higher or lower). The total increase averages out to 
$732 per household, or a 31 percent increase over 2018 incomes (17 percent from tree crops plus 14 
percent from cassava). Comparing the more reliable value of tree crops to current crop revenues, 
this is a substantial 180 percent increase over the value of 2018 crop sales.
Trade Volumes & Values
The projection of the volume of trade from TLADP crops is based on projected farmer production 
and CCT/NCBA’s detailed conversion analysis of commodity output after processing. Note the 
Table 17 Value of CCT Purchases 2014-2019
USD 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 total
Cloves - 156 42 1,351 61,675 63,224
Cocoa 152 782 - 884 910 2,727
Robusta - - - - - -
Pepper - - - - 3,648 3,648
Vanilla - 266 442 1,120 3,010 4,838
total tree 
crops
152 1,204 484 3,355 76,872 82,066
Cassava 4,802 115,549 13,769 8,143 7,629 149,892
total value $4,954 $116,753 $14,253 $11,497 $84,501 $231,958
Figure 19 Average Projected TLADP Crop Revenues and 2018 Household Incomes
$223 $1,410 $741 $401 $331 
 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
Crop Revenues Livestock Revenues Non-Farm Cash TLADP Tree Crops TLADP Cassava
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 29
volume of cassava is fixed at 360 tons per year – the sale amount being finalized with the local 
Heineken brewery. Inquiries from other buyers indicate this amount is very likely to rise.
The projected value of trade from TLADP crops is based on projected farmer production and 
CCT/NCBA’s detailed market perspectives for each of the crops. The total projected value of trade 
for TLADP crops is summarized in Table 19.
Table 19 Total Projected TLADP Exports 2019-2029 ($)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Cloves - - 39,519 287,412 651,300 1,062,386 1,582,909 2,054,678 2,526,446 2,971,869 3,269,593
Cocoa 97,977 182,315 315,699 514,104 652,837 783,710 884,389 944,955 944,955 944,955 944,955
Robusta 
Coffee 8,328 12,754 21,082 52,859 99,291 135,493 203,315 275,405 338,646 401,886 443,736
Pepper 2,628 9,910 60,437 177,316 371,332 557,495 541,195 450,996 315,697 180,398 180,398
Vanilla 290,252 759,931 1,377,198 1,895,361 2,613,324 3,251,687 3,477,905 3,477,905 3,477,905 3,477,905 3,477,905
Total 399,185 964,909 1,813,935 2,927,052 4,388,084 5,790,772 6,689,713 7,203,939 7,603,649 7,977,013 8,316,588
Over the next ten years, CCT believes it will buy all of the TLADP production of cloves, Robusta 
coffee, and black pepper produced by participating farmers, but it predicts additional buyers will be 
buying cocoa and vanilla and are likely to absorb a portion of the production.18
 CCT predicts it will 
buy 60 percent of the vanilla produced by TLADP farmers, and 50 percent of the cocoa. CCT expects
to export all the tree crops it procures and processes.19
 The values shown in Figure 20 represent 
total TLADP production for tree crops and assume that non-CCT buyers will export all their product 
at the same prices – a reasonable assumption considering the competitive international markets for 
these commodities.
18 Farmers are free to sell to any buyer, they are not bound by a contract system. This means CCT has to 
compete for its product on the basis of price. 
19 They think local demand for cocoa could possibly grow to take up to one percent of the crop.
Table 18 Projected TLADP Retail Production (MT)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
cloves - - 4 32 71 116 174 225 277 326 359
cocoa 40 74 129 210 267 320 361 386 386 386 386
Robusta 3 5 9 22 41 56 84 114 140 167 184
pepper 1 4 15 30 52 67 76 76 76 76 76
vanilla 1 3 6 10 13 16 18 18 18 18 18
tree 
crops
45 87 162 303 445 576 713 819 897 972 1,022
cassava 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360
Total 405 447 522 663 805 936 1,073 1,179 1,257 1,332 1,382
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 30
The total projected value of tree 
crop exports in 2029 – when all tree 
crops are yielding at mature rates 
but pepper prices are expected to 
be at a cyclical low – is over USD 8 
million per year. 
CCT/NCBA currently estimate the 
annual value of processed cassava at 
approximately $700,000 for 
domestic sale. Based on buyer 
inquiries, they predict that by 2029 
roughly 60 percent of sales will be 
exported. Even holding the current sales value constant, this would add another $400,000 to the 
total exports above, pushing it to towards $9 million. 
TLADP is fully consistent with the Government of Timor-Leste’s policy to diversify and increase 
agricultural exports. The most recent export statistics for Timor-Leste date from 2017,20 and coffee 
is the number two export at USD 26 million after petroleum. An additional USD 8 million would 
boost agricultural exports by roughly 30 percent, from commodities not previously exported. 
20 https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/tls/
Figure 20 Projected Tree Crop Exports 2029
$3,269,593 
$944,955 
$443,736 
$180,398 
$3,477,905 
cloves
cocoa
Robusta
pepper
vanilla
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 31
Product Buyers
NCBA expects principle buyers to include the 
following numbers of US firms and they will be 
receiving high quality products with traceability, at 
competitive prices. Overall, US firms are expected to 
buy 60-80 percent of the tree crops, while all cassava 
products are expected to go to non-US buyers. At 
mature yields (2029), the value of sales to US firms is 
projected to be roughly $6.5 million per year.
Beneficiary Satisfaction
The FES asked all farmers in the sample how satisfied they were with the project, and the results 
were overwhelmingly positive, with only four out of 450 farmers saying they were dissatisfied. 
This question is usually followed up by asking about the reason they were satisfied (or dissatisfied, 
according to the first response). However, the FES enumerators asked all respondents all reasons 
they were both satisfied and dissatisfied, which provides some interesting perspectives. When 
asked why they were happy with the project, three reasons were consistently given in all districts 
(Figure 22): (i) they learned how to grow new crops, (ii) they received free seedlings, and (iii) they 
will become members of the cooperative. 
When asked if they were unhappy with aspects of the project, the results are not surprising. 
Farmers in Lautem said the prices were too low – 70 percent of cassava farmers are located in 
Lautem, and they expressed their dissatisfaction over cassava prices early in the process. The other 
two dominant responses are (ii) it takes too long to earn money, and (iii) too many of my seedlings 
died. Complaints about the length of time for tree crops to produce are predictable, and cassava 
was apparently not an attractive alternative. High seedling mortality rates were exacerbated by the 
severe El Nino drought suffered during the first two years of the project, and one lesson learned 
would be to ensure farmers prepare adequate water delivery strategies to minimize losses.
Table 20 Product Buyers
% of 
CCT 
sales
to 
number 
of US 
buyers
estimated 
value of
US sales 
(2029)
cloves 80% 3
2,615,675
cocoa 70% 8 668,150
Robusta 60% 8 266,242
pepper 70% 5 126,279
vanilla 80% 3
2,782,324
Total 6,458,669
Figure 21 Farmer Satisfaction with TLADP
0
0
20
3
75
50
173
120
0
0
4
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0 50 100 150 200
Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Sum of Very satisfied
Sum of Satisfied
Sum of Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
Sum of Dissatisfied
Sum of Very dissatisfied
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 32
Job Creation
CCT and NCBA have prepared a comprehensive employment schedule based on mature yield 
production and processing. The jobs include part time processing of the various crops during and 
after harvest, and the full array of operational positions: operating factory equipment, farmer 
extension and compliance monitoring, monitoring & evaluation, data entry, housekeeping, drivers, 
office & cashier staff, management & supervision, etc. Eight-seven percent of the full time jobs 
would be outside Dili where economic opportunity is extremely limited, plus 38 percent of the 
seasonal jobs. For more detail on the array 
of jobs, see Annex 2. Implementation of 
TLADP employed 61 people full time, and 
many of whom have been transitioned to 
regular CCT staff post-TLADP.
Figure 22 Reasons Farmers are Satisfied
Figure 23 Reasons Farmers are Dissatisfied
Table 21 Projected Employment at Full Production
number of full time positions 112
number of part time positions 80
total 192
0 50 100 150 200 250
Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Sum of I learned how to grow new crops
Sum of It will help me earn more money
Sum of CCT will buy the harvest from my
old trees
Sum of CCT pays a fair price for my crops
Sum of They helped me solve problems
with my crops
Sum of I was able to get free seedlings
from them
Sum of I used what they taught me for my
other crops, too
Sum of I got organic certification through
the project
Sum of I am a member of the cooperative
0 10 20 30 40
Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Sum of I didn't learn anything new
Sum of It takes too long to earn more
money
Sum of The quality requirements are
too high
Sum of The prices are too low
Sum of It is too much work for me
Sum of Too many of my seedlings
died
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 33
CCT estimates this at 169 full time equivalent (FTE) positions, and at current wage levels it will have 
an annual wage cost of $358,000.
Rate of Return on TLADP Investment
The calculation of the rate of return was based on the value of increased production to TLADP 
farmers – it does not include any profits accruing to CCT as this level of accounting detail was not 
included in the study. However, as audited cooperative profits are largely rechanneled back to 
farmer members, the farmgate revenues can be considered a floor level – a conservative estimate. 
The value of jobs created was not included in the calculation because the projection for value of 
employment is for full production at mature yields (year 2029), and the annual path to that level is 
unclear.
Estimating the rate of return on the investment is challenging 
because of the range of confidence in the projections: NCBA is 
an experienced participant in all of the markets for the tree 
crops, but CCT and NCBA are new to the cassava industry at a 
time when demand is dynamic and prices are difficult to 
predict. For this reason, the rate of return was calculated twice 
– one based only on more confident tree crop projections, and the second including the less-reliable 
cassava projections – providing a lower and upper bound on the estimates. The total investment 
was set at USD 9,204,012, the total value of the TLADP project, and returns were calculated on total 
farmer incomes over 2019-2029. A standard Excel discounted rate of return (IRR) formula was used 
to obtain a lower bound estimate of 13 percent and a high of 25 percent. Development 
infrastructure projects typically use a benchmark of 12 percent to determine an efficient investment, 
although returns on smallholder agriculture investments are more typically around the six to eight 
percent range. 
A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the lower bound – the rate of return for tree crops –
calculating the returns if revenues are overestimated or underestimated by 25 percent. This can be 
interpreted as a +/- 25 percent change in the estimated number of productive trees, changes in 
international prices (from which the farmgate price is derived), or a combination of factors. The IRR 
in these cases is 11 percent and 16 percent, still within an acceptably positive range. How large of 
an estimation error could be tolerated before performance became marginal? An overestimate of 
50 percent (that is, reducing revenues by 50 percent) resulted in a 7 percent rate of return, which is 
still positive but probably near the lower acceptable bound. Thus, if there was zero return on 
investments in cassava and farmer revenues for tree crops only were half of the estimated 
projections, the project would be minimally successful. On this basis, the rate of return is rated 
fully successful.
Multiplier Impact
Cash infusions into a community are not the final impact. Increased income is used to purchase 
goods and services, and the recipients of that cash use it to buy more goods and services. This is the 
multiplier impact of increased incomes and is often estimated in its simplest form by surveying 
spending in two cycles – in this case, the farmers’ initial spending and a survey of local business 
spending patterns for round two. The multiplier in these areas was not estimated because the 
required data was not available and would have required an additional survey for which there were 
no resources. However, participants and businesses for community development projects in Nusa 
Tenggara, Indonesia – an area not too dissimilar from rural Timor-Leste – were surveyed in 2015 and 
Table 22 Estimated Rate of 
Return
Rate of Return
tree crops only 13%
all crops 25%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 34
a multiplier of 1.5 was estimated.21
 If this multiplier is applied to Timor-Leste, this means the 
addition of USD six million in farmer incomes from tree crops would have an ultimate economic 
impact of USD nine million once expenditures are recycled through the local economy. While the 
size of the multiplier and the actual impact of the increased revenues remains unknown, it is 
accurate to say it is larger than the value of the payments to farmers from CCT – this should be 
considered the lower bound estimate.
Regional Distribution of Income
Increasing incomes in Lautem, 
Viqueque and Baucau was a key 
project objective for the Government 
of Timor-Leste, and the results for 
mature production levels in 2029 are 
shown in Figure 24 . The distribution 
of increased income to farmers 
(including cassava) was weighted by 
the number of farmers of each type by 
district. The three primary target 
districts in 2029 account for 84 
percent of the projected farmer 
incomes – a substantial increase in 
rural incomes. 
If cassava is removed from the calculation, the three districts’ share falls to 72 percent of total 
farmer income. This is due to the fact that lower-value cassava plantings are concentrated in 
Lautem, and Aileu farmers only received vanilla, clove and pepper seedlings – with vanilla and cloves 
being the most valuable crops in the long term.
Robusta and Pepper Questions
The value of Robusta coffee and pepper to both farmers and CCT are the smallest of all the TLADP
crops, as reflected in Figure 20. While the projected export value of pepper at mature production 
levels in 2029 is estimated at under $200,000, it should be noted that this year also is projected to 
be the trough in the international price cycle. Nevertheless, even at its height, exports from current 
plants would only be around the $600,000 level – still small by CCT standards. The question for both 
Robusta and pepper is whether production should be encouraged, or should CCT consider 
abandoning these crops because of their low value? This evaluation supports the continued 
production and processing of both these crops for several reasons:
• Approximately 40 percent of TLADP farmers are now growing Robusta and/or pepper, and it 
would be very unpopular to withdraw from these crops.
• Product diversification in general is potentially beneficial for both farmers and CCT.
• Coffee buyers could be attracted by the ability to purchase organic Arabica and Robusta 
blends from a single country of origin.
• There would be little-to-no cost savings in eliminating these two crop lines.
CCT is highly experienced in managing coffee farmers, crop procurement, processing and selling 
coffee. The same equipment line is already purchased and will be installed in Patoo as in Railaco, 
and there is virtually no learning curve for staff or management. There would be no cost benefit in 
21 ”Economic Analysis of PNPM Rural 2012-2015,” World Bank Jakarta.
16%
9%
54%
21% Aileu
Baucau
Lautem
Viqueque
Figure 24 Regional Distribution of TLADP Income 
(including cassava) 2029
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 35
halting Robusta procurement, and in fact, it would eliminate the primary component (the discarded 
cherry pulp) of future compost production and sales. The cost argument for pepper is even simpler. 
Farmers dry the berries before they are sold to CCT, and the product is simply shipped to Java for 
cleaning and consolidation into larger export orders. As long as profits are made from each ton, it 
would make no sense to discontinue this activity. Increased Robusta and pepper plantings and 
procurement would entail approximately zero additional processing cost – on the contrary, average 
costs are likely to decline with larger volumes – and should be encouraged. With minimal training, 
pepper can be propagated easily at the farm level. Propagating Robusta coffee without seeds is 
slightly more complex in that it requires grafting onto good local root stock, but CCT is already 
planning to develop this capacity in its larger nurseries.22
 
Sustainability
Looking forward over the next decade as seedlings begin to produce commercial yields and reach 
mature production levels, there is no reason for activities at the farm level, procurement, processing 
and export not to be fully sustainable. Thirty-five positions (including extension workers) are being 
transitioned into field support positions to prepare farmers for the certification process and future 
compliance, and to support production activities. CCT has successfully completed procurement from 
the districts,
23 processing and export of all the tree crops, and is confident it can manage the cassava 
wet-tuber processing in addition to the MOCAF processing line already installed in Tibar. Once 
Heineken certifies hygienic performance of the MOCAF/flour production line, CCT anticipates 
additional sales in the Southeast Asian region.
While TLADP was able to achieve sufficient scale for the range of crops to be profitable to both 
farmers and CCT, the very low marginal cost of expanded processing makes expanding production 
very attractive. Expansion of some activities (especially cocoa) could be challenging without 
additional support, as outlined in Table 23. CCT has already received an inquiry from another 
bilateral donor interested in supporting continued seedling production, so the outlook is positive.
22 Farmer-managed nurseries in Eastern Indonesia are successfully propagating coffee and cocoa using this 
method.
23 Procurement at scale is not a simple procedure in Timor-Leste with extremely poor banking infrastructure. 
Once the funds arrive in-country, daily cash demands need to be accurately estimated and cash transferred 
long distances to ensure adequate resources are available. 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 36
Lessons Learned & Recommendations for Future Design
Some of the lessons learned identified in the mid-term evaluation remain true for the overall 
project, and some additional issues are listed here.
• The original project timeframe did not match the time needed for the target crops to mature 
and show results. Even with the expected project extension to June 2019, commercial yields 
have just begun and mature yields won’t be achieved from all the seedlings until 2029 – a full 
ten years after the project closes. Ideally, a project like TLADP should be designed in two 
phases. The first phase should focus on nursery establishment, seedling distribution, farmer 
group development and extension work. The second phase, contingent upon phase one 
milestones, would include infrastructure and supply chain development, and would encompass 
the first few years of commercial yields. For TLADP, the impact on farmer households should be 
assessed five years after project closing when a good portion of revenues have begun to flow. 
Lack of product sales at the end of TLADP is not a project failure but should have been foreseen.
• The farmer nurseries proved to be a very successful strategy.
Table 23 Practical Elements of Sustainability
Activity Post-TLADP Notes
Imported inputs No Polybags for seedlings, cocoa seeds, Robusta 
seeds
Propagation of certain crops Partial No cocoa – imported seeds required. Extension 
workers can advise on on-farm propagation of 
vanilla, pepper, and Robusta from cuttings, cloves 
from seeds from existing trees. 
Farmer nurseries No Capacity remains, can be easily re-started with 
other donor support.
Additional farmers No
Farmer extension work Partial Extension workers will be transitioned to …. To 
manage certification and provide farmer support.
Other staffing Yes Borrowed staff go back to their home units, 
buying and supply chain staff supported by 
economic activity.
Organic certification Yes CCT is funding this over 4 years as crops begin to 
yield.
Farmer groups Not yet The original plan was for farmer groups to 
become members of CCT. This can happen once 
the groups start to contribute to CCT revenue 
generation.
Post-harvest systems for 
commercial crops
Yes Cassava, cloves, cocoa, Robusta, pepper and 
vanilla supply chains established or ready.
Post-project support for non￾commercial crops
Partial No support for moringa anticipated. Once fruit 
orchards develop adequately, CCT plans to graft 
improved seedlings onto local rootstock and 
distribute.
Soil management Yes Extension workers to teach cocoa farmers to 
compost with cocoa remainder, compost 
production from coffee cherry pulping (as in 
Railaco) at Patoo mill and sale.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 37
o With basic training and support, farmers are capable of producing good quality seedlings
with minimal losses. Starting nursery owners with smaller, more manageable numbers and 
increasing the numbers annually diversifies risk, builds confidence and is effective. 
o Decentralized nurseries reduce the travel distance required for distribution thereby limiting 
stress on the seedlings, increasing quality on delivery and maximizing the likelihood of 
seedling survival.
o Decentralizing nurseries puts more cash in farmers’ pockets.
o Sourcing seedlings locally builds program ownership among farmers. 
o Local nurseries can be reactivated and scaled-up on demand.
• High seedling mortality was frustrating for farmers (see discussion in “Farmer Satisfaction”) and 
was no doubt exacerbated by the severe El Nino drought Timor-Leste suffered during the first 
two years of the project. In a country vulnerable to drought and where access to water can be a 
key issue even in good years, a design that supports climate resilience would incorporate 
experimentation with small-scale, low-technology micro-irrigation techniques. 
• Cassava was added to the crop mix during project design, and several lessons emerged from this.
a. The intention in adding cassava was to provide a faster (annual) income source for farmers 
while tree crops matured, but farmer preferences turned out quite differently than 
anticipated. Approximately 70 percent of farmers who chose to receive cassava seedlings 
chose only cassava from TLADP and did not use it as a bridge to longer-term tree crop 
revenues. It is unclear whether these farmers were confident of their ability to grow cassava 
and unsure of the other crops with which they had no experience, or if there were other 
obstacles to the adoption of the tree crops. 
b. Farmers’ ability to maintain or expand cassava cultivation is fully dependent on access to 
tractor services which are managed by the district offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Fisheries, and are very scarce due to breakdowns and lack of repairs. This is a constraint in 
all relevant districts – every farmer or farmer group interviewed said it was a problem – and 
the GoTL does not yet seem capable of overcoming it. 
c. Neither NCBA nor CCT had experience with cassava, and it was risky for them to undertake 
an entirely new venture while they were managing a large-scale expansion. It looks like this 
will be successful in the medium-term, but a question remains as to whether the time and 
resources spent on experimentation and adaptation required to make the cassava line 
successful could have been more profitably used to support tree crop activities.
Recommendation: be very cautious when adding an unknown or untested element to a project 
design, and make sure the justification can withstand intense scrutiny.
• The traditional nature of subsistence agriculture in the key target districts (Lautem, Viqueque 
and Baucau) are providing challenges that CCT has not experienced in the Arabica coffee 
producing areas of the country. CCT has been working with coffee farmers in the western part 
of the country for nearly 25 years, and farmers in these areas understand how commercial 
agriculture works. As a result, traditional cultural practices have been adapted to support 
livelihoods development that have not yet been considered in the eastern districts. 
The key issue noted during discussions with farmers is livestock management. In Lautem and 
Viqueque, one of the key impediments to expanding commercial planting is the risk of livestock 
intrusion and destruction of the crops. Cultural norms in these areas allow for free-range 
grazing of livestock. One vanilla farmer in Lautem told me her family had plenty of extra land 
and tried planting cassava the first year under TLADP, but buffalos broke through the wattle 
fencing and destroyed the crop. She wouldn’t risk planting anything else without very strong 
fencing, and she felt she and her husband had limited time and resources to build and maintain 
this. A similar story came from the Mother Superior of a convent who said they had planted 
extensive tree crops on a piece of land they owned including a variety of fruit trees as well as 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 38
TLADP seedlings and were looking forward to their first real harvest this year. They were 
devastated to find cattle had gotten into the garden, eaten the young fruit and destroyed many 
of the trees. There is no recourse for these losses, and many farmers have been discouraged 
from replanting.
The situation in Aileu is very different. I commented to one farmer that her thriving commercial 
vegetable garden was open to the road while there was a large community pasture on the other 
side – wasn’t she nervous? She informed me there were strict rules about grazing livestock and 
they had to be securely tied. If a buffalo or cow got into her garden and caused any damage, the 
owner would be fully responsible for paying the damages. Everyone knew and accepted this.
Free-range grazing was the traditional cultural norm throughout Timor and began to change in 
(Indonesian) West Timor in the early 20th Century. The practice of livestock control spread 
eastward only gradually with commercial agriculture, and while it is applied today in Aileu, it is 
not observed in Viqueque and Lautem where subsistence agriculture is still the norm. 
Discussions with GIZ program staff indicated a Japanese NGO was undertaking a process of 
intensive community planning consultations and several communities had recognized this as a 
constraint to progress and had changed it, but it was a long process requiring consultations over 
years. CCT is now aware of this one aspect of the complicated transition from subsistence to 
commercial agriculture and will have to develop strategies to work around it. Other obstacles 
could emerge, as well.
Key Evaluation Questions
Summary Ratings
The consultant uses the standardized and long-established criteria used by the World Bank including
for project evaluations and project completion reports. The “Harmonized Evaluation Criteria for ICR 
and OED Evaluations” (World Bank, 2005) are considered appropriate to rate TLADP project 
performance and results. A summary table of ratings is presented, followed by the summary 
analysis for each of the criteria. The analysis for each of the key questions includes in brackets 
hyperlinks to page numbered bookmarks where more detailed information can be found. 
Highly Satisfactory There were no shortcomings in the operation’s achievements of its 
objectives, in its effectiveness, in its efficiency or its relevance. 
Satisfactory There were minor shortcomings in the operation’s achievements of 
its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance. 
Moderately Satisfactory There were moderate shortcomings in the operation’s achievement 
of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance. 
Moderately Unsatisfactory There were significant shortcomings in the operation’s 
achievements of its objectives, in its efficiency or in its relevance. 
Unsatisfactory There were major shortcomings in the operation’s achievements of 
its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance. 
Highly Unsatisfactory There were severe shortcomings in the operation’s achievements of 
its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance. 
Relevance
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 39
1. To what extent has TLADP responded to the actual needs of 
beneficiaries, country’s priorities and strategies, economic, cultural 
and political context, existing interventions, and USDA and USG goals 
and objectives?
Highly Satisfactory
Effectiveness
2. To what extent have TLADP’s interventions resulted in increased 
agricultural productivity and expanded trade by increasing the value 
of post-harvest products and access to markets at the end of the 
project?
Satisfactory
3. Has the project led to the planned activities? Has it achieved the 
expected results? What adaptations, if any, were made to the 
project’s implementation process to achieve project objectives and 
targets?
Satisfactory
4. Have the following interventions and approaches been effective in 
reaching the intended project outcomes?
a. Partnering with a local implementing partner, CCT, for post￾harvest activities Highly Satisfactory
b. The use and role of farmer nurseries Highly Satisfactory
c. The selection and use of improved seedlings and cuttings Highly Satisfactory
5. What were the lessons learned for the benefit of project 
implementers, beneficiaries and other stakeholders? n/a
Efficiency
6. To what extent have the various levels, size, and composition of 
project management and coordination supported the 
implementation of the project?
Satisfactory
7. To what extent has the knowledge and skill levels of project farmers 
increased so that they are able to continue activities, like crop 
development, crop expansion, and marketing after the completion of 
the project?
Satisfactory
8. Has CCT efficiently developed and implemented appropriate and 
cost-effective post-harvest logistical, processing, storage and 
marketing systems?
Highly Satisfactory
Impact
9. What was the project’s impact on Increased productivity and 
Increased market access? Satisfactory
10. Assess the project’s future potential income opportunity for 
beneficiaries resulting from project interventions projected to 5 years 
post project (based on the known CCT on-farm crops as of March 
2019 and an assumed market price for crops)?
Satisfactory
11. What are some unexpected positive /negative outcomes resulting 
from the project? n/a
Sustainability
12. Assess to what extent local actors (value chain actors including 
farmers, farmer organizations, and the local agricultural cooperative) 
have been involved in the operation of the project? What is the 
probability that these actors will be able to provide succession?
Satisfactory
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 40
Relevance
1. To what extent has TLADP responded to the actual needs of beneficiaries, country’s priorities 
and strategies, economic, cultural and political context, existing interventions, and USDA and 
USG goals and objectives?
TLADP remains very appropriate to the needs & objectives of:
Farmers. 12,374 direct beneficiaries and approximately 76,000 indirect beneficiaries in the 
targeted districts have few alternative economic activities and by 2029 future revenues from 
TLADP tree crops are estimated to add 180 percent to the current average household revenues 
from crops of $223, adding an additional average $401 annually. Cassava is a flexible tool to 
support incomes, well known to local farmers, and has the potential to add additional value once 
the markets are developed. [28]
CCT. TLADP crops have helped CCT build to efficient scale in local value adding supply chains and 
will both increase and diversify overall income for members. [17]
Government. GoTL objectives were to diversify and increase agricultural exports, and increase 
rural incomes in Lautem and Viqueque. TLADP is the only large-scale agricultural project in those 
districts and will increase incomes (see above). Agricultural exports in 2017 totaled $26 million, 
and TLADP exports at mature production levels are expected to add another $8 million, or about a 
30 percent increase, of new export commodities. [27, 30, 34]
USDA and USG. TLADP is projected to result in 112 new full-time jobs and 80 new seasonal jobs
at mature production levels (169 FTE), injecting another $358,000 into the economy. 87 percent 
of the full-time jobs would be located outside Dili along with 38 percent of the seasonal jobs. [32]
US firms will be important beneficiaries of future TLADP production. NCBA estimates that 60-80 
percent of tree crops will go to US firms while all cassava products will go to non-US buyers. [31]
Effectiveness
2. To what extent have TLADP’s interventions resulted in increased agricultural productivity and 
expanded trade by increasing the value of post-harvest products and access to markets at the 
end of the project?
Agricultural production at mature yields are expected to exceed 1,000 mt of processed, value￾added product adding approximately $6.5 million annually to farmers’ incomes. The value of 
cultivated crops for sale by TLADP farmers is projected to increase by approximately 180 percent 
over 2018 levels and leverage a transition from subsistence to commercial farming – a difficult 
and critical process for Timor-Leste rural communities. Farmers in three districts will have access 
to a national buyer in CCT where none existed before, and through CCT will obtain the highest 
possible international prices for their products. [26, 27, 29]
3. Has the project led to the planned activities? Has it achieved the expected results? What 
adaptations, if any, were made to the project’s implementation process to achieve project 
objectives and targets?
Activities in each of the four functional components (seedling production, farm production, crop 
supply chain development, and capacity building and training) were achieved to the planned 
levels. In the end, the mix of crops might have varied somewhat from the initial targets, but these 
results depended on farmers choosing which plants they wanted to invest in – decisions were 
influenced by information provided by extension workers, but the choices were ultimately up to 
the farmers and their year-on-year experience. Seedlings are just now beginning to yield their 
first crops, and mature yields across all distributed seedlings won’t be reached until 2029. At that 
point, the full potential of the project should be achieved with the results meeting (if not 
exceeding) initial expectations. [15, 26, 17, 23]
Cassava – the one crop where NCBA lacked extensive experience – required an adaptive approach 
in the face of farmer dissatisfaction with the labor input/price ratio after the first year. CCT has 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 41
now added a wet tuber processing line which should make this more attractive to farmers, as well 
as adding a base section of own-cultivation adjacent to contract growing in Lautem, plus 
purchases from farmers to ensure sufficient supply of raw materials. NCBA also had to develop 
markets for the new products, and this appears to have been accomplished with the key monthly 
contract to Heineken which is expected to grow into sales beyond Timor-Leste. [17]
4. Have the following interventions and approaches been effective in reaching the intended 
project outcomes?
a. Partnering with a local implementing partner, CCT, for post-harvest activities
CCT has substantial experience processing commercial volumes of high quality exports with 
Arabica, and had been working with NCBA to develop spice procurement before TLADP began –
they were the only logical partner in Timor-Leste. CCT has proven equal to the task and is 
managing the new supply chains very effectively. [17, 18, 18, 19, 19, 20, 21] International 
laboratory testing of the cured vanilla has yielded especially impressive results, and prospective 
cocoa buyers have been pleased with the flavor profiles from the initial samples. 
b. The use and role of farmer nurseries
See the more detailed discussion in “Nurseries and Seedling Production.” The system of farmer￾owned nurseries located throughout the project areas was a sensible strategy for several reasons.
• With basic training and support, farmers demonstrated they are capable of producing good 
quality seedlings. Based on feedback from nursery owners, the strategy of starting nursery 
owners with smaller, more manageable numbers and increasing the numbers annually
diversifies risk, builds confidence and is effective. 
• Decentralized nurseries reduce the travel distance required for distribution thereby limiting 
stress on the seedlings, increasing quality on delivery and maximizing the likelihood of 
seedling survival.
• Decentralizing nurseries puts more cash in farmers’ pockets – another $74,000 this year, and a 
total of $205,000 over the six years of seedling distribution.
• Sourcing seedlings locally builds program ownership among farmers. 
• Local nurseries can be reactivated and scaled-up on demand.
[15]
c. The selection and use of improved seedlings and cuttings
Overall, the selection of seeds and cuttings used in TLADP was appropriate to the environment 
and risk levels. Cloves, vanilla and pepper stocks propagated under TLADP were common to both 
Indonesia and Timor-Leste, and there have been no issues with them. The Robusta coffee seeds 
used were the latest high-yielding, disease-resistant variety produced by Indonesia’s Ministry of 
Agriculture. There is limited, old-growth Robusta growing in some areas of Timor-Leste, but the 
selection of this high-yielding variety was a sensible choice when asking farmers to invest long￾term in high-quality organic production. Parts of neighboring Indonesia have been hit hard by 
cocoa viruses and although it has not yet been found in Timor-Leste the use of this new disease￾resistant variety is an important tool in preventing it from taking hold in the country. It would 
have been a poor decision to use any other variety. Finally, the introduction of the high-starch 
cassava variety is the only way commercial production can be viable and was a logical decision 
based on sound market research. [17]
5. What were the lessons learned for the benefit of project implementers, beneficiaries and other 
stakeholders?
Lessons learned are discussed in some detail in the section, “Lessons Learned & 
Recommendations” and are briefly summarized here. [36]
• The project timeframe did not match the time needed for the target crops to mature and 
show results – serious yields have not yet begun and mature yields on all distributed seedlings 
won’t be realized until 2029. Ideally, TLADP would have had a two-phase design that 
encompassed the first few years of commercial yields: nursery establishment, seedling 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 42
distribution, farmer group development and extension work, with completed milestones 
followed by infrastructure and supply chain development.
• The farmer nurseries proved to be a very successful strategy. [15]
• High seedling mortality was frustrating for farmers (see discussion in “Beneficiary Satisfaction”
[31]) and was no doubt exacerbated by the severe El Nino drought Timor-Leste suffered 
during the first two years of the project. Extension workers should work with farmers to 
ensure adequate water delivery strategies are in place when seedlings are received. 
• Two lessons emerged from adding cassava to the crop mix during project design.
a. The intention in adding cassava was to provide a faster (annual) income source for 
farmers while tree crops matured, but it turned out quite differently in practice. 
Approximately 70 percent of farmers who chose to receive cassava seedlings chose only
cassava from TLADP and did not use it as a bridge to longer-term tree crop revenues.24
 It 
is unclear whether these farmers were confident of their ability to grow cassava and 
unsure of the other crops with which they had no experience, or if there were other 
obstacles to adoption of the tree crops that are part of the complex transition between 
subsistence and commercial agriculture. 
b. Neither NCBA nor CCT had experience with cassava, and it was risky for them to 
undertake an entirely new venture while they were managing a large-scale expansion. It 
looks like cassava will be successful in the medium-term, but a question remains as to 
whether the time and resources spent on experimentation and adaptation required to 
make the cassava line successful could have been more profitably used to support higher￾value tree crop activities.
• The traditional nature of subsistence agriculture in the key target districts (Lautem and
Viqueque) will provide challenges that CCT has not experienced in the Arabica coffee 
producing areas of the country where commercial agriculture is better understood. The 
custom of free-range livestock grazing is a particular challenge. The need for substantial 
fencing and maintenance increases farmer costs, often discouraging farmers from planting or 
replanting after damage. CCT will have to adapt to customary rules and find ways to help 
farmers manage these issues. [37]
Efficiency
6. To what extent have the various levels, size, and composition of project management and 
coordination supported the implementation of the project?
NCBA utilized experienced advisors on a part-time basis. The agricultural advisors had the 
appropriate research and practical application experience to manage the test gardens and to work 
effectively with the extension workers, and the other management advisors had the right mix of 
experience to meet project needs. The ability to share management advisors across additional 
CCT projects/activities reduced their cost to TLADP while making them available to project staff 
for extended periods of time. 
7. To what extent has the knowledge and skill levels of project farmers increased so that they are 
able to continue activities, like crop development, crop expansion, and marketing after the 
completion of the project?
The survey asked farmers which subjects they had learned from extension workers, and a full 
range of skills development had been offered. The survey also asked which of the lessons they 
24 The survey results show that closer to 90 percent of cassava farmers reported they only grow cassava, 
although 74 percent of the cassava farmers in the survey received only cassava seedlings – 26 percent received 
tree seedlings, as well. The reason for the discrepancy is unclear -- the tree seedlings may have died. 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 43
had applied to their gardens, and the responses were generally good, ranging between 70 and 100 
percent (see Figure 15 Farmers: What I Learned and Figure 16 Farmers: Lessons I Applied in My 
Gardens). Vanilla output was lower than expected from the first year hand-pollenating the 
flowers, but increases in subsequent years. Farm visits during the FES confirmed that farmers 
were already propagating pepper and vanilla plants to expand plantings, and extension workers 
report that once they receive guidance, farmers were able to prepare for organic certification 
without difficulty. The farmers who had pre-existing trees were very happy to be able to sell their 
harvests to CCT before their new plantings were productive, and generally noted the absence of 
buyers had been their main obstacle prior to TLADP. [23]
8. Has CCT efficiently developed and implemented appropriate and cost-effective post-harvest 
logistical, processing, storage and marketing systems?
CCT is already experienced in coffee processing, and Robusta will be handled the same way they 
are managing Arabica. NCBA had worked with CCT to establish limited procurement of cloves and 
pepper – these only needed basic cleaning and shipping – prior to TLADP. CCT was already familiar 
with handling these crops, and expansion will be straightforward. NCBA was able to use their 
extensive experience buying and processing the cocoa and vanilla in Indonesia to train CCT 
workers. The vanilla curing supervisor was trained at their facility in Java, and initial laboratory 
results have shown excellent vanillin content in the first few crops processed in Dili. Cocoa 
fermentation will begin when there is sufficient volume (possibly in five years), and process 
managers will be trained NCBA facilities in Indonesia to ensure the best quality output. The 
processing and warehousing investments provided under TLADP have been critical to ensuring 
adequate capacity to carry future production levels. CCT has effectively leveraged NCBA’s access 
to these specialty markets and will have no difficulty sustaining this in the future. Processing and 
marketing of cassava was adapted over the course of the project. Rather than rely on the typical 
(Indonesian) process of only buying chipped, dried cassava from farmers and processing this in 
Tibar (the original plan), CCT added investment in a wet tuber processing facility in Patoo, Lautem 
together with drying tunnels to make sales more attractive to farmers. [17, 21]
Impact
9. What was the project’s impact on Increased productivity and Increased market access?
TLADP activities are primarily focused on moving farmers from purely subsistence agriculture to a 
mix of subsistence and commercial agriculture. In 2018, TLADP farmers sold an average of just 
$223 of crops, meaning agricultural productivity (value of output/unit labor input) is very low and 
focused on household consumption (confirmed in interviews). Existing seedlings from tree crops 
(not including cassava) are projected to increase this to an average of $401, an increase in value of 
180 percent and more than doubling labor productivity. One reason for the absence of crop sales 
is the overall underdevelopment of markets in these districts and lack of market access – there 
are no large or regular buyers of commodities and sales are limited to local markets for very small 
volume local consumption. CCT is now an important, consistent buyer in these areas and is 
playing a key role in the ongoing development of market access. They expect volume production 
to attract additional buyers – especially in cocoa and vanilla – and are working hard to develop 
competitive advantages, including facilitating organic certification so they can offer farmers the 
highest Fair Trade and organic prices for high-quality production. At mature production, CCT 
expects procurement and post-harvest processing to generate employment: 112 full-time jobs 
and 80 part-time jobs (not including impacts from other buyers). Moreover, somewhere between 
60-80 percent of processed commodities are expected to be purchased by US firms –
approximately $6.5 million of high-quality, traceable product annually. [26, 27, 30, 31]
10. Assess the project’s future potential income opportunity for beneficiaries resulting from 
project interventions projected to 5 years post project (based on the known CCT on-farm crops 
as of March 2019 and an assumed market price for crops)?
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 44
Because many of the crops have long maturity periods, it was decided to project production and 
incomes out to ten years when seedlings distributed in 2019 will be fully mature. The projected 
production and income streams to farmers and to CCT are contained in Table 15, Table 16, and 
Table 19. See the section of the report on “Farmer Incomes” for more detail. [26]
11. What are some unexpected positive /negative outcomes resulting from the project?
• The desire of cassava farmers to specialize in cassava and not diversify with tree crops was 
unexpected (neither positive nor negative) – the MIS indicates 70 percent of cassava farmers 
did not take any other seedlings despite the harvest values being significantly higher, and the 
survey data indicate tree seedlings taken by some cassava farmers may have died. The 
immediate effect is to change the way extension support is organized and delivered. The 
underlying reasons for this behavior should be explored and practical diversification strategies
developed where appropriate in order to support higher incomes for farmers. [36]
Sustainability
12. Assess to what extent local actors (value chain actors including farmers, farmer organizations, 
and the local agricultural cooperative) have been involved in the operation of the project? 
What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide succession?
The implementation of TLADP has been built on the efforts of 12,374 participating farmers, 
farmer groups and staff CCT hired to work on this project, including extension workers, field 
supervisors, etc. Management from outside the cooperative was limited to part-time advisors 
who had no choice but to rely on the local implementation team to build results. The project 
team demonstrated clearly during the Mid-term Evaluation and the Final Evaluation that they 
effectively manage all day-to-day activities and are closely connected to project farmers –
illustrated by the field team’s ability to review all registered farmers and identify multiple 
members in households. Most of these project staff are transitioning to regular CCT positions, 
and there is no reason to believe they will change their successful working relationships after the 
project closes. [17, 17, 32]
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 45
Annex 1. Scope of Work
Background
NCBA CLUSA is implementing a multi-crop farming program in East Timor known as the Timor Leste 
Agribusiness Development Project (TLADP) with funding from the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). TLADP commenced in October 2013 with an original Project Anticipated 
Completion Date (PACD) of September 2017. Due to greater than expected resources from 
monetization activities, a project modification was approved by USDA in September 2017 with an 
expanded number of geographical areas and beneficiaries and a revised PACD of March 2019. 
The specific activity objectives as per the project agreement include the following:
• Increased agricultural productivity of tree and high value horticultural crops through the 
use of improved agricultural techniques and technologies, increased knowledge of the 
farmers, more availability of appropriate improved inputs, and further use of financing 
services.
• Expanded trade of agricultural products by increasing the value of post-harvest products 
and access to markets through improved quality, increased efficiency, farmer procurement 
systems setup, enabling processing methods and process facility infrastructure development 
and improved marketing and market linkages.
The project has been implemented in 14 sub-districts of the four rural districts of Baucau, Lautem, 
Viqueque and Aileu in central and eastern Timor. The project has a beneficiary target of 10,000 
farmers. The farmers receive project extension support and basic agricultural inputs, such as 
improved variety of seedlings and training to establish farms, improve farming techniques and 
produce new crops. Improving the agricultural skills and knowledge of farmers and local nursery 
business owners and the development of cooperative post-harvest processing and marketing by 
agro-businesses is the focus of the project. The value chains being developed are commercial 
cassava, Robusta coffee, cocoa, cloves, black pepper, and vanilla and associated shade trees. Non￾commercial crops offered to farmers by the project are moringa and fruit trees. Through the project, 
farming households will receive the benefits of improved food security and increased household 
incomes. 
Detailed Task Description 
The following steps will be implemented for the final evaluation:
1. Undertake a literature review of relevant documents from country reports, national policies 
and regulations, special studies carried out by other agencies, most recent zone of influence 
level population-based survey conducted by FTF, and project documentation in this area;
2. Gain a full understanding of the project operations, implementation schedule and project 
indicators;
3. Using project documentation, calculate the economic impact of project interventions by the 
project including potential economic impact 5-year post project for project beneficiaries
4. Develop study design and methods that will be a mixed design involving quantitative and 
qualitative elements. This will include review of secondary data sources i.e. data from the 
project M&E system, project activity and beneficiary record systems. Design appropriate 
survey tool(s) for data collection from project farms and value chain partners including 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 46
farmer households, farmer groups, agro-input small farmer and cooperative nursery 
businesses, and other partners which considers but is not limited to the following items:
i. Identify a representative sample of value chain partners to be interviewed/surveyed 
that includes all four districts targeted by the project;
ii. Pre-testing, editing, translation, finalization, and reproduction of interview/ survey 
instruments (final survey tools to be approved by NCBA and USDA prior to use);
iii. Integrate qualitative data collection methodology and survey tools;
iv. Apply statistical techniques for designing, analyzing and reporting quantitative data.
5. Develop data collection guide specifying data collection and management structure, field 
schedules and data quality assurance methodology. 
v. Coordinate, train, orient and supervise field interviewers and enumerators as 
necessary;
vi. Coordinate field data gathering using tested survey tools to address objectives of 
this study and apply quality assurance; 
vii. Process and analyze collected survey data;
viii. Perform quality assurance during design, testing, fieldwork, data entry, data analysis 
and reporting;
ix. Organize all data collected into a database. This database will ensure anonymity of 
survey participants by using identification numbers and separating names from 
survey participants’ data;
6. Analyze the collected date and prepare a final evaluation report.
x. Using statistical methods where possible, undertake a comparative analysis of the 
evaluation findings against the project baseline and mid-term study results; 
xi. Using project documentation and data collected, calculate the economic impact of 
project interventions by the project including potential economic impact 5-year post 
project for project beneficiaries;
xii. Report the study results in appropriate tables, charts and narrative;
xiii. Present findings, conclusions and recommendations (in both written report and 
PowerPoint formats).
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 47
Annex 2. Projected Employment Detail
Location Employment type
Current 
status
Staff 
numbe
rs Category 
Months 
worked FTE
Equivalent 
Monthly 
salary 
number of 
salaried months 
per year Annual salary
A- Post harvest processing employment
CASSAVA
Patoo -
Lautem
Chipping and peeling mill 
staff 
existing / 
reallocated 5 full time 12 5.0 170 13 11050
Patoo -
Lautem Drying tunnels staff additional 20 daily 
workers 12 20.0 115 12 27600
Patoo -
Lautem Truck drivers additional 2 Full time 12 2.0 170 13 4420
Tibar - Dili Mill staff existing 7 full time 12 7.0 222 13 20202
Tibar - Dili administration existing 1 full time 12 1.0 224 13 2912
Tibar - Dili driver existing 1 full time 12 1.0 220 13 2860
Tibar - Dili Assistant supervisor existing 1 full time 12 1.0 360 13 4680
CLOVES
Dili factory staff 
existing 
but 
increased 
time 
20 daily 
worker 10 16.7 115 10
23000
Dili factory staff additional 10 daily 
worker 10 8.3 115 10 11500
Dili supervisor existing 1 full time 12 1.0 180 13 2340
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 48
Location Employment type
Current 
status
Staff 
numbe
rs Category 
Months 
worked FTE
Equivalent 
Monthly 
salary 
number of 
salaried months 
per year Annual salary
VANILLA/PEPPER
Dili processing staff existing 2 full time 12 2.0 150 13 3900
Dili processing staff additional 20 daily 
worker 6 10.0 115 6
13800
Dili supervisor existing 1 full time 12 1.0 180 13 2340
COCOA
Lautem buying staff additional 20 full time 12 20.0 170 13 44200
Lautem truck drivers additional 4 full time 12 4.0 170 13 8840
Dili 
processing and 
warehouse staff additional 6 full time 12 6.0 150 13 11700
ROBUSTA COFFEE
Patoo -
Lautem 
Coffee mill and drying 
tunnel staff additional
10 daily 
workers 2 1.7 115 2
2300
B- permanent support staff 
Internal control staff
Lautem
farmer extension and 
certification compliance
existing -
reallocated
22 Full time 12 22.0 170 13
48620
Viqueque
farmer extension and 
certification compliance
existing -
reallocated
7 Full time 12 7.0 170 13
15470
Baucau
farmer extension and 
certification compliance
existing -
reallocated
3 Full time 12 3.0 170 13
6630
Aileu
farmer extension and 
certification compliance
existing -
reallocated
3 Full time 12 3.0 170 13
6630
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 49
Location Employment type
Current 
status
Staff 
numbe
rs Category 
Months 
worked FTE
Equivalent 
Monthly 
salary 
number of 
salaried months 
per year Annual salary
District support staff 
Lautem manager
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 780 13 10140
Lautem assistant manager
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 730 13 9490
Lautem area supervisors
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 420 13 5460
Viqueque area supervisors
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 420 13 5460
Aileu area supervisors
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 420 13 5460
Lautem data entry 
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 230 13 2990
Viqueque data entry 
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 230 13 2990
Aileu data entry 
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 230 13 2990
Lautem M&E
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 210 13 2730
Lautem security
existing -
reallocated 4 Full time 12 4.0 160 13 8320
Viqueque security
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 160 13 2080
Baucau security
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 160 13 2080
Lautem Housekeeping/ cleaners
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 115 13 1495
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 50
Location Employment type
Current 
status
Staff 
numbe
rs Category 
Months 
worked FTE
Equivalent 
Monthly 
salary 
number of 
salaried months 
per year Annual salary
Viqueque Housekeeping/ cleaners
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 115 13 1495
Baucau Housekeeping/ cleaners
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 115 13 1495
Lautem Drivers - Administration
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 180 13 2340
Lautem
Environment / Quality 
control; additional 1 Full time 12 1.0 150 13 1950
Lautem
Engineering / 
Maintenance Additional 1 Full time 12 1.0 150 13 1950
Dili support staff
Dili Security
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 160 13 2080
Dili Driver
existing -
reallocated 2 Full time 12 2.0 180 13 4680
Dili Finance / Cashier
existing -
reallocated 1 Full time 12 1.0 270 13 3510
Dili Quality control Additional 1 Full time 12 1.0 170 13 2210
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 51
Annex 3. List of Interviews
date location role
13/11/2018 Lautem-Lospalos Farmer and Nursery
13/11/2018 Lautem-Lospalos Farmer and Nursery
14/11/2018 Lautem-Lospalos District Director of MAF
14/11/2018 Lautem-Lospalos Farmer & social 
observer
15/11/2018 Lautem-Iliomar Head of Farmer Group
16/11/2018 Lautem-Lospalos Farmer
16/11/2018 Lautem-Lospalos Head of Farmer Group
24/11/2018 Viqueque Farmers
24/11/2018 Viqueque Farmer and Head of 
Nursery Group 
25/11/2018 Viqueque Farmer and Nursery
26/11/2018 Viqueque District Director of MAP
26/11/2018 Viqueque social observer
27/11/2018 Viqueque Farmer and Nursery
27/11/2018 Viqueque Nursery
03/12/2018 Aileu Farmer
03/12/2018
03/12/2018
Aileu Nursery
03/12/2018 Aileu Farmer and Nursery
04/12/2018 Aileu-Remexio Farmer and Nursery
04/12/2018 Aileu Farmer and Nursery
04/12/2018 Aileu District Director of MAF
05/12/2018 Dili-Caicoli Director of MAF
06/12/2018 Dili-Comoro TLADP Chief of Party
06/12/2018 DIli-Palm Business -
Trade Center
National Adviser of GIZ
Field Staff 
07/12/2018 Dili-Comoro Specialist Advisors, tree 
crops
10/12/2018 Dili-Timor Plaza Cocoa Advisor, GIZ
10/12/2018 Dili-MAF Program Director, 
TOMAK (Australian Aid)
11/12/2018 Dili-ADRA Country Director, 
Program Director
12/12/2018 Dili - Palm Business￾Trade Center 
Specialist Agribusiness, 
USAID Avansa Project
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 52
Annex 4. Indicator Performance Tracking Tables (IPTT)
Results Indicators
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
1
Contributions for 
Feed the Future 
Number of farmers and others 
who have received training on 
improved agricultural 
techniques and technologies as 
a result of USDA assistance 
12,368 10,000 123.7%
As of March 2019, there are a total of 12,368 
"Established" TLADP Farmers. Established farmers
have all received project training and have received 
and planted the projects seedlings on their improved 
farms. 
2
**Number of farmers and 
others who have applied new 
techniques or technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance 
male: 
9,060
female: 
3,308
total: 
12,368
10,000 123.7%
As of March 2019, there are a total of 12,368 
Established TLADP Farmers who have received project 
training and have received and planted the project 
seedlings on their improved farms. 
3
**Number of hectares under 
improved techniques or 
technologies as a result of USDA 
assistance
3,958 2,500 158.3%
As of March 2019, there are 12,368 "Established" 
Farmers within TLADP. The average project cultivated 
farm area is 0.32 Ha per farm as measured by the FES. 
12,368 farms X 0.32 ha per farm = 3,958 ha of 
cultivated project cropping. 
4
**Number of private 
enterprises, producers’ 
organizations, women's groups, 
trade and business associations 
and community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that 
applied new technologies or 
management practices as a 
result of USDA assistance 
356 150 237.3%
Private enterprises
TLADP Farmer Nurseries: 90 
Producer Organizations
TLADP Farmer Groups: 265
Producer Organization
Cooperativa Café Timor: 1 
Total: 356
There are no Women's' Groups, Trade and Business 
associations and CBO's associated with the project.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 53
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
5
**Number of public-private 
partnerships formed as a result 
of USDA assistance 
91 60 151.7%
Contracted by the project
TLADP Farmer nurseries (90). Farmer nurseries are 
contracted for a 12-month period each June. 
Partnered to the project
Cooperativa Café Timor (1) 
Total: 91
6
**Total increase in installed 
storage capacity (dry or cold 
storage) as a result of USDA 
assistance (Total cubic meters) 
23,790 7,560 314.7%
Dry Storage: Total 23,790 cubic meters.
Cassava Storage, Tibar: 8,100 cubic meters
Cloves Storage Dili: 440 cubic meters 
Mixed Crop Storage Patoo: 4,050 cubic meters 
Spice and Cocoa processing and storage warehouse 
Comoro: 11,200 cubic meters
7
Increased 
Agricultural 
Productivity 
**Number of beneficiaries 
benefitting directly from USDA￾funded interventions 
male: 
9,060
female: 
3,308
total: 
12,368
10,000 123.7%
As of March 2019, there are a total of 12,368 
"Established" TLADP Farmers. "Established" farmers 
are those that have received project training and have 
received and planted the projects seedlings on their 
improved farms. In this reporting period, there has
been no change to the number of TLADP "Established 
" farmers. 
8
**Number of beneficiaries 
benefitting indirectly from 
USDA-funded interventions 
75,445 50,000 150.9%
FES found an average 7.1 members per household, 
minus the direct beneficiary is 6.1. 6.1 x 12,368 = 
75,445. The TLADP M&E team used 5 to calculate this 
(from the Baseline Survey).
9
Volume of selected crops 
produced/harvested per 
hectare (yield): Kgs/ha (average 
yields for Robusta Coffee, 
Cacao, Dried Black Pepper, 
Cloves, Vanilla) 
total 
volume:
13.85 mt
560 2.5%
The first yields from TLADP seedlings are not expected 
until the 2019 harvest. Nevertheless, CCT has 
purchased TLADP crops from farmers with pre-existing 
trees. A total of 13.85 mt of selected crops were 
purchased from TLADP farmers from Oct 2013 to 
March 2019: cloves (10.29 mt), cocoa (1.58 mt), 
pepper (1.82 mt) and vanilla (0.16 mt). 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 54
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
10
Volume of selected crops 
produced/harvested per 
hectare (yield) Mtons/ha for 
Cassava 
total 
volume: 
785 mt
25
There was limited purchase of cassava by CCT over Oct 
2013-Mar 2019 (see Table 14 for detailed purchases 
by volume). Cassava farmers have alternative sales 
options or can leave the crop in the ground to harvest 
at a future date.
11
Value of agricultural and rural 
grants provided with USDA 
assistance”.Note: That $500,000 
revolving loan grants within 
TLADP have been removed from 
the program. This indicator now 
reports on value of non-loan 
grants to farmers 
280,280 1,000,000 28.0%
Value of Non-Loan Grants to TLADP Beneficiaries: 
• Seedlings/Cuttings to farmers $242,869.83; 
• equipment to farmers $37,410.00;
• total grants to farmers $280,279.83. 
Note, the target for this indicator relates to the 
original indicator as such has no relevance to the 
revised indicator result. 
12
Increased Use of 
Improved 
Agricultural 
Techniques and 
Technologies 
**Number of farmers and 
others who have applied new 
techniques or technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance 
male: 
9,060
female: 
3,308 
total: 
12,368
10,000 123.7%
As of March 2019, there are a total of 12,368 
"Established" TLADP Farmers who have received 
project training and have received and planted the 
project seedlings on their improved farms. In this 
reporting period, there has been no change to the 
number of TLADP "Established " farmers. 
13
**Number of hectares under 
improved techniques or 
technologies as a result of USDA 
assistance
3,958 2,500 158.3% See indicator #3, above.
14
Improved Capacity 
of Key Groups in 
the Agriculture 
Production Sector 
(Coops and Small 
Shareholder 
Farmers)
** Number of private 
enterprises, producers’ 
organizations, women's groups, 
trade and business associations 
and community-based 
organizations that applied new 
technologies or management 
12,724 150 8482.7%
Producer Organizations: TLADP Farmer Groups (265) + 
Cooperativa Cafe Timor (1) + TLADP Farmers (12,368) 
+ Farmer Nurseries (90).
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 55
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
practices as a result of USDA 
assistance 
15
Increased 
availability of 
Improved Inputs 
Number of specific improved 
inputs available to farmers in 
target region 
8 6 133.3%
Improved Inputs available to TLADP farmers and 
farmer nurseries: Cassava, Cloves, Coffee, Pepper, 
Vanilla, Cocoa, Moringa, PG79 Shade Trees
16
Increased 
Knowledge by 
Farmers of 
Improved 
Agricultural 
Techniques and 
Technologies 
Number of farmers who have 
adopted the new varieties of 
crops introduced by the project 
12,368 10,000 123.7%
As of March 2019, there are a total of 12,368 
"Established" TLADP Farmers. All Established farmers 
have received project training and have received and 
planted the projects seedlings on their improved 
farms. 
17
Expanded Trade of 
Agricultural 
Products (Domestic, 
Regional, and 
International)
Value of regional or 
international trade in selected 
agricultural products (USD) 
$231,958 10,250,000 0.023%
Commercial production from TLADP seedlings is not 
expected to begin until the 2019 harvest. However, 
CCT has been purchasing TLADP crops from TLADP and 
other farmers from pre-existing trees. Domestic 
purchases from TLADP farmers (only) have totaled 
$231,958 over the project period: cloves ($63,224), 
cocoa ($2,727), pepper ($3,648), vanilla ($4,838) and 
cassava ($149,892). NCBA assisted with the 
consolidation of cloves, pepper and vanilla into larger 
volume export shipments, and the values attributed to 
TLADP were not tracked. Cocoa is being stored until 
an export quantity is reached. Cassava purchases 
were processed and stored in Dili. 
18
Increased Leverage 
of Public-Sector 
Resources
Value of private resources in 
support of trade expansion 3,010,580 3,750,000 80.3%
The indicator value includes cost share for vehicle 
rental and rental of Expat Advisor Quarters in Dili, and 
warehouse rentals from the beginning of the project.
19
Improved Capacity 
of Key Groups in 
the Trade Sector 
(Processing 
Number of private enterprises, 
producers’ organizations, 
women's groups, trade and 
business associations and 
1 25 4.0%
Processing Organization: Cooperativa Cafe Timor (1). 
There are no Trade and Business Associations 
associated with the project.
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 56
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
Organizations and 
Trade Associations)
community-based organizations 
that applied new technologies 
or management practices as a 
result of USDA assistance 
20
Increased Value 
Added to Post 
Production 
Agricultural 
Products 
Total volume of value-added 
production derived from 
selected agricultural 
commodities (metric tons)
703.59 17,000 4.1%
The volume of value-added production from TLADP 
Crops is measured by taking the volume of CCT 
purchases of TLADP crops (mainly from pre-existing 
trees) and applying the final commodity conversion 
ratio. 
Total purchases over the project period:
farmgate 
volume 
mt
processed 
volume 
mt
cloves 10.29 9.88
cocoa 1.58 1.49
Robusta - -
pepper 1.82 1.67
vanilla 0.16 0.03
cassava 784.68 690.52
total 798.53 703.59
21
Improved Quality of 
Post-Production 
Agricultural 
Products
Volume of agricultural products 
certified as meeting 
international standards
- 500,000 0.0%
As of March 2019, 575 crops on TLADP farms were 
certified organic. (See Table 11 for details.) There 
were no purchases of crops from these farms since 
certification. 
Crops on farms (many with more than one crop, each 
requiring certification) can not commence until TLADP 
tree crops were ready for harvesting. With the delay 
from planting seedlings to first harvest, only very few 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 57
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
TLADP farms were ready for certification during the 
project period. Over the next 4 years post-project, 
CCT has planned to complete organic certification for 
vanilla, cloves, pepper and Robusta coffee crops on 
TLADP farms as crops become ready for harvest. 
22
Increased Efficiency 
of Post Production 
Processes
Average number of days 
required to move selected 
agricultural products from 
purchase of initial inputs to final 
product ready for sale
5,840 14 41714.3%
The project inputs of seedlings/cuttings/seeds 
purchased by the project are placed with farmer 
nurseries for propagation and nurturing. From project 
farmer nurseries, the farm-ready seedlings/ cuttings 
are then distributed to TLADP farmers to plant and 
mature to harvest. Cassava can be harvested in the 
same year as planting. Tree crops (Vanilla, Cloves, 
Pepper, Cloves, Cocoa, Robusta Coffee) take 5 years 
from planting until first harvest , then another 5 years 
to reach peak productivity. The peak harvests for 
TLADP Trees Crops are not expected until 2029.
Total Supply chain time:
Cassava: 9 months
Coffee, Cloves, Pepper, Cocoa, Vanilla: 5 years
Average for all project crops: 5840 days
23
Increased Use of 
Improved Post￾Production 
Processing and 
Handling Practices
Number of firms in target region 
using modern equipment to 
process agriculture products
1 1 100.0%
Cooperativa Café Timor (1):
• Cassava (MOCAF) mill
• Cloves Sorting and Grading Facility 
• Coffee processing mills 
• Vanilla curing and drying facility 
• Cocoa drying facility 
• Pepper drying facility
24
Improved Post￾Harvest 
Infrastructure 
Number of farms in target 
region that have access to post￾harvesting processing facilities 
12,368 10,000 123.7%
As of March 2019, all 12,368 TLADP farms have access 
to post harvest processing facilities:
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 58
Indicator 
Number 
Foundational 
Result
Indicator
(** FFPr Standard Indicator)
Total All￾of-Project 
Result 
31 March 
2019
End of Project 
Target 
(Modification 
#3)
Percent 
End-of￾Project 
Target
Comments & Clarifications
Cassava
• MOCAF mill and storage in Tibar.
• Peeling mill, drying tunnels & storage in Lospalos.
Cloves
• Grading & packing facility in Lecidere, storage in 
Comoro. 
Pepper
• Drying and storage facility in Comoro.
Coffee
• Drying and storage facility in Comoro.
• Dry processing mill and storage in Lecidere. 
Cocoa
• Drying and storage facility in Comoro. 
Vanilla
• Curing, drying and grading facility in Comoro.
25
Increased Access to 
Market to Sell 
Agricultural 
Products
Number of markets to which 
selected agricultural products 
are exported
3 10 30.0%
TLADP Cloves to McCormicks (USA) 
TLADP Cassava flour to Indonesia
TLADP Vanilla - transit warehoused and consolidated 
prior to export/sale to USA
26
Improved 
Marketing of 
Agricultural 
Products
Number of products with 
improved marketing 3 6 50.0%
Cassava flour/starch, graded whole cloves and cured, 
dried vanilla were sold or exported during the project 
period.
27
Improved Linkages 
Between Buyers 
and Sellers
Number of buyer-seller 
relationships established with 
MOUs signed
12,458 20 62,290.0% TLADP farmers with signed establishment agreements 
(12,368), TLADP farmer nurseries (90).
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 59
Activity Indicators
Indicator 
Number Activity
Indicator
(** Indicates a FFPr Standard Indicator)
All-of-Project 
Result
Oct 2013 to 
March 2019 
All-of-Project 
Activity target
Percent achievement of 
All-of-Project Activity 
Target
1
Infrastructure: Post￾harvest Handling and 
Processing
** Total increase in installed storage capacity as a result of USDA 
assistance (total cubic meters) 23,790 8,520 279%
2
Number of direct beneficiaries (Ag Producers) benefiting from new 
processing facilities
male: 13,981
female: 4,961
total: 18,942
6,000 316%
3 Number of processing facilities built 5 6 83%
4
Management System: 
Design and 
Establishment of 
Efficient Supply Chain 
Management Systems
Number of Agribusiness owners/employees trained in supply chain 
management systems - TC8 588 440 134%
5
Number of direct beneficiaries (Ag Producers) benefiting from new 
supply systems
male: 12,013
female: 4,104
total: 16,117
38,000 42%
6
Number of direct beneficiaries (Ag Producers benefiting from 
training in supply chain management systems - TC8
male: 10,501
female: 4,022
total: 14,523
40,300 36%
7
Number of training sessions in supply chain management systems 
for agribusiness owner/employees - TC8 406 55 738%
8 Number of new Supply Chain Management systems developed 6 4 150%
9
Training: Crop 
Certification
Number of training sessions in organic and or fair trade certification 
for Ag Producers -TC5 8,629 330 2615%
10 Number of firms/farms certified organic and/or fair trade by 
international buyers 575 6,250 9%
11 Number of direct beneficiaries (Ag Producers) benefiting from farm 
certification
male: 425
female: 102
total: 527
13,000 4%
12 Number of Ag Producers who have received USDA supported 
training in organic/fair trade certification - TC5 11,979 10,000 120%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 60
13 Training: Post-harvest
Handling and Processing
Number of Ag Producers trained in post-harvest handling and 
processing - TC6
male: 8,211
female: 4,153
total: 12,369
3,800 326%
14 Number of agribusiness owners/employees trained in post-harvest 
handling and processing - TC6 447 300 149%
15 Number of training sessions in post-harvest handling and processing 
for agribusiness owners / employees -TC6 192 140 137%
16 Number of trainings sessions in post-harvest handling and 
processing for Ag producers -TC6 5,497 380 1447%
17
Capacity Building: 
Agriculture Extension 
Agents and Services
Number of training sessions in agriculture productivity conducted 
for Ag Producers - TC1 12,354 400 3089%
18 Number of Ag Producers receiving grants for local post-harvest 
processing equipment, machinery and tools 4,734 9,333 51%
19 Value (total value in USD) of grants provided to Ag Producers for 
post-harvest processing, equipment, machinery and tools 37,410 233,325 16%
20 Number of "contact farmers" or cooperative agricultural extension 
agents trained with USDA assistance 756 200 378%
21 Number of Ag Producers trained in agricultural productivity - TC1 17,971 10,000 180%
22 Number of demonstration plots created 27 20 135%
23 Number of grants provided to Ag Producers for post-harvest local 
primary processing equipment, machinery and tools 4,734 8,000 59%
24
Capacity Building: 
Producer Groups and 
Cooperatives
Number of producer groups trained in roles and responsibilities of 
cooperative membership and improved management practices - TC2 506 200 253%
25 Number of Ag Producers trained in roles and responsibilities of 
cooperative membership and improved management practices - TC2 10,534 10,000 105%
26
Number of training sessions in roles and responsibilities of 
cooperative membership and improved management practices 
conducted for Ag producers - TC2
1,833 400 458%
27
Inputs: Develop 
Agrodealers and Other 
Input Suppliers
Number of in-kind planting materials grants to Ag Producers 6,600,785 10,000 66008%
28 Number of Ag Producers receiving in-kind planting materials grants 16,468 10,000 165%
29 Value (total value in USD) of in-kind planting materials grants 
provided to Ag Producers 242,870 1,200,000 20%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 61
30 Number of training sessions in producing improved inputs 
conducted for agricultural inputs/service providers - TC4 498 400 125%
31 Number of crop planting materials produced - coffee 626,754 1,000,000 63%
32 Number of crop planting materials produced - cocoa 1,156,650 850,000 136%
33 Number of crop planting materials produced - moringa 49,939 10,000 499%
34 Number of crop planting materials produced - cassava 4,531,226 5,000,000 91%
35 Number of crop planting materials produced - pepper 97,059 100,000 97%
36 Number of crop planting materials produced - cloves 75,960 45,000 169%
37 Number of crop planting materials produced - vanilla 63,197 25,000 253%
38 Number of nurseries assembled/constructed 90 250 36%
39 Number of Ag Producers benefitting from the procurement of crop 
planting materials 13,776 10,000 138%
40 Number of Agricultural Input/Service providers in the target region 
that receive training in producing improved inputs - TC3 473 880 54%
41 Number of indirect beneficiaries (Ag Producers) who are benefiting 
from training in producing improved inputs -TC3 16,078 42,000 38%
42
Market Access: Facilitate 
Buyer-Seller 
Relationships
Number of International Trade Shows/fairs attended by project 
participants - 8 0%
43 Number of indirect beneficiaries (Ag Producers) who are benefiting 
from training in disseminating price and quality information - TC7 33,853 40,000 85%
44 Number of buyers contacted 1 1 100%
45 Number of CCT members trained in disseminating price and quality 
information to farmers - TC7 188 275 68%
46 Number of training sessions in disseminating price and quality 
information to farmers for CCT members 30 440 7%
47
Market Access: Facilitate 
Private and Public 
Partnerships
**Number of public - private partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance 91 20 455%
48 Number of indirect beneficiaries (Ag Producers) who are benefiting 
for public-private partnerships formed 12,368 10,000 124%
49 Number of direct beneficiaries (cooperatives/producer associations) 
who are benefiting for public-private partnerships formed 266 50 532%
50 Training: Improved 
Marketing and Branding
Number of indirect beneficiaries (Ag Producers) who are benefiting 
from training in marketing - TC9 8,240 8,950 92%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 62
51 Number of Agribusiness owners/employees trained in marketing -
TC9 510 410 124%
52 Number of training sessions in marketing for agribusiness owners 
/employees - TC9 402 260 155%
53
Training: improved 
Agricultural Production 
Techniques
Number of training sessions in improved agricultural techniques and 
technologies for Ag Producers - TC4 9,300 510 1824%
54 Number of Ag Producers who have received USDA supported 
training on improved agricultural techniques and technologies - TC4 17,112 11,000 156%
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 63
Annex 5. Final Evaluation Survey Instrument
TLADP/USDA FINAL EVALUATION SURVEY
Good morning.
My name is (________), and I am working with a company 
called PT Makna. We are working with Cooperative Café 
Timor (CCT) to evaluate their project known as TLADP or 
USDA. From all the participating farmers in this project, we 
selected a small number of farmers to survey so we can 
understand how the project has worked, and the impact it is 
likely to have on your future income.
We expect this discussion to take about 1 hour of your time. 
Are you willing to help us?
If you are willing to talk with me about the project, please 
sign or place your thumb print below.
sign/thumb print
1 Date of Survey:
2 Enumerator:
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 64
3 Extension agent:
4 GPS location:
This survey is divided into several parts. The first part gathers 
some basic information about you, your family and how you 
live. 
The second part looks at all the different ways your family 
earns its income, and this is followed by questions about the 
crops supported by USDA.
Finally, we want to know if you are happy with your 
participation in the project, and ways it could be made 
stronger.
GENERAL INFORMATION
5 Farmer's Name:
6 USDA ID:
Address
7 Municipality:
8 Administrative Post:
9 Suco:
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 65
10 Aldeia:
11 Cell phone:
12 Gender
a male yes no
b female yes no
13 How old are you?
a < 20 yes no
b 20-29 yes no
c 30-39 yes no
d 40-49 yes no
e 50-59 yes no
f 60+ yes no
g don't know yes no
14 How many people live in your household? #
15
How many children between the ages of 5-12 years live in 
your household? #
16
In October 2018, how many of these children regularly 
attended primary school? #
17
How many children between the ages of 13-18 years live in 
your household? 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 66
18
In October 2018, how many of these children regularly 
attended intermediate or high school? #
19
What is the highest level of school you attended? (not 
graduated)
a none yes no
b Elementary School yes no
c Intermediate School yes no
d High School yes no
e University yes no
20
In October 2018, what were the walls of your house made 
of?
a Thatch yes no
b Wood - timber/bamboo yes no
c Brick / concrete yes no
d Don't Know yes no
21
In October 2018, did you have a clean water source inside or 
near your house?
a yes
b no
c don't know
22 In October 2018, did your house have its own toilet?
a yes
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 67
b no
c don't know
23
Do you use electricity at your house? (can be more than 
one)
a We did not have Electricity yes no
b EDTL Supply yes no
c Your Own Generator yes no
d Non-EDTL source yes no
e Solar panels yes no
f Don't Know yes no
24 Does anyone in your household have a handphone?
a yes
b no
c don't know
25
Does anyone in your household have a phone with internet 
access?
a yes
b no
c don't know
26 Do you have a TV in your household?
a yes
b no
c don't know
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 68
INCOME & FARM PRODUCTION
In 2018, what were your FOUR most important crops?
27 1.
28 2.
29 3.
30 4.
Crop #1
31 For your #1 crop, how do you count the harvest?
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g other (write): yes no
32 In 2018, how many units did you harvest for your #1 crop? #
33 In 2018, how many harvest units of crop #1 did you sell? #
34 When you SOLD your #1 crop, what unit did you use?
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 69
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g stack yes no
h can yes no
i other (write): yes no
35
How many of these selling units are contained in one 
harvest unit? #
36
In 2018, what price did you get for each unit of crop #1 
that you sold? $0.00 
Crop #2
37
For your #2 crop, how do you count the harvest? (select 
one)
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g other (write): yes no
38 In 2018, how many units did you harvest for your #2 crop? #
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 70
39 In 2018, how many harvest units of crop #2 did you sell? #
40 When you SOLD your #2 crop, what unit did you use?
a kg
b gunny sack
c jumbo gunny sack
d sm/lg bucket
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g stack yes no
h can yes no
i other (write): yes no
41
How many of these selling units are contained in one 
harvest unit? #
42
In 2018, what price did you get for each unit of crop #2 
that you sold? $0.00 
Crop #3
43
For your crop #3, how do you count the harvest? (select 
one)
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 71
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g other (write): yes no
44 In 2018, how many units did you harvest for your crop #3? #
45 In 2018, how many harvest units of crop #3 did you sell? #
46
When you SOLD your crop #3, what unit did you use? (select 
one)
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g stack yes no
h can yes no
i other (write): yes no
47
How many of these selling units are contained in one 
harvest unit? # #
48
In 2018, what price did you get for each unit of crop #3 
that you sold? $0.00 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 72
Crop #4
49
For your crop #4, how do you count the harvest? (select 
one)
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g other (write): yes no
50 In 2018, how many units did you harvest for your #4 crop? #
51 In 2018, how many harvest units of crop #4 did you sell? #
52
When you sold your #4 crop, what unit did you use? (select 
one)
a kg yes no
b gunny sack yes no
c jumbo gunny sack yes no
d sm/lg bucket yes no
e basket yes no
f bundle yes no
g stack yes no
h can yes no
i other (write): yes no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 73
53
How many of these selling units are contained in one 
harvest unit? #
54
In 2018, what price did you get for each unit of crop #4 
that you sold? $0.00 
ANIMALS
55 During 2018, how many animals will you SELL? #
price 
each
a Buffalo
b Cattle
c Goats
d Pigs
e Chickens
f Ducks
PAID LABOR
56
During 2018, did you get paid to work away from your 
farm?
a if yes, what did you do?
b if yes, about how many days did you work? #
c if yes, how much did you earn from this during 2018? $0.00 
OTHER INCOME
During 2018, how much income did your household receive 
from outside? (can be more than one)
57 Veterans pension 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 74 a - monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
58 Old
-age pension
a
- monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
59 School
-children support
a
- monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
60 Disability payment a - monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
61 family working in Dili a - monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
62 family working outside Timor
-Leste
a
- monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
63 Other (write): a - monthly
$
b
- six
-monthly (every 6 months) 
$
c
- yearly 
$
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 75
WORKING ON THE FARM
64
How many members of your household regularly work on 
the farm? 
a male #
b female #
65
How often do you hire outside workers? (select all that 
apply)
a never yes no
b for planting yes no
c for harvesting & processing yes no
d all the time yes no
e don't know yes no
66
DURING 2018, are you harvesting any of these crops FOR 
SALE?
a Cassava -- local variety yes not yet no
b Cassava -- Ailuka I (CCT variety) yes not yet no
c Cocoa yes not yet no
d Coffee -- Arabica yes not yet no
e Coffee -- Robusta yes not yet no
f Cloves yes not yet no
g Black Pepper yes not yet no
h Vanilla yes not yet no
i Cinnamon yes not yet no
j Betel/Pinang yes not yet no
k Fruit Trees (write type): yes not yet no
l Fruit Trees (write type): yes not yet no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 76
m Other (write type): yes not yet no
n Other (write type): yes not yet no
USDA CROPS
CLOVES
67
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you have any cloves 
trees? yes no
if no, 
skip to 
#71
68
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, how many cloves trees did 
you have? #
69 BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you SELL any cloves? yes no
a
If yes, how many kilos did you sell the season BEFORE the 
USDA project? Kg
b What price did you get per kg? $0.00 
70
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, where did you sell your 
cloves?
a I did not sell it yes no
b A trader came to buy it yes no
c I sold it at the local market yes no
d I took it to Lospalos to sell yes no
e I took it to Viqueque City to sell yes no
f I took it to Aileu City to sell yes no
g I took it to Dili to sell yes no
h Other (write): 
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 77
71 DURING 2018, did you sell cloves to CCT or another buyer?
a CCT yes no
b Other buyer yes no
72 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer in 2018 (not CCT):
a how many kilos did you sell to the other buyer? kg
b what price did the other buyer pay per kg? $0.00 
73 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer, why did you sell to them?
a it was just a small amount yes no
b they offered a higher price than CCT yes no
c they would buy lower quality yes no
d they came to me to buy yes no
e CCT was not buying yes no
f other (write):
COCOA
No Cocoa in Aileu
74
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you have any cocoa 
trees? yes no
if no, 
skip to 
#78
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 78
75
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, how many cocoa trees did 
you have? #
76 BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you SELL any cocoa? yes no
a
If yes, how many kilos did you sell the season BEFORE the 
USDA project? kg
b What price did you get per kg? $0.00 
77
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, where did you sell your 
cocoa?
a I did not sell it yes no
b A trader came to buy it yes no
c I sold it at the local market yes no
d I took it to Lospalos to sell yes no
e I took it to Viqueque City to sell yes no
f I took it to Aileu City to sell yes no
g I took it to Dili to sell yes no
h Other (write): 
78 DURING 2018, did you sell cocoa to CCT or another buyer?
a CCT yes no
b Other buyer yes no
79 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer in 2018 (not CCT):
a how many kilos did you sell to the other buyer? kg
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 79
b what price did the other buyer pay per kg? $0.00 
80 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer, why did you sell to them?
a it was just a small amount yes no
b they offered a higher price than CCT yes no
c they would buy lower quality yes no
d they came to me to buy yes no
e CCT was not buying yes no
f other (say):
ROBUSTA COFFEE
No Robusta Coffe in Aileu
81
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you have any Robusta 
coffee trees? yes no
if no, 
skip to 
#85
82
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, how many Robusta coffee 
trees did you have? #
83
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you SELL any Robusta 
coffee? yes no
a
If yes, how many kilos did you sell the season BEFORE the 
USDA project? kg
b What price did you get per kg? $0.00 
84
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, where did you sell your 
Robusta coffee?
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 80
a I did not sell it yes no
b A trader came to buy it yes no
c I sold it at the local market yes no
d I took it to Lospalos to sell yes no
e I took it to Viqueque City to sell yes no
f I took it to Aileu City to sell yes no
g I took it to Dili to sell yes no
h Other (write): 
85
DURING 2018, did you sell Robusta coffee to CCT or another 
buyer?
a CCT yes no
b Other buyer yes no
86 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer in 2018 (not CCT):
a how many kilos did you sell to the other buyer? kg
b what price did the other buyer pay per kg? $0.00 
87 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer, why did you sell to them?
a it was just a small amount yes no
b they offered a higher price than CCT yes no
c they would buy lower quality yes no
d they came to me to buy yes no
e CCT was not buying yes no
f other (say):
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 81
BLACK PEPPER
88
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you have any black 
pepper trees? yes no
if no, 
skip to 
#92
89
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, how many black pepper 
trees did you have? #
90
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you SELL any black 
pepper? yes no
a
If yes, how many kilos did you sell the season BEFORE the 
USDA project? kg
b What price did you get per kg? $0.00 
91
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, where did you sell your 
black pepper?
a I did not sell it yes no
b A trader came to buy it yes no
c I sold it at the local market yes no
d I took it to Lospalos to sell yes no
e I took it to Viqueque City to sell yes no
f I took it to Aileu City to sell yes no
g I took it to Dili to sell yes no
h Other (write): 
92
DURING 2018, did you sell black pepper to CCT or another 
buyer?
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 82
a CCT yes no
b Other buyer yes no
93 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer in 2018 (not CCT):
a how many kilos did you sell to the other buyer? kg
b what price did the other buyer pay per kg? $0.00 
94 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer, why did you sell to them?
a it was just a small amount yes no
b they offered a higher price than CCT yes no
c they would buy lower quality yes no
d they came to me to buy yes no
e CCT was not buying yes no
f other (say):
VANILLA
95
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you have any vanilla 
trees? yes no
if no, 
skip to 
#99
96
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, how many vanilla trees did 
you have? #
97 BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, did you SELL any vanilla? yes no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 83
a
If yes, how many kilos did you sell the season BEFORE the 
USDA project? kg
b What price did you get per kg? $0.00 
98
BEFORE the CCT/USDA project, where did you sell your 
vanilla?
a I did not sell it yes no
b A trader came to buy it yes no
c I sold it at the local market yes no
d I took it to Lospalos to sell yes no
e I took it to Viqueque City to sell yes no
f I took it to Aileu City to sell yes no
g I took it to Dili to sell yes no
h Other (write): 
99 DURING 2018, did you sell vanilla to CCT or another buyer?
a CCT yes no
b Other buyer yes no
100 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer in 2018 (not CCT):
a how many kilos did you sell to the other buyer? kg
b what price did the other buyer pay per kg? $0.00 
101 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer, why did you sell to them?
a it was just a small amount yes no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 84
b they offered a higher price than CCT yes no
c they would buy lower quality yes no
d they came to me to buy yes no
e CCT was not buying yes no
f other (say):
CASSAVA
No Cassava in Aileu
102
DURING 2018, did you sell Ai-luka I to CCT or another 
buyer?
a CCT yes no
b Other buyer yes no
103 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer in 2018 (not CCT):
a how many kilos did you sell to the other buyer? kg
b what price did the other buyer pay per kg? $0.00 
104 If you sold to ANOTHER buyer, why did you sell to them?
a it was just a small amount yes no
b they offered a higher price than CCT yes no
c they would buy lower quality yes no
d they came to me to buy yes no
e they were buying when CCT was not buying yes no
f other (say):
CAPACITY
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 85
105
Did you learn about any of the following subjects with the 
USDA Extension workers?
a Land management yes no
b plant spacing yes no
c garden maintenance -- weeding, pruning, etc. yes no
d product quality assurance yes no
e group establishment yes no
f
garden management -- diversification, intercropping, 
monoculture, etc. yes no
106
Did you apply what you learned from these subjects in your 
own gardens?
a Land management yes no
b plant spacing yes no
c garden maintenance -- weeding, pruning, etc. yes no
d product quality assurance yes no
e group establishment yes no
f
garden management -- diversification, intercropping, 
monoculture, etc. yes no
SATISFACTION WITH THE USDA PROJECT
107 How satisfied are you with the USDA project? (one only)
a Very satisfied yes no
b Satisfied yes no
c Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied yes no
d Dissatisfied yes no
e Very dissatisfied yes no
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 86
108
If you are satisfied with the project, what are the reasons? 
(can be more than one)
a I learned how to grow new crops yes no
b It will help me earn more money yes no
c CCT will buy the harvest from my old trees yes no
d CCT pays a fair price for my crops yes no
e They helped me solve problems with my crops yes no
f I was able to get free seedlings from them yes no
g I used what they taught me for my other crops, too yes no
h I got organic certification through the project yes no
i I am a member of the cooperative yes no
j other:
109
If you are dissatisfied with the project, what are the 
reasons? (can be more than one)
a I didn't learn anything new yes no
b It takes too long to earn more money yes no
c The quality requirements are too high yes no
d The prices are too low yes no
e It is too much work for me yes no
f Too many of my seedlings died yes no
g Other:
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 87
Annex 6. Field Interviews
April 2019
TLADP Final Evaluation 88