` 
Prepared 
Decentralized Evaluation
February 2021
Commissioned by WFP Cambodia 
Evaluation Manager: Bunthang Chhe
Prepared by
Wanjiku Gichigi, Team Leader
Soledad Posada, International Evaluator
Dr Sovith Sin, Agriculture and Food Security Specialist 
Prem B. Bhandari, Quantitative Data Specialist
DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING
Activity Evaluation of USDA Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement Grants (LRP-442-2019/011-00) for 
WFP School Feeding in Cambodia
01 November 2019 to 30 September 2023
Final Report for Baseline Study
Acknowledgements
This evaluation report was developed in wide consultation with programme partners and 
stakeholders of the USDA Local and Regional Procurement Programme. The Evaluation 
Team would like to acknowledge inputs from the WFP Cambodia Country Office Team, 
the WFP Regional Bureau in Bangkok, the Royal Government of Cambodia, in particular 
the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport at national, provincial and district levels; and 
important contributions from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, other 
line ministries and stakeholders consulted during the field work conducted for this 
baseline study. 
Special thanks go to WFP Cambodia Country Office staff for their time and contributions, 
in particular Emma Conlan, Bunthang Chhe, Sokrathna Pheng and Riguen Thorn, as well 
as the WFP Sub-Office team in Siem Reap.
The Evaluation Team would also like to thank Indochina Research Limited, especially 
Francis Palomares Jr, Pisei Im and the enumeration team, for their dedication to the 
survey. Special thanks are also due to Bunyeth Ho for quality check for the field survey 
data collection; Hans van Zoggel for his role in the qualitative field mission; and Terrence 
Jantzi and others in the KonTerra Group for their significant support during the 
finalisation of this report. 
Finally, the team gratefully acknowledges the participants in the baseline evaluation 
process – farmers, suppliers, teachers, school administrators, cooks, parents, and school 
children.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not 
necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions 
expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does 
not imply endorsement by WFP of the opinions expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do not imply the 
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or 
constitutional status of any country, territory, or sea area, or concerning the delimitation 
of frontiers.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................... i
1. Introduction....................................................................................... 1
1.1. Overview of the Baseline Subject............................................................................... 2
1.2. Context Description ................................................................................................... 4
1.3. Baseline Methodology and Limitations ..................................................................... 9
Methodological Overview ...................................................................................... 9
Baseline assessment questions and criteria .......................................................... 9
1.4. Data collection and analysis...................................................................................... 10
1.5. Limitations, risks, and mitigation strategies ............................................................ 13
1.6. Ensuring quality........................................................................................................ 14
1.7. Ethical considerations............................................................................................... 14
2. Findings ........................................................................................... 15
Question 1 - Relevance: Do the LRP objectives and design respond to the needs of 
stakeholders and institutions?.............................................................................. 15
Question 2 - Coherence: Is the LRP coherent with other interventions and institutions?
.............................................................................................................................. 20
Question 3 – Effectiveness: Can the LRP - as designed - achieve its objectives and 
expected results?.................................................................................................. 23
LRP Schools ......................................................................................................... 23
Local suppliers .....................................................................................................30
Farmers ................................................................................................................ 35
Question 4 - Sustainability: Are results, benefits and outcomes likely to continue after 
LRP concludes...................................................................................................... 43
Question 5: What are the factors affecting the potential impact of the LRP? ............... 47
Internal factors..................................................................................................... 47
External factors .................................................................................................... 48
3. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................ 50
3.1. Overall Assessment/Conclusions............................................................................. 50
3.2. Recommendations ....................................................................................................52
List of Acronyms .........................................................................................54
List of Tables 
Table 1: Location of the LRP targeted schools, by province ............................................................. 2
Table 2: LRP activities and outputs ................................................................................................... 2
Table 3: LRP Budget Breakdown ...................................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Baseline evaluation questions.............................................................................................. 9
Table 5: Summary of sample size for the quantitative survey ........................................................ 11
Table 6: School feeding modality in LRP schools (SY 2020/21) .................................................... 11
Table 7: Types of Suppliers by Province and Type ......................................................................... 11
Table 8: Gender of surveyed suppliers and farmers ....................................................................... 12
Table 9: Primary school enrolment (Grades 1-6) by gender ...........................................................18
Table 10: Schools with existing LSFCs............................................................................................ 24
Table 11: Schools with food storerooms...........................................................................................25
Table 12: Overall quality score on storerooms ................................................................................25
Table 13: Schools with vegetable gardens........................................................................................25
Table 14: Food commodities utilized in school meals (SY 2019 – 2020)...................................... 26
Table 15: Deliveries for fortified rice and vegetable oil (SY 2019/20)............................................27
Table 16: School personnel receiving training on the HGSF procurement process and on the HGSF 
Operational Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 28
Table 17: School personnel receiving training on food preparation and storage, and food health 
and nutrition practices............................................................................................................. 29
Table 18: Summary of findings from sample schools .................................................................... 30
Table 19: Commodities ordered by LRP schools ............................................................................ 32
Table 20: Timeliness per commodity of LRP schools with suppliers............................................. 32
Table 21: Volume and value of commodities from suppliers for schools ...................................... 33
Table 22: Suppliers reporting receiving training on HGSF by topic ............................................. 33
Table 23: Percentage of Suppliers with appropriate contract agreements .................................... 35
Table 24: Land availability among surveyed farmers .....................................................................36
Table 25: Reported production of grain and legume of surveyed farmers, by area, production 
volume, and volumes sold.........................................................................................................36
Table 26: Amounts of vegetables and rice produced, and sales to schools ................................... 37
Table 27: Farmers reporting receiving training in HGSF areas.................................................... 38
Table 28: Average Community Contributions per School by Type............................................... 42
List of Figures
Figure 1: Linkage between the LRP and McGovern-Dole Programmes ........................................ 15
Figure 2: Quality of the storerooms in the LRP schools (n=24) and comparison schools ...........25
Figure 3: Teachers reporting of reasons for having a school garden............................................. 26
Figure 4: Percentage of LRP schools providing multiple food items in the school meal ..............27
Figure 5: Percentage of LRP schools reporting purchase of specific commodities from local 
suppliers (SY 2019/20).............................................................................................................27
Figure 7: Distribution of training material in the HGSF toolkits (percentage of schools receiving)
.................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 8: School staff receiving training on HGSF processes (between 2018 – 2020) ................ 29
Figure 9: Percentage of surveyed local suppliers identifying different speciality areas ............... 30
Figure 10: Percentage of suppliers reporting selling various commodities to schools (SY 2019/20)
................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11: Transition plan for the school feeding activities in USDA funded schools (2020-2023)
...................................................................................................................................................45
Annexes to this report are presented in a separate file. Note that the following page 
numbers refer to pages in the second volume.
Map of WFP Cambodia’s Country Portfolio target areas 2019-2023
Source: WFP Country Office. [Note: HGSF = home-grown school feeding; MGD = McGovern-Dole; LRP = local and regional 
procurement]
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 i |Pag e
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. This report presents the baseline findings for the Local and Regional Food Aid 
Procurement (LRP) Programme (2019–2023)1 to be implemented by the World Food 
Programme (WFP) in Cambodia and supported by United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA). This baseline, commissioned by the WFP Country Office, was carried out in 
conjunction with another baseline study for the McGovern-Dole school feeding programme, 
(encompassing all the LRP target schools) and were conducted in parallel. They were due to 
have been completed before programme activities started, but delays caused by the COVID￾19 pandemic delayed the work, although schools also were not operating for much of the 
2019/2020 school year.2
2. The baseline sets out to validate the programme design, identifies the current status 
of key parameters and potential challenges to optimize implementation, and provides 
recommendations for monitoring and overcoming them. The mutually-reinforcing 
objectives of the evaluation series3 are learning for future and improved programming, and 
accountability to donors and beneficiaries. The main users of the baseline report will be 
WFP, the Royal Government of Cambodia, cooperating partners, USDA and development 
partners. 
3. The LRP has a budget of US$4.7 million funded by USDA over four years. Almost half 
of this is allocated for cash transfers to schools (US$2.3 million), to enable them to procure 
local food commodities to provide one school meal daily in 163 institutions4 (with 45,900 
students) across three central provinces of Cambodia: Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and 
Kampong Chhnang. The remainder of the budget will support stakeholders’ capacity 
strengthening on procurement mechanisms; technical assistance on rural market 
engagement; and institutional capacity building. The capacity building/technical assistance 
components targets four groups of stakeholders: farmers, suppliers, school personnel and 
government representatives at national and sub-national levels, of whom the key 
participants are local suppliers responsible for procurement and delivery of commodities to 
the targeted schools. By programme design, there will be more than 163 suppliers (one or 
more per school) determined through a bidding process. 
4. The LRP programme objective is to improve the effectiveness of food assistance 
through local and regional procurement to support the shift of target school to a Home￾Grown School Feeding (HGSF) model using local procurement of commodities. There are 
three expected programme outcomes: improved cost-effectiveness, improved timeliness and 
better utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards. 
Contextual Summary
5. In Cambodia, short-term hunger is a key factor affecting educational results, such as 
literacy, attendance and concentration in schools.5 The USDA McGovern-Dole programme 
aims to encourage students’ enrolment, attendance and completion of their primary 
education, as well as reduce short-term hunger and improve the children’s concentration in 
1 The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in the start of implementation of the LRP due to the closure of schools. The LRP began with 
the re-opening of schools in January 2021, after this report was prepared. 2 This baseline was also delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but eventually took place in September 2020.2 Schools were closed 
during the data collection phase of the study, but this was mitigated as much as possible by adjusting the timeframe of the survey, ensuring 
highly focused questions, and drawing strongly on secondary data in advance of fieldwork. It was agreed with WFP to establish a broad 
baseline coverage, comparing available data from school year 2019/20 with the situation at the time of the study.
3 This baseline will be followed by a midline and endline evaluation focusing on results and attainment of objectives; dates to be finalized.
4 All under the WFP Cambodia’s USDA McGovern-Dole grant (FFE-442-2019/013-00) that will be implemented concurrently with LRP. 5 WFP/USDA LRP Proposal, FY 2019
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 ii |Pag e
the classroom. The LRP supports this by creating a market through the procurement of local 
and nutritious food commodities of good quality.
Baseline Methodology 
6. The baseline utilized mixed methods – secondary review, a quantitative survey and 
qualitative data collection through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and 
observation. It focuses principally on three evaluation OECD-DAC6 criteria: relevance, 
coherence and likely sustainability, and explores the other three criteria with a specific 
emphasis on the potential implications for implementation. In order to respond to the main 
evaluation questions,7 the evaluation team drew on a quasi-experimental design using case 
schools targeted for the LRP and comparison schools from the USDA McGovern-Dole 
programme, and a pre-experimental design using the LRP case schools only for a before￾after comparison in later evaluations. 
7. Information collected is directed towards providing a situational analysis of the 
current procurement context disaggregated by stakeholders, an assessment of current 
capacities for implementation, and to address specific evaluation questions. It also provides 
baseline values for the LRP’s Performance Monitoring Plan and information on the elements 
of the LRP Results Framework.
8. The sample schools that had previously implemented HGSF were all in one district in 
Siem Reap province, and therefore could not be used to generalize results. To mitigate this, 
the ET plans to collect midline and endline data from the LRP sample schools after the 
programme begins.
Key Baseline Findings
9. The key findings are summarized below, structured according to the main evaluation 
questions and indicating the type and strength of evidence supporting each finding. 
Question 1 - Relevance: Do the LRP objectives and design respond to the needs of 
stakeholders and institutions? 
10. The LRP design is relevant to WFP because it enables the provision of support to 
stakeholders towards the transition to national ownership. Its design, to support target 
schools in using a local procurement model, is relevant to the needs of women and girls, men 
and boys, who are the primary beneficiaries and the most vulnerable. The HGSF model is 
the official one to be adopted for the national school feeding programme and it uses the 
government's own procurement mechanism. The direct involvement of government line 
ministries, provincial departments and local commune councils ensures that the activities 
are aligned with government priorities, local needs and systems. However, a comprehensive 
transition plan, articulating the concrete steps required for readiness, is lacking. 
11. The LRP capacity development component is relevant because schools, suppliers and 
farmers transitioning to the HGSF modality have relatively little experience and familiarity 
with the procurement processes. The HGSF model has potential to promote economic 
development through increased market access for local agricultural produce. It is also 
relevant for national level stakeholders where there is a need for a stronger coordination 
mechanism and clear roles and responsibilities among line ministries and sub-national 
departments.
12. The LRP considers gender as a priority with regards to increased women's 
empowerment among programme participants (under activities 2 and 3) and data will be 
6 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee: evaluation criteria are Relevance, 
Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability and Impact. 
7 Listed under the Key Findings below.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 iii |Pag e
disaggregated. However, there are no overall gender results statements in the project 
framework and this needs to be addressed. 
Question 2 - Coherence: Is the LRP coherent with other interventions and institutions?
13. The LRP programme is aligned with government priorities, as well as with USDA, the 
United Nations and other partners. It provides the necessary technical assistance and 
capacity development for eventual transition and management of school feeding by the 
national government through a local procurement model.
Question 3 – Effectiveness: Can the LRP - as designed - achieve its objectives and 
expected results? 
14. There is currently no systematic tracing of the source of the food commodities 
delivered to HGSF to accurately determine if suppliers/schools are meeting the 70 percent 
requirement from local sources.8 There is also still a need for further training around food 
safety and quality control levels to ensure quality food.
15. Suppliers face barriers when advancing credit for local purchase to farmers, which 
benefits larger suppliers with sufficient access to capital and/or credit. Survey findings 
suggest this may have implication on the extent to which food delivered comes from local 
smallholder farmers’ produce. Survey results show that the cost of delivery is covered solely 
by suppliers (except for fortified rice and vegetable oil delivered by WFP) and this must be 
factored into their bid price. To date, the HGSF market has increased the income of 
contracted suppliers and farmers they collect food commodities from.
16. Stakeholders are satisfied with the timeliness and quality of local foods delivered, but 
there is a need for improvement of storage facilities and for the schools to accept their 
responsibility in storing food commodities properly, especially for perishable foods such as 
vegetables and animal products. 
Question 4 - Sustainability: Are results, benefits, and outcomes likely to continue after 
LRP concludes?
17. The ‘School Feeding Roadmap’ signed in May 2015 lays out a plan for transition to 
local procurement, based on the HGSF model that was piloted in 2014, with elaborated 
targets for achievement by 2023. The LRP began in January 2021, after this baseline study, 
and almost a year later than the plan foresaw, so it is too early to properly assess the question 
related to sustainability but the evaluation has tried to identify the existing frameworks that 
can lead to likely sustainability.
18. Building blocks for sustainability include government commitments, local structures 
and interests, and pre-existing policies and budget allocations. At the commune level, these 
measures include the alignment with the on-going national Decentralization & 
Deconcentration reforms, and the high level of interest from suppliers, farmers and schools 
in expanding local procurement. A comprehensive transition plan would help outline how 
integration of implementation processes, systems and mechanisms within government
institutions could be operationalized and clarify how other key stakeholders would be
involved.
19. The further development of coordination mechanisms among official national and 
commune level stakeholders will be an important contribution for ongoing management by 
government of the local procurement and the HGSF overall. Past trainings and experience 
in local procurement in schools transitioned to HGSF provide a baseline for beginning 
transition in the McGovern-Dole supported schools, and previous experience of the 
8 As per the HGSF Operational Guidelines. The guidelines developed are mostly complete for many aspects of the procurement process 
(bidding, application etc.) and have been endorsed by the MoEYS. Their distribution to HGSF schools is also not yet complete. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 iv |Pag e
transition of schools to HGSF and local procurement, both within Cambodia and in other 
countries, can provide a template of potential experiences that the LRP could draw on to 
facilitate the transition to local procurement.
Question 5 - Impact: What are the factors affecting the potential impact of the LRP? 
20. It is now too early to assess any impact, but the transitional Roadmap (2015) to 
national ownership and pre-existing experience in moving schools towards local 
procurement are positive factors for potential success. Institutional capacity strengthening 
for coordination should be a given top priority in the support provided by WFP to 
government and subnational stakeholders.
21. Further clarification of stakeholder roles and responsibilities in joint programming of 
the LRP will need to be developed during initial programme implementation. The 
information management and monitoring systems are not yet sufficiently established to be 
able to track and monitor LRP progress and effectiveness.
22. Ensuring better nutritional inputs to children’s diets through the school meals has 
already received a lot of support and advice from WFP towards producing guidelines and 
recommendations that cooks and school committees can work with. As part of this broader 
effort, the use of locally blended fortified rice has the potential to replace the current in-kind 
contributions, although local production of fortified rice remains in nascent stage within 
Cambodia.
23. The COVID-19 pandemic has already had substantial negative impact on the start of 
programme implementation creating a situation where the realistic accomplishment of the 
intended transitions of schools by 2023 may no longer be feasible. Mitigation measures for 
local farmers are being considered within a range of technical assistance activities, in 
collaboration with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the Ministry 
of Agriculture (for example, supporting agricultural input supply chains).
Overall Conclusion
24. The LRP programme offers an important opportunity to ensure - and monitor - that 
targeted schools can eventually transition smoothly into the national school meals 
programme founded on the HGSF model. It also provides a starting point for WFP to work 
with suppliers and farmers in the two provinces where the HGSF will be implemented for 
the first time. Already at baseline, the LRP schools are able to provide primary 
schoolchildren with a more diverse and more nutritious menu than the original SMP model, 
suggesting that the HGSF has built a strong foundation on which the LRP can continue to 
build. 
25. The procurement process is considered to be transparent, with priority given to 
empower local communities to engage with the HGSF market as producers and/or suppliers. 
However, with suppliers find it easier to purchase from local market sites where the source 
is unknown. Effective implementation will require budget allocations beyond procurement 
by schools to also support administrative and implementation costs, establishment of 
processes for training cooperating partners and establishment of a strong monitoring system 
to effectively track progress as schools transition to local procurement and on gender 
considerations. 
Recommendations (in order of priority) 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 v |Pag e
Recommendation 1: The WFP CO and MoEYS should jointly update and consolidate
activities into a comprehensive, gradual, evidence-based transition plan.
Recommendation 2: The WFP CO should coordinate with MoEYS, the MoH and MAFF
to develop a capacity strengthening strategy that outlines clear roles and responsibilities for 
implementation of the LRP for each of the ministries at national, subnational and local 
levels.
Recommendation 3: The WFP CO, in collaboration with the MoEYS, MoH and MAFF, 
should seek to strengthen the mechanisms for joint coordination on LRP implementation as 
a complement to the capacity strengthening strategy. 
Recommendation 4: Before the LRP midline WFP should support the MoEYS to 
undertake a systematic review of the national school meals implementation that started in 
school year 2019/20.
Recommendation 5: The WFP CO should draw on available technical support, to 
continue exploring options for enhanced nutritional input to their school meals. 
Recommendation 6: WFP, USDA, and in consultation with the Ministry of Women’s 
Affairs, should integrate specific gender indicators into the programme’s Results 
Framework.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 1 |Pag e
1. Introduction
1. This report presents the baseline study for the United States Department of 
Agriculture’s (USDA) Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement programme (LRP)9 for 
the World Food Programme (WFP) School Feeding activities in Cambodia (USDA Project 
Agreement number: LRP-442-2019/011-00). The baseline is the first in a series of three 
linked evaluation exercises: baseline, mid-term evaluation in 2021 and a final evaluation in 
2023. This baseline was commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) based 
on the Terms of Reference (ToR)10 in Annex 1. 
2. The evaluation series serves the two mutually reinforcing objectives of 
accountability and learning to provide evidence-based findings which inform and 
incorporate lessons into operational and strategic decision making. 
3. The programme is implemented directly by WFP and the Ministry of Education, 
Youth and Sport (MoEYS)11 along with its Provincial and District Offices of Education 
(POEYS and DOEYS). Another key ministry is the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and 
Fisheries (MAFF) which, in partnership with the United Nations Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO), will support on aspects of procurement, production and food safety 
related activities. 
4. The main users of this report are expected to be the WFP, the Royal Government of 
Cambodia,12 cooperating partners, USDA and development partners. The baseline provides 
an evidence-based, independent assessment of the potential results of the programme and 
current situation to enable the WFP CO, the government and cooperating partners to 
demonstrate results and learning to feed into future programmes – in particular the 
government-led and managed school feeding programme (SFP). 
5. The LRP Strategic Objective is “Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through 
Local and Regional Procurement”. The LRP targets schools that are currently implementing 
school feeding activities using internationally procured commodities and supports a shift to 
a Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) model using local procurement of commodities. 
The purpose is to improve the dietary diversity, cost effectiveness and timeliness of food 
delivery. The LRP also seeks to complement institutional support provided through the 
wider school feeding activities in Cambodia with activities designed to ensure policy 
dialogue, capacity building and technical assistance on development of information 
management systems. 
6. This baseline study is intended to confirm indicator selection and targets and 
determine the existing values for programme performance indicators as provided in the 
design documents13 in the LRP targeted locations. This includes an assessment of the 
current capacity of the key stakeholders targeted in the LRP and a situation assessment of 
the potential relevance, coherence and likely sustainability of the LRP programme. The 
baseline therefore provides a snapshot at the start of LRP activities, against which change 
can be measured at the mid- and endlines (planned to be conducted in 2021 and 2024, 
respectively). It serves to inform implementation and monitoring activities. The mid-term 
exercise will build upon the baseline and will give more focus on programme learning than 
accountability. The final evaluation will build upon baseline and mid-term evaluation 
9 USDA Local and Regional Procurement (LRP-442-2019/011-00) signed on 27 September 2019 and amended on 18 December 2019. 10 Conducted by an evaluation team of independent consultants from the KonTerra Group in partnership with Indo-China Research 
Limited (IRL), a local Cambodian research company. 11 In particular, its Primary Education Department/the Scholarship Office (which supports the implementation and monitoring of the 
programme), School Health Department, and Policy Department, as well as the Teacher Training Department and the Curriculum 
Department (which are involved in the literacy component).
12 MoEYS, MAFF, MEF and the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSAVY). 13 WFP LRP Project Agreement (Attachment C), LRP Indicator Definitions, LRP Master Proposal, LRP Baseline ToR and LRP Indicator 
Definition Document (provided as Annex 5)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 2 |Pag e
results to provide an evidence-based assessment of the programme’s success and impact 
against its strategic objectives, as well as to ensure accountability and generate lessons 
learned. 
7. This baseline was conducted at the same time as the baseline for the USDA 
McGovern-Dole grant in Cambodia.14 This was for the sake of efficiency, as all the LRP 
schools will also be supported by the USDA McGovern-Dole funding for activities related to 
literacy, school health and nutrition practices as well as donation of food commodities. 
Please see para 70 and Figure 1 below (page 15) for a fuller explanation of the link between 
these two programmes.
1.1. Overview of the Baseline Subject
8. The subject of this baseline is the USDA LRP in Cambodia that is scheduled to run 
from 01 November 2019 to 30 October 2023.15 Due to COVID-19, planned programme 
activities were substantially delayed during 2020.16
9. Geographic locations: The LRP will be implemented in 163 schools located in 
three central provinces of Cambodia: Siem Reap (SRP), Kampong Thom (KTM) and 
Kampong Chhnang (KCG) (see breakdown in Table 1 below, and map in Figure 1). Over 55 
percent of the LRP schools are in SRP province. Annex 2 shows the location of the USDA 
supported schools and the locations of the wider WFP school feeding interventions. 
Table 1: Location of the LRP targeted schools, by province
Province Number of schools
Kampong Chhnang 30 (18%)
Kampong Thom 42 (26%)
Siem Reap 91 (56%)
Total 163
10. Partners: The principal partner is the Royal Government of Cambodia, represented 
by the MoEYS (and their provincial and district level offices), and the MAFF, with the 
various Commune Councils and local school committees; the programme will benefit from
the further direct assistance of the FAO and indirectly from PLAN and World Vision where 
activities overlap with the McGovern-Dole programme. 
11. Objective: The LRP project objective is to improve the effectiveness of food 
assistance through local and regional procurement. 
12. Outcomes and Activities: There is no specific Theory of Change (TOC) developed
but the outcomes, activities and outputs of the LRP can be found in the Results Framework
(RF) in Annex 3. There are three expected project outcomes: 
• Improved cost-effectiveness of food assistance
• Improved timeliness of food assistance
• Improved utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality 
standards. 
13. The LRP intends to achieve these outcomes through the implementation of four 
activities each of which include multiple outputs, as shown in Table 2. 
Table 2: LRP activities and outputs
Activity Outputs
14 Data collection was conducted from August to October 2020. 15 The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in the start of implementation of the LRP due to the closure of schools. The LRP activities 
began with the re-opening of schools in January 2021. 16 There are ongoing discussions between WFP and USDA to set a revised timeline for the midline and endline evaluations. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 3 |Pag e
1 Cash transfers to schools to 
support the Home-Grown School 
Feeding (HGSF) programme.
Cash transfers to school for local food purchase for HGSF-hybrid 
2 Strengthen capacity of HGSF 
stakeholders on procurement 
mechanisms
• Train HGSF stakeholders on programme implementation including 
procurement process and roll-out of operational guidelines
• Undertake supplier consultation events to inform strategy around building 
capacity of supply side actors in the HGSF procurement process
3 Technical assistance to farmers 
and suppliers to strengthen HGSF 
market engagement
• Enhance supplier and smallholder capacity to more effectively engage in 
HGSF programme and access market information
4 Strengthen national and 
institutional capacities and 
systems. 
• Strengthen information management systems
• Procurement of fortified kernels of rice for rice fortification pilot
14. To increase the likelihood of achieving the project objective and outcomes and ensure 
sustainability of results once the LRP assistance ends, USDA also identified a set of 
foundational results: a) increased capacity of Government institutions; b) improved policy 
and regulatory framework; c) improved capacity of relevant organizations; and d) increased 
leverage of private-sector resources (Annex 4). 
15. Planned Outputs and Beneficiaries: The project targets 163 schools, each of 
which will be receiving some commodities for the school meals through WFP Cambodia’s 
USDA LRP programme (LRP-442-2019-011-00). The primary beneficiaries are the 45,900 
pre-primary and primary students receiving a daily school meal.17 
16. Beyond schools, the key participants for LRP are local suppliers who will be 
responsible for procurement and delivery of commodities to the targeted schools. By 
programme design, their number will be more than 163 (that is, one per school) but the 
actual beneficiaries will be determined by who wins the bidding process. All actors involved 
in the procurement process and provision of school meals will also be targeted for various 
capacity building activities as appropriate. This includes suppliers, farmers, sub-national 
officials, commune councils and school administrators. 
17. Overall, the LRP aims to support policy and systems development, and build 
capacities of actors involved in school procurement processes, to ensure the local 
procurement and delivery of 1,216 metric tonnes (mt) of a diverse variety of food 
commodities to targeted schools. 
18. Performance Indicators: The LRP programme design includes 19 indicators 
covering the four activities described above.18 Annex 5 shows all the project indicators and 
their year-on-year targets, and how they were identified. 
19. Resource Situation: LRP is funded by USDA through the Foreign Agricultural 
Service (FAS). The budget for the LRP programme totals US$4.7 million over three years. 
The largest portion of the programme implementation budget is for cash transfers to 
schools (US$2.3 million) (see budget in Table 3). Other implementation expenses, such as 
staff costs, will be mostly borne by WFP Cambodia and the MoEYS with some contribution 
from the LRP budget. 
Table 3: LRP Budget Breakdown
Activity Activity Name Cost 
(USD)
1 Cash transfers to schools to support the Home-Grown School Feeding 2,308,88119
17 World Food Programme Cambodia. FY 2019 USDA LRP Proposal
18 These performance indicators were based on WFP LRP Project Agreement (Attachment C), LRP Indicator Definitions, LRP Master 
Proposal, LRP Baseline ToR and LRP Indicator Definition Document.
19 Incorporating the US$1,769,375 allocated for food commodity purchases, as shown in Table 2.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 4 |Pag e
Programme (HGSF)
2 Strengthen capacity of HGSF stakeholders on procurement mechanisms. 213,024 
3 Technical assistance to producers and suppliers on enhancing production 
capacity to engage with HGSF market. 557,218 
4 Strengthen national institutional capacities and systems. 407,034 
Monitoring and Evaluation 480,000 
Activity Costs Subtotal: 3,966,157 
Adjusted Direct Support Costs 446,988
Indirect Support Costs 286,854 
Grand Total 4,700,000 
Source: Confirmed with Budget Unit, WFP CO, Cambodia
1.2. Context Description
20. The Royal Government of Cambodia registered impressive economic growth over the 
past 20 years, bringing the country to lower middle-income status in 2016. In 2018, 
Cambodia ranked 146 out of 189 countries on the global Human Development Index (HDI) 
and life expectancy increased to an average age of 69.88 years in 2020, compared to 69.66 
in 2019. While the education index is also on a positive trend, both health and education 
indicators remain lower than for other countries in the region. 
21. COVID-19 Pandemic: The first patient diagnosed positive with COVID-19 in 
Cambodia was confirmed on 31 January 2020, and by 18 December 2020 there had been 
362 reported cases in the country, and no deaths. While the caseload has been much lower 
than in most other countries, the economic impact of the pandemic has had widespread 
effects. 
22. The Royal Government of Cambodia reacted to COVID-19 in a timely manner by 
adopting several policy measures to control the outbreak including: (i) the establishment of 
task forces by the Ministry of Economics and Finance (MEF) to control the price and supply 
of strategic goods and plan for budget policy on financing and social assistance, (ii) health 
preventive measures, and (iii) border control measures.20 Government operational budgets 
across the board were also cut by up to 50 percent - with the exception of the Ministry of 
Health (MoH) and MoEYS. 
23. Demographics and Poverty: The country has a population of over 16.9 million 
(2020) that is predominantly young, with a median age of 26 years.21 Nearly three-quarters 
of the population live in rural areas where approximately 90 percent of the country’s poor 
reside. In 2019, before COVID-19, the growth rate was 7.5 percent22 and gross domestic 
product (GDP) per capita reached US$1,643.12.23 
24. In early December 2020, the International Monetary Fund forecast a decline of 2.8 
percent in GDP over 202024 with indications of increased poverty due to loss of livelihoods 
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic - in particular, tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, 
and the informal sectors are hard hit.25 A study undertaken by the Future Forum and 
20 Future Forum and Angkor Research Cambodia are undertaking an economic impact study on COVID-19, specifically on the economic 
impacts on Cambodian citizens expected to be hit the hardest by the pandemic (farmers, wage workers and families with micro 
enterprises). Preliminary data show that the majority of the decrease in household income from farming can be attributed to Siem Reap 
province (followed by Phnom Penh), where mean income dropped from US$351.44 in January to US$186.01 in April 2020. The first 
round of data collection has also identified the emergence of a general trend in the country whereby households are substituting the 
economic returns of their produce for self-consumption. Farming profits in Siem Reap fell by 53 percent. 21 https://www.indexmundi.com/cambodia/demographics_profile.html
22 UNDP (2019) Human Development Index 23 GDP per capita in current USD. Source: World Bank (2018) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=KH 24 https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/KHM 25 Angkor Research. Covid-19 Economic Impact Study. Headline Results Brief Round 1 Data Collection. May 2020
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 5 |Pag e
Angkor Research in Cambodia26 on the economic impact of COVID-19 found that the 
populations likely to be hardest hit by the crisis were farmers, wage workers and families 
with small business enterprises – the specific potential stakeholders in the LRP for 
improving agricultural production.
25. Food Security and Nutrition: The national objectives set for the Cambodia￾specific Millennium Development Goals were not met27 and the figures for malnutrition 
remain higher than most countries in the region.28 The new Sustainable Development Goal 
(SDG) indicators covering undernourishment and dietary diversity (Goal 2) suggest that 14 
percent of households continue to consume less than the minimum dietary energy 
requirement, while 11.6 percent have inadequate dietary diversity.29 Micronutrient 
deficiencies, particularly anaemia, are prevalent. According to the manual of the Integrated 
Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), differentiation between severities of chronic food 
insecurity are identified by the size and duration of gaps in quality (micro-nutrients) and 
quantity (energy) of dietary intake. The latest data from the 2014 Demographic and Health 
Survey (DHS)30 found 45 percent of women of reproductive age and 55 percent of children 
under five years of age were anaemic. Undernutrition is most prevalent in rural areas. The 
2014 DHS also reported that 34 percent of children under the age of five years are stunted,
10 percent are wasted, and 24 percent are underweight.31Among women aged 15-49 years, 
14 percent are reported to be underweight.32 
26. Social Protection: To help address poverty and food insecurity, there are two types 
of social protection interventions in Cambodia: social assistance and social insurance; with 
school feeding falling under the former. Beneficiaries for social protection interventions are 
identified through a classification system that places households at different levels of 
vulnerability (the Government’s Identification of Poor Households programme, commonly 
known as ‘IDPoor’) and the interventions are implemented under the National Social
Protection Policy Framework which has been expanded during 2020 because of the COVID￾19 pandemic. 
27. Gender: Gender inequality persists in Cambodia, with 25 percent of women 
nationwide being illiterate compared to 13.5 percent of men (2015). The United Nations 
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in Cambodia reported 
(2015) that 70 percent of women in employment were engaged at lower levels and on less 
pay than men, with estimates that on average, women are paid 30 percent less for
26 COVID-19 Economic Impact Study. 08.06.20. Angkor Research. 
http://angkorresearch.com/?page=detail&ctype=article&id=567&lg=en 27 Cambodia had an objective of reducing the prevalence of undernourished people to <10%. 28 https://opendevelopmentcambodia.net/topics/sdg-2-zero-hunger// 29 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: 
https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf 30 Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia 2014Demographic and health survey: Key Findings. 31 https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR312/FR312.pdf
32 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: 
https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 6 |Pag e
commensurate work.33 Women are also underrepresented in the public sector where 77 
percent of employees and 85 percent of decision-making positions are occupied by men. 
28. However, Cambodia’s Gender Development Index (GDI) results show progress in 
recent years. More women are creating independent sources of income within the private 
sector through urban migration for work or by starting small businesses, particularly in the 
clothing sector. The Government is working on reducing violence against women as shown 
by its National Action Plan to Prevent Violence Against Women (NAPVAW), which includes 
school-based prevention interventions to change social norms around violence among
young females.34 The SDG targets on gender equality in education and literacy have been 
achieved at the primary school level but gender disparity is higher for secondary education 
as only 40 percent of girls complete schooling. 
29. Education: Cambodia has been improving primary education programmes and 
reducing gender disparity in education for many years. Over the last two decades, net 
primary school enrolment (NER) rose significantly from 81 percent (2001) to over 90 
percent, with an annual average of 91.5 percent (91.5 for girls, 92.0 for boys)35 in School 
Year (SY) 2018/19.36 This is a significant improvement from 81 percent in 2001. Although 
there is still a need to expand enrolment in primary schools and pre-schools in some 
locations, sustained efforts to globally expand access to school are less relevant than they 
once were. While repetition and dropout rates have declined steadily over the last five years, 
school dropout remains of concern: dropout is most problematic at the end of the primary 
school as students transition to secondary school, and students in rural areas are more likely 
to drop out.37
30. In Cambodia, short-term hunger is a key factor affecting educational results, such as 
literacy, attendance and concentration in schools.38 The USDA McGovern-Dole programme 
aims to encourage students’ enrolment, attendance and completion of their primary
education, as well as reduce short-term hunger and improve the children’s concentration in 
the classroom. The LRP supports this by creating a market through the procurement of local 
and nutritious food commodities of good quality. 
31. As part of COVID-19 measures, all schools in Cambodia were closed in mid-March
2020 and were only allowed to reopen – within strict guidelines and in a limited capacity – 
from early September 2020. Online learning has posed many challenges, in particular for 
students from vulnerable households, many of whom have difficulty accessing online 
resources. While schools were closed, school meal funds were reallocated to provide take￾home rations (THR) for children from vulnerable households during the closure, in 
conjunction with Government cash distributions to vulnerable households holding the 
IDPoor cards.39 Schools started to reopen during the last quarter of 2020 and subsequently 
33 According to Global Gender Gap Index, 2020 (GGGI, 2020):
- Cambodia ranks high on women’s economic participation and opportunity (25th out of 153 countries), with the economy transitioning 
from a predominantly agricultural economy to a manufacturing and service-based economy, including a large garment industry, of 
which 90% of the workforce are women. 
- Women’s political empowerment is low and reversing: in 2006 the country was ranked 94th and in 2018 ranked 119 (of 153 countries). 
There are only 20 percent of seats in parliament held by women and only nine percent of ministerial positions are held by women.
- Cambodia is classified as a “Medium Human Development" country, ranking 146 out of 189 countries and territories the country has 
made significant progress with the HDI value increasing 51% between 1990 and 2018 (UNDP HDI 2019) 34 NAPVAW 2014-2018. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By4DrHxo3C94Skx4VmZUN2JoMmc/view?pli=1 35 “The literacy rate in Cambodia was highest among women and men in the age group 15-34 years in both 2014 and 2016. Generally, the 
literacy rate among men was higher than among women in all ages except for the ages 6-24 in 2014 and 2016.” Available at : 
http://www.nis.gov.kh/nis/WM/Women%20and%20Men%27s%20in%20Cambodia%20final%20version_EN.pdf
36 MoEYS, Education Statistics & Indicators 2018/2019. According to the Education Congress Report 2019, the overall national NER 
for public and private schools is 98 percent for total and 98.5 percent for girls. 37 ibid 
38 WFP/USDA LRP Proposal, FY 2019 39 To date, two rounds of US$25 million each have been distributed to 500,000 poor households.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 7 |Pag e
were closed again in December. The SY 2020/21 started, two months later than usual, in 
mid-January 2021.
32. At the global level, WFP, FAO and UNICEF have developed a joint note40 to provide 
guidance to national and local authorities, school administrators and staff, and 
implementing partners on short-term measures to support and adapt school feeding 
programmes to safeguard the food security and nutritional status of school-age children
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government, WFP and several development 
partners41 have also developed an operational handbook to guide schools during the 
COVID-19 context, and these have been distributed to all schools under the school meals 
programmes. 
33. Agriculture: Since 2013, Cambodia accounts for more than three percent of rice 
exports worldwide. The agriculture sector accounted for 20.7 percent of Cambodia’s GDP 
in 2019.42 About 70 per cent of Cambodians are farmers with the majority being rural 
smallholders. Agricultural sector documentation makes reference to three broad 
geographical production areas in the country: coastal (fisheries); upland (cash crops) and
central plains (smallholder food crops).43 The provinces targeted by the LRP fall in the 
central plains, characterized by a high proportion of smallholder farmers producing food
crops with limited market access for their produce. 
34. There are five classes of Farmer Organizations44 in Cambodia, as follows: (i) farmers’ 
groups (5-15 members); (ii) farmers’ associations (>15 members); (iii) farmer communities 
(for user groups of natural resources); (iv) federations (formed from different groups with 
an overarching common purpose); and (v) cooperatives (established at either the village or 
commune level, >30 members). Forming cooperatives is one MAFF’s priorities as they are 
considered a more sustainable business model than working through farmers’ groups. 
Activities of cooperatives are limited to agricultural activities (for instance, input supply, 
marketing, production and agricultural sector credit provision/savings). The Provincial 
Department of Agriculture (PDA) is responsible for taking farmers and their groups through 
the process of forming a cooperative, including training, registration, legal costs, and 
reporting. It is estimated that there are currently 360-370 cooperatives involved. 
35. Rural household incomes in Cambodia are mostly dependent on a single harvest, 
particularly of the staple food, rice. However, the agricultural sector has seen considerable 
slowdown in recent years due to extreme weather conditions (floods and droughts), a drop 
in prices for agricultural commodities, and urban migration. There has been a deterioration 
in the growth of the agricultural sector and sub-sector from 6.2 percent average growth 
during 2004-2008, 3.7 percent during 2009-2013, and one percent from 2014-2018.45 
Fisheries contribute about 12 percent to GDP and the role that aquaculture plays in food 
security is increasingly gaining economic importance. Although aquaculture production is 
still small compared to capture fisheries, the sector has succeeded in producing high value 
species both for domestic and export markets. 
36. The agriculture sector has also been further affected by COVID-19. Preliminary data 
from the recent Future Forum and Angkor Research in Cambodia study46 indicated a 
reduction in household income from farming where average income dropped from 
40 WFP, FAO and UNICEF. Mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on food and nutrition of schoolchildren. Interim Guidance 
Note. 7 April 2020. 
41 UNICEF, WHP, GIZ, NGOs.
42 https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Cambodia/share_of_agriculture/ 
43 MOP, 2013; Agricultural census (MAFF, 2019); Agricultural Sector Development Plan (2019-2023 44 Royal Decree “Compilation of legal framework for agricultural cooperatives 2012”. 45 National Institute of Statistics, Cambodia 46 COVID-19 Economic Impact Study. 8 June 2020. Angkor Research 
http://angkorresearch.com/?page=detail&ctype=article&id=567&lg=en
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 8 |Pag e
US$351.44 in January to US$186.01 in April. Siem Reap province47 was found to be the 
worst affected (followed by Phnom Penh), with farm income reported to have fallen by 53 
percent. WFP also conducted some ongoing food security modelling where early indications 
suggested an increase in poverty and food insecurity levels. Social distancing and 
restrictions on travel, transportation, and movement across borders have naturally had an 
impact on food insecurity; and a breakdown in supply chains of agricultural inputs and 
produce, plus increasing the rate of unemployment.48
37. The Royal Government of Cambodia emphasizes local production of vegetables to 
curb imports. According to 2019 Government estimates, there were 58,000 hectares under 
vegetable cultivation producing 68 percent of local market demand. One of the 
government’s responses to COVID-19 was a ban on exports of some food items (rice and 
fish) to protect local food security during the crisis, which was later lifted. While finding 
markets for produce from Cambodian smallholder farmers is a longstanding problem, the 
pandemic has reduced market activity even further (WFP VAM Report, December 202049). 
The FAO envisages that the supply of agricultural inputs (such as seeds, fish fingerlings and 
breeding chickens) will be negatively affected. 
38. The most recent WFP food price updates for Cambodia in the same report found that 
most food prices have remained fairly stable in the COVID-19 context, and markets 
appeared to be functioning well. However, WFP concluded that the main impact of the 
pandemic on food security is more likely to be related to the demand side, with “many 
households suffering economically with a loss of livelihoods and income as a result of the 
crisis, which in turn restricts their ability to afford a sufficient and diverse basket of 
nutritious foods”. 
39. School Feeding in Cambodia: The LRP is just one of many school feeding-related 
projects in Cambodia. WFP has been implementing school feeding in Cambodia since 
2001,50 while discussions with the MoEYS about transitioning all school feeding activities 
to national ownership begun with the development of the RoadMap (2015). The heavy 
logistic requirements of the original school feeding design, using imported commodities and 
then distributing to these schools, was not ideal for government management. WFP 
therefore looked to other modalities and began piloting a HGSF model in 2014. The MoEYS 
formally declared their preference for the HGSF model in 2018 and since then WFP has 
been actively supporting schools to transition to the HGSF model in readiness for 
transitioning all school feeding activities to national ownership by 2023.51 
40. Since 2014, WFP has made strategic adjustments to their school feeding activities, 
with the development of a HGSF-hybrid modality that combined USDA in-kind 
contributions (fortified rice and oil) with locally procured commodities. As of the start of SY 
2020/21 (January 2021), there will be three forms of school feeding modality operating in 
Cambodia: the original School Meal Programme (SMP) modality, HGSF-hybrid, and a full 
HSGF model where all school feeding commodities are purchased from within Cambodia: 
• SMP: Centralized procurement and distribution by WFP of in-kind contributions 
from donors. This includes fortified rice and oil, and iodized salt. 
• HGSF-hybrid: A combination of centralized procurement and distribution of in￾kind contributions of fortified rice and oil by WFP from USDA McGovern-Dole, 
complemented by local direct purchase by school personnel of other commodities 
47 Due to the massive decline in tourism to Siem Reap, the markets for food commodities has been seriously affected 48 For example, amongst migrant and factory workers as well the tourism industry 49 Source: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000123066/download/?_ga=2.176998565.1862318943.1615117619-
1276889250.1615117619 50 "Protracted Relief and Recovery Programme 6038.01, which started in 2001, included the first WFP school feeding component in
support of basic education." Source: https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp230143.pdf 51 Education Sector Strategy (2019 – 2023)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 9 |Pag e
including vegetables, proteins and pulses. Financial resources are distributed to 
schools by the MoEYS for the complementary direct purchase component, based on 
per child enrolment rates. Purchasing of local commodities is the responsibility of 
schools, supported by Local School Feeding Committees (LSFCs) and using a
competitive tender process.
• HGSF: as above in the hybrid model, though schools carry out direct purchase of all 
food commodities – rice, oil, iodized salt, vegetables and proteins. Cash transfers are 
provided to schools for direct purchase of all commodities based on per child 
enrolment rates. The School Supplier Selection Committees have the responsibility of 
local procurement.
1.3. Baseline Methodology and Limitations
Methodological Overview
41. During the inception phase, the evaluation team (ET) developed a set of evaluation 
criteria and questions for the full evaluation series, from baseline to endline (Annex 6). This 
baseline study uses a mixed methods approach combining quantitative surveys applied to 
farmers, suppliers and school personnel, combined with document review and qualitative 
interviews (key informant interviews and focus group discussions). 
42. The baseline draws on a quasi-experimental design using case schools targeted for 
the LRP and comparison schools from the USDA McGovern-Dole programme; it also 
incorporates a pre-experimental design to allow a before/after comparison in just the LRP 
case schools. The approach is intended to provide baseline data for the performance
indicators, a situation analysis of the current procurement context disaggregated by 
stakeholders, an assessment of current capacities for implementation, and to address 
specific evaluation questions. The methodology is designed to be replicated at midline and 
endline using the same sampling framework and the same data collection instruments. 
43. The study collected primary data using quantitative and qualitative tools developed 
by the ET, and triangulated against secondary information, particularly the previous (2017-
2019) baseline-endline evaluation. The data collected was anchored on the LRP 
Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and the LRP Results Framework and guided by 
selected questions in the ToR that would be relevant for inclusion in the baseline. 
Baseline assessment questions and criteria
44. The baseline focuses principally on three evaluation OECD-DAC52 criteria: 
relevance, coherence and likely sustainability, in relation to the design of the programme,
with a specific emphasis on potential implications for implementation. The other three 
evaluation criteria – effectiveness, efficiency, and impact - will be most appropriate to assess 
at midline and endline, after the programme has been operational. However, the 
quantitative survey also includes questions on effectiveness, efficiency, the potential impact 
of current procurement processes under the HGSF modality, and the enabling environment, 
to provide contextual information and establish the situation at the start of the programme. 
Table 4 outlines the key questions from the ToRs under each of these criteria that the 
baseline assessment attempted to answer. The ET expanded the evaluation questions into a 
detailed evaluation matrix (Annex 7) including the data sources and means of verification.
Table 4: Summary of the baseline evaluation questions 53
Criteria Baseline questions
52Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee 53 See Annex 7 (Evaluation Matrix) for detailed questions.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 10 |Pag e
Relevance Do the LRP objectives and design respond to the needs of stakeholders and institutions?
Coherence Is the LRP coherent with other interventions and institutions?
Effectiveness Can the LRP - as designed - achieve its objectives and expected results?
Efficiency Do the LRP activities use resources and deliver results in an economical & timely 
manner? (not addressed during this baseline)
Sustainability Are results, benefits, and outcomes likely to continue after LRP concludes?
Impact What are the factors affecting the potential impact of the LRP?
45. Because the LRP has not yet begun implementation, many of the WFP-specific 
performance indicators would technically still be at zero. However, many of the 
stakeholders have received inputs and capacity strengthening support from WFP or others 
as part of the transition to the HGSF-hybrid support prior to the beginning of the LRP. As 
such, the baseline describes pre-existing capacity development support that had already 
been received. 
1.4. Data collection and analysis
46. To critically and objectively review whether the programme can meet its stated 
objectives, data collection for the baseline study was conducted at three levels:
• Secondary data review: Documents provided by WFP and by stakeholders collected 
during interviews (see the list of documents reviewed in Annex 8). 
• Qualitative data collection: Qualitative interviews were carried out with 
representatives of all stakeholder classes identified in the stakeholder analysis 
developed during the inception phase. Annex 9 provides a detailed description of 
stakeholder interest in the evaluation and likely uses of the evaluation findings. A 
detailed list of stakeholders interviewed can be found in Annex 10. 
• Quantitative data collection: The quantitative data collection took place through a 
detailed survey in conjunction with the McGovern-Dole programme baseline. The 
tools used can be found in Annex 11) 
47. Data Collection Timeline: The quantitative data was collected between 31 August 
and 23 September 2020 while the qualitative data collection phase was spread over a four￾week period (21 September to 16 October 2020). See details in Annex 11, Fieldwork 
Calendar. Ideally, both the midterm and endline evaluations would be best conducted 
during this same period in 2022 and 2023 respectively.54 
48. Site Mapping: All LRP sample schools were drawn from the HGSF-hybrid schools 
supported by the USDA McGovern-Dole programme in the three provinces. These samples 
included 35 LRP schools (using HGSF-hybrid) and 21 comparison schools (using SMP) all 
of which are part of the USDA McGovern-Dole supported evaluation case school samples. 
This sample size is based on a 95 percent confidence level with 80 percent power which 
detects an effect size of 0.70 (G*Power 3.1.9.4).55 The sample also included stakeholders
(mainly school personnel) associated with each of the case and comparison schools, as well 
as suppliers and farmers who had been involved in HGSF procurement to schools within 
the targeted provinces. 
49. During the inception phase, the ET planned to survey a total of 663 stakeholders and 
56 schools as shown in Table 5. During the baseline, however, the local suppliers were able 
to identify fewer than the planned number of farmers, so the final number of stakeholders 
included is 612 (92 percent of planned).
54 There are ongoing discussions between WFP and USDA to set a revised timeline for the midline and endline evaluations. 55 Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, 
& Computers, 28, 1-11.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 11 |Pag e
Table 5: Summary of sample size for the quantitative survey
Number Planned Actual
No. of case schools (USDA LRP schools) 35 35
No. of comparison schools 21 21
TOTAL schools surveyed 56 56
No. of school administrators (McGovern-Dole module) 56 x 1=56 56
No. of teachers (McGovern-Dole module) 56 x 3 = 168 167#
No. of households (McGovern-Dole module) 56 x 6 = 336 334##
No. of school administrators (LRP module) 35 x 1=35 35
No. of suppliers (LRP module) 53 x 1=53 53
No. of farmers (LRP module) 53 x 2 = 106 58
TOTAL individuals surveyed 754 703
#1 teacher among LRP comparison schools from Kampong Thom not interviewed.
##2 households among LRP comparison schools from Kampong Thom not interviewed.
50. School sample: The full list of sampled LRP case and comparison schools can be 
found in Annex 11. As of SY 2020/21 all the sampled LRP case schools will be implementing 
the HGSF-hybrid model (Table 6), with a plan to transition them all to the full HGSF model 
by the endline evaluation in 2023. Currently, all the comparison schools are using the SMP 
modality, and by endline, it is expected that these schools will also have shifted to either the 
HGSF-hybrid model or to the full HGSF model.
Table 6: School feeding modality in LRP schools (SY 2020/21)
SMP HGSF (hybrid)
LRP case Comparison LRP case Comparison
Kampong Chhnang 0 0 6 0 
Kampong Thom 0 8 7 0 
Siem Reap 0 13 22 0 
TOTAL 0 21 35 0
51. Within the 35 case schools, 11 schools have already established contracts directly 
with local suppliers as part of their own local procurement processes even though the LRP 
had not yet officially started. At the time of the baseline fieldwork, all the LRP schools had
received centralized in-kind contributions of fortified rice and oil from WFP. 
52. Supplier sample: Since the LRP had not yet started, it was not possible to 
determine which suppliers would win the tender process to supply food for SY 2020/21. 
However, there were 53 suppliers who had previously been given contracts to supply food 
to some of the LRP schools targeted in the three provinces already implementing a HGSF￾hybrid modality. All those 53 suppliers were included as the baseline sample. Table 7 below 
shows the breakdown of these suppliers by province and type. According to WFP records 
(May 2020), 22 out of the 53 suppliers were women (42 percent) as shown in Table 8 below.
Table 7: Types of Suppliers by Province and Type
Province
Types of Suppliers 
Village Total
Vendors
Rice 
Millers Retailers Middlemen Wholesalers
Kampong Chhnang 9 2 1 2 1 15
Kampong Thom 13 0 5 3 3 24
Siem Reap 4 1 1 8 0 14
Total 26 3 7 13 4 53
Source: WFP HGSF Supplier List in SY 2019-2020
53. Over the course of the LRP, WFP will continue to collect ‘baseline’ data on contracted 
suppliers as schools go through their procurement processes. This new data will then be 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 12 |Pag e
used in the analysis of the midline and endline evaluations. In addition, the 53 suppliers 
were asked to identify local farmers with whom they have existing arrangements to buy 
goods. 
54. Farmer sample: In total, it was planned that 106 farmers, two identified by each 
supplier through snowball sampling, would be contacted for quantitative data collection. 
Although only 58 were surveyed for the baseline,56 the sampling approach taken helped 
maintain wide representation within the target community. Whenever possible, the farmers 
were deliberately sampled towards a gender balance (one man and one woman farmer per
supplier) to be able to illustrate the differential experiences of men and women farmers 
through participating in the LRP programme. Because of this, the gender distribution 
within the sampled farmers (50 percent men and 50 percent women (Table 8)) does not 
reflect the actual gender distribution amongst farmers currently contributing to the supply
of food commodities to schools. As new farmers are connected to the LRP, they will enter 
the baseline data and become part of the midline and endline evaluation analysis. 
Table 8: Gender of surveyed suppliers and farmers
Men Women Total
Suppliers 31 (58.5%) 22 (41.5%) 53
Farmers 29 (50%) 29 (50%) 58 
55. Quantitative data collection: For the quasi-experimental design approach, the 
35 case schools and 21 comparison schools were profiled. In addition, this study also took a 
before/after comparison approach on the demand side, with the 35 case schools (one group 
pre- and post-test design57) for quantitative data collection. With this approach, data 
collected will be compared to future evaluations from the same sample schools which will 
allow comparisons between the before intervention (pre-test) and after intervention (post￾test) status.
56. The surveys were administered by KonTerra’s local partner, Indochina Research 
Limited (IRL),58 through deploying 50 local enumerators and 14 local team leaders, with 
the requisite language (Khmer) and data collection capabilities.59 Questionnaire pre-tests 
and training of the IRL field team was done by IRL senior staff in close consultation with 
the ET (remotely) and WFP Cambodia. Three questionnaires were used: for sample target 
schools (n=35), for suppliers (n=53) and for farmers (n=58). The LRP related questions 
were also abstracted from the McGovern-Dole household baseline questionnaire (eg: 
storage, nutrition, household income). For case-comparisons, some data was collected from 
WFP records.
57. Responses from about 35 percent of interviewees were rechecked by telephone by 
IRL. In addition, an external national consultant hired by KonTerra also visited 14 of the 
sample schools to verify the data collected and its quality. For case-comparison analysis, 
information on quantity and timeliness of delivery of commodities (specifically on fortified 
rice and fortified vegetable oil) was obtained from WFP’s records as these were provided to 
schools through in-kind contributions.
58. Qualitative data was gathered through key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus 
group discussions (FGDs) with a wide range of key stakeholders at international, national, 
sub-national and school/community levels (328 in total) using semi-structured interview 
guides. The key informants included personnel from WFP, government officials (national 
56 Some suppliers did not purchase from farmers, some were farmers themselves, or in some cases contact details were not available. 57 Singleton, R. A. & B. C. Straits. 2005. Approaches to Social Research. Fourth Edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 58 Indochina Research Limited (IRL): http://indochina-research.com/who-we-are/. This company performed the same role in the 
previous baseline-to-endline data collection process conducted by KonTerra for the McGovern-Dole grants in Cambodia (2017 to 2019). 59 Similar work had already been done by IRL during the pandemic and the company was fully aware of the necessary precautions and 
protocols to be followed.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 13 |Pag e
and subnational), United Nations and NGO staff, as well as suppliers and farmers. The 
international ET members participated remotely; the national members were physically 
present for KIIs with government officials (observing COVID-19 protocols in place). Field 
site visits for qualitative interviews were conducted by the national evaluation team 
members accompanied by an external expert who was recruited for this phase of the work.60
They visited sample schools and thereafter met with associated supply side key informants. 
Daily remote team meetings were held which served to allow discussion on the findings and 
clarify and determine any issues that required further verification.
59. Data analysis: Quantitative data was checked, cleaned and prepared for analysis 
by IRL in coordination with the ET. Data collection and entry were designed to allow 
identification of existing errors. The ET then verified the data and systematically checked 
the data’s accuracy, consistency and validity. Then, the distribution of each variable was 
examined for inconsistencies in codes plus discrepancies in values plus logical distribution, 
and any issues found were crosschecked with the IRL team. The ET analysed the cleaned 
data using SPSS and R software packages and the results were presented as gender 
disaggregated (wherever appropriate) descriptive statistics for this report. This data has 
been made available to WFP in a separate document.
60. The ET ensured data integrity and factual accuracy through regular team 
discussions. All evidence collected was verified and corroborated through systematic 
triangulation by comparing information collected through the different methods and 
sources and was examined by the ET members. Preliminary findings were presented to WFP 
staff and then to partners and stakeholders at presentation workshops on 19-20 October 
2020, which served as opportunities to discuss and fill any gaps in the initial findings.
61. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment (GEWE) Considerations:
The ET ensured that the data collection process included active participation of all 
stakeholders. The instruments and methods used allowed for gender disaggregation and
also explored the dynamics of power and control. The ET made a conscious effort to include 
questions related to gender in all interviews. However, a major gap in the programme design 
is the absence of indicators related to gender and inclusivity as well as specific GEEW 
activities in the guiding RF, making it difficult to conduct a comprehensive assessment of 
these aspects.
62. Although no children were interviewed for this LRP baseline study, their interests as 
primary beneficiaries were enquired into throughout the survey process. As part of the data 
collection process, one of the international team members assessed the extent to which 
different voices, vulnerabilities, capacities and priorities of women, men, girls, and boys 
were reflected in the LRP design. This included how the design intended to promote positive 
change for all participants in terms of equitable access to asset acquisition and power 
sharing. 
63. Full details of the methodology, sampling approach, and quantitative and qualitative 
data collection are included in Annex 11. 
1.5. Limitations, risks, and mitigation strategies 
64. Although the ET anticipated numerous limitations and risks in conducting this 
baseline study during the pandemic crisis, no important factors prevented the work from 
proceeding while meeting acceptable standards, and direct contact with key informants 
remained possible. To minimize the risks of exposure to COVID-19 and mitigate its impact 
on the study, IRL designed safety protocols for the field surveys with strict adherence to the 
60 An external expert, already resident in Cambodia, was recruited. He had a well-developed knowledge and understanding of Cambodia, 
its culture, official structures, and previous humanitarian and evaluation experience and spoke and understood fluent Khmer. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 14 |Pag e
official guidelines, and the ET held virtual debriefings regularly. The ET paid particular 
attention to WFP’s relevant technical guidelines.61
65. School closures were the major concern regarding impacts on findings but was 
mitigated as much as possible by adjusting the timeframe of the survey, ensuring highly 
focused questions, and drawing strongly on secondary data in advance of fieldwork. After 
considerable discussions during the inception phase, WFP CO and the ET agreed to 
establish a broad baseline coverage, comparing available data from SY 2019/20 with the 
situation at the time of the study. However, the sample schools that had implemented HGSF 
were all in one district in Siem Reap Province, and therefore could not be used to generalize 
results. However, the ET plans to collect midline and end-line data from the LRP sample 
schools after the programme begins and compare the results.
1.6. Ensuring quality
66. All evidence collected was verified and corroborated through systematic 
triangulation by comparing information collected through the different methods and 
sources examined by the diverse ET members. The ET also ensured data integrity and 
factual accuracy through regular team discussions.
67. Quality of the outputs was assured using Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance 
System (DEQAS) and Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance 
(ALNAP) standards together with the use of WFP technical notes, templates and checklists. 
KonTerra’s Quality Assessment expert reviewed all outputs before submission to WFP. All 
team members are fully impartial and independent and have no direct or recent interest in 
WFP’s activities in Cambodia. 
1.7. Ethical considerations
68. Interviews were carried out in accordance with the United Nations Evaluation 
Group’s 2008 Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation, notably to ensure informed consent,
anonymity and confidentiality. The field notes are kept confidential and will not be turned 
over to public or private agencies. In addition, steps were taken to ensure that men, women, 
boys and girls felt that interviews were conducted in appropriate locations so that they were 
able to freely express their views and concerns without fear of reprisal. Schools were notified 
in advance that they would be part of the survey. Permission to interview children at school 
was sought from their teachers, and from parents during household interviews. No effects 
of the intervention on human rights or gender equality were identified. The ET used 
UNICEF’s Procedure for Ethical Standards in research, evaluation, data collection
and analysis related to child consultations.62 
61 WFP OEV. Technical Note for Planning and Conducting Evaluations during COVID-19. April 2020. 62 https://www.unicef.org/supply/files/ATTACHMENT_IV UNICEF_Procedure_for_Ethical_Standards.PDF
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 15 |Pag e
2. Findings
69. This section presents evidence against the evaluation questions set in the baseline 
ToR (Annex 1) and linked to the LRP’s PMP (Annex 16) and RF (Annex 3), as outlined 
above. The evidence is derived from the baseline’s primary data findings and from 
secondary documents/information (including WFP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) 
data). The findings are presented against each of the key questions in the ToR, and the data 
presented in the tables below is drawn from the quantitative survey done for this study.
Question 1 - Relevance: Do the LRP objectives and design respond to the 
needs of stakeholders and institutions?
70. The LRP will be implemented to support the USDA McGovern-Dole programme, 
improving school children’s access to food (school feeding) and improving the effectiveness 
of the programme by helping schools to transition to a HGSF modality. Using a local 
procurement model is expected to improve the cost effectiveness and timeliness of 
procurement and delivery of commodities to schools, and diversify the food items that are 
provided through the school meals. The linkage between two USDA programmes – the LRP 
and McGovern-Dole - is shown in Figure 1. 
Figure 1: Linkage between the LRP and McGovern-Dole Programmes
Source: Evaluation Team Key: Blue and red boxes: USDA McGovern-Dole programme. Green boxes: LRP programme
71. To achieve the programme’s objective, the LRP plans to strengthen the capacity of 
schools, suppliers, farmers, and government authorities to implement school-led direct 
purchases of regional and local commodities, as part of the transition process from donor 
in-kind contributions to full management of procurement by schools and local authorities 
within a government-managed school meals programme. 
72. There have been several evaluations of WFP’s school feeding activities in Cambodia, 
including those supported by previous USDA McGovern-Dole grants,63 all of which have 
found school feeding to be appropriate and relevant to the Cambodian context. Given the 
poverty and low education outcomes in the targeted provinces, and the reliance on 
63 The most recent evaluation is: Dunn, S. et al (2019) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern￾Dole Grant Food for Education Programme for WFP Cambodia (2017-2019). Final report. The KonTerra Group.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 16 |Pag e
agricultural production in rural Cambodia for livelihoods, it is highly relevant that the 
government transitions to local procurement, as it offers an opportunity to support the local 
economy in locations where much of the population relies on agricultural production for 
their income. The key issue recommended in previous evaluations is for an extension in the 
timeline set for the transition process and to allow for capacity building activities to be 
effectively implemented, thus enable a successful handover to the government. Specific 
recommendations of past LRP evaluations in Kenya, Laos and Rwanda can be found in 
Annex 12. Many of them apply to the Cambodian context as they point to issues such as the 
need to continue to: (i) raising funds and advocating on the importance of school feeding; 
(ii) promoting small holder procurement; (iii) supporting technologically farmer groups for 
self-monitoring or; (iv) engaging with women in cooperative decision making.
73. The design of the LRP is also relevant because WFP is in the process of transitioning 
all their school feeding activities to national ownership and the adoption of the HGSF 
modality reflects the government’s preference for a cash-based model that supports the 
local economy. At the start of the LRP, the targeted schools will be implementing school 
feeding through the HGSF-hybrid model, receiving in-kind fortified rice and oil from WFP 
and purchasing vegetables, protein and iodized salt from local suppliers. By the end of the 
programme, the current MoEYS plan is that they should all have transitioned to the full 
HGSF modality, with all commodities obtained through local procurement funded by the 
Government. However, the transition plans64 remain broad and have not yet articulated a 
comprehensive list of actions and necessary steps that need to be taken into consideration65
and implemented towards readiness for a successful transition. Additionally, the national 
SMP had run a very short period by the time of this baseline, thus there had not been much 
experience to draw on and compare. As an example, take home rations, distributed during 
the pandemic, were found to also be an effective in reaching the most vulnerable households 
- at a much lower cost. 
74. The baseline survey found that over 95 percent of both case and comparison schools 
had at least seven years of experience in provision of school meals (Annex 13), and almost 
all the LRP schools (91.4 percent) reported receiving training on the HGSF modality one 
year ago, in 2019. However, almost all the LRP schools are new to local procurement
practicalities. Baseline interviews confirmed that suppliers and school personnel need and 
request ongoing support to move to a HGSF model (both the hybrid and full) where the 
school must procure all commodities themselves, including rice and oil. It is therefore 
appropriate that the project activities included the capacity building component for four 
groups of stakeholders: farmers, suppliers, school personnel and government 
representatives at national and sub-national levels.
75. Targeting: The selection of the three targeted LRP provinces was appropriately
based on WFP’s own Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) information including 
poverty, nutrition and education data. Kampong Thom and Siem Reap have had USDA 
McGovern-Dole programming for several years, while Kampong Chhnang is newly targeted 
for the 2019-2023 USDA McGovern-Dole cycle. 
76. All three targeted provinces are characterized by a comparatively high proportion of
households falling into poverty categories of IDPoor 1 or 2, the two categories used by the
Royal Government of Cambodia as qualifying for social assistance. The McGovern-Dole
programme, and therefore the LRP, appropriately prioritizes schools in these geographic
locations. Selection of schools was also based on the school community’s commitment 
64 The RoadMap (2015); the Education Strategy (2019 – 2023) 65 The Five Policy Pillars of the transition process: policy framework, budget framework, institutional capacity, implementation capacity
for scale up, and role of non-state stakeholders (especially communities).
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 17 |Pag e
and/or capacity to contribute their share to the delivery of school meals as well as the 
existence of support infrastructure.
77. Local procurement model: The LRP programme will use the Government’s own 
procurement process for the implementation of the LRP. The current process and 
procedures at Commune Council level have been accessed to be ‘acceptable’ for the 
implementation of the LRP, and it is the system used by the Government for the bidding 
process in rural road, irrigation, and other projects related to climate change activities. The 
MOI has produced procurement documents for Commune Councils to use. This is 
appropriate given the underlying aim of transitioning all school feeding activities to national 
ownership. The LRP will require suppliers to obtain 70 percent of their produce from local 
sources. This will appropriately support local communities through increasing the degree 
of smallholder access to markets and expanded livelihoods. Farmers and suppliers seldom 
have any formal contractual agreements, and this should be one area that is encouraged to 
develop through collaboration and technical support from MAFF and FAO. Baseline 
interviews indicate that suppliers perceive the HGSF as a relevant approach, and by 
extension the LRP support to transitioning schools to HGSF as being appropriate. 
78. Rice fortification: Exploring the potential for local procurement of fortified rice is 
a small but relevant component in the LRP programme. Rice is an important contributor to 
the diet in Cambodia and offers opportunity for large scale supplementation of existing 
micronutrient deficiencies. Earlier assessment work done by WFP and partners indicates 
some potential to expand on existing private sector industries on fortification of salt and 
sauces (fish and soy), but significant challenges over time have indicated that introducing a
fortification process for rice in Cambodia would not be straightforward. There is currently 
a limited market to justify the investment, and the government has yet to confirm its full 
commitment to the idea. At this point, the LRP is aiming to continue some of these 
discussions but in the meantime help to promote broader nutrition-sensitive programming 
into the transition 
79. Technical support on agriculture: Given that agricultural production is not 
WFP’s core business, it is appropriate that the project has agreed potential future support 
from FAO to ensure that production assistance is relevant to the design component, related 
to improved agricultural production and post-harvest handling. Technical support to 
agriculture has added value in the current context of returning migrant workers and 
enhanced local demand for income generating activities to support post-COVID-19 
economic recovery, and is aligned with the MAFF’s policies. 
80. Both USAID and FAO have found that the use of fertilizer and crop protection inputs 
are widespread in Cambodia and these present potential health hazards to consumers, 
including the HGSF market. Reducing the use of such pesticides on fresh fruit and 
vegetables in the project design is therefore relevant to the needs of farmers and schools.66 
81. Gender considerations in programme design: Although gender is an 
important programming priority for WFP, the LRP Results Framework does not explicitly 
include a gender component; however, WFP requires that reporting of indicators is gender 
disaggregated where appropriate. There are no specific gender targets nor any gender￾specific activities, expected results or indicators to measure and analyze gender roles, 
behaviours and expectations besides disaggregation identified in the Results Framework. 
Although pursuing equal gender participation is recognized in the detailed documentation 
66 It is known that the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been reduced though many new environmental safety projects such 
as ASPIRE, TSSD-II, etc. The ET contacted these project teams for further details, but without response.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 18 |Pag e
of the LRP design, having gender-specific outcomes in the RF would explain more clearly 
what and how gender issues are intended to be addressed through the intervention. 
82. The programme proposal indicates that it seeks to “identify and monitor possible 
barriers and opportunities for equitable participation for men and women”. Activity 2.2 
aims to tailor trainings based on needs assessments, and Activity 3 intends to encourage 
women’s participation in the bidding process; including a requirement that at least one 
position in the bid committee is occupied by a woman. The baseline interviews noted that 
female representation on the bid committees is still requiring more attention – the ET 
believes the aim should be equal representation - and thus these components are relevant.
To be able to measure achievements on gender by the end of the evaluation series, the 
subject would need to be added to the Results Framework with related indicators and 
targets added to the Performance Management Plan. This could be explored with the 
Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MoWA) and retroactively added to key design documents of 
the LRP and monitored throughout implementation.
83. Most of the visited communities experienced considerable difficulties in 
understanding that gender mainstreaming involves all members of a society and their 
needs, not just the women. The programme is perceived by implementing partners to lack 
specific gender mainstreaming activities that would be of crucial importance before 
handover to the Government. The ET did not see evidence of uniform gender guidelines 
agreed upon with the partners for this programme. In fact, the partners prefer their own 
versions and some informants were not aware of the existence of WFP gender guidelines
84. The LRP programme is designed to equally meets the needs of women, men, girls 
and boys and to present an opportunity to promote women’s empowerment through 
increased engagement of female suppliers and farmers and through the inclusion of both 
girls and boys in obtaining school meals. The proposal clarifies that school meals will be 
provided to all primary students, both girls and boys, in the targeted schools. The baseline 
school survey found that girls make up just under 50 percent of the total primary school 
enrolment in both the LRP and comparison schools (Table 9). 
Table 9: Primary school enrolment (Grades 1-6) by gender
Primary school enrolment by gender
% Boys % Girls
LRP case schools (n=35) 51.2% 48.8%
LRP comparison schools (n=21) 50.2% 49.8%
85. Baseline interviews, with farmers, suppliers and local authorities, indicated that 
women play a key role in production and marketing of farm produce within rural 
communities because men comprised the highest proportion of migrant workers. Key 
informants advised that in many livelihood related activities, women comprise almost 100 
percent of participants; also, that women’s enterprise groups in different programmes often 
performed better than those that were exclusively male. This suggests that a focus on 
intentional recruitment of women suppliers67 and farmers is appropriate in the design, but 
there now needs to be a concerted effort to ensure women producers and traders have 
equitable access to supplying food commodities. 
86. In subsequent rounds of this evaluation series, implementation aspects such as the 
extent to which tackling longstanding perceptions is pursued, measuring progress in 
transformative changes for women, men, girls and boys or systematically promoting equity 
and equality ideals will be assessed.
67 Among the suppliers contracted in the HGSF so far, 41.5 percent have been female. (Source WFP CO records)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 19 |Pag e
87. Engagement of a broad range of national and sub-national stakeholders: 
WFP will implement the LRP programme in collaboration with the MoEYS and MAFF, its 
cooperating partners, and local schools and commune councils. The design therefore 
includes engagement with key institutional stakeholders including with other line 
ministries at national, sub-national levels and commune levels. This should ensure that 
activities are aligned with government priorities. 
88. Baseline interviews highlighted the need for engagement and capacity strengthening
at national and sub-national levels. Understanding of HGSF and the roles of sub-national 
authorities is still often unclear, with several stakeholders equating the HGSF approach with 
school gardening. 
89. Qualitative interviews with sub-national actors indicate a lack of clarity among sub￾national officials over the roles and responsibilities for HGSF between line ministries 
(MoEYS and MAFF), between departments at sub-national offices, and between provincial 
and district offices. For instance, there has been low involvement of the district office of 
health, which is intended to have a role in checking the quality of food and for hygiene issues 
among the schools, farmers and suppliers. These different government actors have yet to 
become fully engaged and including this component in the LRP design reflects the 
importance of working with them to improve their coordination. 
90. Although WFP already operates the HGSF in some locations with the support of 
MAFF, in Kampong Chhnang province there has been limited involvement from the 
Provincial and District Departments of Agriculture. Capacity building and skills 
development among implementation stakeholders, including the MAFF was therefore 
identified during the baseline interviews as being very relevant. 
91. As the HGSF/LRP evolves toward inclusion in the action plans of local CPs, sector 
strategies and government, it may be possible to attract both co-financing partners (for 
example, the Asia Development Bank, World Bank, European Union, NGOs, private sector 
etc.) and programme delivery partners at different levels, from national to local authorities, 
before programme completion.
Key findings and conclusions – Question 1 (Relevance)
• The LRP design to support schools to use a local procurement model is relevant to the 
needs of women and girls, men and boys, who are the primary beneficiaries and the 
most vulnerable. 
• The direct involvement of HGSF with government line ministries (eg: MoEYS and 
MAFF), provincial departments (PDAFF, POEYS and DOEYS) and local commune 
councils ensures that the activities are aligned with government priorities and local 
needs.
• The model is relevant to national government because of the official plan to adopt the 
HGSF model for the national school feeding programme and it uses the government’s 
own established procurement mechanism. However, a comprehensive transition plan 
articulating concrete steps required for readiness is lacking.
• The LRP design is relevant to WFP because it enables the provision of support to 
stakeholders in support of the transition to national ownership
• The LRP capacity development component is relevant because schools, suppliers and 
farmers transitioning to the HGSF modality have relatively little experience and 
familiarity with the procurement processes.
• The LRP capacity development component for national level stakeholders is relevant 
because of the need for a stronger coordination mechanism and clear roles and 
responsibilities among line ministries and subnational departments.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 20 |Pag e
• The capacity development component for suppliers and farmers is relevant to their 
needs and is perceived as having the potential to increase their economic development 
through increased markets for agricultural produce.
• The LRP considers gender to be a priority with regards to increased women’s 
empowerment among programme participants under activities 2 and 3 (that is
suppliers, farmers, bidding committee members). Data on beneficiary participation 
will also be disaggregated by gender. However, there are no overall gender results 
statements in the project framework, and there is a need to add gender into the LRP 
design documents and monitoring plan for the subject to receive appropriate attention 
during implementation and to be assessed in future evaluation rounds.
Question 2 - Coherence: Is the LRP coherent with other interventions and 
institutions?
92. Alignment with national policies: WFP has supported the development of key 
school meal related policies and strategies in Cambodia for several years and as a result, 
WFP and government policies broadly align. The country’s long-term development vision68
emphasizes a strong commitment to education and child nutrition. Corporately, WFP and 
the Royal Government of Cambodia align on their commitment to zero hunger addressed 
so far through the social protection and education sectors, and on food security and 
nutrition. 
93. The Government has multiple policies and programmes elaborated within the zero￾hunger agenda including: i) the National Fast Track Roadmap for Improving Nutrition
(2014-2020);69 ii) The 2nd National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (NSFSN, 
2019-2023); and iii) the National Action Plan for Zero Hunger Challenge in Cambodia
(2016-2025).70 The LRP is aligned with these policies as local procurement is intended to 
increase access to markets of the agricultural sector in the targeted regions and enhance the 
food security and economic livelihoods of smallholder farmers and suppliers. The local 
procurement mechanism used is based on the government’s procurement system with the 
intension of improving it to serve this purpose.
94. School feeding is aligned with strategic objectives and priorities of the Royal 
Government of Cambodia’s human development objectives which prioritize improved 
nutrition, ending stunting and increasing income for the poorest.71 School feeding is also 
recognised by the government as being an important social protection mechanism, acting 
as a safety-net for poor households with school-aged children, and supporting national food 
security and improvements in nutrition. 
95. Transition to a nationally owned school feeding programme, which the LRP will 
contribute towards, is also coherent with the Education Strategic Plan (2019-2023), the 
National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (2019-2023) and the National Social 
Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF, 2016-2025). Inclusion of HGSF targets in the 
Education Strategic Plan (2019-2023) helped accelerate the government’s direct financing 
and implementation of HGSF with a budget allocated by the MEF from fiscal years 2019-
2021. The government allocated US$1.8 million as its initial direct investment, with a 
planned scale up to more than US$6 million over the next five years.72 
68 The Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency Phase IV (2019–2023) – Rectangle 1 including 1) Improving 
the quality of education, science and technology; 2) Vocational training; 3) Improving public healthcare and nutrition; and 4) 
Strengthening gender equality and social protection.
69https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23603Cambodia_VNR_PublishingHLPF.pdf 70 http://ocm.gov.kh/ocmwinwin20/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/6-National_Action_Plan_for_the_Zero.pdf 71 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23603Cambodia_VNR_PublishingHLPF.pdf
72 National HGSF Implementation Framework (MoEYS; August, 2019)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 21 |Pag e
96. The government is currently transitioning all sectoral ministries to delegate their 
work to the sub-national levels through Decentralization and Deconcentration (D&D) 
process. This is an appropriate entry point for LRP mainstreaming at sub-national level, 
especially for Commune Councils, allowing joined-up planning and resource allocation at 
province, district and commune levels. Having the LRP process managed at these levels is 
well aligned and coherent with the government’s D&D reform process. 
97. The collaboration with WFP on increased local procurement for provision of school 
meals is an integral part of the government’s plans to roll-out the national SMP. The LRP 
will complement the MoEYS efforts of building the capacity of school administration and 
supporting management systems at national, provincial and district levels to implement the 
provision of school meals utilizing agricultural produce from local communities. A HGSF 
Implementation Guideline was endorsed by MoEYS in 2019 that covers all the main 
operational aspects of the modality.
98. The National Policy on School Health73 was approved in April 2019 and 
provides guidance on the practical implementation for the prevention of communicable 
diseases. The policy focuses on school feeding, aiming to strengthen the safe food nutrition 
programme in schools by encouraging students to take safe and healthy food choices. To 
operationalise this policy, the school health department at MoEYS is collaborating with 
WFP and the MoH to support food safety and hygiene practices in schools with feeding 
programmes. 
99. The MoEYS’s Department of Policy and Planning is also currently leading on drafting 
a stand-alone National Policy on School Meals. The policy incorporates input from multiple 
ministries, the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) and the NSPC, with
the draft expected to be completed in 2021. The policy is expected to bring together all the 
ministries involved in school feeding and social protection, to harmonize approaches and 
develop shared objectives.
100. The MoEYS began direct implementation of school meals using government 
financing in SY 2019/20 with 205 schools in six provinces.74 The intent is to gradually scale 
up the number of schools supported by the MoEYS to approximately 650 schools by SY 
2024/25. The government and WFP plan to regularly review the transition plans and 
schedule over the next five years. At the time of the baseline, the MoEYS plans were to take 
over another 67 schools, some of which are under the current McGovern-Dole cycle.75 
101. The Royal Government of Cambodia is also committed to gender inclusivity across 
all its development actions, emphasized in the National Strategic Plan for Gender Equality 
and Women’s Empowerment (2019-2023).76 The LRP programme contributes to GEWE 
through the provision of equal income opportunities for women and men in producing and 
supplying food to schools, as well as participating in the provision of school meals, which in 
turn should help improve educational levels and reduce drop-out rates of girls as well as 
boys. The country’s long-term development vision77 also emphasizes a strong commitment 
to strengthening gender equality and social protection. Furthermore, the Ministry of 
Women’s Affairs of Cambodia (MoWA), in partnership with UNDP Cambodia and the 
Swedish Government, is spearheading a comprehensive policy project aimed at narrowing 
73 Royal Government of Cambodia (2018) National Policy on School Health, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport 74 Banteay Meanchey, Kampong Cham, Siem Reap, Battambang, Preah Vihear and Stoeung Traeng 75 In Kampong Thom, Kampong Chhnang, Pursat, Oddar Meanchey and Siem Reap. 76 Neary Rattanak V five-year strategic plan (2019 – 2023) 77 The Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency Phase IV (2019–2023) – Rectangle 1 including 1) Improving 
the quality of education, science and technology; 2) Vocational training; 3) Improving public healthcare and nutrition; and 4) 
Strengthening gender equality and social protection.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 22 |Pag e
the nation’s gender gap.78 This level of commitment needs to be better reflected in the LRP 
design. 
102. Complementarity with WFP work in Cambodia: The WFP Cambodia Country 
Strategic Plan (CSP 2019-2023) focuses on supporting national and sub-national level 
systems aimed at enabling national ownership of the school feeding programme. In 
preparation for direct implementation by the national government, the MoEYS and the 
NSPC formulated and endorsed national operational frameworks and guidelines including 
the development of a School Meals Policy, initiated in 2019. Several relevant documents79
are under review and will be updated in 2021. 
103. The LRP is part of WFP’s wider portfolio of school feeding activities in Cambodia, all 
of which are either fully funded by USDA or co-funded with another donor. Alongside the 
USDA’s McGovern-Dole programme, complementary activities funded by other donor 
contributions include KOICA (US$10 million over five years), the Japanese Government 
(in-kind contribution of canned fish) and various private sector entities (US$1 million per 
year).80 With these aligned contributions, WFP ensures complementary and complete 
programme delivery.81 Moreover, the CO manages all SFPs within a single team which 
ensures coherence of the programmes and coordinates inputs from other CO specialized 
units. The USDA-funded LRP programme complements the McGovern-Dole programme 
through its focus on local procurement to deliver food for provision of school meals. WFP 
ensures a comprehensive programme delivery through multiple complementary activities 
and donor funding sources.82 
104. The LRP also seeks to complement the wider programme with institutional support
through the inclusion of activities designed to ensure policy dialogue, capacity building and 
technical assistance on development of information management systems. The support for 
the latter is done through field-based monitoring that captures critical programme 
information, for example with mobile data collection and web-based mapping tools, 
leveraging on the WFP’s Platform for Real-Time Information System (PRISM) initiative.83
105. Alignment with United Nations frameworks and other development 
partners: The LRP’s emphasis on improved agricultural productivity and access to 
markets is designed to contribute towards SDG 2 to “end hunger, achieve food security and 
improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” The LRP therefore is likely to 
contribute towards the United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Cambodia84
(UNDAF, 2019-2023), Outcome 2 on Prosperity. The LRP is also coherent with SDG 17: 
strengthening partnerships, given that school feeding programmes cover multiple sectors 
and engage various types of stakeholders and will strengthen partners’ capacities over time 
to allow a full transition to government ownership and management. 
106. The FAO is confirmed to play a complementary role on technical assistance related 
to agricultural production and local procurement activities. Given that agricultural 
production is not WFP’s core business, it is appropriate that the project has engaged support 
from FAO to ensure that production support is appropriate and relevant to the design 
component related to improved agricultural production and increased market engagement 
78 Leading the Way for Gender Equality (LWGE) programme, which began in 2017 and was on course to finalize in December 2020. 
Three project-pillars set the foundation for gender equality in Cambodia: 1- Institutional reforms through effective policy development 
and implementation; 2- Behavioural change through media mobilisation and youth engagement; 3- Promotion of women in decision￾making roles. Available at: https://www.kh.undp.org/content/cambodia/en/home/blog/leading-the-way-for-gender-equality--
cambodia-s-commitment-to-ad.html 79 Including HGSF operational guidelines, frameworks, policy and legal documents. 80 The national budget allocates US$2 million a year for the national Government-led SMP. 81 LRP programme proposal. 82 ibid. 
83 McGovern-Dole programme proposal. 84 https://cambodia.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/CAMBODIA%20UNDAF-%202019-2023.pdf
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 23 |Pag e
through technical support (for example, on supplier/farmer agreements and food quality 
control). Given its mandate for enhancing agricultural production and marketing, the FAO 
is engaged as one of the coordinating partners to support the MAFF’s Agricultural Strategic 
Development Plan 2019-2023 on the production and food safety related activities, and to 
support smallholder farmers to participate in the market economy. Potential collaboration 
exists85 with other development partners within the agricultural sector, such as the 
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).86 
107. The programme will draw on the Government’s coordination in the social protection 
and education sectors and also benefit from promotion of good nutrition and gender 
practices pursued by both WFP and the NGO implementing partners, PLAN and WV. 
Although not included in LRP’s design, these NGO partners will play an important role as 
an extension of implementation partnership with WFP, funded under the USDA McGovern￾Dole programme.87
Key findings and conclusions – Question 2 (Coherence) 
• The LRP programme is aligned with government priorities, as well as with USDA, the 
United Nations and other partners, although the government gives higher emphasis to
gender considerations than the LRP design does. 
• The design includes technical assistance and capacity development (by WFP and 
partners) essential for eventual transition and management of school feeding by the 
national government through a local procurement model.
Question 3 – Effectiveness: Can the LRP - as designed - achieve its objectives 
and expected results? 
108. The LRP plans to support schools to implement a HGSF model by providing capacity 
support to school personnel, local suppliers and farmers as well as national and sub￾national government representatives. This section profiles the results of the baseline 
surveys in the LRP schools, and with the local suppliers and farmers.
109. Since the project has not yet started because of COVID-19, this report provides 
information on the current situation in schools regarding the presence of appropriate 
infrastructure, the capacity of local commune councils to support the local procurement 
process, the capacity of local suppliers to procure the required commodities, the capacity of 
the farmers to produce the required commodities and the capacity of all stakeholders to 
implement the required procurement processes. Progress on these will need to be 
monitored during implementation as well as other results included in the programme 
design . The future midline and endline evaluation exercises will then be able to use these 
baseline figures to measure the progress towards achievement of set outputs, outcomes and 
ultimately, the project objective. 
LRP Schools 
i) Procurement processes and management
110. Detailed information regarding the comparison and LRP case schools can be found 
in Annex 13. The following section summarizes the key characteristics of the schools related 
to the LRP processes.
85 ASPIRE, the IFAD funded project, is implemented in the three target provinces of WFP’s SMP 86 Dunn S (2020), Baseline assessment of the KOICA supported Home Grown School Feeding programme in Cambodia in Kampong 
Thom, Kampong Chhnang and Pursat Provinces 2020-2024, Draft Report. 87 LRP programme proposal. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 24 |Pag e
111. Under the HGSF modality, the procurement of commodities is done at school level, 
by an LSFC whose membership includes the school director, the storekeeper (usually a 
teacher), the cook and other community members. The baseline school survey found that 
all the LRP schools already have LSFCs (Table 10) which is a good first step for the 
implementation and management of the procurement process. 
Table 10: Schools with existing LSFCs
Schools with existing LSFCs
USDALRP schools (case schools) 100%
SMP schools (comparison schools) 100%
112. The LSFC has the responsibility of calculating the volume of food needed for the 
school feeding activities each term and write up a formal tender, which is then publicized 
locally. Ideally, this should be done during school holidays, in between terms, to allow 
sufficient time for the tendering and bidding processes to be completed and the food to be 
delivered to schools ahead of the start of term.
113. Under the HGSF-hybrid model, bulk foods (fortified rice and vegetable oil) are 
delivered by WFP and monthly record keeping is done by the school director or storekeeper. 
Inspection of the quantity and quality of food in storage is done biannually by NGOs and 
also by the government (MoEYS/POEYS/DOEYS) while WFP conducts spot checks
covering all target schools at least once a year.
114. For fresh commodities, the responsibility for the storage and quality checking is done 
at school level since those items are delivered directly to the schools by local suppliers. The 
WFP/MoEYS HGSF Operational Guidelines require that schools outline the total monthly 
vegetable requirements broken down into weekly or bi-weekly deliveries. The total annual 
estimates (broken down by commodity group) are disseminated through a competitive bid 
process to suppliers. 
115. Once food is delivered to the schools, quality control of fresh foods such as vegetables 
and protein sources is expected to be done by the storekeeper, cook and/or the school 
director. This requires training to be able to physically assess quality and quantity as they 
receive food deliveries. The LSFC is also responsible for inspecting the monthly records on 
the quantities, quality, and timeliness of delivery. 
ii) Food storage infrastructure
116. Once food arrives at the school, it is critical that the necessary infrastructure is 
available to maintain quality and safety standards. Fresh foods such as vegetables and 
protein sources (especially fish and pork) require refrigeration which most schools do not 
have, or immediate cooking. The CO advised that to overcome this limitation, fish is mostly 
delivered alive while pork is delivered early in the morning. However, field interviews 
indicated that pork was delivered in the evening one day in advance and the cooks would
pre-cook it to preserve it overnight. Some suppliers reported that they provided the 
perishables in a cool box with ice that they paid for. Dry items need to be kept in storerooms 
of appropriate quality standards. Table 11 shows that 69 percent of the sampled LRP schools 
had storerooms, and 67 percent of those used appropriate means (pallets) to be able to store 
food off the ground. A higher percentage of LRP case schools already had storage facilities 
than the comparison schools. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 25 |Pag e
Table 11: Schools with food storerooms 
Total
Schools with 
storerooms
Of those with storerooms, 
number storing food off the 
ground
# % # %
USDALRP schools (case schools) 35 24 69% 16 67%
SMP schools (comparison schools) 21 9 43% 9 100%
117. An assessment of the quality of storage rooms among the surveyed schools explored 
11 characteristics related to storage quality. Figure 2 shows the relative food storage quality 
demonstrated at the LRP schools and the comparison schools. 
Figure 2: Quality of the storerooms in the LRP schools (n=24) & comparison schools
118. To ensure food safety, it is important for the storeroom to be dry, to be able to store 
food off the ground on pallets and have good ventilation. Overall, the quality of the 
storerooms in both LRP and comparison schools scored similarly (Table 12), with seven of 
the 11 quality components present. The comparison schools were more likely to have options 
for storing food off the ground and to have food pallets; the LRP schools were more likely 
to have ventilation and a door with a good lock. 
Table 12: Overall quality score on storerooms
Schools Total sampled schools 
with storerooms
Overall storeroom quality 
score
USDA LRP schools (case schools) 16 (of 24) 7.42
SMP schools (comparison schools) 9 (of 9) 7.22
iii) School gardens
119. The school survey found that 77 percent of LRP schools had school gardens (Table 
13). Depending on the scale of use of these gardens, they can also be used to provide 
(occasional) food items for the school meals. However, school personnel indicated that 
school gardens also enable children to learn and practice life skills, and that food items from 
the gardens could not be relied upon for the school meals (Figure 3). 
Table 13: Schools with vegetable gardens
Total # of schools 
with garden
% of schools with
vegetable garden
% of rehabilitated
vegetable garden*
USDA LRP schools (case schools) 35 27 77% 85%
SMP schools (comparison schools) 21 16 76% 81%
*Among those schools with a vegetable garden
4
4
8
17
21
54
58
58
67
88
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Broken windows/door
No hygiene
Leaking rooms
Security guard at night time/ during school vacation
Food was stored off ground
Foods are stored in order
Well cleaned
Storeroom had ventilation
Pallets for food storage
Floor is dry
Door is locked well
USDA SMP schools (comparison schools) USDA LRP schools (case schools)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 26 |Pag e
Figure 3: Teachers reporting of reasons for having a school garden
iv) Commodities provided for the school meals
120. One of the objectives of the LRP is to increase the quality of nutritionally diverse 
foods within the school meals. This dietary diversity can be measured directly by the 
number of foods and food groups provided in the school meals and indirectly through 
the reported changes in household dietary diversity among participating schools. 
121. At baseline, schools implementing a HGSF-hybrid model receive micronutrient 
fortified rice and oil from USDA and then procure other ingredients locally. The USDA 
comparison schools receive the same fortified rice and oil, as well as tinned fish 
provided by the Government of Japan (Table 14). Already at baseline this means that 
the LRP schools are able to provide a more diverse school feeding menu to the 
schoolchildren.88 Figure 4 shows the percentage of LRP schools that reported providing 
commodities in their school meal in the week before the survey, and Figure 5 describes 
the percentage of schools reporting purchase of specific commodities from local 
suppliers.
Table 14: Food commodities utilized in school meals (SY 2019 – 2020) 
Food Type LRP schools Comparison schools89
Grain Fortified Rice (USDA)
Vegetable
Morning glory, Pumpkin (yellow), Moringa, 
Spinach, Long bean (green) (options include 
over 20 varieties).
Protein Eggs, Meat (pork), Fish Canned fish (Japanese 
Embassy)
Oil Fortified vegetable oil (USDA)
Salt Local salt (community contribution)
Total number of food 
groups provided 5 3 
88 The schools in the LRP baseline did not report on the value and volume of the commodities they procured. However, the 53 
suppliers in the baseline survey did report on the value and volume that they delivered to the schools. This information is presented 
in the supplier section. 89 NB: WFP reports that iodised salt and yellow chick peas are provided by school communities under the SMP schools. This was not 
mentioned by the sample school authorities.
0
13
87
8
54
39
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Supplementing SMP recipe
Practicing life skills
Both reasons
USDA SMP schools (comparison schools) (n=16) USDA LRP schools (case schools) (n=27)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 27 |Pag e
Figure 4: Percentage of LRP schools providing multiple food items in the school 
meal 90
Figure 5: Percentage of LRP schools reporting purchase of specific commodities 
from local suppliers (SY 2019/20)
122. Timeliness of commodity delivery: Timeliness of the only delivery (of three 
planned) of fortified rice and vegetable oil by WFP and MoEYS in the SY 2019/2020 was 
high, both in the LRP case and comparison schools. All commodities were delivered 
according to the planned timeline, generally before the term began, and they were delivered 
as per quality specifications (Table 15). These figures give a timeliness goal for the LRP to 
aspire to under the HGSF modality. 
Table 15: Deliveries for fortified rice and vegetable oil (SY 2019/20). 
LRP 
Schools 
(%)
Comparison 
schools (%) 
Was the fortified rice91 delivered as per planned time? 100% 100%
Was the fortified rice delivered before the term began? 83% * 100%
Was the quantity of fortified rice delivered as per the specification? 100% 100%
Was the quality of fortified rice delivered as per the specification? 100% 100%
Was the fortified vegetable oil delivered as per planned time? 100% 100%
Was the fortified vegetable oil delivered before the term began? 83%* 100%
Was the quantity of fortified vegetable oil delivered as per the specification? 100% 100%
Was the quality of fortified vegetable oil delivered as per the specification? 100% 100%
Source: WFP, M&E records. NB: Table reflects only the first three planned food deliveries.
*Deviation was due to storekeepers not being in school, food delivery was done next day. No effect on provision of meals.
90 Survey findings on receiving canned fish differ from the CO reports that none was distributed to schools under the HGSF. This might 
be explained by the fact many sample schools were still under the SMP model at the time of the baseline fieldwork. 
91 No fortified rice was delivered in SY 2019/2020, however, some fortified rice was used for school meals which came from stocks that 
had remained from the previous school year,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Meat (pork)
Eggs
Pumpkin (yellow)
Long bean (green)
Rice (non-fortified rice)
Moringa
Fish
Spinach
Canned fish
Rice (fortified)
Morning glory
Vegetable oil
Iodized salt
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 28 |Pag e
v) Nutrition sensitive activities, including the use of fortified commodities
123. The school survey found that while some schools are already procuring rice locally, 
the rice procured is not fortified. The only fortified rice comes from the in-kind donor 
contributions in the USDA McGovern-Dole supported schools, which will likely phase out 
by 2023 with the planned transition to government. The model eventually developed for the 
national SMP may or may not involve procurement of fortified rice, dependent on the 
success of identifying or developing a source to supply fortified rice and vegetable oil. 
However, under the HGSF modality iodized salt is still purchased with donor funding.92 
124. The CARD and the Ministry of Planning’s Department of Food Fortification are the 
government institutions with assigned responsibility for food fortification, but 
implementation will require much broader engagement, especially of the private sector as a 
major actor on this.93 According to the Department, few private firms (especially rice 
millers) were interested in producing fortified rice because of the lack of supplies of raw
micronutrient inputs, limited market demand, lack of technical skills, and so on.
125. As a small part of the LRP, WFP plans to continue its support for the development of 
a national rice fortification capacity, but more significantly will build upon the current levels 
of knowledge about nutritional and food groups mentioned above through a focus on a 
broader range of activities and inputs supporting better all-round nutrition in school meals, 
during the current period of implementation but also in the lead-up to the transition to 
government ownership of the programme. 
vi) Training for school personnel on HGSF procurement process and 
operational guidelines
126. Activity 2 (Capacity strengthening of HGSF stakeholders on procurement 
mechanisms) focuses on bringing customized, in-person training, mentorship and coaching 
to all levels of stakeholders including schools, commune councils, school support 
committees and suppliers covering contract development, bidding, procurement 
requirements, and annual planning. Qualitative informants indicated that they welcome 
this training and capacity building on the anticipated transition to the HGSF model. 
127. As part of the LRP, school personnel will be trained on the HGSF procurement 
process and on the HGF Operational Guidelines. Although the LRP has not yet begun, the
majority of LRP case schools (74.3 percent) reported receiving the HGSF Operational 
Guidelines from WFP (Table 17) and an average of 2.3 staff members per LRP case school 
were reported trained on the HGSF in the past two years. However, none of these schools 
reported receiving training yet concerning food procurement mechanisms. Table 16 profiles 
the number of LRP case schools that have reported receiving training on HGSF operational 
guidelines and local procurement processes, and Figure 7 shows the range of training 
materials distributed to the various schools. 
Table 16: School personnel receiving training on the HGSF procurement process and 
on the HGSF Operational Guidelines
 
 
Schools receiving training on 
HGSF procurement process
Schools receiving training on 
HGSF Operational Guidelines
# % # %
USDA LRP schools (case schools) 20 57.1 26 74.3
SMP schools (comparison schools) 0 0 0 0
92 WFP, in collaboration with UNICEF, also distributed to target schools test kit for testing the presence of iodine in the salt. 93 Studies include: WFP Rice Landscape Analysis (2019); Rice Fortification RoadMap (2019); Multi-nutrient Challenges and Solutions 
(2019). Discussions ongoing with government on the extent to which rice fortification is possible in Cambodia and realistic within the 
timeframe of the LRP. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 29 |Pag e
Figure 6: Distribution of training material in the HGSF toolkits (percentage of 
schools receiving)
128. Figure 8 illustrates the percentage of surveyed school personnel who reported 
receiving HGSF related capacity building support over the last two years: school 
director/headteacher (in 77.1 percent of case schools); followed by cooks (65.7 percent); 
teachers (45.7 percent) and a small percentage of other staff (eg: storekeepers, LSFCs 
members and school chairmen). 
Figure 7: School staff receiving training on HGSF processes (between 2018–2020)
129. Although some schools have received training on the HGSF modality, interviews with 
school personnel indicated that the transition timeline to the full HGSF model is not clear. 
130. In addition to the above specific training on the HGSF modality, the majority of the 
LRP schools have already received training on food preparation and storage, and on good 
health and nutrition practices, through the USDA McGovern-Dole programme (Table 17).
Table 17: School personnel receiving training on food preparation and storage, and 
food health and nutrition practices. 
 
 
Schools receiving training 
on food preparation and 
food storage practices
Schools receiving training 
on good health and 
nutrition practices
# % # %
USDA LRP schools (case schools) 31 89% 30 88%
SMP schools (comparison schools) 20 95% 20 95%
131. Table 18 provides a summary of all the key elements of HGSF capacity building along 
with the percentage of surveyed LRP schools that had infrastructure of appropriate quality. 
74
82.9
94.3 85.7
71.4 62.9
14.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Program
Summary
Checklists Posters Booklets Brochures Quizzes Related videos
77.1
45.5
20
5.7
65.7
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Principal Teachers LSFC Chairman Cooks Store Keepers
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 30 |Pag e
Table 18: Summary of findings from sample schools94 
Item LRP Case 
Schools
Comparison 
Schools
Storage facilities 69% 43% 
Storage follows recommended quality standards 77% 76%
School garden is present 87% 39%
School plans to use the produce from the school garden to supplement 
the school meal 89% 95% 
School personnel have received training on food preparation and 
storage 88% 95% 
School personnel have received training on good health and nutrition 
practices 54% 56% 
School has developed menus for their school meals 29% N/A
School personnel have received training on school feeding record and 
reporting system 77% 57% 
Local suppliers
132. The suppliers in the baseline sample had had previous experience with providing
locally procured food commodities to HGSF schools in the three targeted provinces. 
However, these suppliers are not explicitly linked to the LRP case schools, since widespread 
contracting under the LRP has not yet begun. The baseline information from these suppliers 
is intended to illustrate the current situation suppliers face within the overall local 
procurement context. The suppliers participating in the programme are expected to change 
every year, depending on who wins in the bidding process. As new suppliers targeted by the 
LRP activities enter the programme, additional baseline information will be collected from 
each to allow for future analysis at the midline and endline evaluations. 
133. Of the total 53 suppliers, 22 (41.5 percent) were female and 31 (58.5 percent) were 
male. Most of the suppliers surveyed were owners with five years or less experience. Most
operated grocery stores or were farmers, were older than 35 years, with only primary or 
limited secondary education. The number of suppliers was approximately equally 
distributed among the three provinces although Kampong Thom had slightly more 
suppliers in the survey sample. More detailed information about the suppliers and their 
characteristics can be found in Annex 14. 
134. The LRP is envisioned to allow each school to order from multiple source contractors, 
with more people engaging in contracts to increase the programme’s benefits through 
improved income opportunities and capacity strengthening. The current configuration of 
suppliers reflects a wide range of specialized suppliers (Figure 9). The general trend is for 
HGSF schools to have one supplier for stock foods (monthly deliveries) and another for 
fresh foods (daily deliveries) as this helps reduce transportation costs. 
Figure 8: Percentage of surveyed local suppliers identifying different speciality areas
94 Scheduled trainings were scaled down due to COVID-19 related restrictions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Grocery Store Vegetable
Stores
Meat Stores Animal raising
farm
Rice miller Fish merchant Rice merchant Farmer
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 31 |Pag e
135. The suppliers had supplied food to schools for an average of just over two years and 
had on average about 3.6 schools per supplier. In the sample survey, 64.1 percent suppliers 
themselves reported buying the food commodities for the schools directly from farmers (34 
suppliers out of 53). Other sources reported were middlemen (67.9 percent), wholesalers 
(49.1 percent), village vendors (45.7 percent), rice millers (15.1 percent) and other retailers
(11.3 percent). Most suppliers used a mixture of sources to obtain the commodities. Protein 
sources were more frequently purchased from traders while vegetables were more 
frequently purchased directly from farmers. For example, 72 percent suppliers reported that 
vegetables were directly purchased from farmers where as 79.2 percent, 73.6 percent and 
64.2 percent suppliers purchased fish, meat (pork) and eggs from the traders, respectively.
Further details on all these figures given in Annex 14. 
136. Figure 10 shows the percentage of suppliers reporting selling specific commodities
to the schools during SY 2019/20. For example, 85 percent of the suppliers reported that 
they sold iodized salt to schools. Similarly, 83 percent of them reported suppling spinach to 
the schools. Further information on the source of the commodities, as reported by the 
supplier, can be found in Annex 14. 
Figure 9: Percentage of suppliers reporting selling various commodities to schools 
(SY 2019/20)
137. Suppliers to LRP Case Schools: Before the pandemic closures, 11 of the LRP 
schools had contracted suppliers who had been able to supply schools as part of the HGSF￾hybrid for five months. Ten of these schools were located in the Siem Reap Province with 
the other in Kampong Thom. The orders were for a standard selection of vegetables and 
pulses (morning glory, pumpkin, spinach, moringa, long bean and other vegetables) and 
protein (eggs, pork, fish). Table 19 shows the percentage of schools contracting each 
commodity within the LRP sample. For example, among the total sample schools (n=35), 
28.6 percent (90.9 percent, n=11, of those who have contracted) of them reported that they 
ordered morning glory, pumpkin, spinach, moringa and iodized salt. 
84.9 83 83 81.1 79.2 77.4 77.4 71.7 66
26.4 26.4 20.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 32 |Pag e
Table 19: Commodities ordered by LRP schools
Commodity Number of 
schools ordered
Percent of LRP sample 
schools who have begun 
contracting (n=11)
Percent of all 
LRP schools in 
sample (n=35)
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0
Rice (non-fortified rice) 1 2.9 2.9
Morning glory 10 90.9 28.6
Pumpkin (yellow) 10 90.9 28.6
Spinach 10 90.9 28.6
Moringa 10 90.9 28.6
Long bean (green) 9 81.8 25.7
Eggs 11 100 31.4
Meat (Pork) 11 100 31.4
Fish 11 100 31.4
Vegetable oil 0 0 0
Iodized salt 10 90.9 28.6
Total 11
138. All but one (91 percent) of school directors of the 11 schools that received 
commodities from local suppliers reported satisfaction with the services of their suppliers. 
No reason was obtained from the other director who reported ‘neither satisfied nor 
dissatisfied’ with the service. The remaining 10 school directors reported that monthly 
purchase orders from the suppliers were received as per the contract. The reason given 
for non-compliance in the single school that reported this was a too short period between 
the order and the expected date of delivery (meant to be three days). Out of the 93 
assessments in the survey, 84 (90.3 percent) reported on time deliveries all the time, with 
the remainder reporting on time deliveries most of the time. Table 20 summarizes the 
timeliness per commodity related to the 11 schools in the LRP case group that had 
contracted suppliers.
Table 20: Timeliness per commodity of LRP schools with suppliers
Contracted food 
commodities
Receipt of 
commodities as 
per the purchase 
order (# Yes)
Agreed upon timeframe 
with the supplier
Receipt of commodities as 
per the agreed upon time 
frame (# Yes)
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0
Rice (non-fortified) 1 1 (fortnightly) 1
Morning glory 10 3 (daily); 7 (weekly) 9 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Pumpkin (yellow) 10 1 (daily); 9 (weekly) 9 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Spinach 10 4 (daily); 6 (weekly) 9 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Moringa 10 4 (daily); 6 (weekly) 9 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Long bean (green) 9 3 (daily); 6 (weekly) 8 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Eggs 11 2 (daily); 9 (weekly) 10 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Meat (pork) 11 4 (daily); 7 (weekly) 10 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Fish 11 4 (daily); 7 (weekly) 10 (always on time); 1 (mostly)
Vegetable oil 0 0 0
Iodized salt 10 2 (fortnightly); 8 (monthly) 9 (always); 1 (half of the time)
139. Although the suppliers in the sample are not directly linked to the LRP case schools, 
they did report on the volume and value of the supplies they have delivered to their 
contracted schools. In total, the 41 suppliers reported delivering 333,367 kilogrammes (kg)
of food to schools, with a value of US$253,847 for commodities (Table 21), giving an average 
of US$5,641 per supplier.95 At baseline the suppliers were not able to make extensive 
95 NB: WFP records indicate that between US$500 – 1,000 is spent per school on local procurement. The disparity in the amount quoted 
by the two sources and this will need to be reviewed during the midline evaluation. Some suppliers may have delivered to more than one 
school.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 33 |Pag e
comments on profitability so this will need to be assessed during the midline and endline 
evaluations. The only information obtained was that suppliers felt they would be able to 
make a profit with all items except for pork.96 The information provided in Table 21 is the 
reported volume and value (in Riels and US$) of commodities supplied during SY 2019/20 
by the surveyed suppliers before the LRP commenced.
Table 21: Volume and value of commodities from suppliers for schools 
Commodities
Quantity (kg) Total Value in Riels
Supplier
s
Total Avg Suppliers Riels97 US$ 
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rice (non-fortified rice) 14 78,750 5,625 14 148,212,375 37,053
Morning glory 44 23,208 528 44 53,172,630 13,293
Pumpkin (yellow) 42 10,393 248 44 22,860,600 5715
Spinach 44 30,366 690 44 105,275,000 26,319
Moringa 38 5,695 150 38 17,607,100 4,402
Long bean (green) 35 9,806 281 35 30,174,950 7,544
Eggs (Unit) 41 121,296 2,959 41 64,414,150 16,104
Meat (Pork) 41 16,125 394 41 246,296,100 61,574
Fish 43 29,970 697 43 307,222,500 76,806
Vegetable oil 14 3,355 240 14 14,793,100 3,698
Iodized salt 45 4,403 98 45 5,357,980 1,339
TOTAL 45 333,367 kg US$253,847
140. Capacity of suppliers regarding HGSF: Suppliers in the sample had already 
been receiving some training from WFP or the government on HGSF, including on 
nutrition, food quality, food handling, storage, and quality transportation, as part of the 
overall WFP programming support in the targeted provinces. Among the sampled suppliers, 
just over 40 percent reported receiving training. The numbers remained the same no matter 
the specific topic, suggesting that WFP trainings were general orientations on all topics 
rather than thematically focused trainings such as specific to procurement processes. Table 
22 summarizes the number of suppliers in the sample who have already received some form 
of HGSF training. 
Table 22: Suppliers reporting receiving training on HGSF by topic
Areas of training
Kg Chhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Yes # % in 
Province Yes # % in 
Province
Yes
# 
% in 
Province
Yes 
# % 
Nutrition 15 100 2 8.3 5 35.7 22 41.5
Food quality 15 100 3 12.5 5 35.7 23 43.4
Food handling 15 100 2 8.3 5 35.7 22 41.5
Storage 15 100 2 8.3 5 35.7 22 41.5
Quality transportation 15 100 3 12.5 5 35.7 23 43.4
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
141. The surveyed suppliers provided a diverse range of views about the HGSF 
Operational Guidelines requirement that 70 percent of the food commodities must be 
purchased from the local community. Some explained that availability of produce directly 
from local farmers is quite unstable and/or seasonal so they need to buy from market sites 
where the source was unknown.98 Some suppliers said that their food deliveries came 
mostly from the local community with 10 to 30 percent from non-targeted producers or 
96 Farmers reported that they did not supply any pork to the schools during the 2019-2020 period. 97 Calculated as KHRiels 4,000 to US$1.00 98 Interviews with MAFF and FAO reported that approximately 44 percent of the vegetables found in the Cambodian market comes from 
local farmers while the rest (56 percent) is imported usually from Vietnam and Thailand.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 34 |Pag e
nearby markets. Others collected from just a few farmers (usually relatives) either because 
they lacked credit for advance payment or because these farmers were able to provide the 
total quantity required. Given the modest profits from the HGSF market and the need to 
advance payment, a supplier must have their own capital, have networks of producers who 
trust them or qualify to be able to take credit, for example from the commune's agricultural 
association.
142. The suppliers identified that they need more capacity strengthening on the bidding 
process. Based on their experience to date in the current HGSF-hybrid schools, suppliers 
described the bidding process accurately: 
• The bidding process started with dissemination of a call for expression of interest 
(EOI) and the reported duration of the announcement varied from one to three weeks. 
• Information was disseminated through schools, the village chiefs, the communes, and 
districts and in most cases, information was shared only within the commune so that 
the winning bidder would be a local supplier. If local suppliers did not express interest, 
the bidding committee then considered suppliers from other communes. 
• Selection of the supplier was ultimately conducted by the Supplier Selection 
Committee that consisted of the commune chief, commune clerk, school director and 
teachers, representative from parent communities, etc. Relevant provincial and 
district officers were invited to join the bidding process (information dissemination, 
opening of bidding envelopes, contract signing etc.) as observers to ensure 
transparency and that set guidelines were followed.
143. Some key informants suggested that it helped when a representative from the District 
Office of Agriculture (DOA) participated in the bidding process because it increased the 
likelihood that the DOA action plans would include training activities on improved 
technologies thus encouraging local production levels to fully meet the HGSF market 
demand.
144. No conclusive reasons were given during the qualitative baseline interviews for why 
local suppliers might show low or no interest within some communes. However, two 
possible explanations put forward were that the process was too complicated and that a 
supplier requires some base capital for advance delivery before receiving payment a month 
later. 
145. Contractual arrangements between schools and suppliers: The final 
contract agreement with the supplier covers a 10-month period (the whole school year) and 
is signed with either the school director, the storekeeper or a member of the LSFC. The 
interviewed suppliers who had won previous bidding rotations indicated that they would 
apply to participate in future bidding exercises. They advised that to provide a modest profit 
and increase their chances of winning the bid, the price proposed should be 10-15 percent 
of the WFP base price. The food price calculation is done twice, before and after the Khmer 
New Year (for the periods November to April, and May to October) taking into consideration 
distance of transportation and the local market price. Sometimes two suppliers were 
contracted for a school when the proposed prices varied significantly for different food 
commodities (eg: meat and vegetables).
146. Qualitative baseline interviews with schools and suppliers suggested that the level of 
understanding of the procurement and bidding processes involved in the HGSF modality 
varied significantly among the schools and communes who are responsible for issuing the 
bids. It may be that the suppliers in the survey had been involved in the HGSF-hybrid for 
longer than the schools and thus were more knowledgeable. This suggests that the capacity 
building element of the LRP can pay dividends when also applied to the school and 
commune stakeholders. At the same time, the survey of suppliers suggests that there are 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 35 |Pag e
more gains to be made in the contracting arrangements. Although 94 percent of the 
suppliers reported being aware of the rules and expectations of the HGSF process, only 
about 60 percent of them were using written or verbal agreements regarding contracting, 
volume or quality. Table 23 summarizes the percentage of suppliers according to 
contracting component. 
Table 23: Percentage of Suppliers with appropriate contract agreements
Percentage
Percentage of surveyed suppliers reporting having a written or verbal agreement to supply 
a food commodity 60.4% 99
Percentage of surveyed suppliers reporting having contracts including a fixed volume or 
quality standards within the agreement 48%
Percentage of surveyed suppliers reporting they were fully aware of the rules and 
expectations of the HGSF processes 94.3%
Percentage of surveyed suppliers reporting that involvement with the HGSF had helped to 
expand their business.100 98.1%
147. Supplier identified challenges: Suppliers noted four potential challenges in 
fulfilling the HGSF procurement process:
• There is a need for adaptation to price fluctuations, particularly related to pork and 
fish, because market prices are often unstable for these products. 
• Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, suppliers who had committed money to purchasing 
against the HGSF-hybrid orders were left with their stocks on hand when the schools 
closed, and they could not deliver them or be reimbursed.101 This highlights the need 
to build into future contract agreements elements related to clarifying procedures in 
the event of fluctuating prices or the suspension of schools again.102
• The HGSF Operational Guidelines include quality standards for a range of 
commodities. Qualitative interviews with suppliers noted that legumes and vegetables 
of the required quality are available. However, since quality assessment is based on 
physical examination done on delivery of food commodities, and neither suppliers nor 
farmers have yet been trained on quality control, suppliers reported it was not easy to 
convince farmers to respect guidelines provided by HGSF-hybrid schools. Still, no 
sample schools reported rejecting commodities from suppliers among the 11 that had 
contracted suppliers as part of the HGSF. 
• There is a need for a ‘roadshow’ covering training on filling bidding forms, information 
gathering, quality and quantity of food supplies, and other related topics to attract 
more suppliers to become involved in the bidding process. 
Farmers
148. A substantive component of the LRP involves increasing market access and 
agricultural production of smallholders as a contribution to enhancing local food security. 
The baseline surveyed 58 farmers, who were linked to suppliers with some connection to 
supplying commodities for the school feeding activities within the targeted schools although 
not necessarily specifically linked to the LRP case schools or comparison schools. 
149. As previously mentioned, the survey purposively sampled equal numbers of male 
and female farmers. Slightly over 86 percent of the male farmers reported that they were 
the head of the household as compared to only 38 percent of the female farmers. Similarly, 
17 percent male farmers reported that they were 35 years of age or younger as compared to 
99 The ET acknowledges that WFP disagrees with this finding, reporting that it should be 100 percent since no suppliers would be paid if 
they didn’t have a signed contract with the HGSF school. A real understanding of ‘the contract’ during the survey made have led to this 
result.
100 See Annex 11 for details 101 Applies only to monthly stocks. 102 “.. 77 percent of interviewed suppliers are currently in debt with banks and are required to pay monthly payments with interest rates 
ranging from 1 percent to 1.5 percent per month.” HGSF Supplier Assessment Report (May, 2020)
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 36 |Pag e
only 10 percent among female farmers in this age category. Interestingly, the same 
proportion (31 percent) of both male and female farmers reported that they were over 55 
years of age. The age distribution of the surveyed farmers was the same as the suppliers, 
with just over half aged 35 years or more. Nearly three quarters had never attended school 
or had only a primary education. However, 83 percent of the female farmers reported that 
they had primary level of education as compared to only 52 percent among male farmers. 
Additional information about the farmers can be found in Annex 15. 
150. It is anticipated that as new farmers become linked to the LRP, they will provide 
‘baseline’ data during their HGSF induction training and like the new suppliers, contribute 
to an ongoing baseline which can be reviewed for the midline and endline evaluations. The 
primary indicators in the Results Framework related to farmers highlighting improvements 
in farming practices, food security training and facilitating market linkages to schools, with 
the ultimate farmer indicators oriented towards the value and volume of commodities sold 
by farms and firms to schools within the LRP programme (see Annex 14 for more details, in 
particular see Table 14.36: Training Areas; Table 14.41: Increase in Production and Table 
14.42: Increase in household income). The need for improved skills on quality assurance 
needs to be added to the above list of factors. 
151. Production and sales: The provinces targeted by the LRP fall in the central plains
of Cambodia, characterized by a high proportion of smallholder farmers producing food
crops with limited market access for their produce.103 The farmers in the sample owned an 
average of 20,511 square metres (m2) of land, of which an average of 13,418 m2 was 
considered suitable for crop production and 12,622 m2 actually applied to growing grains 
and legumes (Table 24). 
Table 24: Land availability among surveyed farmers 
Land size (m2)
Average area of land owned 20,511
• Average owned land that is arable 13,418
• Average owned land used to produce grains and vegetables 12,622
152. Most of the surveyed farmers reported that all the grains and legumes they produced 
were sold, though 14 percent of the sampled farmers noted that they had not sold their 
whole production. Although eight farmers (22 percent) reported being involved in animal 
production, only three reported selling protein (duck eggs) to the schools. As the LRP shifts 
to explore options and potential sources of fortified rice, farmers were also asked regarding 
the amount of rice they had sold to schools. In total, 18 farmers (51.4 percent) reported 
selling rice, of which eight farmers reported selling to schools. Table 25 provides detailed 
information about the types of crops the surveyed farmers reported producing and selling. 
The total volume of grains and legumes sold by the surveyed farmers was 160 kg, with an 
average volume per farmer of 10 kg. Further disaggregated tables on province and 
production can be found in Annex 14. 
Table 25: Reported production of grain and legume of surveyed farmers, by area, 
production volume, and volumes sold
Name of 
crops
Crops grown
Area under 
production 
(m2)
Total production 
(kg or number of 
animals)
Crops 
sold
Total 
volume of 
sale (kg)
#
farmers % Mean Mean #
farmers
# 
farmers Mean
Rice 49 86.0 16,047 4,915 22 18 3,783
Corn 6 10.5 1,873 187.5 4 4 186
103 MoP, 2013; Agricultural census (MAFF, 2019); Agricultural Sector Development Plan (2019-2023) 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 37 |Pag e
Beans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cowpeas 19 33.3 201 157.0 17 16 160
Pigeon peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mung beans 1 1.8 500 0 0 0 0
Pork 7 12.0 3 19.7
Ducks 6 10.1 1 20
Duck eggs 3 5.2 3 95,400
153. The farmers in the sample also reported producing a range of vegetables of which a 
percentage were sold as part of the school meal programme. The majority of the surveyed 
farmers (85 percent) reported producing vegetables and all reported selling to schools. For 
products such as morning glory and pumpkin, schools are the primary market for sales 
while for the other products, schools comprise only about half of the market. Table 26 
shows the total production of vegetables and rice grown by these farmers, and the amounts 
sold to schools. Disaggregated details by province found in Annex 14. 
Table 26: Amounts of vegetables and rice produced and sold to schools, as reported 
by surveyed farmers
Commodity No. of 
farmers
Average 
total weight
sold (kg)
Average 
weight sold 
per farmer
(kg)
Average 
weight sold 
to schools 
(kg)
Percentage of 
total sold to 
schools (by 
weight)
Average 
sold per 
farmer (kg)
Rice 8 6,090 761.3 2,250 36.9% 281.3
Morning Glory 43 188.3 4.4 167 88.7% 3.9
Pumpkin 17 61.9 3.6 44 71.1% 2.6
Spinach 30 148.6 5.0 84 56.5% 2.8
Moringa 5 107.5 21.5 60 55.8% 12
Long Bean 24 151.3 6.3 93 61.5% 3.9
154. The total weight of the five listed vegetables sold by the surveyed farmers was 657.6 
kg (total of column 3) (this is variable because not all farmers sold all products, and there 
were additional available products). Sales to schools totalled 448 kg (total of column 5) 
representing 68.1 percent of all their produce sold.104 Schools served as the primary market 
for morning glory sold by the sampled farmers (89 percent), while moringa and spinach 
purchases by schools are the lowest percentage in the sample (56 percent). Similarly, on 
average, farmers sold 6,090 kg (column 3) of rice, of which 2,250 kg (column 5) was sold to 
schools (37 percent of the total volume sold). 
155. While income generated from the HGSF market has served as an important source 
for suppliers and producers’ livelihoods, they still needed to engage in trading in other local 
markets or employment as well to meet households needs. Currently, local farmers’
produce appears to represent only a small proportion of total commodities delivered to the 
schools by suppliers. Even with this gap in local procurement, the schools do represent a 
potential solid market for suppliers although quantities ordered are often very low. Key 
informant farmers and suppliers said they had joined the HGSF supply chain because of the 
stable demand and its higher unit price, particularly for rice and fish, but less so for pork 
which offered the least profit. 
156. Contractual arrangements between suppliers and farmers: Contractual 
agreements between farmers and suppliers are not well defined but this falls outside the 
104 No protein was sold to the schools by farmers in SY 2019/20
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 38 |Pag e
LRP’s commitment. Since the LRP activities include a focus on formalizing market linkages, 
strengthening this component could be considered under the FAO component. Suppliers 
explained that due to the small quantities involved, or the personal nature of their 
relationship with the farmers, no contracts are needed. However, key informant farmers 
said they would prefer to have a formal contract suggesting that a clear monthly plan and 
fixed price would encourage production to fulfil the HGSF market demand, particularly for 
vegetables and fruits; and that payments should be on a more regular basis. Based on the 
interviews, farmers were happy with the transparency of the procurement process105 and 
the fact that contractual prices agreed between the school and supplier were made public. 
Farmers explained that since they became aware of the HGSF activities in their area, there 
were increased negotiations between suppliers and farmers when setting farm gate prices. 
157. Capacity of farmers regarding HGSF: Twenty four percent of the sampled 
farmers had, like the suppliers mentioned earlier, already received some training on a range 
of subjects which covered some components of the HGSF model. Farmer training has not 
been as part of the overall WFP programming support in the targeted provinces, so they 
were most likely conducted by the government or other development partners as described 
in para 156 below. Farmers also indicated they would like the LRP programme to provide 
capacity building training packages on vegetable production, management and marketing
to help increase their production levels and fully meet the demand created by the HGSF 
modality. Table 27 indicates the number of farmers who reported receiving trainings, 
disaggregated by topics in the HGSF toolkits. 
Table 27: Farmers reporting receiving training in HGSF areas106
Information
Total (among those who 
received relevant training)
Out of total 
58 farmers
# % %
Safe food production 12 85.7 20.7
Food safety and safety handling 10 71.4 17.2
Good agricultural practices 11 78.6 19.0
Participatory guarantee systems 4 28.6 6.9
Organic standards 7 50.0 12.1
Post-harvest handling of food 7 50.0 12.1
Proper storage of food 8 57.1 13.8
Food quality and food quality standards 4 28.6 6.9
Food marketing 6 42.9 10.3
Proper transportation of food 9 64.3 15.5
Training on bids for tender 10 71.4 17.2
Total Farmers who received HGSF training 14 100% 24%
158. All of the surveyed farmer families reported to have received some form of broader 
agricultural training, either from the DOA, the Provincial Department for Agriculture 
(PDAFF) or NGOs, which included some components of the HGSF model. Further details 
given in Annex 14.
159. Under the government’s D&D process, the DOA has the primary responsibility over 
technical agricultural assistance to producers. Interviews with sub-national authorities 
suggested that most DOAs were sufficiently staffed to provide agricultural extension 
105 Based on the qualitative assessment, only a few farmers were aware about the procurement and bidding process including prices of 
commodities (base and offered price). These farmers mostly used to be bidders too and sometimes they were relatives of the school 
teachers, directors, or commune councils. However, some suppliers mentioned that public announcement of the base and offered prices 
was not good for the suppliers because sometimes local communities did not understand them, and expected to sell the products to 
suppliers at the same base or offered prices.
106 No such training packages have been delivered by WFP. Any trainings conducted by WFP under the HGSF would be related to local
procurement. Any farmers who participated would be those who double up as suppliers or school/local authorities.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 39 |Pag e
services and training to farmers (for example, on vegetable production techniques, rice 
growing, livestock production and animal health etc), although there are issues related to a 
high staff turnover. On the contrary, development partners who were consulted raised 
issues around DOAs not having enough staff to fully support the multiple programmes in 
their districts. Following the decentralization to district offices, the PDAFF role is 
supervision of technology transfer under agricultural programmes, therefore not all 
technical skills are represented among its staff and PDAFF usually works more through 
farmer associations and cooperatives than with individuals or small groups. The PDAFF in 
some provinces (such as in Kampong Chhnang) has had previous engagement with WFP 
operations. However, it has no direct official role related to the SFP, and even the support 
they give regarding school gardens has been coordinated through the MoEYS. 
160. Key informants (district officials and local farmers) listed a number of current and 
past agriculture projects implemented in their areas.107 In general, the SFP project has not 
provided any training or capacity building on production except through school gardens, 
conducted mainly for students. Key informants at sub-national levels suggested that for 
schools handed over to the government one option may be for procurement to be done 
through agricultural associations and cooperatives as these are already organized to be able 
to aggregate and market agricultural inputs and produce. Ideally where this happens, a clear 
plan should be negotiated with the association or cooperative, and the PDAFF or DOA 
should be invited to witness the process. The main challenge in this approach would be all 
national funds allocated to the SMP fall under the MoEYS and WFP reports that a lot of 
effort was invested before it was possible for commune authorities to engage directly with 
the HGSF. Ongoing discussions on the transition108 include exploring ways that 
PDAFF/DOA can be engaged in a facilitative role to witness the bidding process and 
agreements between schools and suppliers. A high level of coordination would be required 
since MAFF has no funds allocated to support neither the LRP implementation nor the 
national SMP.
161. Almost all the surveyed farmers (98.7 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that their 
involvement with the HGSF had helped increase the production of their enterprise.109 This 
suggests that the design of the LRP to expand the HGSF modality in schools is likely to 
produce increased household income for the farmers involved in the project.
162. Use of pesticides: There are no specific indicators in the LRP Results Framework 
pertaining to the use of pesticides or organic production. However, in the proposal narrative 
there is a strong emphasis on the development of healthy foods and the promotion of 
agricultural technologies that would minimize the use of pesticides as part of the activity 
related to agricultural production within the LRP. 
163. Farmers in all districts visited during the data collection reported avoiding using 
pesticides wherever possible, preferring to produce fruits and vegetables using alternative 
protective measures either in net houses to prevent attack by pests or using natural pesticide 
and compost. This will need further exploration during the midterm evaluation as it 
contradicts secondary sources that report high levels of pesticide usage by farming 
communities in the country.110 These farmers would welcome additional guidance and 
training on the cultivation of safe produce using MAFF recommended good agricultural 
practices (GAP). However, these farmers also reported that their products did not compete 
107 These included: HARVEST (USAID - Agricultural production); ASPIRE (IFAD - Livelihood improvement, market development); 
Sambat (IFAD: under ASPIRE - rural infrastructure, especially rural roads); LASET-2 (World Bank); Tonle Small Holder support phase￾II (TSSD, ADB - capacity building, Agricultural technical assistance, and livelihood improvement); and NGOs (eg: LWD - Live with 
dignity). 108 WFP, MoEYS, MAFF and FAO. 109 See Annex 15 for details 110 https://www.acted.org/en/“what-is-in-your-food”-–-reducing-pesticides-residues-improving-nutrition/
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 40 |Pag e
very well compared to those cultivated using chemical fertilizers because the produce was 
considered less visually attractive in high end markets. Vegetable and fruit supplies are also 
seasonal and in general, farmers reported that leafy vegetables are easier to produce than 
other types of vegetables. Some of the school community parents and farmers interviewed 
had received technical training for vegetable production but application of what they 
learned was limited by marketing issues (sale of produce and access to inputs). Often, any 
training received on vegetable growing techniques was conducted by other projects 
(donor/government funded or NGOs). A food safety component is part of the collaboration 
with FAO to be implemented from 2021.
164. Institutional Capacities: There are several government structures to support the 
LRP activities. At the provincial levels, MoEYS have used the existing structures of school 
feeding committees to develop HGSF implementation plans that are then submitted for
local procurement budget allocation, either by the government for national SMP or by WFP 
for the HGSF. Other structures include the Provincial Food Security and Nutrition 
Committee (PFSNC) which develops and submits plans for mainstreaming into the National 
Action Plan that then leads to allocation of a budget support to schools. The provincial 
Deputy Governor chairs the PFSNC while the Director of POEYS chairs the school feeding 
committee meetings, both held at provincial level. To facilitate a higher involvement of the 
sub-national authorities for HGSF/LRP activities related to the agriculture and health 
sectors, an inter-ministerial collaboration would be required at the highest level.
165. There are regular quarterly and annual meetings scheduled but these were 
interrupted during 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At sub-national level, an annual 
workshop is facilitated by WFP and MoEYS for lessons learnt and to develop annual plans, 
while quarterly coordination and progress meetings are organized by MoEYS. At the central 
level, there are high level coordination meetings between WFP and MoEYS held quarterly 
as well as quarterly meetings for technical staff from WFP and MoEYS. 
166. The LRP will need to handle existing coordination and communication gaps at the 
sub-national level. Under the ongoing (incomplete) D&D, government protocols mean that 
provincial staff are functionally under the Ministry of Interior and hence should report to 
the provincial governor or deputy governor. However, financial resources remain with the 
line ministries, in this case the MoEYS, and the full budget allocated to national SMP falls 
under them. For example, interviews with representatives of the provincial offices reported 
not yet having received any reports from previous meetings organized by WFP and 
suggested that communication could be facilitated if WFP also sent of copies of all relevant
reports directly to the POEYS. This situation is likely to raise coordination challenges for 
the LRP as it will involve another layer of coordination between sectors.
167. At the local level, the bidding procedure was seen as operating smoothly in other 
HGSF schools. Representatives from Commune Councils have received significant training 
on the procurement processes from multiple sources because of their role in tendering for 
other projects, and the HGSF can benefit from this experience. Provincial offices that have 
taken on the responsibilities for some HGSF schools (Siem Reap and Kampong Thom), 
reported that they would continue to support schools targeted by the national school feeding 
programme, but they had concerns about the governments’ capacity to implement and the 
level of financial support allocated. 
168. Cooperating Partners: The LRP presents an opportunity to build stakeholders’ 
capacities on implementation of the HGSF modality through the provision of local 
procurement toolkits and manuals to participating schools, the provision of trainings, and 
ongoing support from cooperating partners. Qualitative interviews indicated that there is 
interest from sub-national stakeholders for HGSF capacity building support. Specific 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 41 |Pag e
elements cited included training on a range of topics, particularly the procurement bidding 
process and the management of these processes and documents, followed by trainings for 
agricultural improvements such as integrated pest management. This suggests that the 
proposed activities within the programme are appropriate for contributing to the 
effectiveness of the LRP. 
169. The two NGOs engaged in the LRP programme as cooperating partners (CPs), PLAN 
and WV, complement government functions at the field level. These NGO partners are sub￾recipients and officially contracted under the McGovern-Dole Programme, but they will be 
engaged in guiding the implementation beyond tasks specified in the field level agreements 
(FLA) to include HGSF/LRP activities. They will provide technical support in procurement 
and bidding processes,111 as well as supporting school infrastructure (under the McGovern￾Dole programme) and providing refresher trainings. 
170. The LRP programme aims to contribute to a package of tools and training modules. 
WFP have worked with MoEYS officials and with PLAN and WV to provide training, 
mentoring and coaching to targeted school administrators, commune councils, school 
support committees, suppliers, cooks, and storekeepers on the HGSF programme 
implementation and management process including procurement, the programme lifecycle, 
and clarifications around roles and responsibilities. According to the LRP proposal, 
trainings will be tailored to fit the demand- and supply-side actors in the value chain and 
will be gender-sensitive. The HGSF training modules are planned to be further reinforced 
throughout the procurement and implementation process. The LRP funds will also be used 
to build the capacity of 21 mentors and coaches from government to engage in subsequent 
follow-up, supported by NGO and WFP field staff.
171. WFP and the CPs sign FLAs that stipulates the ToRs, work plan and budgets for the 
period of the agreement. While the new FLAs with the two CPs are fairly similar to the 
previous McGovern-Dole cycles, the defined roles and responsibilities differ from 
operational expectations as these have been expanded to also include support to HGSF 
related activities under the LRP.112 Although the CPs were involved in the design of the LRP, 
their roles are not directly included in the LRP proposal but instead are an extension of 
funding under the USDA McGovern-Dole grant. The FLAs indicate that quarterly meetings 
should be held between WFP and the CPs where ongoing issues could be discussed and 
resolved quickly. At midline, it will be assessed whether this schedule is maintained during 
implementation. The meetings would provide an opportunity to discuss any outstanding 
issues related to the partners’ specified roles as defined in the FLA, as well as to assign target 
schools to be monitored/supported by each. 
172. Interviews with CPs raised a concern about the introduction of the Kobo Toolbox for 
monitoring and reporting, as it is different to the M&E systems the CPs currently use.113 
The Kobo Toolbox was also reported to be a challenge in remote schools with limited or no 
internet access – even though it has both online and offline capabilities. In addition, MoEYS 
and subnational offices are not yet digitized and still issue their biannual progress report in 
paper copies. Some storekeepers reported to have been trained to use the Kobo Toolbox to 
collect QPR data and google spreadsheet for monthly stock record, but according to the 
qualitative interviews, the actual usage for information management is still inconsistent and 
remains a challenge. However, interview with WFP staff explained that the ‘training’ on 
111 WFP’s reports that the NGOs are fully funded for the role they play and are kept informed since they receive regular updates (e.g. on 
the national HGSF and the transition plan). This differs from the NGOs’ view who report expectation on their role goes beyond what is 
covered in the FLA agreement (see para 162). 
112 For example, to monitor transition from SMP to HGSF; capacity building/technical support on procurement and bidding processes 
and engaging inter-sectoral communication mechanisms beyond activities based at the school sites. 113 For example, PLAN uses Without Checklist software application. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 42 |Pag e
Kobo was part of a self-assessment exercise to test its applicability and that the rollout had 
not yet taken place.
173. Community engagement is critical to the success of the school feeding activities, 
with a range of contributions being made to the programmes including the provision of 
cooks’ incentives, contributions of firewood and food items such as vegetables, salt and 
spices, and volunteer participation on school committees.
174. Baseline field visits found that in general, the more isolated and visibly poorer a 
community,114 the worse the infrastructure and storage conditions were at the school. The 
poorer communities are not able to financially support schools themselves, or with food 
supplies. However, both LRP and comparison schools did receive small amounts of 
community contributions with, in fact, the LRP schools reporting a higher total value per 
annum. Key informants in the comparison schools explained that the school meal is 
supplemented from the school garden, from community contributions or small direct 
purchases from local producers or the market. According to the survey findings, HGSF
schools received significantly more in community cash contributions and a little less 
(six percent) in in-kind contribution as compared to comparison schools. Table 28 
profiles the relative contributions per school.
Table 28: Average Community Contributions per School by Type
HGSF Schools 
(US$/pa) 
Comparison 
Schools 
(US$/pa) 
Average amount of community contributions in cash $362.41 $189.74
Average value of community contributions in kind $299.13 $319.12
Average value of community contributions (cash+in-kind) $661.54 $508.86
175. According to sample school records, WFP funds 34.3 percent of the costs of the 
school feeding activities (excluding food), with the MoEYS providing 31.4 percent (as staff 
costs).115 Other funding sources mentioned included the commune council, LSFCs 
donations, parents’ contributions and school gardens (with school gardens being the 
highest, although these were not always operational throughout the year due to the 
availability of adequate water). 
176. All the values of the project indicators are summarised in the Performance 
Management Plan (PMP) in Annex 16. This can be used as a reference document and 
referred to during implementation monitoring. The monitoring system requires 
reinforcement to keep track of some important aspects that will contribute to the success of 
the LRP. These include monitoring to track gaps in capacity needs (for example, quality 
assurance); coordination mechanisms; inclusivity (gender issues, credit access for suppliers 
and smallholder farmers engagement) and partner support on agreements between farmers 
and suppliers. In addition, there are other aspects that have are clearly outlined in existing 
guidelines and tools but faced challenges in application will need to be assessed to 
understand what the issues are. One such example is the HGSF implementation guidelines 
requirement that suppliers include all administration and associated costs in their proposed 
bid prices, but sample suppliers reported that they absorbed the transportation costs. An 
assessment would help understand whether the issue is a lack of understanding on the
suppliers’ side, or if they are motivated to propose lower prices to win the bid. The 
114 From observation during the qualitative site visits, this refers to schools located in remote rural areas, with poor transport and road 
links, in poor communities and without support from external donors.
115 While this opinion is subjective it is important to note the perception that SFP is a joint programme with government contribution (i.e. 
not donor driven). School staff are naturally engaged in more than SFP activities. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 43 |Pag e
monitoring data will be necessary for an update on such information during the midline and 
endline evaluations to assess progress in reaching the programme targets. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 3 (Effectiveness)
• There is currently no systematic tracing of the source of the food commodities 
delivered to HGSF, so it is not possible to accurately determine if suppliers/schools 
are meeting the 70 percent requirement from local sources as per the HGSF 
Operational Guidelines.
• Monitoring is weak on the progress and effectiveness on some key aspects of the LRP 
design and programme goals.
• Survey findings show that the cost of delivery is covered solely by suppliers (except for 
fortified rice and vegetable oil delivered by WFP) and this must be factored into their 
bid price. 
• Suppliers face barriers when advancing credit for local purchase to farmers, which 
benefits larger suppliers with sufficient access to capital and/or credit. Survey findings 
suggest this may have implication on the extent to which food delivered comes from 
local smallholder farmers’ produce.
• To attract broader involvement of community members in the bidding process, it is 
essential to explore ways of reinforcing the annual training on related topics.
• The HGSF market has increased the income of contracted suppliers and farmers they 
collect food commodities from. 
• Improved nutritional levels in school meals will need to be actively encouraged 
throughout the LRP period of operation and the availability of locally blended
fortified rice has the potential to replace in-kind contributions. However,
introducing local processes is not straightforward, and local blending and/or 
procurement of fortified rice has yet to be fully explored. 
• Stakeholders are satisfied with the timeliness and quality of local foods delivered.
• There is a need for improvement of storage facilities, especially for perishable foods 
such as vegetables and animal products, and for the schools to accept their 
responsibility in storing food commodities properly. 
• The HGSF Implementation Guideline is complete and includes almost all aspects of 
the operational (including food safety) and procurement processes (bidding, 
application etc.) but was distributed to just a few schools before school closure. 
• A capacity building component on good agricultural practices (extending to food safety 
and quality control) is part of the collaboration with FAO.
Question 4 - Sustainability: Are results, benefits and outcomes likely to 
continue after LRP concludes.
177. In facilitating the readiness of WFP’s school feeding activities for transition to the 
national school meals programme,116 the LRP will play a crucial role in setting up the 
systems and processes required for supply of local foods to schools and linking the supply 
chain from farm gate to school. While this baseline cannot do more than assess the 
foundations for such sustainability, further phases of the evaluation series will measure 
progress and achievements in this area. 
178. The WFP Cambodia Country Strategic Plan (CSP, 2019-2023) has a strong focus on 
supporting national and sub-national level implementation systems, aimed at enabling 
116 This section has used information from the previous McGovern-Dole endline evaluation (2017-2019) conducted by The Konterra Group
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 44 |Pag e
national ownership of WFP programmes, including local procurement in school feeding, by 
strengthening government capacities. WFP plans to roll out local procurement 
programming support to schools targeted to transition to HGSF in five out of the 26 
provinces in Cambodia. It is targeted that by 2023, all USDA supported schools, including 
the LRP schools, will be implementing the full HGSF model with all foods procured locally. 
179. To make this transition, there is a series of core building blocks already in place that 
should provide support to long term sustainability for local procurement of food 
commodities. First is the budget allocation by the MoEYS to support local procurements to 
meet HGSF targets (included in the Education Strategic Plan (2019-2023)). Second is the 
pre-existing experience of implementing an HGSF model, in collaboration with other 
donors,117 which will help provide additional sustainability when the government takes over 
the management. Strengthening an SMP task force to ensure that it can support the capacity 
building of stakeholders involved throughout the SMP processes during the transition and 
after the programme’s completion is a prerequisite to the success of the LRP. 
180. Evidence of this commitment can be seen in the aforementioned budget allocation 
as well as take-over of 205 schools from SY 2019/20 that are using the HGSF modality. An 
additional 141 schools are expected to transition to national ownership by the end of the 
LRP programme. One point of concern is that while the government’s commitment is clear, 
the allocated MoEYS budget appears to be specifically for procurement directly related to 
provision of school meals, without the associated administrative and implementation 
costs.118 This may have implications for long term sustainability of the HGSF model. If not 
addressed systematically this will likely have implications on the continuity of the school 
meals programme beyond the handover.
181. Figure 11 is drawn from WFP M&E data and illustrates the progressive transition 
from the SMP to the HGSF model then onwards to government ownership. For successful 
transition, this shift needs to be reinforced through a systematic mapping exercise that lays 
out the key transition steps to be addressed and integrated into the government’s annual 
financial and action plans.
117 While USDA is sole donor for the LRP, the McGovern-Dole SFP receives complementary donations from other donors e.g. KOICA and 
private sector. 
118 For example, infrastructure, monitoring, supervision, skills development, Training-of-Trainers (TOT) and coordination with other 
relevant sectors (e.g. agriculture, health, social welfare) 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 45 |Pag e
Figure 10: Transition plan for the school feeding activities in USDA funded schools 
(2020-2023)
Source: Evaluation Team, elaborated from WFP M&E data
182. In addition, at commune level there are also systems in place for local procurement 
through the D&D reforms and there is a strong level of interest from schools, farmers and 
suppliers for local procurement for the school feeding activities. The history of HGSF 
implementation and trainings of commune level stakeholders as part of the D&D reforms 
has led to a pre-existing awareness of procurement processes and bids – although this is 
still stronger among suppliers than school committees in some places. 
183. Transition to national ownership: Evaluations of the previous USDA 
McGovern-Dole grant (2017-2019) emphasized the need to assess the government’s 
capacity to implement its national school feeding programme and completely take over 
implementation. The endline evaluation (2019)119 assessed the MoEYS’ capacity against the 
five policy pillars of the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER), an 
internationally recognized system for measuring government capacity in relation to school 
feeding.120 It reported that MoEYS’ capacity had improved progressively over the previous 
two years from SABER Level 1 (Latent) at baseline (2017) to Level 2 (Emerging) at endline 
(2019).121 The evaluation identified some institutional capacity needs that remain and are 
required in the current USDA cycle. 
184. In preparation for direct implementation, MoEYS and the NSPC received WFP’s
support in the formulation and endorsement of national operational frameworks and 
guidelines as well as in development of an information management tool to aid 
implementation. The development of a School Meals Policy was initiated in 2019122 which 
includes architecture for supporting LRP - and the draft policy is expected to be ready in 
May 2021.
119 Dunn, S. et al (2019) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant Food for Education 
Programme for WFP Cambodia (2017-2019). Final report. The KonTerra Group. 120 According to the SABER approach, in general terms a quality school feeding programme has the following in place: (1) a national policy 
framework, (2), sufficient institutional capacity for implementation and coordination, (3) stable funding, (4) sound design and 
implementation, and (5) community participation. 
121 A full SABER assessment would be required to confirm these findings. 122 WFP Cambodia Annual Country Report 2019.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 46 |Pag e
185. One additional consideration for sustainability that may be important to continue to 
build are the mechanisms for inter-ministerial coordination around LRP objectives. This 
will be relevant for both the national and sub-national level coordination including at
commune level. In recognition of HGSF being a multi-sector programme, the policy123
development process will require an inter-ministerial and multi-stakeholder approach
involving the MoEYS, MAFF, MEF, MoH, Ministry of Interior, CARD, the NSPC and WFP, 
among others. A meeting was scheduled during 2020 on the development of a Joint Action 
Plan for the implementation of school feeding scheduled, but it was delayed by the COVID￾19 pandemic. It is expected that the LRP programme will accelerate progress as foreseen in
the SFP Road Map (endorsed in 2015) and thus help the ongoing transition plan to complete
as planned by the end of 2025.
186. However, there remains a need to develop a comprehensive transition plan founded 
on evidence, beyond handover of school level operations, that also considers ways to 
institutionalize the integration of all implementation processes, systems and mechanisms.
Drawing on experience from SFP and LRP evaluations conducted in other countries, a 
SABER-School Feeding exercise conducted with government counterparts (especially those
outside MoEYS) could serve as a good starting point to build such evidence. These
evaluations note that such discussion helps raise awareness and buy-in among key
stakeholders on the benefits of a national SFP, existing gaps and opportunities. The SABER
exercise provides an opportunity to assess and analyse i) the policy framework; ii) the
budget framework and mechanisms; iii) exiting institutional capacity gaps (including multi￾sectoral coordination) and review the HGSF model based on experience from schools
already handed over to the government; iv) assess capacities of stakeholders (with reference 
to feasibility for scale up); and v) the role of non-state stakeholders (especially
communities). The exercise would need to be closely linked to the parallel SFP/McGovern￾Dole programme implemented by WFP. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 4 (Sustainability)
• Existing building blocks for sustainability include government commitments, local 
structures and interests, and pre-existing policies and budget allocations.
• Building blocks at the commune level include the alignment with the D&D reforms 
and the high level of interest from suppliers, farmers, and schools in expanding local 
procurement. 
• There exists a plan for transition to local procurement and the HGSF-hybrid and 
HGSF models in schools with elaborated targets for achievement by 2023. This plan is 
specific for shifting target schools from SMP to the HGSF modality (SFP RoadMap). 
• Pre-existing trainings and experiences in local procurement in schools transitioned to 
HGSF provide a baseline for beginning transition in the McGovern-Dole schools.
• The further development of coordination mechanisms among national and commune 
level ministerial and departmental stakeholders will be an important contribution for 
ongoing management by government of the local procurement and the HGSF overall.
• An institutional capacity assessment would help identify gaps based on guidance of the 
five policy pathways under the SABER system.
123 The WFP Cambodia Annual Country Report 2019 stresses that educational outcomes continue to be a primary government objective.
According to the Government’s education management information system, in the school year 2018-2019, the districts with school 
feeding support had better performance rates on net enrolment rate (99.2 percent against 91.8 percent), completion rate (85.3 percent 
against 81.9 percent) and dropout rate (4.5 percent against 4.8 percent) than those without the SFP.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 47 |Pag e
• A comprehensive transition plan would help outline how integration of 
implementation processes, systems and mechanisms within government institutions 
could be operationalized and clarify how other key stakeholders would be involved.
Question 5: What are the factors affecting the potential impact of the LRP?
187. This section discusses internal and external factors with potential to influence the 
impact of the LRP, either positively or negatively, in demonstrating an operational 
framework that will be handed over to the government. 
188. The previous experiences of the transition of schools to HGSF and local procurement 
both within Cambodia and in other countries can provide a template of potential 
experiences that the LRP could draw on to facilitate the support of the transition of the 
USDA McGovern-Dole targeted schools to local procurement. The factors presented below 
are a compilation of potential lessons to be considered in the implementation of the LRP 
that have been drawn from other WFP LRP evaluations (see para 73), as well as from 
stakeholders within Cambodia with experience in local procurement programming at the 
national and subnational level. 
Internal factors
189. WFP’s reputation in Cambodia: WFP has established a reputation for creating 
tangible results at community level, making it well positioned to elevate dialogue to the next 
level of multi-sectoral coordination intrinsic in the design of the LRP. However, one point 
of concern, highlighted in qualitative interviews with government officials and as noted in 
earlier sections, is that there is not yet a clear and shared understanding among the different 
stakeholders regarding the roles and responsibilities of the various actors for 
implementation. This is particularly pertinent for the establishment of coordination 
mechanisms among sub-national and national actors.
190. WFP/MoEYS ability to adequately engage multiple ministries: The LRP 
will require cross-sectoral engagement from education, agriculture, health, local 
government, among others. This includes coordination among multiple ministries – in 
particular, the MoEYS and MAFF, and across multiple levels. An inter-ministerial decree 
was signed in January 2020 that began with the national programme before COVID-19 
related closures. Qualitative interviews reflected sectoral differences in the degree of 
transition along the D&D process path, reflecting potential coordination challenges that the 
LRP will need to tackle before successful transition to government. A rapid capacity needs 
mapping exercise has been conducted; however, the strong emphasis on capacity 
strengthening within the LRP necessitates a much more advanced assessment to serve as a 
foundation for a comprehensive, evidenced-based capacity strengthening strategy.
191. Relationship between WFP and MoEYS: There is a history of a close working 
relationship between WFP and the Royal Government of Cambodia to facilitate WFP’s entry 
into the local procurement system strengthening. WFP and the MoEYS have implemented 
different modalities of school feeding over several cycles since 1999. Discussions about 
transitioning to national ownership begun with piloting of the HGSF model from 2014 
followed by signing of the RoadMap (2015). Successful implementation of the LRP will be 
strengthened by this relationship.
192. WFP’s capacity to implement appropriate technical support: Since the 
MoEYS formally declared their preference for the HGSF model in 2018, WFP has been 
actively supporting schools to transition to the HGSF model in readiness for national 
ownership by 2023. WFP was instrumental in supporting the MoEYS to develop the HGSF 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 48 |Pag e
Operational Guidelines and the National Implementation Framework that were 
instrumental in domestic financing that cover six years (2019-2025). This should mean that 
WFP has appropriate technical capacity within its structure to provide training to the 
cooperating partners and with government representatives on the HGSF, so that awareness 
raising on HGSF and technical training can be carried out at national and sub-national 
levels. However, there is a need to develop a comprehensive transition plan outlining the 
various steps that need to be covered, and to set a realistic timeline.
External factors
193. COVID-19: The COVID-19 pandemic has already had significant impacts on the LRP 
implementation with school closures leading to delays in the rollout of programme
activities, currently delayed until the start of the SY 2020/21 in January 2021. It is possible 
that the original transition timeline within the LRP agreement may no longer be realistic 
given these delays. 
194. Capacity of school personnel to carry out and manage the HGSF 
procurement process: Commune chiefs and school personnel will require training and 
support to manage and oversee the local procurement process required for HGSF as part of 
LRP. This should not only require formal training on the HGSF Operational Guidelines but 
also practical support on the assessment of quality of fresh foods, especially meat, and 
support on providing adequate storage. Given the high turnover of school personnel, 
refresher training is likely to be required on an annual basis.
195. Capacity of local suppliers to access sufficient volumes of the required 
commodities: As noted earlier, suppliers need to have access to sufficient credit and/or 
capital to enable them to pre-pay local farmers for their goods, before they are paid by the 
schools (on delivery). 
196. Capacity and willingness of the private sector, especially rice millers, to increase 
their support to the SMP through a more positive engagement in discussions on whether 
development of a local infrastructure for rice fortification is possible, and what essential 
requirements would need to be in place. 
197. Capacity of farmers to produce good quality and sufficient volumes of 
commodities: The potential to demonstrate that all food commodities used for provision 
of school meals can be sourced from local and regional procurement is dependent on the 
smooth transition of target schools to the HGSF (full) modality which relies on procurement 
through a competitive bid process. This transition will require smallholder farmers to 
produce, store and provide quality local produce. It will also require suppliers to have the 
capacity to collect and deliver local produce to schools and it will require local school 
stakeholders to be able to manage planning and procurement processes including the 
competitive bid processes. However, the baseline familiarity of the school and commune 
stakeholders in local procurement is relatively low which suggests that the capacity building 
component for schools and communes is relevant to the needs of the stakeholders. 
198. Institutional capacity strengthening for coordination: Institutional capacity 
strengthening is of high priority in the LRP and is reflected in the training, coaching and 
mentoring activities around building the technical capacity and the policy environment for 
successful management of local procurement within school feeding. Qualitative interviews 
at the national level expressed uncertainty regarding the coordination mechanisms for the 
LRP and how this would be operationalized during implementation. Observations during 
fieldwork found that very often one sector was not aware or did not understand the work 
done by other sectors or departments due to a lack of information sharing or inadequate 
communication. Interviews with officials at both national and subnational level of MAFF 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 49 |Pag e
indicated that there was little awareness of the HGSF/LRP and what the specific roles were 
expected of MAFF, PDAFF and DOA in supporting the HGSF/LRP. Technical support and 
oversight by WFP staff and CPs will be critical to demonstrate, reinforce or establish joint 
multi-sectoral coordination mechanisms with linkages that are clearly outlined between 
different institutional stakeholders. 
199. Local government and community level engagement: The ongoing national 
D&D rollout, where subnational and local administrations are at the core of the reforms,124
raise strategic and implementation issues of relevance to the LRP. The reforms have 
contributed to commune councils having increasing authority over community level 
decision making and implementation of local projects (via their Commune Development 
Fund). Most of these are related to rural infrastructure that have created opportunities in 
various sectors, including agriculture. This has implications for the amplified role that local 
government stakeholders will play in the implementation of HGSF including for 
procurement. 
200. Information management and monitoring of effectiveness. In terms of the 
information management and monitoring of the LRP, other reviews and experiences 
highlighted the importance of developing continuous monitoring and reporting systems to 
adequately track progress on LRP implementation. The ET finds that the existing HGSF 
M&E and reporting systems125 are not yet positioned to capture some important aspects 
intrinsic in the programme design and set goals. This is likely to limit continuous collection 
of data to measure the effectiveness of the overall LRP programme and to adequately 
address higher-level assessment at the outcome level. Additionally, information needs to be 
shared to more stakeholders and implementing partners to ensure all these people are well 
informed about the progress of the implementation, which may encourage additional 
external but complementary support.
 Key findings and conclusions – Question 5 (Factors for Success) 
• The previous experiences of the transition of schools to HGSF and local 
procurement, both within Cambodia and in other countries, can provide a template 
of potential experiences that the LRP could draw on to facilitate the support of the 
transition of the targeted schools to local procurement
• The Roadmap for transition to national ownership and pre-existing experience in 
transitioning schools to local procurement are positive factors for potential success, 
although there is still a need to develop a comprehensive transition plan outlining
the various steps that need to be covered, and to set a realistic timeline.
• The further clarification of stakeholder roles and responsibilities in joint 
programming of the LRP will need to be developed during initial project 
implementation.
• Institutional capacity strengthening for coordination should be a priority in the 
technical support activities provided by WFP to government and subnational 
stakeholders.
• The information management and monitoring systems are not yet sufficiently 
established track and monitor the LRP progress and effectiveness – especially on 
achievements contributing towards its’ outcome level targets.
124 Law on Commune and Sangkat Administrative Management (2001); The Organic Law, 2008; Decentralization & Deconcentration 
Policy (2010 – 2019) 125 Neither the quarterly and biannual progress reports prepared based on WFP/MoEYS guidelines nor the M&E reports drawn from the 
Kobo Toolbox.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 50 |Pag e
• The COVID-19 pandemic has already had substantial negative impact on the start 
of the programme and has created a situation where the realistic accomplishment 
of the intended transitions by 2023 of schools may no longer be feasible. 
• The COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively affected local farmers – one of the key 
stakeholder groups within the LRP as designed. Mitigation measures will need to be 
considered within the range of activities.
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
3.1. Overall Assessment/Conclusions
201. Relevance: The HGSF modality has the potential to impact household food 
production levels, food security and livelihoods through providing a stable market for 
commodities from the school feeding activities. The LRP also has the potential to improve 
market linkages and engage a wide range of stakeholder in support of promoting local 
procurement. The HGSF support has the potential to provide suppliers and farmer 
businesses, including businesses owned by women, a more prominent role in communities 
on food security and income generation. Farmers will also be exposed to the importance of 
price negotiation and positioned to have better access to market their farm products. 
202. The LRP programme offers an important opportunity to help ensure that the 
targeted schools can eventually transition smoothly into the national SMP which is founded 
on the HGSF model. It also provides a starting point for WFP to work with suppliers and 
farmers in KCG and KTM provinces where, even though they have engaged with the SFP 
(the SMP model), the HGSF will be implemented for the first time. Already at baseline, the 
LRP schools are able to provide to schoolchildren a more diverse school feeding menu than 
the original SMP model, suggesting that the overall long-term work of the HGSF has built a 
strong foundation at the local levels, on which the LRP can continue to build.
203. The LRP identifies gender as being a priority with regards to increased women’s 
empowerment among programme participants under activities 2 and 3 (that is suppliers, 
farmers, bidding committee members). However, there are no overall gender results 
statements in the project framework, and there is a need to add gender – retroactively - into 
the LRP design documents and monitoring plan for the subject to receive appropriate 
attention during implementation and to be assessed in future evaluation rounds, perhaps 
with the technical support of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
204. Coherence: The direct engagement with the national and subnational authorities 
ensures alignment with government priorities. The LRP is in line with the education sector 
strategies, food security and nutrition frameworks, social protection and the agricultural 
sector development priorities. It will be implemented through several ministerial partners 
which will involve coordinated efforts on public sector investment and budget provisions at 
different levels: national and subnational authorities, commune councils, and school 
administration. WFP is committed to policy-based dialogue with partner ministries and 
target communes on emerging priorities related to the LRP. 
205. There has been significant development on the national SMP on management, 
budget allocation and planning systems. However, the national SMP has been operational 
for less than six months as a consequence of the pandemic crisis, providing limited facts on 
the readiness and capacity for the government to take-over the HGSF. Subjective 
assessments of readiness by various stakeholders suggest some improvements are required 
and as the national programme gets better established, a systematic review would be 
required to identify lessons that can be incorporated into the LRP. In short, there is no 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 51 |Pag e
reliable pragmatic basis at this stage to know the extent to which the social protection 
benefits of the government’s investment in the SMP will outweigh the costs. 
206. Effectiveness: In principle, the effectiveness of the LRP will be reflected in the 
progress made in two ways. One is the extent to which it is able to establishes linkages 
between supply chain actors and the HGSF school markets. The other is the progress made 
in coordinated institutional support on capacity building of local and subnational 
authorities to manage and implement procurement processes of food commodities linked 
to local production. 
207. The results of the baseline study indicate that the activities outlined in the LRP 
programme documents have the potential to produce results on timely delivery, and 
improved access to culturally accepted and nutritious food commodities that meet 
international food safety standards. Food quality and safety is an important aspect in the 
handling of locally procured foods. However, suppliers and farmers surveyed reported they 
were not fully aware of what food safety standards entail and therefore had no basis on 
which to make any effort to ensure their commodities are of good quality. A food safety and 
quality module should be added to any training provided to the LRP suppliers with systems 
developed to extend this knowledge to associated farmers. 
208. The selection of suppliers is a transparent process involving stakeholders from the 
subnational level to representatives in local communities. Public announcement of the EOI 
is widely shared, with priority given to local communes which empowers local communities 
to engage with the HGSF market as producers and/or suppliers. There are indications that 
while long term suppliers to schools may be familiar with the procurement process, there 
may be barriers to entry for new suppliers including orientation to the processes, having 
available credit lines for timely gathering of commodities or the knowledge of the 
appropriate price proposals to submit. 
209. The support provided through the LRP will be critical for enabling local farmers, 
through suppliers, to participate in the market offered by HGSF, especially offering 
smallholder farmers better access to markets through this school commodity supply. The 
suppliers’ current capacity is limited, particularly in KCG and KTM where, despite previous 
involvement in the SMP, implementation of the HGSF is new. Many of the targeted 
smallholder farmers do not yet aggregate and sell much of their produce so they will require 
significant support on skills required for increased market access. Further, although the 
HGSF Operational Guidelines indicate a preference for procurement from local farmers (up 
to 70 percent), in reality this has proven difficult to date with suppliers finding it easier to 
purchase from local market sites where the source is unknown. This raises an issue with the 
ability to trace the food commodities delivered for school meals. An MoEYS/MAFF 
procurement framework would help to address the barriers hindering farmers’ 
participation in the USDA funded school feeding programme.
210. In terms of fortification of locally produced or blended rice, there are gains in the 
recognition of the role this can play in local procurement for school meals, but WFP will 
need to ensure that the fortification results in the FNG will still be applicable within a 
changing economic situation. There are potential lessons to be learned from other countries 
in the region that are also undertaking local fortification which can assist its 
implementation in Cambodia. Furthermore, while initial government engagement has been 
successful, the finding from this baseline study implies a need for advocacy by WFP to 
stakeholders within the agricultural sector and that their buy-in should not be assumed.
211. Likely sustainability: The HGSF has an effective strategy whereby funds allocated 
to schools act as a means of mobilizing broader support to the agricultural sector and having 
related activities mainstreamed in to multi-sectoral government coordination mechanisms. 
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 52 |Pag e
Establishment of the necessary subnational coordination and communication mechanisms 
will need technical support from WFP, MoEYS and MAFF, for successful implementation 
of the HGSF modality. However, this multi-sectoral coordination approach is expected to 
be made more complicated by the on-going transition of D&D protocols. Enhanced value 
chains for local production and improved nutrition offer real benefit for practical support 
towards increased market engagement of smallholder farmers which is aligned to MAFF 
priorities. 
212. A comprehensive transition plan would help outline how integration of
implementation processes, systems and mechanisms within government institutions could
be operationalized and clarify how other key stakeholders would be involved.
213. Potential Impact and Factors for Success: The HGSF market demonstrates 
potential to improve leadership and decision-making among stakeholders (school 
administration, local authorities) geared towards the economic empowerment of their 
communities. Although improved gender equity and increased women’s empowerment 
should be key priorities of the programme, there are no overall gender results statements in 
the programme framework, which in turn means no guidance to measure and analyse 
achievements made on gender roles and achievements. There is a need to add gender 
indicators into the LRP design documents for them to receive appropriate attention during 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
214. The key challenges, besides COVID-19, are coordination and communication and 
delineation of tasks between WFP, the CPs, and subnational government staff. Baseline 
findings suggest that strides to address coordination issues at the national level have been 
incorporated into the LRP design but less so at field implementation level. Disproportionate 
administration demands on CPs to manage numerous activities with multiple partners 
(POEYS, PDAFF, commune authorities and school administration) could affect successful 
implementation and results. Greater clarity is required with respect to the roles played by 
different stakeholders involved in technical support to LRP programme participants. 
215. The national SMP is viewed as a government programme but requires a clear strategy 
for wider stakeholder engagement through capacity building, including awareness building 
to increase buy-in, capacity needs assessment and clarified roles. Effective implementation 
will require budget allocations to support administrative and implementation costs, not 
solely procurement in the provision of school meals, and the establishment of processes for 
training of cooperating partners and the establishment of a strong monitoring system to 
effectively track progress as schools transition to local procurement. A comprehensive 
transition plan would help outline how integration of implementation processes, systems
and mechanisms within government institutions could be operationalized. Partnering with 
FAO and MAFF will take advantage of past and present agricultural development 
programmes implemented by the government with other donors, as well as other networks 
(for example, cooperatives) with the potential to broaden the LRP’s (and later national 
SMP) impact on rural agricultural produce supply chains. 
3.2. Recommendations
216. The recommendations outlined below are drawn from the findings and conclusions 
of this baseline study and have clearly specified the stakeholder expected to take 
responsibility and/or action. All recommendations will need to be actioned within the first 
full year of implementation and they are presented in order of priority. 
Recommendation 1: WFP CO and MoEYS should jointly update and
consolidate activities into a comprehensive, gradual, evidence-based
transition plan. This should articulate the rationale behind progressive logical steps
(including realistic benchmarks and timelines) that will be monitored and supported
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 53 |Pag e
throughout implementation of the transition process. This updating should take into 
account delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as well as draw on the lessons learnt from 
the handover that began in 2019/2020. A revised and realistic transition plan to the full 
HGSF modality and national ownership should ensure that the roles for provision of all the
necessary capacity strengthening and technical assistance is assigned to specified
stakeholders. WFP should consider developing a Theory of Change for the transition plan.
By taking the initiative to discuss these adaptations with USDA, WFP will demonstrate
flexibility in changing circumstances grounded on evidence of assessed needs.
Recommendation 2: The WFP CO should coordinate with MoEYS, the MoH and 
MAFF to develop a capacity strengthening strategy that outlines clear roles and 
responsibilities for the implementation of the LRP for each of the ministries at 
national, sub-national and local levels. The capacity strengthening strategy should be 
based on an institutional capacity assessment (ideally as a SABER exercise) and
should provide clarity for all stakeholders on their functional roles, responsibilities, and 
expected results, as well as indicators that can be used to measure the expected changes. 
This has high priority in view of: i) the fact that capacity strengthening takes time; ii) the 
multiple sectoral involvement at different levels of government; iii) the limited 
implementation period; and iv) the urgent need to track adherence to (as well as experience 
with) application of the procurement guidelines. WFP should assign a focal point to develop 
this plan and to oversee its implementation. These considerations should include 
development of a strong monitoring system to effectively track progress towards integration 
and institutionalization within the government system, beyond WFP/USDA support.
Recommendation 3: The WFP CO, in collaboration with the MoEYS, MoH and 
MAFF, should seek to strengthen the mechanisms for coordination on LRP 
implementation as a complement to the capacity strengthening strategy. This 
should include i) clearly distinguished institutional roles and responsibilities, ii) timely 
sharing of information to national and subnational actors (including reports and meeting 
minutes); and iii) engagement and inclusion of local level actors and cooperating partners 
in coordination processes. 
Recommendation 4: Before the LRP midline, WFP should support the MoEYS 
to undertake a systematic review of the national school meals implementation 
that started in SY 2019/20. This should identify any challenges that need to be 
addressed so that learning can be incorporated into implementation of the LRP. Such an
assessment could be designed to assess the process covering all five policy pathways under
the SABER exercise, ensuring that the key elements are identified so they can be monitored
and institutionalized. This would serve as a strong foundation to develop a TOC for the LRP. 
Recommendation 5: WFP CO, drawing on existing tools and guidance and 
available technical support, should explore options for enhanced nutritional 
inputs to the school meals. Alongside continued support to encourage national rice 
fortification capacities, broader knowledge and more consistent access to information on 
healthier school meals needs to be well embedded at all levels by the time of transition to 
national ownership. 
Recommendation 6: WFP CO, together with USDA, and in consultation with 
the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, should integrate specific gender indicators 
into the programme’s Results Framework. This will guide gender analysis conducted
by the CO and help ensure that gender considerations are better integrated into the 
programme activities. The CO should ensure that these indicators measure the progress in 
transformative change, not only for women and girls but also for men and boys. This should 
be completed within the next six months so amendments to the design and targets can be 
identified and put in place.
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 54 |Pag e
List of Acronyms
CARD Council for Agriculture and Rural Development
CO (WFP) Country Office
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CP Cooperating Partner
CSP Country Strategic Plan
D&D Decentralization and Deconcentration
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
DOA District Office of Agriculture
D0EYS District Office of Education, Youth and Sport
EOI Expression of Interest
ET Evaluation team
FAO (United Nations) Food and Agriculture Organization
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
FFE Food for Education
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FLA Field level agreement
FNG Fill the Nutrition Gap
FY Financial Year
GDI Gender Development Index
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEWE Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
GEEW Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women
HDI Human Development Index 
HGSF Home-grown school feeding
HH Household
IDPoor Identification of Poor Households Programme
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification 
IRL Indochina Research Limited 
kg kilograms
KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency
KTC Kampong Chhnang Province
KTM Kampong Thom Province
LRP Local and Regional Procurement
LSFC Local School Feeding Committee
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
MDG Millennium Development Goals
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEF Ministry of Economics and Finance
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
MoH Ministry of Health
MoSAVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation
MoWA Ministry of Women’s Affairs 
mt metric tonnes
NAPVAW National Action Plan to Prevent Violence Against Women
NCI National Capacity Index
NER Net Primary Enrolment 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NSFSN National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition
NSPC National Social Protection Council 
NSPPF National Social Protection Policy Framework
OECD-DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development 
 Assistance Committee
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 55 |Pag e
PATH Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health
PDAFF Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
PFSNC Provincial Food Security and Nutrition Committee
PLAN Plan International
POEYS Provincial Office of Education, Youth, and Sport 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PRISM Platform for Real-Time Information System
QPR Quarterly Progress Report
RF Results Framework
SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SFP School Feeding Programme
SMP School Meal Programme
SO Strategic Objective
SRP Siem Reap Province
SY School Year
THR Take Home Rations
TOC Theory of Change
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group
UNHCHR United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 
US$ United States Dollar (currency)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
WFP World Food Programme
WHO (United Nations) World Health Organization
WV World Vision
LRP Baseline Report, Cambodia - February 2021 56 |Pag e
WFP Cambodia Country Office
https://www.wfp.org/countries/cambodia
Phnom Penh, February 2021, Report number
DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING
February 2021
Commissioned by WFP Cambodia 
Evaluation Manager: Bunthang Chhe
Decentralized Evaluation 
Activity Evaluation of USDA Local and Regional 
Procurement Grants (LRP-442-2019/011-00) for WFP 
School Feeding in Cambodia
01 November 2019 to 30 October 2023
Volume 2: Annexes for Baseline Study Report 
Prepared by
Wanjiku Gichigi, Team Leader
Sovith Sin, National Evaluator
Soledad Posada, International Evaluator
Prem B. Bhandari, Quantative Survey Analyst
LRP Baseline Annexes, Cambodia – Februry 2021 | Page i
List of Annexes
List of Acronyms .........................................................................................iii
Annex SEQ Annex \* ARABIC 1: Terms of Reference ................................... 1
1. Introduction........................................................................................... 1
2. Reasons for the Evaluation ..................................................................... 1
2.1. Rationale 2
2.2. Objectives 2
2.3. Stakeholders and Users 2
3. Subject of the Evaluation ........................................................................ 3
3.1. Context 3
3.2. Subject of the Evaluation 5
4. Evaluation Approach .............................................................................. 6
4.1. Scope 6
4.2. The Evaluation Criteria and Questions 9
4.3. Data Availability 9
2.1 4.4Methodology 10
4.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment 11
5. Phases and Deliverables ....................................................................... 14
6. Organization of the Evaluation & Ethics................................................ 14
6.1 Evaluation Conduct 14
6.1 Team composition and competencies 15
6.3 Security Considerations 16
2.2 6.4Ethics 17
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders............................................ 17
8. Communication and budget.................................................................. 19
8.1 Communication 19
2.3 8.2Budget 20
Annex 2: School Feeding Programme Country Maps, WFP Cambodia.........21
Annex 3: LRP Results Framework .............................................................. 22
Annex 4: LRP foundational results............................................................. 24
Annex 5: LRP Performance Indicators and Targets (FY 2020 – 2023) ....... 25
Annex 6: Evaluation Criteria and Questions .............................................. 27
Annex 7: Evaluation matrix .........................................................................31
Annex 8: Documents reviewed .................................................................. 45
Annex 9: Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping..............................................48
LRP Baseline Annexes, Cambodia – Februry 2021 | Page ii
Annex 10: Methodology and data collection............................................... 52
Quantitative primary data collection & analysis 52
Qualitative data collection & analysis 55
Semi-Structured Interview Guides 56
Fieldwork Calendar 60
Field work Timeline 61
Annex 11: Recommendations of past LRP evaluations (Kenya, Laos, and 
Rwanda): ................................................................................................... 63
Annex 12: Additional School Survey Results .............................................. 67
Annex 13: Additional Supplier Survey Results ...........................................83
Annex 14: Farmer Survey Results ..............................................................98
Annex 15: LRP Performance Management Plan Baseline Summary........... 110
LRP Baseline Annexes, Cambodia – Februry 2021 | Page iii
List of Acronyms
CARD Council for Agriculture and Rural Development
CO (WFP) Country Office
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CP Cooperating Partner
CSP Country Strategic Plan
D&D Decentralization and Deconcentration
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
DOA District Office of Agriculture
D0EYS District Office of Education, Youth and Sport
EOI Expression of Interest
ET Evaluation team
FAO (United Nations) Food and Agriculture Organization
FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
FFE Food for Education
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FLA Field level agreement
FNG Fill the Nutrition Gap
FY Financial Year
GDI Gender Development Index
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEWE Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
GEEW Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women
HDI Human Development Index 
HGSF Home-grown school feeding
HH Household
IDPoor Identification of Poor Households Programme
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification 
IRL Indochina Research Limited 
kg kilograms
KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency
KTC Kampong Chhnang Province
KTM Kampong Thom Province
LRP Local and Regional Procurement
LSFC Local School Feeding Committee
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
MDG Millennium Development Goals
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEF Ministry of Economics and Finance
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
MoH Ministry of Health
MoSAVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation
MoWA Ministry of Women’s Affairs 
mt metric tonnes
NAPVAW National Action Plan to Prevent Violence Against Women
NCI National Capacity Index
NER Net Primary Enrolment 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NSFSN National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition
LRP Baseline Annexes, Cambodia – Februry 2021 | Page iv
NSPC National Social Protection Council 
NSPPF National Social Protection Policy Framework
OECD-DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development 
 Assistance Committee
PATH Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health
PDAFF Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
PFSNC Provincial Food Security and Nutrition Committee
PLAN Plan International
POEYS Provincial Office of Education, Youth, and Sport 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PRISM Platform for Real-Time Information System
QPR Quarterly Progress Report
RF Results Framework
SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SFP School Feeding Programme
SMP School Meal Programme
SO Strategic Objective
SRP Siem Reap Province
SY School Year
THR Take Home Rations
TOC Theory of Change
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group
UNHCHR United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 
US$ United States Dollar (currency)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
WFP World Food Programme
WHO (United Nations) World Health Organization
WV World Vision
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 1
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
(without original annexes)
ACTIVITY EVALUATION of
USDA McGovern Dole 
and Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Grants
for WFP School Feeding in Cambodia from 2019 to 2023 
WFP Cambodia Country Office
1. Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2. Reasons for the Evaluation ........................................................................................... 1
2.1. Rationale 2
2.2. Objectives 2
2.3. Stakeholders and Users 2
3. Subject of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 3
3.1. Context 3
3.2. Subject of the Evaluation 5
4. Evaluation Approach................................................................................................... 6
4.1. Scope 6
4.2. The Evaluation Criteria and Questions 9
4.3. Data Availability 9
4.4 Methodology 10
4.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment 11
5. Phases and Deliverables .............................................................................................14
6. Organization of the Evaluation & Ethics.......................................................................14
6.1 Evaluation Conduct 14
6.1 Team composition and competencies 15
6.3 Security Considerations 16
6.4 Ethics 17
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders................................................................... 17
8. Communication and budget .......................................................................................19
8.1 Communication 19
8.2 Budget 20
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 1
1. Introduction
1. These Terms of Reference (TOR) are to guide an evaluation process comprising 3 distinct 
evaluation processes over a four year period. The evaluations are commissioned by the WFP 
Cambodia Country Office (WFP CO) for the activity evaluations of school feeding program (SFP) 
activities in Cambodia supported by United States Department of Agriculture McGovern-Dole 
(USDA-McGovern-Dole) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition and Local and 
Regional Food Aid Procurement (USDA-LRP) programs for fiscal years (FY) 2019-2023. The TOR 
covers six deliverables: a baseline, a mid-term and an endline evalution for USDA-MCGovern￾Dole and a baseline, a mid-term and an endline evalution processes for USDA-LRP. All 
deliverables will preferably be undertaken in a single assignment/contract. The specific 
deliverables (timeframes mentioned are subject to change) are outlined in Table 1. 
Table 1: Evaluation exercise for McGovern-Dole and LRP
Evaluation exercises for 
USDA-McGovern-Dole 
project
Evaluation exercises for 
USDA-LRP project
Date
Baseline study Baseline study Nov 2019–Jun 2020
Mid-term evaluation Mid-term review1 Mar-Dec 2021
Endline evaluation Endline evaluation Mar-Dec 2023
2. This TOR was prepared by the WFP CO based upon an initial document review and consultation 
with stakeholders. It outlines the evaluation requirements for USDA-McGovern-Dole (US$19 
million budget ) and USDA-LRP (US$4.7 million budget) grants supporting implementation of a 
traditional school meals program (SMP), Hybrid Home-Grown School Feeding program (HGSF￾hybrid), and associated interventions in 599 schools in Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and 
Kampong Chhnang provinces. The TOR aims to 1) provide key learning themes, program scope, 
and other key information to guide the evaluation team on the conducting the evaluations; and 
2) to involve stakeholders early on, keeping them informed of progress, and providing 
opportunities for inputs to secure their support and commitment.
3. The evaluation process within WFP will be managed by an evaluation manager who will be the 
main focal point for day to day contact during the evaluation period. An external independent 
firm (evaluation team) will be contracted to carry out the actual evaluation and will appoint their 
own evaluation team leader and managers.
4. This evaluation will provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of the results of the 
programs to enable WFP CO, government and Cooperating Partners (CPs) to demonstrate 
results and learning to feed into future programs in particular the government led and managed 
School Feeding Program (SFP) while also making it possible to quantify the impacts of the 
program. 
2. Reasons for the Evaluation
The reasons for the evaluation being commissioned are presented below.
1 WFP together with Evaluation team will consider conducting a lighter evaluation exercise for the mid-term phase to focus primarily on 
the qualitative data collection among key stakeholders for learning purposes to allow for program adjustments. 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 2
2.1. Rationale
5. The WFP CO is commissioning baseline studies, mid-term evaluation/reviews and endline 
evaluations for the FY 2019-2023 USDA-McGovern-Dole and USDA-LRP grants in support of 
WFP School Feeding Program (SFP) activities in Cambodia, to be evaluated from the period 1 
November 2019 to 30 Septembet 20232
, to critically and objectively assess performance of the 
programs and associated interventions for the purposes of accountability and learning and to 
fulfil a requirement of the USDA. 
6. The baseline studies (first deliverables) will provide information about the pre-program 
situation, establish a baseline value and review targets. The mid-term evaluation (second 
deliverable) for the USDA McGovern-Dole supported program and mid-term review for USDA 
LRP-supported program (second deliverable) will provide an independent evidence-based 
assessment of the program outcomes at that stage so that WFP CO can adjust program design 
and implementation for the remaining period. The final evaluations (third deliverables) will 
determine whether recommendations made during the baseline and the mid-term 
evaluation/review were integrated into implementation and if so, whether the 
recommendations were successful in strengthening deliveries and outcomes. 
2.2. Objectives 
7. Evaluations in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and 
learning. These activity evaluations are conducted for accountability purposes to USDA while 
carrying a learning purpose for WFP, partners – including government and other stakeholders 
to feed into future program design. Evaluation findings will also be used by the key government 
counterpart, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS), to take forward as they 
assume full management of the program through a national SFP. 
• Accountability – The evaluation processes will assess and report on the performance and 
results of the USDA McGovern-Dole and USDA LRP-funded activities during the funding 
period. For accountability, the evaluations assess whether targeted beneficiaries have 
received services as expected, if the programs are on track to meeting their stated goals 
and objectives aligned with the results frameworks and assumptions.
• Learning – The evaluation processes will determine the reasons why certain results 
occurred or not to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. They will 
provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. 
Findings will be actively disseminated, and lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson 
sharing systems. For learning, the evaluation components will aim at critically and 
objectively reviewing and taking stock of participant’s implementation experience and the 
implementation environment for both McGovern-Dole and LRP. 
2.3. Stakeholders and Users
8. A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the 
evaluations and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation processes. Table 2 
(Annex 9) provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the 
evaluation team as part of the Inception phase of the baseline. 
2 Activities on the ground will start later once baseline is approved by USDA – estimated to be June 2020. 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 3
9. Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as 
key stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and 
women’s empowerment (GEEW) in the evaluation processes, with women, men, school girls and 
school boys from different groups participating in group discussion as part of field survey and 
being consulted in individual interviews. 
3. Subject of the Evaluation
3.1. Context
10. The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has made impressive strides in economic growth 
over the past 20 years, bringing the country to lower middle-income status in 2016 with a Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of USD 1,384.42 in 20173. During this time, the RGC has seen 
one of the fastest economic growth rates in the world, which has been accompanied by 
significant reduction in poverty 4. Despite this progress, health and education both remain 
important challenges and development priorities for Cambodia. The RGC’s long-term 
development vision, the Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency 
Phase IV (2019–2023), emphasizes strong commitment to education and children’s nutrition, 
which are viewed as a priority for “sustainable human resource development, economic growth, 
and social development”.5
11. Despite economic growth and current development in urban areas, rural development lags 
behind. Rural communities, which make up 79 percent of the population, account or most of 
the country's poor6
. A significant proportion of Cambodians lives on the brink of poverty; it has 
been estimated that losing just USD 0.30 a day per person in income would double the poverty 
rate7
. This means that natural hazards such as storms, floods, droughts or serious illness could 
cause profound setbacks to fragile livelihoods. 
12. Food security and undernutrition remain important public health concerns in Cambodia. The 
national objectives set for the Cambodia-specific Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 were 
not met8 and the figures for malnutrition remain higher than most countries in the region.9 The 
new SDG indicators covering undernourishment and dietary diversity, suggest that 14 percent 
of households continue to consume less than the minimum dietary energy requirement, while 
11.6 percent have inadequate dietary diversity.10
13. Cambodia is ranked 116 out of the 160 countries on the most recent Gender Inequality Index11
(GII = 0.473). The GII is essentially the loss in human development due to inequality between 
female and male achievements in the three GII dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment, 
and economic activity. Cambodia’s low ranking indicates that gender inequality still exists. The 
2017 Gender Development Index (GDI) results are better at 0.914 which puts it into Group 4 
3 WORLD BANK. WORLD BANK OPEN DATA: HTTP://DATA.WORLDBANK.ORG/
4 The World Bank. (2019). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/
5 RS-IV 2019–2023 – Rectangle 1 including 1) Improving the quality of education, science and technology; 2) Vocational training; 3) Improving 
public healthcare and nutrition; and 4) Strengthening gender equality and social protection. 6 CAMBODIA INTER-CENSAL POPULATION SURVEY, 2013
7 WB POLICY NOTE ON POVERTY MONITORING AND ANALYSIS, OCTOBER 2013
8 CAMBODIA HAD AN OBJECTIVE OF REDUCING THE PREVALENCE OF UNDERNOURISHED PEOPLE TO <10%.
9 HTTPS://OPENDEVELOPMENTCAMBODIA.NET/TOPICS/SDG-2-ZERO-HUNGER//
10 CAMBODIA SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY, 2014, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS, MINISTRY OF PLANNING; AVAILABLE AT: HTTPS://WWW.UNICEF.ORG/CAMBODIA/6.MATERNAL.PDF
11 HTTP://HDR.UNDP.ORG/EN/COMPOSITE/GII
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 4
(second lowest), an improvement from being in the lowest category in previous years.12,13,14,15
Cambodia is also ranked 93 out of 149 countries on the Global Gender Gap Index 201816. 
However, women increasingly become income generators, migrating from rural areas to urban 
areas to work or start small businesses from their homes. The number of women having primary 
occupation in the private sector is higher than men in many provinces 17, particularly in the 
garment sector. Women are typically employed at lower levels and paid less. It is estimated that 
on average women are paid thirty percent less than men on commensurate work18. 
14. The RGC is committed to improving educational standards while aiming to embed programs 
supported by development partners, such as the SFP and scholarship programs, within its 
national strategies. The national decentralization and deconcentration reforms place greater 
responsibility on subnational authorities to take ownership of planning and delivery of basic 
services, including education. In education, Cambodia has made good strides in improving 
primary education programs and reducing gender disparity in education in rural areas. The net 
primary school enrolment figure increased from 81 percent in 2001 to 98 percent in school year 
2018-19. Although there is still a need to expand enrolment in primary schools and pre-schools 
in some locations, sustained efforts to globally expand access to school are less relevant than 
they once were. The main challenge now for primary school education is completion. Even 
though both repetition and dropout rates have steadily declined in the last five years,19 they 
remain a key concern. School dropout is most problematic at the end of the primary school 
cycle as students are more likely to leave school rather than repeat a year. School dropout is 
also more likely to happen in rural areas.20
15. With MoEYS, USAID is currently implementing its new education strategy (2016-21), with a focus 
on improving early grade reading through their partners including Kampuchea Action for 
Primary Education (KAPE) and World Education International (WEI). WEI in partnership with WFP 
will work closely with USAID and UNICEF to support early grade reading under the national 
education strategy and child friendly school policy framework. The MoEYS school health 
department in collaboration with WFP and the Ministry of Health supports food safety and 
health in schools under a newly endorsed national school health policy. Plan International, 
working in the area of education, and World Vision, working in the area of community development 
including education, in partnership with WFP and MoEYS at national and subnational level to 
provide school meals promote an enabling environment, including infrastructure building and/or 
rehabilitation and other school support interventions. Under the LRP, FAO in partnership with WFP 
provides technical assistance to producers and suppliers to strengthen HGSF market 
engagement. 
16. School feeding is a major component of the ongoing WFP Cambodia’s Country Strategic Plan 
(CSP), and is implemented in 8 out of the Cambodia’s 25 provinces in school year 2019-2020 
(Please see Annex 1) through two models, SMP and HGSF. A daily school meal (breakfast) is 
12 HTTP://HDR.UNDP.ORG/SITES/ALL/THEMES/HDR_THEME/COUNTRY-NOTES/KHM.PDF
13 RATIO OF FEMALE TO MALE HDI VALUES. GENDER DEVELOPMENT INDEX SCORES RANGE FROM 0 TO 1 WITH A SCORE OF 1 INDICATING EQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
14 GENDER DEVELOPMENT INDEX GROUPS: COUNTRIES ARE DIVIDED INTO FIVE GROUPS BY ABSOLUTE DEVIATION FROM GENDER PARITY IN HDI VALUES. GROUP 5 COMPRISES COUNTRIES WITH LOW EQUALITY 
IN HDI ACHIEVEMENTS BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN (ABSOLUTE DEVIATION FROM GENDER PARITY OF MORE THAN 10 PERCENT).
15 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, 2015, UNDP
16 Human Development Report, 2015, UNDP
17 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning
18 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 19 FINAL DRAFT EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN 2019-2023, MOEYS, MAY 2019.
20 HENG, K. ET AL (2016) RESEARCH REPORT. SCHOOL DROPOUT IN CAMBODIA: A CASE STUDY OF PHNOM PENH AND KAMPONG SPEU. KOREA INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY, CAMBODIA COUNTRY 
OFFICE. ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF PHNOM PENH, FACULTY OF EDUCATION
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 5
provided to all morning class pre-and primary school children, from target schools in areas 
where poverty and malnutrition are comparatively high and education performance is relatively 
worst off, aimed to encourage student’s enrolment, attendance and completion of their primary 
education, and to reduce short-term hunger and improve their concentration in the classroom. 
3.2. Subject of the Evaluation
17. USDA has been a trusted partner of the WFP in Cambodia, dating back to 2001. One of the two 
USDA awards, USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program, is the continuation of the USDA grants 2017-2019 and 2013-2016; implemented by 
WFP in partnership with World Education, Plan International, World Vision and relevant 
Government ministries. This is the first time that WFP Cambodia has been awarded the USDA 
LRP grant to support the transition to a national HGSF program and complement the 
McGovern-Dole program. The USDA FY2019-2023 McGovern-Dole (US$19 million) and LRP 
(4.7 million) programs support the implementation of both centrally procured school meals 
(SMP), Hybrid Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) involving locally procured commodities and 
complementary activities focused on improving literacy, and health and dietary practices in 
three provinces (22 disticts) in the country: Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and Kampong Chhnang 
(See annex 2).
18. The USDA-McGovern-Dole program has two strategic objectives (as per the results framework 
outlined in Annex 10): Improved literacy of school-age children and increased use of health 
and dietary practices. To support literacy objective, a range of activities are designed to produce
intermediate results of improving student attendance, quality of literacy instruction, and 
attentiveness. Similar to literacy, to support health and dietary proactive objective, a range of 
activities are conducted to produce intermediate results of Improved Knowledge of Health and 
Hygiene Practices, Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices, Increased 
Knowledge of Nutrition, Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services, Increased 
Access to Preventative Health Interventions and Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and 
Storage Tools and Equipment. A range of activities were also designed to support foundational 
result.
19. The USDA-LRP has one strategic objective (as per the results framework outlined in Annex 11):
Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance Through Local and Regional Procurement. To 
support the objective, a range of activities are designed to produce intermediate results of 
improved Cost-Effectiveness of Food Assistance, Improved Timeliness of Food Assistance, and 
improved Utilization of Nutritious and Culturally Acceptable Food that Meet Quality Standards. 
Again, a range of activities were also designed to support foundational result
20.In school year 2019-2020, the SMP covers 329 schools and benefits 42,800 school boys and 
41,000 school girls while the HGSF-hybrid covers 270 schools and benefits 33,800 school boys 
and 31,200 school girls. The number of schools and children will be handed over to the 
government through a phased approach, leaving only 297 schools with 73,700 children in the 
model of HGSF-hybrid in school year 2022-23. MoEYS and WFP are in the process of finalising 
the parameters of the handover processes aimed at transitioning to the nationally owned HGSF, 
to align with the national HGSF Implementation framework endorsed in August 2019. WFP’s 
strategic decision is to utilize the grant to fund capacity strengthening to increase the readiness 
of MoEYS to eventually manage the program. 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 6
21. SMP and HGSF are blanket programs which support provision of meals to all pre-primary and 
primary school boys and girls equally in targeted schools. However, girls and boys face different 
challenges remaining in school, with girls in rural areas dropping out mainly due to severe 
poverty then ending up caring for younger siblings, working alongside their parents in the rice 
fields, or moving to urban centres to find work.21 Boys are also sometimes pressured to leave 
school and find employment. The program requires voluntary cooking activities from 
community; however, the issue of inadequate remuneration for the school cooks, almost all of 
whom are women, is an ongoing concern. 
22.The baseline, mid-term review and final evaluations in previous rounds of McGovern-Dole found 
the FFE to be well implemented. The main concern was the short time frame planned for the 
transition to national ownership. In addition, the endline evaluation highlighted insudfficient 
capacities including monitoring, program knowledge of government partner, and appropriate 
implementation policies/guidance. Both these areas were included as recommendations for 
further actions
23.As with previous grant cycles, the FY 2019-2023 USDA McGovern-Dole and LRP funded 
programs also require undertaking baseline studies, and final evaluations for each. In addition, 
a mid-term evaluation for McGovern-Dole and a mid-term review for LRP will be conducted. 
The baseline studies, mid-term evaluation/review and the final evaluations will be conducted in 
2019, 2021 and 2023 respectively with indicative dates for each evaluation activities highlighted 
in Annex 3: Evaluation schedule.
4. Evaluation Approach
4.1. Scope
24.The planned evaluations for 2019-2023 will cover the following WFP programs: 
I. WFP Cambodia School Feeding USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program FFE-442-2019-013-00 (McGovern-Dole funded program), 
II. WFP Cambodia FY2019 USDA-Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (LRP 
program).
25. The evaluations for these two programs will include all activities and processes related to their 
formulation, implementation, resourcing, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting relevant to 
answer the evaluation questions for both McGovern-dole and LRP-funded programs. 
26.These evaluations, commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office, will cover four 
school feeding years22 of implementation of both McGovern-Dole and LRP-funded 
programs for FY 2019-2023. The timing for evaluation exercises will be synchronized 
as mentioned earlier; however, the evaluation exercises will be designed to assess the 
impact of the programs’ respective strategic objectives: 
27.
Table 3: Strategic Objective of McGovern-Dole and LRP 
21 UNESCO/UNICEF (2012) ASIA/PACIFIC: END OF DECADE NOTES ON EDUCATION FOR ALL – EFA GOAL #5 GENDER EQUITY. BANGKOK: UNESCO AND UNICEF.
22 The timeline for evaluation period will be adapted based on actual start of activities contingent on the 
release of USDA funds from both programs (currently expected to be around June 2020). 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 7
Type of 
USDA 
program
Impact against program objectives
McGovern￾Dole 
Strategic Objective 1: Improved Literacy of School-Aged 
Children
Strategic Objective 2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary 
Practices
LRP Strategic Objective 1: Improved Effectiveness of Food 
Assistance Through Local and Regional Procurement
28.
29.The evaluations (baseline, mid-term review and endline) for USDA McGovern-Dole will 
be carried out through a representative sample of Hybrid HGSF schools in all areas of 
intervention: Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, and Kampong Chhnang and a representative 
sample of schools with no school meals programme in comparison provinces. The 
evaluation (baseline, mid-term review and endline) for USDA-LRP will be carried out 
using the same representative sample of Hybrid HGSF schools for baseline and endline. 
The schools will be selected by the Evaluation Teams in close collaboration considering 
overlap and unique characteristics and indicators. The baseline and endline exercises 
will involve quantitative data collection from a sample of schools, householders, 
suppliers, and local farmers. Qualitative interviews will be conducted during each 
exercise with key government representatives, school personnel, suppliers and farmers, 
and other stakeholders as relevant in the three supported provinces. The final sample 
size for the baseline will be determined based on the degree of change that is expected 
amongst the performance indicators, levels of statistical significance desired and 
acceptable levels of statistical error and will be selected by the independent evaluation 
team in consultation WFP CO. 
30.The baselines for both McGovern-Dole and LRP funded programs will serve the 
following objectives:
31. 1) Confirm indicator selection and targets and establish baseline values for 
all performance indicators included in the proposal, including for comparison 
schools to establish a basis for counterfactual impact analysis The baseline study 
will also be used to revisit project targets in light of baseline findings where 
relevant.
32. 2) Be used for ongoing project monitoring activities to regularly measure 
activity outputs and performance indicators for lower-level results, 
33. 3) Measure performance indicators for strategic objectives (for McGovern￾Dole funded and LRP programs respectively) as well as the highest-level results 
that feed into the strategic objectives as part of the mid-term and final evaluations, 
and
34. 4) Provide a situational analysis before the project begins and confirm the 
full evaluation design as prepared during the inception period. This analysis will 
inform project implementation and will provide important context necessary for 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 8
the mid-term and final evaluations to assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, sustainability, and impact.
35. The mid-term evaluation for the McGovern-Dole funded program and the mid-term 
review for the LRP program will assess the program implementation and to provide 
an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance as early signals toward 
progresses of the program intervention so that WFP and its project partners can adjust 
course as necessary for the remainder of the project term. The mid-term exercises will 
build upon the baseline and will give more focus on program learning than 
accountability. Specifically, they will:
36.1) review the program relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, and sustainability, 
37. 2) collect performance indicator data for strategic objectives, 
38.3) assess whether the project is on track to meeting the results and targets, 
39.4) review the results frameworks or theory of change, and 
40.5) identify any necessary mid-course corrections and learning. 
41. The final evaluations for both McGovern-Dole and LRP funded programs will provide 
an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the programs to 
evaluate the project’s success, ensure accountability, and generate lessons learned. The 
final evaluations will build upon baseline study and the mid-term evaluation (for each 
of the programs respectively) to assess the project’s success and impact against USDA’s 
strategic objectives and with reference to results measured in comparison schools. 
Furthermore, the evaluation may also focus on evaluation questions that are relevant 
to overall school feeding strategy, country-specific school feeding issues in Cambodia, 
and sustainability of the program model. It may also compare the performance of 
school feeding in Cambodia with other relevant food security and safety net 
interventions in other country and as a counterfactual in areas where no similar 
programs are implemented.
42.Specifically, the final evaluations will: 
43.1) review the program relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, impact, and 
sustainability, 
44.2) collect performance indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level 
results, 
45. 3) assess whether or not the project has succeeded in achieving strategic objectives 
(for McGovern-Dole and LRP funded programs respectively), 
46.4) investigate the project’s overall impact, and
47. 5) identify the benefits of the programs likely to continue beyond WFP’s 
intervention for the targeted beneficiaries and improvements should be made to 
the program in the future.
48.The final evaluations will be conducted for both accountability and learning purposes. They will 
assess the progress of the indicators in the respective project agreements and Performance 
Monitoring Plans, and the recommendations of the baseline studies and the mid-term 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 9
evaluation/review. The final evaluations will also contribute to the systematic review and analysis 
of the lessons learnt to contribute to the learning and decision-making with the view to improve 
use of funds and other resources to enhance performance and results. 
4.2. The Evaluation Criteria and Questions
49.Evaluation Criteria The evaluations will apply the international evaluation criteria of Relevance, 
Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability23. The selected criteria are well aligned with 
criteria agreed for the McGovern-Dole and LRP-funded programs and set in the approved 
evaluation plan. Gender Equality, and the Empowerment of Women (GEEW) should be 
mainstreamed throughout.
50.Evaluation Questions Aligned with the evaluation criteria, the evaluation will address the key 
evaluation questions outlined in the approved Evaluations Plans for McGovern-Dole and LRP￾funded programs and included in Annex 12 (McGovern-Dole) and Annex 13 (LRP). These are 
only the key indicative questions designed in order to provide the background to the evaluation 
team. The evaluation team is therefore required to further elaborate the questions and sub￾questions under each evaluation criteria during the Inception phase of each evaluation exercise. 
Collectively, the questions aim at highlighting the existing circumstances, performance of both 
programs during the period and key lessons learnt, which could inform future strategic and 
operational decisions. 
4.3. Data Availability 
51. Evaluability is the extent to which an activity or a program can be evaluated in a reliable and 
credible fashion. A preliminary evaluability assessment will be done by the Country Office at the 
initial stage of project cycle, which will be deepened by the evaluation team in each inception 
package relating to deliverables. 
52. The evaluation team shall critically assess data availability and take evaluability limitations into 
consideration in its choice of evaluation methods. In doing so, the team will also critically review 
the evaluability of the gender aspects of the programs, identify related challenges and 
mitigation measures and determine whether additional indicators are required to include 
gender empowerment and gender equality dimensions. 
53. The evaluations will take a program theory approach based on the results framework (see Annex 
10 and Annex 11). It will draw on the existing body of documented data as far as possible and 
complement and triangulate this with information to be collected in the field. 
54.Concerning the quality of data and information, the Evaluation Team should assess data 
reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the information provided in section 4.3 
to inform the data collection. In addition, the Evaluation team should systematically check 
accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any 
limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
23 For more detail see: 
http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm and 
http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 10
2.1 4.4 Methodology
55. The methodology for the evaluations will be designed in accordance with the WFP 
Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) as well as USDA’s 
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. Based on the requirements described in the TORs, 
further analysis done at inception phase and consultations with key stakeholders, the 
Evaluation Team will formulate an appropriate evaluation design, sampling strategy, 
and methodological approach for each stage of evaluation process. The Inception 
Reports will be produced separately for McGovern-Dole and LRP funded programs.24
The detailed methodology defined in the Inception Reports should be guided by the 
following principles:
1) Employ the evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and 
sustainability.
2) Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information 
sources (stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.). The selection of field visit sites 
will also need to demonstrate impartiality.
3) Use mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) to ensure information from difference 
methods and sources is triangulated to enhance the validity, reliability and credibility of 
the findings. Qualitative approach will include focus group discussions and key informant 
interviews while quantitative approach will include reviewing and collecting quantitative 
data from the monitoring data from on-going program implementation and a cross￾sectional survey of a sub-sample of school feeding schools visited in the previous baseline 
survey. Qualitative methods such as focus group discussions and key informant interviews, 
will be used where relevant to highlight lessons learned and case studies representative of 
the interventions.
4) Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions 
considering the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints;
5) Partnership with local research firms is encouraged. This includes the use of local 
enumerators for any survey work, ensuring that cultural and political sensitivities are 
addressed and that the enumeration teams have the local language expertise to elicit the 
needed information from beneficiaries and others; and
6) To the extent possible, the evaluation will be conducted by a gender-balanced, 
geographically and culturally diverse team with appropriate skills to assess gender 
dimensions of the subject as specified in the scope, approach and methodology sections 
of the ToR.
56.A quasi-experimental design will be employed for the baseline study and the final evaluations
for the McGovern-Dole program strategic objectives. For LRP strategic objective, the baseline 
and endline will use the same methodology – a sample of Hybrid Home Grown School Feeding 
schools, and qualitative interviews with a sample of families, local suppliers and farmers. 
57. Multi-stage/cluster sampling for the survey-based portion of the baseline is proposed to select 
target schools and schools/respondents. The sample size for the baseline will be determined 
based on the degree of change that is expected amongst the performance indicators, levels of 
1. 24 The Inception Reports will be shared with the Evaluation Reference Group for inputs before being finalized 
by the Evaluation Team and approved by WFP Country Office. Should there be any changes from the ToR at 
inception stage, WFP will notify USDA in writing.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 11
statistical significance desired and acceptable levels of statistical error in the supported 
provinces as well as the comparison areas. The sampling frame, methodology, and sample size 
calculations will be the responsibility of the Evaluation Team in consultation with the WFP CO.
58.Specific data collection methods are expected to include: a desk review, quantitative survey, 
semi-structured interviews and focus groups (to ensure that a cross-section of stakeholders is 
able to participate so that a diversity of views is gathered) and observation during field visits. 
The survey modules utilized will include household and child questionnaires, suppliers and 
smallholder farmers as well as school questionnaire (with teachers and school directors). The 
key respondents have been identified as critical for the primary data collection as outlined in 
Table 4 with the list and survey modules to be reviewed and further detailed based on 
methodology proposed by the Evaluation team and agreed by WFP CO.
Table 4. Key respondents for primary data collection by program 
Type Respondents for Baseline, Mid-term and Endline evaluations
McGovern-Dole Schools (school directors and staff responsible for provision of school 
feeding; school children), Parents, Teachers, Communities, Government 
(MoEYS, MEF, MoH), Cooperating Partner NGOs, 
WFP Officials at Country Office and Regional Bureau
LRP Schools (school directors and staff responsible for provision of school 
feeding; school children), Parents, Suppliers, Producers/small-holder 
farmers, Communities, Government (MoEYS, MAFF, MEF), Cooperating 
Partner NGOs, FAO, 
WFP Officials at Country Office and Regional Bureau
59. The methodology will be GEEW-sensitive, indicating what data collection methods are 
employed to seek information on GEEW issues and to ensure gender equality is considered 
when designing and performing data collection. 
60.The following potential risks to the methodology have been identified. School year will be 
finished by August; hence, the data collection should be done prior and/or during this month 
to get all information from difference kind of respondents such as teachers, cooks, storekeeper, 
parents and students. Language and culture are also barriers for the evaluation; hence, the 
evaluation team should be aware of and take pre-emptive action before going down to the 
filed.
4.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment
61. WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality 
standards expected from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality 
Assurance, Templates for evaluation products and Checklists for their review. DEQAS is closely 
aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the UNEG 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 12
norms and standards and good practice of the international evaluation community and aims to 
ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to best practice. 
62.DEQAS will be systematically applied to this evaluation. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be 
responsible for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Process Guide and 
for conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization. 
63.WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This 
includes Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant 
Checklist will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and 
outputs.
64.To enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an outsourced quality support (QS) 
service directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter provides review of the 
draft inception and evaluation report (in addition to the same provided on draft TOR), and 
provide:
a. Systematic feedback from an evaluation perspective, on the quality of the draft inception 
and evaluation report; 
b. Recommendations on how to improve the quality of the final inception/evaluation report.
65. The evaluation manager will review the feedback and recommendations from QS and share with 
the team leader, who is expected to use them to finalise the inception/ evaluation report. To 
ensure transparency and credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and standards25, 
a rationale should be provided for any recommendations that the team does not take into 
account when finalising the report.
66.This quality assurance process as outlined above does not interfere with the views and 
independence of the evaluation team, but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence 
in a clear and convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
67. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and 
accuracy) throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be 
assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive 
on disclosure of information. This is available in WFP’s Directive CP2010/001 on Information 
Disclosure.
68.All final evaluation reports will be subjected to a post hoc quality assessment (PHQA) by an 
independent entity through a process that is managed by OEV. The overall rating category of 
the reports will be made public alongside the approved evaluation reports, free of personally 
identifiable information (PII) The evaluation team is expected to produce six deliverables which 
at least meet the 70-80% requirement of the PHQA rating system.
69.Engagement of Evaluation Reference Group (ERG): WFP will ensure the baseline study and the 
evaluations reflect the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)’s perspectives. The process of the 
study and the evaluations emphasise on the stakeholder’s engagement and consultations on 
the ERG, in order to balance the diversified perspectives and enhance the program ownership. 
25 UNEG Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds 
confidence, enhances stakeholder ownership and increases public accountability”
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 13
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 14
5. Phases and Deliverables
70.The evaluation will proceed through the following phases. The deliverables and deadlines for 
each phase are as follows: 
Table 5. Summary process map (by program and deliverables)
McGovern-Dole 
2019-2023
LRP 
2019-2023
Baseline Mid-line 
Evaluation
Endline 
evaluation Baseline Mid-line 
Review
Endline 
evaluation
1. Evaluation plan Prepare evaluation plan for MCGOVERN-DOLE and LRP
2. Prepare Terms of Reference (combined for both programs)
3. Inception Inception Report Inception Report
4. Collect data Debriefing with PowerPoint Debriefing with PowerPoint
5. Analyze data 
and Report26 Evaluation Report Evaluation Report
6. Validate, 
Disseminate 
and follow-up
Combined Management Response, Dissemination plan27, and Follow￾up action plan
71. Timeline: The timeline for the evaluations for both programs is from October 2019 to December 
2023, covering planning/preparation, inception, data collection, data processing and data 
analysis and report, and dissemination (see detailed timelines in Annex 3). 
72. Deliverable timelines: The key list of deliverables and timelines for those is outlined in Annex 
7. The list of deliverables and timelines will be further reviewed and adjusted as required when 
the methodology and Inception report are finalized and agreed between the parties.
6. Organization of the Evaluation & Ethics
6.1 Evaluation Conduct
73. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in 
close communication with the WFP CO evaluation manager. The team will be hired following 
agreement with WFP on its composition. The team will conduct and report on the evaluation 
according to McGovern-Dole and WFP standards as follows:
• Must be financially and legally separate from the participant's organization;
26 In addition to the standard list of Annexes to the Evaluation Reports, during the Inception phase WFP CO and Evaluation Team will 
elaborate the type of practicable deliverables to be used for further program adjustments and decision making, as well as for effective 
communication with key stakeholders. These may include – Aide Memoire, Technical Summary of lessons learnt and recommendations 
based on feedback from Key stakeholders (aimed at SF practitioners), thematic briefs on topics identified jointly with the WFP CO (such 
as gender, nutrition, transition and handover, etc).
27 WFP CO will explore with stakeholders most effective ways to disseminate the evaluation results for accountability, effective 
learning and advocacy with critical stakeholders of the program to incrase the utility function of the evaluations.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 15
• Must have personal and professional integrity; 
• Must respect the right of institutions and individuals to provide information in confidence 
and ensure that sensitive data cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators must take care that 
those involved in evaluations have a chance to examine the statements attributed to them;
• Must be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs of the social and cultural environments 
in which they work; 
• In light of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be 
sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender inequality;
74. In designing and organizing the data collection among minors, existing Ethical Research 
Involving Minors28 will be used as guidance, as well as WFP’s respective guidance as it becomes 
available from the Office of Evaluation.
75. Evaluations will need to take into account that processing of data, including personal data has 
legal, ethical and operational implications and is considered by WFP within the broader 
framework of data protection, privacy and human rights. The following WFP guidance will need 
to be taken into account for the evaluation exercises - WFP’s 2012 Policy on Humanitarian 
Protection29 providing a framework for use of personal data, WFP’s Corporate Information 
Security Policy30 , and Directive on Information Disclosure,31
76. Evaluations sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Such cases must be reported 
discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Also, the evaluators are not expected to 
evaluate the personal performance of individuals and must balance an evaluation of 
management functions with due consideration for this principle.
77. The evaluation team will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject 
of evaluation or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect 
the code of conduct of the evaluation profession. For the WFP CO evaluation manager, s/he will 
not take any role in the independent evaluation team and has no direct involvement in the 
implementation of the subject of the evaluation.
6.1 Team composition and competencies
78.WFP expects to have two evaluation teams for McGovern-Dole and LRP funded programs led 
by one Evaluation Team Leader as shown in Table 6 below. The evaluation teams will need to 
ensure a complementary mix of expertise in the technical areas covered by the evaluations for 
both national and international (excluding field enumerators). To the extent possible, the 
evaluation will be conducted by a gender-balanced, geographically and culturally diverse team 
with appropriate skills to assess gender dimensions of the subject as specified in the scope, 
approach and methodology sections of the TOR. At least two team members should have 
experience in conducting evaluation exercises for WFP-implemented programs funded by 
McGovern-Dole and/or LRP. 
Table 6. Expected evaluation teams for McGovern-Dole and LRP
McGovern-Dole Evaluation team 2019-2023 LRP Evaluation team 2019-2023
28 https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eric-compendium-approved-digital-web.pdf 
29 WFP/EB.1/2012/5-B. Online at: http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfpdoc0616 70.pdf
30 http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ cd/wfp274609.pdf
31 [2] http://docustore.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ cd/wfp220970.pdf
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 16
One Team Leader for USDA McGoven-Dole and LRP
3-4 members including McGovern-Dole Team 
Manager appropriate balance of expertise 
and practical knowledge in the following 
areas:
• Institutional capacity development (with a 
focus on establishing national systems, 
cost-efficiency analysis, supply chain 
management
• School feeding, education, nutrition, food 
security, systems strengthening.
3-4 members including LRP Team 
Manager appropriate balance of 
expertise and practical knowledge in the 
following areas:
• Agricultural Economics/Agricultural 
Supply Chain Management and 
Solution, local Markets, agribusiness
• School feeding programs, local food 
procurement mechanisms
Some areas of expertise may overlap for two evaluations: 
• Gender expertise / good knowledge of gender analysis, and gender responsive 
evaluation
• Evaluation designs and methods (both qualitative and quantitative)
• Knowledge management
• All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation 
experience and familiarity with Cambodia and/or the region.
• All team members should have strong skills in oral and written English.
79. The Team leader will have technical expertise in one of the technical areas listed above as well 
as expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and demonstrated experience 
in leading similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership, analytical and communication 
skills, including a track record of excellent English writing and presentation skills. 
80.Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; 
ii) guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the 
evaluation team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field 
work (i.e. exit) debriefing presentation and evaluation report in line with DEQAS. 
81. The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise 
required and have a track record of written work on similar assignments. 
82.Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a 
document review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with 
stakeholders; iv) contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their 
technical area(s). 
6.3 Security Considerations
83.Security clearance: Security is not necessarily a significant concern in Cambodia, beyond some 
incidence of theft and other opportunistic crimes. Security clearance where required is to be 
obtained from the Cambodia CO, through UNDSS.. As an independent supplier’ of evaluation 
services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible for ensuring the security of all persons 
contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical or situational reasons. 
The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall under the UN Department of 
Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 17
84.However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure: 
• The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and 
arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on 
the ground.
• The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations –e.g. curfews etc.
2.2 6.4 Ethics
85.WFP's decentralised evaluations must conform to WFP and UNEG ethical standards and norms. 
The contractors undertaking the evaluations are responsible for safeguarding and ensuring 
ethics at all stages of the evaluation cycle (preparation and design, data collection, data analysis, 
reporting and dissemination). This should include, but is not limited to, ensuring informed 
consent, protecting privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of participants, ensuring cultural 
sensitivity, respecting the autonomy of participants, ensuring fair recruitment of participants 
(including women and socially excluded groups) and ensuring that the evaluation results in no 
harm to participants or their communities.
86.Contractors are responsible for managing any potential ethical risks and issues and must put in 
place in consultation with the Evaluation Manager, processes and systems to identify, report 
and resolve any ethical issues that might arise during the implementation of the evaluation. 
Ethical approvals and reviews by relevant national and institutional review boards must be 
sought where required. 
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
87. The WFP Cambodia Country Office: 
a- The WFP CO Management will take responsibility to:
o Assign an evaluation manager for the evaluation
o Compose the internal evaluation committee and the evaluation reference group
o Approve the final ToR, inception and evaluation reports.
o Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including 
establishment of an evaluation committee and of an evaluation reference group (see below
and TN on Independence and Impartiality). 
o Participate in discussions on the evaluation design and the evaluation subject, its performance 
and results with the evaluation manager and the evaluation team 
o Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external 
stakeholders 
o Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of management 
responses to the evaluation recommendations
b- The Evaluation Manager: 
o Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR
o Ensures quality assurance mechanisms are operational 
o Consolidates and shares comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the 
evaluation team
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 18
o Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality support) 
o Ensures that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the 
evaluation; facilitates the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; sets up meetings, field visits; 
provides logistic support for the fieldwork; and arranges for translation, if required.
o Organises security briefings for the evaluation team and provides materials as required
c- An internal Evaluation Committee has been formed as part of ensuring the independence and 
impartiality of the evaluation. The role and responsibility of committee members will be detailed 
in Annex 4. An internal evaluation committee chaired by the Country Director (CD) will approve 
Terms of Reference, budget, evaluation team, inception and evaluation reports, which helps to 
maintain distance from influence by program implementers.
88.An Evaluation Reference Group has been formed, as appropriate, with representation from 
WFP country office, Regional Bureau, Government partners, UN agencies and NGO partners. 
Please refer to Annex 5 where list of members is available. The ERG members will review and 
comment on the draft evaluation products and act as key informants in order to further 
safeguard against bias and influence. 
89.The Regional Bureau: the RB will take responsibility to:
o Advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where 
appropriate. 
o Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the 
evaluation subject as required. 
o Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports
o Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the 
recommendations. 
While the Regional Evaluation Officer will perform most of the above responsibilities, other 
RB relevant technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group and/or comment 
on evaluation products as appropriate. RB relevant technical staff and the Evaluation Unit also 
support the practical recommendations and follow-up actions in the Management Response, 
and the use of the baseline study and the evaluations for improving the program quality. 
90.Relevant WFP Headquarters divisions will take responsibility to:
o Discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of responsibility and subject of 
evaluation. 
o Comment on the evaluation TOR, inception and evaluation reports, as required. 
91. Other Stakeholders (Government, NGOs, UN agencies) will perform the roles and 
responsibilities of evaluation reference group since they are members of the group. 
92.The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV, through the Regional Evaluation Officer, will advise the 
Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process when required. It is 
responsible for providing access to the outsourced quality support service reviewing draft ToR, 
inception and evaluation reports from an evaluation perspective. It also ensures a help desk 
function upon request. 
93.USDA FAD 
• Provide inputs and comment on ToRs.
• Participate in an introduction teleconference with the selected independent evaluator prior 
to evaluate field work for the evaluations.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 19
• Provide comment on the inception report as required.
• Participate in discussions of findings and recommendations that suggest changes in the 
project strategy, results frameworks and critical assumptions. 
• Provide comment on the report
8. Communication and budget
8.1 Communication
94.To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from the baseline study and 
the evaluations, the evaluation teams should place emphasis on transparent and open 
communication with key stakeholders. This will be applied throughout the evaluation 
management process, particularly stakeholder engagement. These will be achieved by ensuring 
a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and between key 
stakeholders and by producing clear deliverables that are written in English.
• The Evaluation manager will submit all final deliverables to the WFP CO for pre-approval. 
Upon pre-approval of deliverables, the WFP CO will forward the deliverables to WFP’s 
Washington Office with the Bangkok Regional Bureau in copy. WFP’s Washington Office will 
transmit deliverables to the USDA FAD for comments and inputs. All communication with 
USDA will be transmitted via WFP’s Washington Office including invitations to the FAD 
program staff to participate in teleconferences to discuss CO management responses to 
evaluate findings and recommendations.
• The service provider will deliver a baseline study, a mid-term evaluation and review, end line 
evaluations both for LRP and McGovern-Dole projects (i.e., in total six products). USDA 
comments on final draft report will be taken into consideration by the evaluation team in 
addition to comments from external stakeholders in the evaluation reference group. The 
evaluation team will produce an excel file indicating all comments received and how these 
were addressed. Exit debriefings will follow all field visits. A final presentation on the overall 
findings will be delivered to the CO. 
• WFP and the Government will explore the opportunities (such as School Nutrition Days 
and Annual School Feeding Workshops) to communicate the findings and 
recommendations of the evaluation exercises to communities and key stakeholders as part 
of the Accountability to Communities.32
• To accompany each evaluation output, a 2-3 page summary report will be developed by 
the evaluations teams to facilitate broader dissemination of the findings and 
recommendations. Other communications products may be discussed for each distinct 
output. 
95. The Communication and Learning Plan will include a dissemination strategy, indicating how 
findings will be disseminated and how key stakeholders will be engaged.
96.As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made 
publicly available in English, free of PII. To ensure maximum use of the lessons learned for 
national partners, the resulting reports will be translated into Khmer language. Importantly, this 
32 In line with WFP 2019-2021 Strategy for Protection and Accountability to Affected People.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 20
will facilitate learning amongst government, as technical staff often do not speak or read 
English.
2.3 8.2 Budget
97. Funding Source: The baseline studies, mid-term evaluaton/review and endline evaluations will 
be funded by the WFP Cambodia Country Office using the M&E budget allocation in the 
McGovern-Dole and LRP grant funds.
98.The service provider will outline their budget in a financial proposal to WFP as part of their 
response to the Request for Proposals (RfP) (Annex 3: Evaluation schedule indicated number of 
days which help evaluation team to estimate the budget). For the purpose of this evaluation, 
the service provider will: 
• Include budget for international and domestic travel and for all relevant in-country data 
collection (both qualitative and quantitative)
• Hire and supervise any and all technical and administrative assistance required (including 
in-country). 
• The final budget and handling, will be determined by the option of contracting that will be 
used and the rates that will apply at the time of contracting.
• Follow the agreed rates for decentralized evaluations as provided for in the Long-Term 
Agreement (LTA) with WFP
Please send any queries to George GEGELIA, Sr. Procurement Officer, Regional Bureau Bangkok (RBB) at email: 
george.gegelia@wfp.org,
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 21
Annex 2: School Feeding Programme Country Maps, WFP Cambodia
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 22
Annex 3: LRP Results Framework
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 23
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 24
Annex 4: LRP foundational results
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 25
Annex 5: LRP Performance Indicators and Targets (FY 2020 – 2023)
From LRP Project Agreement Document – December 2019
Activity Indicator Targets
2020 2021 2022 2023
Cash transfers to 
support the 
HGSF 
Programme
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average number of school days per month on which 
multi-fortified or at least 4 food groups were provided
20 20 20 20
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from 
USDA funded interventions
50,880 44,426 39,043 26,459
Number of individuals participating in USDA food 
security programs
40,558 35,557 31,569 21,881
Number of schools reached as a result of USDA 
assistance
157 132 111 71
Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries 
participating in productive safety nets
39,977 34,906 30,677 20,789
Percent of HGSF orders delivered on time as per 
contract
70 75 80 85
Percent of HGSF supplier contracts signed before the 
start of the school year
60 65 70 75
Percentage of HGSF deliveries rejected due to poor 
quality as reported by schools
10 8 5 3
Strengthen 
capacity of 
HGSF 
stakeholders on 
procurement 
mechanisms
 
 
 
 
Cost of commodity (USD) procured as a result of 
USDA assistance
231,475 621,500 547,125 369,275
Number of individuals trained in HGSF 
implementation, including procurement process and 
procedures as a result of USDA assistance
431 351 292 192
Number of local suppliers for HGSF program 
contracted
78 66 55 35
Number of toolkits distributed as a result of USDA 
assistance
2,512 2,112 1,776 1,136
Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of 
USDA assistance 
159 427 376 254
Strengthen 
national 
institutional 
capacities and 
systems
 
Number of policies, regulations, or administrative 
procedures in each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USAD assistance:
Stage 1: Analysed
Stage 2: Drafted and presented for public stakeholder 
consultation 
Stage 3: Presented for legislation/decree
Stage 4: Passed/Approved Stage
Stage 5: Passed for which implementation has begun
1 1 0 0
Value of new USG commitments and new public and 
private sector investments leveraged by USDA to 
support food security and nutrition
18,471 16,098 12,693 10,508
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 26
Technical 
assistance to 
producers and 
suppliers to 
strengthen 
HGSF market 
engagement
 
 
 
Number of individuals in the agriculture system who 
have applied improved management practices or 
technologies with USDA assistance
100 200 400 600
Number of individuals who have received short-term 
agricultural sector productivity or food security 
training as a result of USDA assistance
150 300 600 900
Value of sales of farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance
5 15 20 30
Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms 
receiving USDA assistance
5 15 20 30
LRP 1.3.2.2: 
Increased Value 
Added to Post￾Production 
Agricultural 
Products
LRP INDICATOR 9: Total increase in installed storage 
capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA 
assistance33
NA NA NA NA
Sources: WFP LRP Project Agreement, LRP Indicator Definitions, LRP Master Proposal, LRP Baseline TOR
33 Not in Project Agreement Document but found in LRP Indicator Definition Document 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 27
Annex 6: Evaluation Criteria and Questions
This baseline is focused on the criteria of relevance, coherence and sustainability only although some enquiry was also 
made to obtain some basic understanding on the status on the other three criteria (effectiveness, efficiency and impact). The key 
questions for the mid-term and final evaluation are drawn from the TOR and used to design those for the baseline. The following 
table shows the connection between the three parts of this evaluation, although the current study focuses on the Baseline only.
Focus Area Key Questions – Baseline Key Questions – Mid-term* Key Questions – End-line*
Relevance
1. To what extent is the LRP design 
appropriate to the context and aligned 
with the needs of women, men, girls 
and boys and with the priority needs 
of schools, suppliers, smallholders 
and government?
1. To what extent is the LRP appropriate to the needs of 
the target beneficiaries on men, women, boys and girls? 
To what extent has the design of capacity strengthening 
activities met the needs of the government?
1. To what extent is the LRP appropriate to the needs of 
the target beneficiaries on men, women, boys and girls? 
To what extent has the design of capacity strengthening 
activities met the needs of the government?
2. To what extent does the LRP design 
engage key stakeholders with 
appropriate approaches and 
modalities?
2. To what extent is the LRP aligned with overall USDA 
objectives as well as strategies, policies and normative 
guidance; and Government’s relevant stated national 
policies, including sector policies and strategies?
3. To what extent is the LRP aligned with frameworks of 
UN agencies and relevant development partners? To 
what extent is it aligned with WFP's overall strategy and 
related guidance?
4. To what extent has the LRP sought 
complementarities with interventions of other donor￾funded initiatives, as well as initiatives of humanitarian 
and development partners operational in the country?
Coherence
3. To what extent does the LRP align 
with RGC and USDA objectives, 
strategies, policies and normative 
guidance, including sector policies 
and strategies?
1. To what extent is the LRP aligned with overall USDA 
objectives as well as strategies, policies and normative 
guidance; and Government’s relevant stated national 
policies, including sector policies and strategies?
1. To what extent is the LRP aligned with overall USDA 
objectives as well as strategies, policies and normative 
guidance; and Government’s relevant stated national 
policies, including sector policies and strategies?
4. To what extent does the LRP align 
with frameworks, strategies and 
guidance of WFP, UN agencies and 
relevant development partners? To 
what extent does it align with WFP’s 
overall strategy and related guidance?
2. To what extent is the LRP aligned with frameworks of 
UN agencies and relevant development partners? To 
what extent is it aligned with WFP's overall strategy and 
related guidance?
2. To what extent is the LRP aligned with frameworks of 
UN agencies and relevant development partners? To 
what extent is it aligned with WFP's overall strategy and 
related guidance?
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 28
Focus Area Key Questions – Baseline Key Questions – Mid-term* Key Questions – End-line*
3. To what extent has the LRP sought 
complementarities with interventions of other donor￾funded initiatives, as well as initiatives of humanitarian 
and development partners operational in the country?
3. To what extent has the LRP sought 
complementarities with interventions of other donor￾funded initiatives, as well as initiatives of humanitarian 
and development partners operational in the country?
Effectiveness 
5. To what extent are intended results, 
indicators, and monitoring systems 
feasible and able to inform results￾based management?
1. To what extent at the mid-term point progress has 
been made towards reaching the overall objectives of 
the LRP (outlined in attachment A of the Agreement) 
for various beneficiary groups (by gender where 
applicable) and by type of activity (to the extent it can 
be assessed at the time of the mid-term review)?
1. To what extent were the objectives and results of the 
LRP achieved for various beneficiary groups (by gender 
where applicable) and by type of activity?
6. To what extent are intended 
results, indicators and monitoring 
systems able to inform GEWE 
analysis?
2. What were the major factors influencing the 
achievement or non-achievement of the objectives and 
outcomes (including gender) of the LRP by the time of 
the mid-term review? 
2. To what extent have the intended results, and 
overarching program objectives been achieved 
(including gender)? What were the particular features of 
the LRP and context that made a difference? What was 
the influence of other factors?
3. To what extent have the findings of the baseline and 
mid-term review been addressed?
Efficiency 
7. How do the procurement, delivery, 
and distribution of the LRP compare 
– in terms of cost-effectiveness and 
timeliness - to alternative modalities 
of food procurement?
1. Were the activities implemented in line with the LRP 
implementation plan and in a timely manner (program 
delivery, logistics and M&E arrangements)? What 
factors impacted the delivery process (cost factors, WFP 
and partners performance, external factors)?
1. To what extent are the transfer cost, cost per 
beneficiary, logistics, program deliveries and M&E 
arrangement aligned with program design?
2. Were the activities undertaken as part of SFP cost￾efficient?
2. Were the activities undertaken as part of the LRP 
cost-efficient?
3. What factors impacted the cost efficiency of the 
program implementation? What measures can support 
enhancement of the LRP efficiency for the remaining 
implementation period?
3. What factors impacted the cost efficiency of the 
program implementation?
4. To what extent have information supplied by the 
monitoring and Beneficiary/Stakeholder Complaint and 
Feedback mechanisms been utilized for the LRP 
corrective measures?
4. To what extent monitoring and Beneficiary/ 
Stakeholder Complaint and Feedback mechanisms been 
utilized for LRP corrective measures as well as for 
WFP’s learning agenda?
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 29
Focus Area Key Questions – Baseline Key Questions – Mid-term* Key Questions – End-line*
Impact
8. How could differently target groups 
(farmers, suppliers, LRP school 
committees, local authorities, and 
government) benefit from the LRP 
outcomes, and how could related 
GEWE outcomes vary by group?
1. What intended and unintended impact has the LRP 
made on men, women, boy and girl beneficiaries 
(through comparison of targeted and non-targeted 
schools against the program objectives) and 
stakeholders (including Government, commune 
authorities, communities)?
9. What internal and external factors 
could affect the LRP’s results?
What progress has the RGC made towards developing 
and implementing a national HGSF programme? 
2. What were the internal factors leading to the impact 
(factors within WFP’s control): the processes, systems 
and tools in place to support the operation design, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation and 
reporting; the governance structure and institutional 
arrangements (including issues related to staffing, 
capacity and technical backstopping from RB/HQ); 
internal partnership and coordination approaches and 
arrangements; etc.?
3. What were the external factors leading to the HGSF 
ability to deliver its impact (factors outside WFP’s 
control): i.e. the external operating environment; the 
funding climate; external incentives and pressures; etc.?
Sustainability
10. Is there emerging evidence that 
networks connecting smallholders, 
suppliers and schools can be 
strengthened?
1. To what extent were the LRP implementation 
arrangements include considerations for sustainability 
(handover to the government) at national and local 
levels, communities and other partners for all project 
components (school feeding, literacy, Food safety, 
WASH and hygiene, etc.) agreed with and endorsed by 
the Government and national stakeholders?
1. To what extent was the LRP implementation in line 
with the handover plan/strategy agreed with and 
endorsed by the Government (including handover to the 
government at national and local levels, communities 
and other partners for all project components (school 
feeding, literacy, food safety, WASH and hygiene, etc.)? 
Have adjustments to the handover plan/strategy 
identified during mid-term review and throughout the 
program been factored in the LRP implementation and 
impacted success of the handover process?
11. Is there emerging evidence of 
government collaboration, ownership 
and handover planning?
2. To what extent progress has been made against the 
overall handover process against the project plan and 
handover plan/strategy agreed with and endorsed by 
the Government?
2. Has the overall handover process been conducted as 
per the LRP plan and handover plan/strategy agreed 
with and endorsed by the Government?
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 30
Focus Area Key Questions – Baseline Key Questions – Mid-term* Key Questions – End-line*
12. Is there emerging evidence of well￾designed measures under the LRP 
programme for sustainability in the 
following areas: sound policy 
alignment, stable funding and 
budgeting, institutional 
arrangements, local production and 
sourcing, partnership and 
coordination, community 
participation and ownership. 
3. To what extent progress has been made towards 
institutionalization of the measures planned as part of 
the technical assistance to the Government that is 
expected to support the sustainability of the 
intervention (including policy work, support to systems, 
institutional capacity etc.)? What progress has been 
made since the project design stage (through strategic 
engagement, advocacy and other efforts with 
Government and relevant stakeholders) in supporting 
financial sustainability of the LRP beyond WFP’s 
intervention to the extent it can be evaluated by the 
mid-term review (national budget for LRP and other 
funding sources)? Government policy, strategy and/or 
systems levels)?
3. To what extent has the package of technical 
assistance activities and measures undertaken during 
the project duration been institutionalized into the 
Government’s policies, strategies and systems and is 
likely to support the sustainability of the intervention 
(including policy work, support to systems, institutional 
capacity etc.)? What progress has been made since the 
project design stage (through strategic engagement, 
advocacy and other efforts with Government and 
relevant stakeholders) in supporting financial 
sustainability of the LRP beyond WFP’s intervention 
(national budget for LRP and other funding sources)?
13.What steps have been set or 
remain to be set to achieve hand-over 
targets for a nationally owned HGSF 
programme? What criteria has been 
set for effective hand-over to the 
RGC? 
4. To what extent progress has been made against the 
overall handover process against the project plan and 
handover plan/strategy agreed with and endorsed by 
the Government?
4. How effective has the handover process been (criteria 
for effective handover to be defined by the project team 
at the start of the program)?
14. In what ways are local 
communities contributing and 
involved towards LRP activities? How 
will their role be institutionalized (at 
Government policy, strategy, and/or 
systems levels)?
5. To what extent has LRP been successful in engaging 
Government and local communities (school committees, 
farmer’s groups, etc.) towards school feeding and 
education activities? Has the role of the communities 
and local stakeholders been institutionalized (at 
Government policy, strategy, and/or systems levels)?
5. To what extent has LRP been successful in engaging 
Government and local communities (school committees, 
farmer’s groups, etc.) towards school feeding and 
education activities? Has the role of the communities 
and local stakeholders been institutionalized (as the 
Government policy, strategy and/or systems levels)?
6. Based on available evidence to what extent are the 
benefits of the program likely to continue beyond WFP’s 
intervention for the targeted beneficiaries.
6. To what extent are the benefits of the program likely 
to continue beyond WFP’s intervention for the targeted 
beneficiaries?
General 
15. What are recommendations for 
baseline corrections to improve the 
project’s relevance, efficiency, 
effectiveness, impact, and/or 
sustainability? 
1. What are recommendations for mid-course 
corrections to improve the project’s relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and/or sustainability?
1. What improvements should be made to SMP in the 
future? What are the lessons learnt?
* Source: Terms of Reference.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 31
Annex 7: Evaluation matrix
To guide the complete evaluation process (baseline, mid-term and end-line evaluations), the Evaluation Matrix elaborates key questions within 
the six OECD-DAC criteria.34 This baseline study focuses on relevance, coherence and considers sustainability. It also begins analysing what steps 
and systems are being established that could influence programme effectiveness, efficiency and impact in later phases of the evaluation cycle. The 
reliability and validity of data has been assessed through triangulation (source, method and investigator). 
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
RELEVANCE: to determine if the LRP objectives and design respond to the needs of stakeholders and institutions.
Key Question 1: To what extent is the LRP design appropriate to the context and aligned with the needs of women, men, girls and boys and with the 
priorities of schools, suppliers, smallholder farmers and government?
Does the project respond 
to needs and priorities 
identified by different 
stakeholders and 
beneficiaries, including 
meeting different gender 
requirements? 
Extent to which LRP 
addresses identified needs 
of target populations (e.g.,
local schools feeding 
committee smallholders 
and suppliers, gender 
specific needs).
Extent to which LRP 
beneficiaries were 
consulted in designing its 
interventions.
Reports and assessments.
WFP monitoring and 
records (e.g. Complaints 
feedback mechanisms.)
Records in sample school 
sites, and with suppliers, 
farmer groups, commune 
officials, government 
offices.
Key informant interviews.
Desk review of secondary 
data and other project 
information.
Primary data: qualitative 
interviews with WFP 
personnel, school 
personnel, local 
authorities, suppliers, 
smallholder farmers and 
their groups.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interviews and focus group 
discussions.
Strong.
WFP provided project
documentation and policy 
documents available. 
34 These are Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 32
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
To what extent was the 
LRP programme design 
based on sound gender 
analysis and perspectives?
Gender analysis report 
available 
Evidence of gender 
perspective in programme 
documents
Evidence of gender 
considerations in 
guidelines and criteria 
used in bidding and 
tendering processes.
WFP Reports, including 
gender assessment reports
WFP CO, MOEYS, FAO 
and other partners
Desk review
In-depth interviews with 
WFP CO, MOEYS and 
other partners
WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate.
Qualitative analysis –
secondary document 
review triangulated with 
key informant interviews
Strong.
Project documents that 
were available
Key Question 2: To what extent does the LRP design engage key stakeholders with appropriate approaches and modalities?
What are the targeting 
criteria for schools, 
suppliers, farmers and 
farmer groups? Are there 
risks of inclusion or 
exclusion errors (including 
gender, equity)?
Evidence of clear project 
purpose and focus.
Evidence of clear targeting 
criteria and rationale for 
selection of different 
beneficiary groups 
(farmers, suppliers and 
schools).
Degree to which 
community needs have 
been included in the 
process.
Ratio of successful to 
unsuccessful contracts.
LRP related 
documents/records (e.g. 
market assessments, 
production, complaints 
feedback mechanisms 
records).
HGSF operational 
guidelines and 
instructions.
Background documents on 
the context of agriculture 
in three targeted 
provinces.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders.
Desk review of secondary 
data and information.
Primary data: interviews 
with stakeholders (WFP 
personnel, school 
administration and 
suppliers).
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Strong.
Project documentation and 
policy documents 
available.
COHERENCE: to determine if LRP is compatible and coherent with other interventions and institutions 
Key Question 3: To what extent does the LRP align with Royal Government of Cambodia and USDA objectives, strategies, policies and normative 
guidance, including sector policies and strategies?
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 33
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
To what extent does the 
design of capacity 
strengthening activities 
align with the Royal 
Government of 
Cambodia’s needs and 
priorities related to HGSF 
and local procurement?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with government 
policies, strategies and 
legislative direction.
LRP objectives reflect the 
country context and 
identified priority needs 
and gaps.
LRP project related 
planning and 
implementation 
documents.
Government and WFP 
policy documents.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders.
National policies and 
strategies (e.g. on literacy, 
nutrition, agriculture, local 
procurement, food safety 
and hygiene).
Secondary document 
review.
Qualitative interviews with 
relevant ministries and 
representatives at national 
and sub-national level.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Weak. 
WFP provided project 
documentation and policy 
documents that were 
available.
To what extent is LRP 
aligned with overall USDA 
and WFP normative 
guidance related to HGSF 
and local procurement?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with USDA 
objectives, strategies, 
policies, and legislative 
direction.
LRP objectives reflect the 
USDA/WFP country 
identified priorities and 
stated goals.
LRP project related 
planning and 
implementation 
documents.
USDA and WFP 
policy/strategy/ guidance 
documents.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders.
Secondary document 
review.
Qualitative interviews. 
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Strong.
Project documentation and 
policy documents were 
available.
Key Question 4: To what extent does the LRP align with frameworks, strategies and guidance of WFP, UN agencies and relevant development partners? 
To what extent does it align with WFP’s overall strategy and related guidance?
Does LRP design 
compliments with other 
WFP work in Cambodia?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with the Country 
Strategic Plan and 
programming.
Evidence of 
complementarity and/or 
duplication.
WFP and partner reports 
and documents
Interviews with other 
development partners.
Secondary document 
review.
Qualitative interviews with 
WFP and partners.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information.
Triangulation of
documents and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Strong.
Available project 
documentation and policy 
documents provided.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 34
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
How does LRP align with 
frameworks of UN and 
other development 
partners, including bi- and 
multilateral agencies? 
Evidence of 
complementarity and/or 
evidence of duplication.
Partnerships established.
Evidence of opportunities 
for alignment or 
coordination?
Documents from UN and 
other development actors 
at national and district 
level.
Interviews with UN and 
other development 
partners.
Secondary document 
review.
Qualitative interviews with 
UN and other development 
actors.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Strong.
Available project 
documentation and policy 
documents provided.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 35
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
EFFECTIVENESS: to set a foundation for determining if LRP activities are designed achieve objectives and results by end of programme, including possible differences 
across groups or institutions
Key Question 5: To what extent are intended results, indicators and monitoring systems feasible and able to inform result-based management on cost￾effectiveness, timeliness plus utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards?
5.1. Extent to which the 
LRP programme intended 
results, indicators and 
monitoring systems are 
designed to be feasible and 
able to inform
improvement on cost￾effectiveness on local 
procurement, delivery and 
distribution. 
i) Are systems well 
designed to be functional 
and produce expected 
results (implementation; 
engagement; institutional 
capacity)?
ii) Have the technical 
assistance and capacity 
building interventions 
been designed to be 
effective in increasing 
procurement from target 
communities?
%age of local and regional 
procurement to stock and 
daily foods used in school 
meals.
%age of stock and daily 
foods used in school meals 
sourced from SHFs in 
targeted community (by 
commodity type).
%age delivery of supplies 
that match school 
commodity supply order.
Operational guidelines exist 
on procurement, deliver and 
distribution standards and 
procedures. Percent 
compliance with set criteria 
and standards (e.g. supplier 
contract criteria; food safety 
and hygiene standards; 
recommended nutritious 
food items)
% age timely payment after 
invoice submitted by 
supplier to LRP school 
committee. 
Changes in value of 
production/sales reported 
by HGSF suppliers and 
farmers (commodity volume 
(MT); income).
Minute meetings and 
progress reports.
Supplier records.
WFP monitoring data and 
market surveys.
Participant feedback: 
complaint mechanisms; 
Stakeholder records of 
delivery and benefits 
accrued; Rejection rate for 
quality reasons.
Reports from WFP, LRP 
schools and partners.
Secondary document 
review.
Secondary price and 
payment data (from WFP, 
school records or others).
Quantitative survey of 
school administration, 
suppliers and farmers.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders 
(including LRP school 
authorities, farmers, 
suppliers, commune; 
national and sub-national
government officials).
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative information 
and quantitative data.
Comparison of before and 
after findings from 
suppliers/farmers in case 
school in Srei Snam 
district (Siem Reap 
province) and others. 
.
Triangulation of 
quantitative survey results 
with qualitative findings 
from key informant 
interviews and FGDs as 
well secondary sources.
Medium. Baseline levels 
verified.
WFP provided monitoring 
data as appropriate.
Documents reviewed 
documents and assessed 
level of proactive 
management. 
Both quantitative and 
qualitative surveys 
conducted.
Reliability and validity 
assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 36
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
Key Question 5: To what extent are intended results, indicators and monitoring systems feasible and able to inform result-based management on cost￾effectiveness, timeliness plus utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards?
5.2: Extent to which the 
LRP programme intended 
results, indicators and 
monitoring systems are 
designed to be feasible and 
able to inform 
achievements on improved 
timeliness on local 
procurement, delivery and 
distribution. 
i) Have the technical 
assistance and capacity 
building interventions 
been designed to be 
effective in improving 
timeliness (ref 
implementation; 
institutional capacity).?
No. of issues that arise and 
adaptive management 
responses e.g. Ability of 
farmers and suppliers to 
meet demand, changes in 
preference or seasonality, 
Evidence of improved 
linkages between farmers 
to suppliers and to schools.
Frequency of timely 
delivery of food 
commodities to match 
school commodity supply 
order.
Percent timely payment 
after invoice submitted by 
supplier (sex 
disaggregated) to LRP 
school committee. 
Frequency of timely 
payment of suppliers (sex 
disaggregated) to 
producers. 
School records on 
HGSF/LRP activities and 
to match against set, 
guidelines and procedures: 
- menus and commodity 
supply orders; training; 
delivery; quality, quantity 
and handling; frequency of 
rejection.
Supplier records.
WFP records and 
secondary reports [WFP to 
provide monitoring data as 
appropriate]
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders.
Quantitative survey of 
school LRP 
administrators, suppliers 
and farmers.
Qualitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data during 
baseline survey.
Qualitative interviews with 
key stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
quantitative survey results 
with qualitative findings 
from key informant 
interviews and FGDs as 
well secondary sources.
Reliability and validity 
assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for five months 
during SY 2019/2020).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 37
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
Key Question 5: To what extent are intended results, indicators and monitoring systems feasible and able to inform result-based management on cost￾effectiveness, timeliness plus utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards?
5.3: Extent to which the 
LRP programme intended 
results, indicators and 
monitoring systems are 
designed to be feasible and 
able to inform 
achievements on improved 
utilization of nutritious 
and culturally acceptable 
food that meets quality 
standards. 
i) What systems have been 
designed to allow for 
schools to use WFP cash 
transfers to procure local 
food commodities to 
provide diversified and 
nutritious school meals.
ii) In what ways will local 
procurement of fortified 
rice be promoted or 
supported.
Percent timely payment 
after invoice submitted by 
supplier to LRP school 
committee. 
Number of schools (and 
students disaggregated by 
sex) using recommended 
diverse menu and 
commodity order 
guidelines
Percentage of stock and 
daily foods used in school 
meals sourced from local 
and regional procurement 
(by commodity type, 
including fortified rice; by 
category of producer).
Percentage of stock and 
daily foods used in school 
meals sourced from SHFs 
in targeted community (by 
commodity type).
Percent delivery of 
supplies that match school 
commodity supply order.
Operational guidelines 
from WFP partners exist 
e.g. on improved 
productivity; post￾production handling (farm 
to school gate); access to 
market information; 
financial management; 
menu development.
School records: e.g. menu. 
Supplier records.
Qualitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers, farmers, and 
fortified rice value chain 
actors).
Quantitative surveys of key 
LRP stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers and farmers).
Drawn from McGovern 
Dole baseline findings: 
Nutritional monitoring; 
student acceptance of 
school meal; students’ 
feedback on meal 
composition changes over 
time.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers, farmers).
Secondary document 
review.
Quantitative survey of 
school LRP 
administrators, suppliers, 
farmers.
Qualitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers and farmers, 
value chain and market 
actors).
Drawn on McGovern Dole 
baseline data and findings, 
including nutritional 
monitoring; school menus; 
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Qualitative interviews with 
key stakeholders.
Reliability and validity 
assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for five months 
during SY 2019/2020).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 38
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
Key Question 6: To what extent are intended results, indicators and monitoring systems able to inform GEWE analysis?
What benchmarks, 
systems, support 
networks etc are in place 
to ensure GEWE equity 
throughout the 
programme activities?
Results framework 
contains gender indicators.
Evidence of gender 
perspective in monitoring 
system.
All data are disaggregated 
by gender.
Program participant 
characteristics, 
demographics.
 
Number of male and 
female beneficiaries & 
participants (LSFC, 
suppliers, farmers).
WFP Programme 
documents
Results frameworks
Monitoring data and 
reports: WFP, MOEYS, 
FAO, USDA.
 
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders.
School records. 
Supplier records on 
producers engaged.
Qualitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers and farmers, local 
authorities).
Quantitative surveys of key 
LRP stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers and farmers).
Desk review
Quantitative survey of 
LSFC, suppliers and 
farmers.
Qualitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers, farmers).
Reliability and validity 
assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for five months 
during SY 2019/2020).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 39
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
EFFICIENCY: to determine if LRP activities are utilizing resources well and are likely to deliver results in an economical and timely manner
Key Question 7: How do the procurement, delivery and distribution of the LRP compare – in terms of cost-effectiveness and timeliness - to alternative 
modalities of food procurement?
What is the current 
procurement process and 
lead-time for selling food 
commodities to schools, 
including procurement, 
delivery, and distribution? 
What are the barriers to 
access?
Percent of HGSF orders in 
compliance with contract 
criteria (custom 4).
Timeliness of food delivery 
to LRP schools:
• Number of schools 
receiving food (from 
suppliers on agreed 
upon time of delivery) 
prior to the start of term.
• Dates when cash 
transferred to schools.
• Tendering process start 
dates.
• Food delivery dates.
• Distribution dates.
• Food delivered to 
contracted quality and 
quantity.
• Rejection rate by 
commodity type. 
Quantitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders.
School records (if 
required).
Documentation from 2020 
tender process.
WFP monitoring. [WFP to 
provide monitoring data as 
appropriate]
Draw on McGovern Dole 
baseline findings.
Secondary document 
review.
Quantitative data from 
schools, suppliers, 
including McGovern Dole 
baseline findings for 
school data.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders 
(LSFC, suppliers and 
farmers.
Quantitative analysis of 
survey data.
Comparison of before and 
after findings from school 
records and 
suppliers/farmers in case 
schools (Srei Snam 
district, Siem Reap 
province) and others.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from LRP 
stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers).
Reliability and validity 
assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for five months 
during SY 2019/2020).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 40
SUSTAINABILITY: to determine if LRP results, benefits, and outcomes are likely to continue after the programme concludes. 
Key Question 10: Is there emerging evidence that networks connecting smallholders, suppliers and schools can be strengthened?
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
To what extent do LRP 
implementation 
arrangements include 
handover planning and 
sustainability 
considerations?
Stakeholders believe the 
project will be sustainable.
Evidence of government 
involvement and funding.
Evidence of partnerships 
and leveraging private 
funding.
Communities engaged in 
school feeding activities.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers). 
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders.
Desk review of 
programmatic and secondary 
documentation.
Triangulation of 
findings from KIIs with 
a variety of 
stakeholders.
Quantitative survey 
results.
Medium (Establish 
Baseline status: new data 
collection, drawn on HGSF 
experience).
Have the exit strategy 
and handover plan been 
developed jointly with 
schools and the 
Government?
Exit strategy and/or 
handover plan established.
Milestones achieved.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers). 
WFP monitoring.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers). 
Desk review of 
programmatic and secondary 
documentation.
Triangulation of 
findings from KIIs with 
a variety of 
stakeholders.
Medium (Establish 
Baseline status: new data 
collection).
What is the involvement 
of the Government? How 
much input is from WFP 
and how much from the 
authorities?
Stakeholder roles, 
responsibilities and 
contributions. 
Existing capacities and 
commitments.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers). 
Interviews with local 
officials 
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Triangulation of 
findings from KIIs with 
a variety of 
stakeholders.
Medium (Establish 
Baseline status: new data 
collection).
Can stakeholders identify 
anticipated barriers to 
sustainability? 
Multiple stakeholders 
identify similar factors that 
are likely to affect project 
sustainability.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders(LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Triangulation of 
findings from KIIs with 
a variety of 
stakeholders.
Strong. (Establish Baseline 
status: new data 
collection).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 41
How is the LRP designed 
to ensure timeliness of 
food procurement, 
delivery, and distribution 
at schools?
Percent of HGSF orders 
delivered on time as 
stipulated in guidance 
material (i.e. within 3 days 
of invoice submission) ().
Percent of HGSF supplier 
payments made within the 
payment period called in 
the contract.
Timelines for fund 
transfers to schools.
Tendering process start –
end dates compared to 
operational guidelines. 
Food delivery dates 
matched against school 
commodity supply order.
Frequency, duration, 
commodity of pipeline 
breaks by location.
Quantitative survey of key 
LRP stakeholders.
School records (if 
required).
Operational guidelines on 
tender process, payment, 
food delivery, delivery.
WFP monitoring [WFP to 
provide monitoring data as 
appropriate]
Draw on McGovern Dole 
baseline findings.
Specification in the tender 
document Appointed 
Quotation.
Secondary document review.
Quantitative data from 
schools, suppliers, including 
McGovern Dole baseline 
findings for school data.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Quantitative analysis of 
survey data.
Comparison of before 
and after findings from 
school records and 
suppliers/farmers in 
case schools (Srei Snam 
district, Siem Reap 
province) and others.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from 
LRP stakeholders 
(schools, suppliers).
Reliability and validity 
assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and 
investigator).
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for five months 
during SY 2019/2020).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 42
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
IMPACT: to determine the factors affecting the potential impact of the LRP (likely unintended positive or negative outcomes) 
Key Question 8: How could different target groups benefit from the LRP outcomes (farmers, suppliers, schools, government), and how could GEWE 
outcomes vary by group?
Are commodity markets 
stable and functional?
Historical commodity 
prices.
Food quality and 
availability in local 
markets.
Key government policies, 
strategies and systems 
established.
WFP monitoring data. 
[WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate.]
WFP and partner’s 
assessment reports.
Secondary information 
sources: the Government, 
program partners and 
stakeholders, et al.
Desk review of 
programmatic and 
secondary documentation.
Quantitative data from 
LRP stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Qualitative data from 
farmers: KIIs and FGDs.
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from LRP 
stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers).
Medium (due to Covid-19).
What capacities exist (e.g. 
in finances, 
implementation, 
coordination)? What 
capacities would 
stakeholders want 
enhanced?
Change in supplier and 
smallholder income and 
income sources. 
Number of HGSF schools 
handed over to the RGC.
RGC monitoring system 
established.
Indicators are based on 
based on context analysis, 
and capacity needs 
assessment.
WFP monitoring.
WFP assessments on 
stakeholder’s capacity 
needs.
Secondary information 
sources, RGC, program 
partners and stakeholders, 
et al.
Desk review of 
programmatic and 
secondary documentation.
Quantitative data from 
suppliers and farmers.
Qualitative data from 
farmers: KIIs and FGDs.
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from LRP 
stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers).
Reliability and validity will 
be assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
Unknown at this stage.
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for five 
months during SY 
2019/2020).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 43
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
Do any baseline findings 
suggest that project design 
changes could mitigate 
negative impacts or 
improve positive impacts?
New risks or assumptions 
identified.
Monitoring system 
established 
Recommendations made 
and implemented from 
context analysis and needs 
assessment. 
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Secondary information 
sources, RGC, program 
partners and stakeholders, 
et al.
Desk review of 
programmatic and 
secondary documentation.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders 
(LSFC, suppliers and 
farmers).
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from LRP 
stakeholders (schools, 
suppliers).
Reliability and validity will 
be assessed through 
triangulation (source, 
method and investigator).
Unknown at Baseline.
Limited (LRP activities 
took place 25 schools in 
one district for 5 months 
during SY 2019/2020).
Key Question 9: What internal and external factors could affect the LRP’s results?
What factors could 
contribute to LRP success 
or challenges? What 
barriers?
Annual targets for school 
handover to RGC, 
including achievement, 
enablers, and blockages.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers). 
Secondary information 
sources, RGC, program 
partners and stakeholders, 
et al.
Review of WFP 
monitoring records
Desk review of 
programmatic and 
secondary documentation.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders.
Triangulation of findings 
from KIIs with a variety of 
stakeholders.
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Weak (Baseline status: 
new data collection, 25 
schools).
Are there untapped 
linkages, resources or 
opportunities for improved 
results?
Opportunities identified.
New linkages and 
partnerships established.
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers). 
Secondary information 
sources, RGC, program 
partners and stakeholders, 
et al.
WFP monitoring.
Desk review of 
programmatic and 
secondary documentation.
Qualitative interviews with 
key LRP stakeholders
(LSFC, suppliers and 
farmers). 
Triangulation of findings 
from KIIs with a variety of 
stakeholders.
Quantitative analysis of 
primary data collected 
during baseline survey.
Weak (Baseline status: 
new data collection, 25 
schools).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 44
Sub-questions Measure/Indicator Main sources of 
information Data collection methods Data analysis methods Evidence quality
To what extent does the 
Covid-19 pandemic 
influence results?
School closure, supply of 
commodities affected, 
production of supply 
disrupted
Interviews with key LRP 
stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers)
WFP staff, government 
staff, cooperating partners, 
programme participants
Quantitative data 
collection
Qualitative interviews with 
key stakeholders (LSFC, 
suppliers and farmers).
Both quantitative and 
qualitative surveys 
conducted 
Triangulation of findings 
from KIIs with a variety of 
stakeholders.
Descriptive analysis of 
quantitative survey data.
Descriptive analysis of 
qualitative data from LRP 
stakeholders
Weak (Baseline status: 
new data collection, 25 
schools).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 45
Annex 8: Documents reviewed
Data Upload for Baseline Evaluations of McGovern Dole & LRP
1 Cambodia Country Portfolio Evaluation Reports, 2011-2017
2 Baseline, Mid-term, and Endline evaluation reports of the USDA McGovern Dole FFE Program, 2017-2019, 
including survey tools.
3 Baseline, mid-term and Endline evaluation report of the USDA McGovern Dole FFFE Program, 2013-2016, 
including survey tools.
4 Project document and Agreement with USDA (LRP & McGovern-Dole) 
5 M&E document including Evaluation Plan, attachment D, Performance Monitoring Plan, and Result 
framework for both McGovern-Dole and LRP
6 Field level agreements (FLAs) between WFP and implementing partners (Plan International, World 
Education etc.)
7 List of partners including Government, NGOs, and UN agencies
8 School Assessment Study Report, 2015-2016. (NB: Assessment in 2019-20 in drafting process at Baseline)
9 WFP Semi-annual Program reports SY19-18
10 Annual Country Reports (ACR) 2018 and 2019.
11 Regular monitoring data on process, outputs, and outcomes
12 School Feeding Roadmap between WFP and MoEYS (signed in May 2015)
13 Education Strategic Plan 2 ESP 2019-2023
14 Education Annual Operational Plan (AOP) for 2016 and 2017
15 National Cash Scholarship Program 2015 Anukret 34 Scholarship
16 MoEYS Cash Scholarship Manual
17 Education Statistics & Indicators 2017/2018, 2018/19
18 New National Reading Standards and Continuous Assessment System Tools; benchmarks for grades 1, 2 and 
3.
19 Cooperating partner reports SY 2018-19
20 National Strategic Development Plan 2019-2023
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 46
21 National Social Protection Policy Framework 2016-2025
22 National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (NSFSN), 2014-2018 & Draft NSFSN 2019-23
23
Mid-term Strategic review of the NSFSN, 2014-2018 (Progress inventory 2016, situation update 2017, & 
strategic directions towards 2030).
24 Guideline on Food Safety in Schools-May 2019_Khmer version
25 Draft HGSF Implementation framework _Khmer version
26 Draft HGSF Operation guideline _Khmer version
27 HGSF supplier’s consultation findings, 2018-19
28 Country Strategic Plan 2019-2023
29
Successes and Challenges of Implementing USDA McGovern-Dole Funded Food for Education Programs in 
the Asia/Pacific Region (A review of key findings from WFP Program Evaluations in Bangladesh, Cambodia, 
Lao PDR, and Nepal during 2013-2018)
30 2013 WFP School Feeding Policy
31 2019 WFP School Feeding Policy
32 mVAM- market price assessment
33 Take-home ration (THR) lesson learnt report (During Covid-19)
34 School lists - Treatment and control schools of USDA endline evaluation (SY20107-19)
35 School list by provinces (EMIS) SY 2018-19 (for control group)
36 WFP school list
37 Documents and Tools related to food safety
38 Cambodian Rice Landscape Analysis_Generic-20190618
39 Fill Nutrition Gap Cambodia
40 Micronutrient challenges and solutions 20190722
41 Arthrological WFP Cambodia summary report FINAL
42 5 priority documents for LRP
43 McGovern-Dole and LRP results framework
44 Food consumption questionnaire and interview guidance
45 Cambodia_FY19 McGovern Dole Full Proposal_final
46 WFP Cambodia LRP Proposal_Master_Final for upload 270519
47 Case Study _ HGSF and benefit pathways_Oct 17-V3
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 47
48 HGSF supplier assessment report 220620 final 1
49 Cambodia_Market_Update_JUNE-2020_final
50 Documents related to gender 
51 Guidance Note on Estimating and Counting Beneficiaries 120919
52 SMP Final English
53 Angkor Research study on the impact of Covid 19
54 HGSF quotation process - 23-07-19
55 HGSF model
56 Story 1-5 
57 School monitoring checklist- i.e., SMP & HGSF in SY2019-20
58 Guidance of School Meal - Khmer version
59 Primary School SSC Guideline- Khmer version
60 Baseline_FFE_Kampong Chhnang Feb 6, 2020 
61 USDA COVID-19 M&E Resource Guide
62 UN Cambodia framework for the immediate socio-economic response to COVID-19 AUGUST 2020
63 Cambodia school feeding evaluation findings 2010-2020
64 MoEYS Education Strategic Plan 2019_2023_Eng
65 Guidance of School Meal - Khmer version
66 LRP Evaluations: Kenya, Rwanda, Benin, Laos (reference samples)
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 48
Annex 9: Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of the evaluation 
report to this stakeholder Who 
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office 
(CO) [Cambodia]
As the CO is responsible for programming, results of this evaluation 
will directly influence the direction of LRP activities within the 
larger context of other partners’ work.
The CO is also called upon to account internally and to its 
beneficiaries and partners for operational performance and results.
An Evaluation Committee has been formed, chaired by the CD/DCD 
and responsible for overseeing the evaluation process.
Senior management
Members of the 
Evaluation Reference 
Group (ERG)
WFP programme staff
Regional Bureau 
(RB) [Bangkok]
The LRP activities and their linkage to other safety net and local 
procurement activities are universal across the RB portfolio. 
Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and 
support, the RB management has an interest in an 
independent/impartial account of the operational performance as 
well as in learning from the evaluation findings to apply this 
learning to other Country Offices.
Regional Evaluation 
Officer
Technical staff in the RB
WFP 
Headquarters 
(HQ)
WFP HQ technical units are responsible for issuing and overseeing 
the rollout of normative guidance on corporate programme themes, 
activities and modalities, as well as of overarching corporate policies 
and strategies. As WFP pursues its dual mandate of development 
and humanitarian aid, this program is core to WFP food security 
and an evaluation results can impact the organization’s portfolio.
Technical Units of 
relevance to LRP
(including school feeding, 
nutrition, SAMS/P4P, 
safety nets, gender, 
policy, local procurement, 
logistics)
Office of 
Evaluation (OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver 
quality, credible and useful evaluation outputs respecting provisions 
for impartiality, and roles and accountability of various 
decentralized evaluation stakeholders, as identified in the evaluation 
policy.
OEV may use evaluation findings, as appropriate, to inform 
thematic and/or regional syntheses and corporate learning 
processes
.
No direct contact 
anticipated.
Relevant staff to be 
identified as needed 
during the data collection 
phase.
WFP Executive 
Board (EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about 
the effectiveness of WFP programmes. This evaluation will not be 
presented to the Board, but its findings may feed into thematic 
and/or regional syntheses and corporate learning processes.
No direct contact 
anticipated.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 49
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of the evaluation 
report to this stakeholder Who 
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Beneficiaries 
As the participants and recipients of support under this activity, 
beneficiaries have a stake in WFP determining whether its 
assistance is accountable and effective. As such, participation in the 
evaluation of women, men, boys and girls were sought and their 
respective perspectives taken into consideration. This program has 
a component that aims to have not just short-term food production 
and supply effects, but long-term knowledge transfer and resilience, 
as such beneficiary input is especially important.
Quantitative data collection: focus group discussions, and one-to￾one discussions were held. The interviews with women focused on 
women’s roles and engagement during planning and 
implementation and the effects on their role in the community.
• Suppliers
• Producers (smallholder 
famers)
• Village leaders
• Community leaders
• School administration
HGSF school 
Communities and 
Commune
School communities are key stakeholders in implementation of the 
HGSF programme: i) local authorities are responsible and fund the 
supportive role they play (e.g. in supplier selection process; ii) 
school level HGSF Committees responsible for food handling in 
schools and reporting.
• Local leaders and 
community stakeholders
• HGSF/LRP School 
Feeding Committee35
(e.g. Commune Council 
member of school 
committee)
35 HGSF committee includes: Commune officials, SFP/LRP administrator, store keepers, parent, cook 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 50
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of the evaluation 
report to this stakeholder Who 
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Government 
(MoEYS, MEF, 
MAFF, MoH and 
others)
The Royal Government of Cambodia has a direct interest in 
knowing whether WFP activities in the country are aligned with its 
priorities and harmonised with actions of other partners and 
meeting expected results. Issues related to capacity development, 
handover and sustainability were of particular interest.
The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) and the 
Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) might use evaluation 
findings for decision making on program implementation and/or 
design, country strategy and partnerships, or to inform the planning 
of transition from externally supported to nationally owned school 
feeding program. Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Council for Agriculture 
and Rural Development (CARD) and Ministry of Social Affairs, 
Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSAVY) might also use these 
findings for their learning and future program implementation.
Interviews with Government representatives at central and local 
level were arranged during the data collection phase. These 
interviews were able to elicit information on the coherence of the 
programme with government policy, the level of joint planning and 
cooperation, and implementation experience.
Government 
representatives at 
central and local level:
• MoEYS (multiple 
departments)
• MAFF • CARD • MEF • District and provincial 
officials 
• Commune Chiefs • Local authorities, as 
appropriate
United Nations 
Country Team 
(UNCT)
The UNCT’s harmonized action should contribute to the realisation 
of the Government’s food security programs. Therefore, other UN 
agencies has an interest in ensuring that WFP programmes are 
effective in contributing to the United Nations’ concerted efforts. As 
FAO and WFP partner on some food security activities, including 
LRP, FAO’s experience could be drawn on. FAO is a partner on the 
LRP and has a direct interest in the evaluation. Various agencies are 
also direct partners of WFP at policy and activity level e.g. UNICEF 
and UNDP on education and capacity strengthening initiatives.
Meetings held with UN 
agency representatives in 
order to understand the 
mechanisms and 
effectiveness of 
cooperation under the 
UNDAF: • FAO • WHO • UNICEF • UNESCO • UNDP • World Bank
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 51
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of the evaluation 
report to this stakeholder Who 
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Donors (USDA)
WFP operations in Cambodia are voluntarily funded by a number of 
donors. They have an interest in knowing whether their funds have 
been spent efficiently and if WFP’s work has been effective and 
contributed to their own strategies and programmes. USDA will use 
evaluation findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks, 
and critical assumptions.
Representatives of the 
main donor, USDA, were 
invited to discuss directly 
or remotely
Other SFP donors
Other WFP 
partners and 
stakeholders in 
education, 
nutrition and 
social protection 
that are part of the 
Evaluation 
Reference Group
Results from this evaluation will be used to inform the direction of 
government and WFP work on school meals moving forward. As 
part of the baseline, WFP formed a reference group, comprising key 
stakeholders in country, to provide inputs and contribute to this 
evaluation processes.
Evaluation Reference 
Group members
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 52
Annex 10: Methodology and data collection
Quantitative primary data collection & analysis
Sampling design and samples 
The overall sampling design accommodates both the McGovern-Dole and LRP evaluations for the 
sake of efficiency in data collection (over three phases), as already agreed upon with and approved 
by WFP. In addition, for LRP evaluation, both (a) case-control design approach with 
counterfactuals, and (b) before-after design have been planned for school level analysis. 
From the 70 case schools in the McGovern-Dole evaluation samples, 35 schools with LRP 
programmes are the LRP case samples (see column ‘LRP intervention school sample’ in Table 11.1). 
Other group of 21 schools with school meal programmes (in-kind meal packages through USDA 
McGovern-Dole with other donors) that are already sampled for the McGovern-Dole baseline 
evaluation are the LRP control schools (see column ‘LRP comparison school sample’ in Table 11.1). 
The two school groups are within communities with a similar proportion of households categorized 
as poor, so the same selection criteria of percent of poor households in the community are used to 
select the samples. The ET will conduct case-comparison analysis with counterfactuals at baseline 
(wherever appropriate and/or possible), midline and endline using these case-control schools. A 
full list of the LRP case and comparison schools can be found ahead.
Annex 11.1: Number of Intervention and Comparison Schools in LRP Evaluation
LRP evaluation school samples 
Province Intervention Schools Comparison Schools
Kampong Chhnang 6 0 
Kampong Thom 7 8 
Siem Reap 22 13
Sub-total 35 21
In addition, the ET proposed to use the before-after comparisons. This baseline is therefore the 
‘before’ part of the evaluation. The ‘after’ part of the evaluation will be collected from this same 
group of schools at midline and endline. While the baseline results are the baseline values for 
demand side indicators, these values will be used for the before-after comparisons at midline and 
endline. 
The baseline values for suppliers and farmers are considered zero as the LRP related activities have 
not yet been implemented. Based on a list provided by WFP, the HGSF had 53 suppliers identified 
and contracted to deliver food items to schools in the three target provinces. Table 11.2 below shows 
the breakdown of identified food suppliers currently in the WFP CO database by province. 
Annex 11.2: Suppliers by Province
Province Planned Interviewed
Kampong Chhnang 15 15
Kampong Thom 24 24
Siem Reap 14 14
Total 53 53
Source: WFP HGSF Supplier List in SY 2019-2020 (updated list 28 May 2020)
All these 53 suppliers, irrespective of their linkage with LRP vs. other HGSF schools, were 
interviewed for data collection and evaluation. This data provides the contextual baseline 
information about the suppliers (cross-sectional). 
Smallholder farmers are another group of LRP beneficiaries. However, the number of beneficiary 
farmers contracted by suppliers or schools for school meal supply were unclear to the ET. Thus, 
the ET proposed to identify two farmers from each of the suppliers they contracted for supplying 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 53
commodities for school meal programme through a snowball sampling approach, illustrated in 
Figure 11.1 below. 
Figure 11.1: Snowball Sampling to Identify Farmers
First, the sample school served as the entry point to identify their suppliers which was cross￾referenced with the WFP’s database and confirmed during the fieldwork. Each supplier contacted 
for the baseline quantitative survey was asked to identify farmers who supply food items to the 
supplier as part of school meal programme. During data collection, the supplier was then asked for 
contact details of the individual farmers they contracted for commodities for the school meal 
supply. Next, two of these farmers (one male and one female where possible) was contacted for the 
quantitative data collection regarding the commodities they sold to the school’s contracted supplier. 
Altogether, a total of 106 farmers were expected to be contacted for interview. However, only 58 
farmers36 were contacted. These farmers produced and supplied grains (particularly rice/paddy), 
vegetables, swine/pork meat and duck eggs, and fresh fish. Distribution of farmers by province is 
provided in Table 3 below.
Quantitative tools & methods
As discussed earlier, the quantitative data for the LRP baseline evaluation was collected from 35 
sample schools, 53 suppliers and 58 smallholder farmers using standard questionnaires. The 
quantitative survey data collection was completed between August and September 2020. The 
quantitative field data for both LRP and McGovern-Dole evaluations were collected by IRL, who 
deployed 58 enumerators and 17 team leaders for the survey.37
In addition to the field surveys, information on delivery for school meals (fortified rice and fortified 
vegetable oil) was gathered from the WFP CO office records for 35 case and 21 control schools in 
the LRP school sample. This information was used for the case-control analysis for the evaluation 
to consider timeliness, quantities and quality of food deliveries. 
For the school surveys, the key respondents were the school administrators or the purchasing 
officer on the LSFC responsible for the school food procurement process (managing procurement 
and handling of food delivered to schools). Respondents for suppliers’ questionnaire were the 
owner or the manager of the business primarily responsible for bulking from farmers and delivery 
of food items to the school. For farmer surveys, a household member who was directly involved in 
production as well as supply of commodity were interviewed. 
36 The planned number of producer farmers to be interviewed was 106 (2 each from 53 suppliers). However, all suppliers had not 
contracted farmers for commodity supply or some farmers couldn’t be reached due to lack of contact information. For example, of the 
total 53 suppliers, 19 had 0 farmers contracted, two suppliers had only one farmer each, eight suppliers had two or more farmers 
contracted, but the contact information of only one farmer could be obtained and two farmers each from 24 suppliers were contacted. 
Thus, the total number of farmers contacted for quantitative interview at baseline is only 58. 
37 This company performed the same role in the previous baseline-to-endline data collection process conducted by KonTerra for the 
McGovern-Dole grants in Cambodia (2017 to 2019). All enumerators are experienced Cambodian nationals, with mother-tongue Khmer.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 54
All the field level data from schools, suppliers and farmers were collected through face-to-face 
interviews, ensuring COVID-19 protocols, using the newly-designed structured questionnaires 
(described in more detail below) to be used in Cambodia for the first time. Separate questionnaires 
for school suppliers and farmers have been designed for LRP data collection. These questionnaires 
were administered concurrently with the McGovern-Dole evaluation school, teacher and household 
surveys. Thus, the draft instruments were pre-tested prior to actual data collection. 
The quantitative data was collected (in Khmer) by Cambodian enumerators contracted by IRL, with 
the requisite language and data collection capabilities. Pre-testing of the questionnaires and 
training of field team leaders and enumerators for the quantitative data collection was done by IRL 
senior staff in close consultation with the ET (remotely) and WFP CO. Field enumerator trainings 
covered the specifics of the questionnaires and software to be used, which also served as a pre-test 
for the tools. Indochina Research Ltd had already done similar work during the COVID-19 
pandemic crisis and was fully aware of the necessary precautions and protocols for health and safety 
of the respondents and field staff.
The school questionnaire was designed to collect information about procurement of food items and 
delivery to the school. 38 Priority for baseline information was on tendering, procurement 
procedures, roles and responsibilities, capacity needs and possible multiplier effects, if any (such 
as the sales of commodities to buyers other than to schools). 
The suppliers’ questionnaire was designed to collect information about the business practices of the 
suppliers and knowledge of HGSF interventions39 as well as their partnership with the farmers 
(especially SHFs) and the planned LRP schools, capacity building and capacity building needs.40 
The farmers’ questionnaire was designed to collect information about crop production (grains, 
vegetables, and fruits), animal production (meat, poultry, eggs and fish); land area under 
production; volume of sales; price of commodities sold; marketing aspects; mode of transportation 
of delivery; knowledge of HGSF interventions and practices,41 as well as relationships with the 
suppliers and schools. The ET also gathered information on possible spill over effects (such as the 
sales to other suppliers other than just HGSF contracted suppliers). The average length of interview 
for suppliers’ survey was 50 minutes and for farmers’ survey was 45 minutes. The information was 
collected manually using paper-pencil method, and later on entered into a CSPro database.
Quantitative data quality and cleaning
A number of quality control procedures were applied during the quantitative data collection. First, 
data collection and data entry programmes were designed in such a way that allowed identification 
or checking of data entry errors. Second, direct supervision and observation of about 15 percent of 
the data collection was included, and responses from about 35 percent of responses were checked 
by telephone by IRL. In addition, an external consultant engaged by the ET visited 14 target schools 
(and school directors) in three provinces and 36 teachers and 15 households of school children 
associated with those schools to verify data collection and check the quality of data collection. The 
external consultant also visited nine suppliers and six farmers to ensure that the data was collected 
by interviewers using standard data collection protocols and guidelines following safety measures. 
IRL, the data collection agency, checked, cleaned and prepared the data for analysis in coordination 
with the ET. The data was systematically checked for accuracy, consistency and validity of collected 
data and information. In addition, the distribution of each variable was assessed for inconsistencies 
in codes (such as wild codes), missing values and logical distribution. Inconsistencies or 
discrepancies were verified with IRL’s data collection team.
38 Cost-effectiveness, timeliness, quality, capacities and utilization including social-cultural acceptability of foods. The McGovern-Dole 
household survey also includes questions to measure socio-cultural acceptability of food items for students. 39 Tendering and contracting process, volume of sales of various commodities, training needs, timeliness and cost of delivery, quality of 
produce to be delivered, safety handling
40 History of business, their knowledge about HGSF, volume of transaction, commodities handled, source of supply, source of 
information about procurement, procurement process, delivery cost, timeliness of delivery, quality of products delivered, training 
received, and the relationship with farmers to purchase food supply). 41 Tendering and contracting process, training needs, quantity, quality and timeliness of delivery
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 55
The cleaned data was analysed by the ET using SPSS and R software packages. Descriptive statistics 
along with gender disaggregated results, wherever appropriate, were produced.
ET is clear that this baseline data has generated contextual information about the suppliers and 
farmers. The baseline values for suppliers and farmers have been considered as zero, as the LRP 
related activities have not yet been implemented. At midline and endline, data will be collected from 
the suppliers and farmers enrolled in the programme as implementation progresses. This baseline 
data will enable a comparison of endline data with both midline and baseline information. 
Qualitative data collection & analysis
1. Each phase of the LRP/McGovern-Dole parallel programme evaluation series was 
led by a Team Leader (TL). The qualitative data collection was done concurrently and 
jointly by the two national ET members.
2. A desk review of relevant documentation was undertaken, which included at least 
the following documentation:
• Project proposals and project budget; progress reports from the pilot phase.
• Donor agreements.
• Assessment reports (e.g. markets, impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods/VAM/gender 
analysis).
• Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Unit reports and other gender disaggregated data.
• Cooperating partners’ project monitoring reports and / or data.
• WFP policies and strategies on local and regional procurement, food security & 
gender.
• Government policies and strategies related to food security and nutrition, school 
feeding, and social protection
• International and regional conventions on gender equality, local gender studies.
• Production and socio-economic data and reports from stakeholders.
3. The reliability of available data/information, wherever possible, was verified and 
tested/triangulated by the ET to ensure rigour in the evaluation process. However, 
complete data collection was challenging because the LRP interventions have not yet 
begun, so no food was purchased and delivered to schools since mid-March 2020 and 
systems have not been proven or it is difficult to make any judgement. 
4. Qualitative data was gathered through KIIs and FGDs with a range of key 
stakeholders at national, sub-national and community level using participatory methods 
where possible. The qualitative data elicited stakeholder perceptions that address the 
evaluation questions. International ET members participated in some interviews remotely 
(particularly those in Phnom Penh and outside Cambodia), or facilitated them, depending 
on their area of specialisation and the possibility of remote access. The external ‘observer’ 
supported the team during the provincial fieldwork. The following groups were 
interviewed:
• Suppliers and farmers as beneficiaries; minimum threshold of 40 percent of either 
gender.
• LRP-SFP committee (the LSFC includes school authorities such as school principals, 
storekeepers, cooks).
• Local leaders and other significant community stakeholders, such as the parents on 
the LSFC, the Commune Council.
• National, provincial and local government officials, including representatives of 
relevant Government agencies & departments
• WFP staff (CO, RB or HQ).
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 56
• Staff of cooperating partner organizations (FAO), USDA, other United Nations 
agencies.
5. The ET members used semi-structured interview guidelines tailored to the expertise 
of each respondent group42 ensuring that relevant areas of evaluative enquiry are covered 
during each interview. The interview guides were drawn up to answer questions from the 
Evaluation Matrix. The FGD guides were used to facilitate discussions and gather 
stakeholder opinions, collectively and individually. Adjustments to the interview and FGD 
guides were done, based on findings of the quantitative survey and further consultations 
with WFP staff. Some flexibility was required given the fluidity of the COVID-19 crisis. All 
interviews and FGDs were digitally recorded, transcribed and translated into English. The 
qualitative data was analysed using a narrative thematic approach. 
Qualitative analysis: 
6. The full team reviewed evidence regularly to verify key observations and findings, 
and to raise any important disparities. Daily remote team meetings served to discuss 
findings, clarify and determine any issues that required further verification and 
triangulation. While individual team members served as focal points in their specific areas, 
regular discussion and triangulation ensured broad and complementary coverage in all 
areas under review and provided additional checks and balances regarding impartiality.
7. Qualitative data analysis included GEWE considerations and triangulation of the 
gender-sensitive aspects of LRP were prioritized. The evaluation team recognizes that 
women and men’s priorities vary. Through review of secondary documents and KIIs, the 
ET explored the extent to which gender-specific considerations were included in the 
programme’s design and implementation plans to ensure positive change for all 
participants. Proposed data instruments and methods allowed for data to be gender 
disaggregated and to explore power and control dynamics.
8. All evidence collected was verified and corroborated through systematic 
triangulation, ensuring impartiality and reducing the risk of bias, through methods that 
promote participation of different stakeholder groups. Triangulation was used as a key tool 
for validating and analysing findings as follows:
• Source: Comparing information from different sources.
• Method: Comparing information collected by different methods;43
• Investigator: Involving more than one evaluator to assess the same issues.
• Using the evaluation matrix: Data from different sources can assist in identifying 
key findings, conclusions and results.
Semi-Structured Interview Guides
1. WFP personnel (LRP and/or market access team)
1. To what extent are government authorities (national and local) involved in the LRP? 
2. How does the LRP relate to key government policies/strategies?
3. Have any WFP policies specifically been included in the design? 
4. Does the LRP relate to any work by other agencies?
42 For instance: donor, community leader, partner, WFP staff member etc. 43 Key informant interviews, focus group discussions (separated by gender, vulnerable groups), documentary 
research, observation
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 57
5. How were provinces/districts/villages selected?
6. How were schools selected?
7. How were traders (other suppliers) selected?
8. Explain transition from SFP to Hybrid/HGSF in the three LRP provinces:
• Timing of transition
• Specific challenges encountered per province
9. Explain previous work with targeted traders/suppliers, if any. 
10. Explain tender and registration processes. 
11. Explain experience with community level sourcing (e.g. from cooperatives, farmer groups, etc.).
12. Specific activities implemented. 
13. What are the key challenges you foresee for the LRP?
14. Has there been any specific consideration of gender issues? How have they been incorporated? 
Which data are/are not disaggregated?
Check monitoring and data quality for the following indicators: 
Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA assistance
Quantity of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets through USDA assistance
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security 
training as a result of USDA assistance
Which data are sex-disaggregated? Which are not?
2. Government representatives (Agriculture, education)
15. What is/going to be the role of this Ministry in the LRP? 
• Check any specific roles of the Ministry at both national and local level. 
16. Please comment on co-operation and information sharing between the Ministry and WFP?
17. What do you feel are going to be the main challenges for the Ministry in implementing HGSF? 
• Any challenges related to LRP?
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA assistance?
Which specific policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures relate to LRP and its objectives?
3. School Feeding Programme Committee members
Knowledge of LRP
18. What do you know about the WFP LRP project? What are they hoping to achieve? 
19. What process is used to determine which food items to order from suppliers? What are the 
determining criteria?
20. How many traders did your school utilize for SFP provision during SY 2019/20? 
21. Did you have any problems with any of the tenders? 
• Elaborate
Purchase of local food commodities for provision of school meals
22. Experience purchasing through tenders.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 58
• What have been the best aspects of purchasing through tender instead of having food provided 
by WFP?
• What have been the most difficult aspects of local purchase? Why?
• Comment on the current procurement process. Is it transparent and well understood?
• Have you experienced any issues with timeliness in local procurement?
• How can the procurement process be improved?
23. Approximately how many traders do you use to purchase the stock for the school feeding 
programme? 
24. Was your school able to provide school meals every school day during SY 2019/2020? If no, 
why not? Any reasons related to insufficient food? 
25. Discuss the cost-effectiveness of procurement.
26. Discuss the timeliness of the tender process and the timeliness of delivery.
27. Check timing of completing tenders 
28. Check timing of commodity delivery (preferably before the start of school term)
29. Volume of commodities procured locally during SY 2019/20? Were some not purchased locally?
30. Main commodities purchased.
31. Value of commodities procured for school meals during 2019/20. 
32. Value of any additional money spent on transport or any other costs related to food (transport, 
storage, loading, unloading etc.)?
Capacity building
33. Has your school LRP administrator received training during 2019/20 on buying food from local 
traders? If yes, what was covered in the training: Tender process? Delivery process? Food quality 
assurance?
34. Did any of your School local procurement PTA members receive training during 2019/20 on 
buying food from local traders? Tender process? Delivery process? Food quality assurance?
35. Have any of your cooks been trained on menus, hygiene or food handling procedures?
• Yes No
• If YES, how many were trained during SY 2019/20? 
• If NO, why not? 
Suggestions and complaints
36. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the project? Make it sustainable? 
37. Have you received any complaints about food purchased locally during SY 2019/20 or about 
WFP?
38. Any issues with working with WFP or their partner agencies? (Programmatic or financial)
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Percentage of LRP schools procuring food before beginning of term
Percentage of schools where food is delivered to schools before term begins
Percentage of schools using diversified menus
Cost of distribution in schools in LRP areas compared to non-LRP areas
4. Suppliers and Traders
1. How familiar are you with the tender process?
2. What is your relationship with local smallholder farmers, farmer groups, and cooperatives? 
3. How can WFP better support the use of local food commodities into schools? 
4. What do you find most difficult about the tender process? What is the easiest aspect? Do you 
have any suggestion for improving the tender process? 
5. What foods have the school feeding committees most regularly purchased from you? 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 59
6. Were you given any guidance about the type of food that can be purchased? Or the quality of 
food that is required? Elaborate.
7. Where are your suppliers based?
8. Where are your buyers based?
9. Do you supply to clients outside of XX district? Elaborate how far they trade. 
10. Have you made any changes to your business, business practices, or payment procedures as a 
result of this project, or due to the transition to Hybrid/HGSF?
11. Have there been any positive impacts of this project on your business? Elaborate. 
12. Have there been any negative impacts of this project on your business? Elaborate. 
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Volume of sales by project beneficiaries.
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries.
5. Farmers
39. The LRP is a project that will help farmers be more prepared for tendering processes and access 
a new market opportunity (school meals).
• Have you ever directly applied for school feeding or other large tenders? 
• If yes, what have you found to be the main challenges in the tendering process? 
• If no, why did you not apply? 
• Do you know other farmers (or groups, or cooperatives) that have applied? 
40. What are the main challenges you face in participating in local tenders?
41. How familiar are you with the tender process?
42. What is your relationship with local traders?
43. How can WFP better support the use of local food commodities into schools? 
44. What is the seasonality of LRP principal commodities?
45. Which LRP principal commodities do you normally sell? Which do you normally consume? 
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Volume of sales by project beneficiaries
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 60
Fieldwork Calendar 
Dates Team 
member Actions and Locations Stakeholders
24-28 August 
IRL Team 
Phnom Penh - Training of quantitative survey 
field teams
IRL with support from KonTerra as 
required
30 August – 
14 September 
IRL Team
Travel to field locations
Conduct quantitative surveys in Kampong 
Thom, Siem Reap and Kampong Chhnang 
Provinces
IRL with support from KonTerra as 
required, School administrators, 
teachers & staff, and households
PB Remote - Support IRL regarding survey 
methodology, data collection and cleaning
21 September All Phnom Penh/Remotely – Briefing by WFP KonTerra, IRL and WFP Cambodia
21 September 
– 16 October 
WG, SP, 
SS
Conduct qualitative interviews with 
stakeholders in Phnom Penh (International 
ET members remotely; National evaluator 
face to face), and stakeholders in Bangkok, 
Rome, Washington
ET, WFP CO, Government 
ministries, United Nations agencies, 
NGO partners, donors
28 
September – 
10 October
SS, HvZ
Conduct qualitative interviews in Kampong 
Thom, Siem Reap and Kampong Chhnang 
Provinces
(National evaluator face to face)
Province: Governor, PDE 
(provincial director education, chief 
of office primary education, (chief of 
office agriculture), NGO counterparts
District Level: District governor, 
DOE, DOA, commune council/chief 
School level: Principal, SFC, 
teachers, parents, cooks
17-18 October WG, SP, 
SS PB
Internal ET workshop for preliminary 
qualitative data analysis in preparation for 
debriefing 
KonTerra, IRL
20-21 
October All
Debriefing workshop in Phnom Penh
(International ET members remotely; 
National evaluators face to face)
KonTerra, IRL and WFP Cambodia
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 61
Field work Timeline 
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
August 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Quantitative 
Survey team Training Training Training Training Training Travel to 
the field
September 31 1 2 3 4 5 6
Quantitative 
Survey team
Quanti 
Survey
Quanti 
Survey Quanti Survey Quanti 
Survey
Quanti 
Survey
Quanti 
Survey
National ET 
Members
Supervise 
Quanti 
Survey
Supervise 
Quanti 
Survey
Supervise 
Quanti Survey
Supervise 
Quanti 
Survey
 
September 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Quantitative 
Survey team
Quanti 
Survey
Quanti 
Survey Quanti Survey Quanti 
Survey
Quanti
Survey
Quanti 
Survey
National ET 
Members 
September 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Quantitative 
Survey team
Quanti 
Survey 
Travel to 
Phnom 
Penh
 
National ET 
Members 
September 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
National ET 
Members
WFP 
Briefing 
KII WFP
KII 
Government 
Phnom 
Penh/WFP
 
KII 
Government 
Phnom Penh
Travel to 
Siem 
Reap
International 
ET Members
WFP 
Briefing 
(Remote)
KII 
Government 
Phnom 
Penh/WFP/U
N
KII UN
KII 
Government 
Phnom 
Penh/Donor
 
September 28 29 30 1 2 3 4
National ET 
Members
SRP 
Governm
ent/WFP
/NGO
SRP 
School/Gov
ernment
SRP 
School/Govern
ment
SRP 
School; 
travel to 
KTM
KTM 
Government
/NGO
KTM 
School 
International 
ET Members KII UN 
October 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
National ET 
Members
KTM 
Governm
ent/Scho
ol
KTM 
School; 
Travel to 
KCG
KCG 
Government
KCG 
School/Gov
ernment
KCG School; 
Travel to 
Phnom Penh
 
International 
ET Members 
October 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
National ET 
Members KII 
NGO /Go
vernment 
in Phnom 
Penh
KII 
WFP/Gover
nment in 
Phnom 
Penh
KII 
Government in 
Phnom Penh
 
Internal ET workshop 
for triangulation and 
International analysis
ET Members
KII 
WFP/NGO /G
overnment in 
Phnom Penh
KII 
WFP/Dono
r 
KII 
WFP/Donor
October 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
National ET 
Members Internal 
Debrief 
External 
Debrief 
 
International 
ET Members
KII 
WFP/NGO/Do
nor
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 62
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Septem
ber 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
National 
ET 
Members
 KII and 
FGD 
Kampong 
Thom 
school 
KII sub￾office 
Siemreap
Morning: KII 
Provincial 
Gov’t SRP 
Afternoon: KII 
District 
Official SRP 
KII and 
FGD 
Siemreap 
school
KII and 
FGD 
Siemreap 
school
KII and 
FGD 
Siemreap 
school Internati
onal ET 
Members
 
Quantitat
ive 
Survey 
team
 Quanti 
Survey 
Quanti 
Survey Quanti Survey Quanti 
Survey 
Quanti 
Survey 
Quanti 
Survey 
Septem
ber 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
National 
ET 
Members
 
KII sub￾office KM6
Morning: 
KII 
Provincial 
Gov’t KPC 
Afternoon: 
KII District 
Official KPC 
KII and FGD 
Kampong 
Chhnang 
schools 
KII and 
FGD 
Kampong 
Chhnang 
schools
KII and 
FGD 
Kampong 
Chhnang 
schools 
Internal 
Analysis 
Workshop Internati
onal ET 
Members
 
Quantitat
ive 
Survey 
team
 Quanti 
Survey 
Septemb
er
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
National 
ET 
Members
Internal 
Analysis 
Workshop
 
Internal 
Debrief 
External 
Debrief 
Internati
onal ET 
Members
Internal 
Debrief 
(remote)
External 
Debrief 
(remote)
 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 63
Annex 11: Recommendations of past LRP evaluations (Kenya, Laos, and 
Rwanda): 
Sophia Dunn, John Otsola. (May 2020). Final evaluation of the USDA-supported Local 
and Regional Procurement (LRP) project in Kenya FY 2017-2020: 
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP￾0000120290/download/?_ga=2.241258050.1923411399.1606475537-
559983324.1602925237 
•Recommendation 1: WFP and the MoE school feeding technical officers should 
continue to advocate to the MoE senior leadership on the importance of school feeding, 
timeliness of delivery, timeliness of cash disbursement and importance of providing daily 
school meals. This advocacy role can also be done at county level in support of the draft 
ECDE framework.
•Recommendation 2: WFP and MoE should develop a position paper outlining the key 
decisions over the last decade that have led to the largely cash-based modality of HGSMP 
that is seen today. The paper should also include the evidence that underpins those 
decisions including recent market assessments in the arid areas. The paper should then 
be used for ongoing advocacy with the MoE as described in Recommendation 1. 
•Recommendation 3: WFP and the MoE school feeding technical officers should 
consider ways to support improvements in the MoE’s in-kind procurement and delivery 
system. This is especially important if the MoE intends to continue providing in-kind 
support to the arid and semi-arid areas which are among the locations most in need of the 
food and nutrition security improvements that the HGSMP can provide. 
•Recommendation 4: WFP should continue to work with county/sub-county 
governments to support farmers, FOs and market system improvement in general. This is 
especially important for work involving the MoA, as their authority has been devolved to 
the counties.
•Recommendation 5: WFP should continue to work together with MoH at national 
and county level, on school health and nutrition related work, especially on activities that 
improve the nutritional status of school-aged children such as the provision of nutritious, 
locally produced food commodities.
•Recommendation 6: WFP should look for funding to continue to the work started 
through the LRP supporting farmers and FOs in Baringo and West Pokot as the LRP was 
the first opportunity for support, and without the opportunity to put their learning into 
practice during the LRP, any gains made are likely to regress without some 
reinforcement. 
•Recommendation 7: WFP should continue to work with the MoA and other relevant 
ministries on the promotion of small holder procurement. This should include continuing 
the development of county and national level strategies and other means to increase 
opportunities for small holder engagement in public procurement. 
•Recommendation 8: WFP should continue to support MoE’s efforts to conduct 
regular programme monitoring to ensure that HGSMP processes and procedures are 
being adequately followed.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 64
•Recommendation 9: WFP and partners should continue to support the active
inclusion of women in all WFP projects and ensure that gender related indicators are 
present in future WFP projects, as appropriate.
Malay Das et al. (February 2020). Endline Evaluation of USDA Local Regional 
Procurement project in Nalae District, Luang Namtha Province in Lao People's 
Democratic Republic
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP￾0000119258/download/?_ga=2.42699877.1923411399.1606475537-
559983324.1602925237 
Recommendations Proposed actions
MAF & DAFO1
1. Providing technical support for 
small land farming
There is a need to organise training on aspects 
such as regenerating seeds or building 
resilience to climate change. Creating a yearly 
calendar for such training and follow-up 
sessions would ensure high participation from 
farmers. 
2. Providing farmer groups with 
technology for self-monitoring 
MAF should create a self-monitoring system for 
farmer groups, encouraging them to record and 
share details about the types and quantities of 
vegetables cultivated with DAFO.
3. Formalisation of farmer groups To ensure the sustainability of farmer groups, 
MAF must formalise them by creating formal 
structures, ensuring regular meetings, selecting 
position holders, and delineating their roles 
and responsibilities.
4. Dashboard for DAFO to analyse 
monitoring data and take 
corrective actions
There is a need to create a strong monitoring 
system, with a dashboard for DAFO officials, 
enabling them to identify issues and make 
timely corrections. 
Farmers
5. Monitoring of the vegetables 
grown and quantity produced
MAF should create a self-monitoring system for 
farmer groups, encouraging them to record 
details about the types and quantities of 
vegetables cultivated. Access to real-time data 
would enable DAFO to carry out immediate 
corrective actions. 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 65
WFP
6. Technological support for program 
monitoring
Given WFP’s experience of the LRP program, it 
can provide technical support to MAF and 
DAFO in creating a monitoring system and 
linking it with the dashboard to capture critical 
information on a real-time basis.
7. Need for a feasibility study for 
market accessibility and 
community needs
WFP should plan a needs assessment study 
before designing a similar program. The needs 
assessment study would capture first-hand 
information on variations that exist across 
regions, social groups, gender, livelihoods, 
skills, etc.
8. Ensuring more meaningful 
engagement with women
Both women and men should be encouraged to 
volunteer for SMP activities, which would help 
in reducing women’s workload. At the same 
time, it is essential to ensure that women 
farmers are necessarily included in exposure 
visits and provided with opportunities to lead 
farmer groups.
LRP evaluation in Rwanda: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP￾0000121857/download/?_ga=2.75453394.1154321828.1608026754-
559983324.1602925237 
Operational Recommendations
Recommendation 1: In the coming six months, WFP should prepare a short learning 
document on LRP’s implementation and results for dissemination and organize an FTMA 
global evaluation in Rwanda. This document should bring out the specific benefits and 
continued constraints for female SHF, including with respect to their participation in 
cooperative activities.
Recommendation 2: In the remaining time of the project, and for the next phase, WFP 
should work with RWARRI to prioritize cooperative capacity building activities, with a 
focus on governance, work organization, business management, and financial 
accountability. 
Recommendation 3: For the remaining time of the project, WFP should continue 
working with ICCO Terrafina to strengthen the access to the finance component of the 
project. 
Recommendation 4: In the next six months, WFP Rwanda should work with the WFP 
Regional Bureau and the Government of Rwanda, to develop a project proposal and raise 
funding for a second phase of the LRP. As part of this, WFP should conduct a study to 
assess the place and roles of women in the maize value chain to ensure that women are 
not being excluded now that maize is becoming profitable. 
Strategic Recommendations
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 66
Recommendation 5: In the coming year, WFP should liaise with relevant stakeholders 
(Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources and development partners) to integrate a 
climate smart approach in the cropping model and to review the training curriculum and 
materials. 
Recommendation 6: In the coming three months, WFP should conduct a precise 
assessment of the different marketing options for small holder farmers. 
Recommendation 7: In the coming three years, WFP should continue to liaise with 
value chain actors and relevant ministries to continue to strengthen and further formalize 
the maize value chain dialogue platform.
Recommendation 8: In the coming year, WFP should develop a market-oriented 
approach for the supply of post-harvest equipment to farmers, in coordination with 
interested companies and relevant ministries (commerce and 
agriculture).Recommendation 9:In the coming year, WFP should conduct a study to 
assess the diversity of crops grown by SHFs on cooperative land and on their own 
individual plots to identify potential opportunities for SHFs to supply a diversity of 
products for a school feeding programme.
Recommendation 10: Capacity and time constitute major constraints on the 
participation of women in cooperative decision making. Moving forward with its work in 
Rwanda, WFP should tailor its intervention strategies with women and cooperatives to 
consider these constraints for women and seek to proactively address them.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 67
Annex 12: Additional School Survey Results
12.1 Summary of sample size for the quantitative survey
Number Planned Actual
No. of case schools (USDA LRP schools) 35 35
No. of comparison schools (USDA SMP 
schools)
21 21
No. ofteachers 56*3=168 167*
No. of households 56*6=336 334**
No. of suppliers 53 53
No. of farmers 106 58
*1 teacher among LRP comparison schools from Kampong Thom not interviewed.
*2 households among LRP comparison schools from Kampong Thom not interviewed.
12.2 Surveyed schools
Province Comparison schools (SMP schools) 
*
Case schools (LRP schools) * Total
No % No % No %
KampongChhnang 0 0.0 6 8.6 6 4.3
KampongThom 8 35.1 7 20.0 15 26.8
Siem Reap 13 61.9 22 62.9 35 62.8
Total 21 100.0 35 100.0 56 100.0
*These schools are from among 70 case schools in McGovern-Dole Evaluation sample.
12.3 Status of USDA Local and Regional Procurement (Food for Education) Programmes in School Years 2020-2023.
SMP activity status as planned by SY 2022-2023 HGSF-Hybrid (McGovern-Dole + LRP only)
Handover to Government 47
Transferred to full HGSF (other donors) 12
HGSF-Hybrid (McGovern-Dole + LRP) in 2023 104
Total schools in SY 2020-2021 163
12.4 Number of Intervention and Comparison Schools in McGovern-Dole and LRP Evaluations
Province
McGovern-Dole Evaluation Total LRP 
Programme 
Schools
LRP Evaluation44
Intervention 
Schools Samples
Comparison Schools 
Samples
Intervention 
School Samples
Comparison 
School Samples
Kampong Chhnang 6 0 18 6 0
Kampong Thom 21 0 21 7 8 
Siem Reap 43 0 65 22 13
Battambang 0 19 - 0 0 
Kampong Cham 0 34 - 0 0 
Kratie 0 9 - 0 0 
Preah Vihear 0 8 - 0 0 
Sub-total 70 70 104 35 21
12.5 Distribution of programme schools in SY 2020-2021.
Province YR2020_21 Total
HGSF-Hybrid 
(USDA+KOICA)
HGSF-Hybrid 
(USDA+LRP)
HGSF-Hybrid 
(USDA+Other)
SMP 
(USDA+Other)
1 Kampong Chhnang 67 30 0 0 97
2 Kampong Thom 40 42 0 75 157
3 Siem Reap 0 91 26 151 268
Total 107 163 26 226 522
44 THESE LRP SCHOOL SAMPLES ARE PART OF THE MCGOVERN-DOLE SAMPLE SCHOOLS.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 68
Of the total 163 schools with LRP programme in SY2020-2021, by the end of programme end year SY 2022-2023, 104 
schools will remain in the LRP programme. The LRP sample of 35 schools come from 104 schools. 
12.6 Student enrolment (grade 1-6) by gender in 2019-2020 
# Total enrolled grade 1-6 
% Boys % Girls 
Total Girls
LRP case schools (n=35) 8,710 4,249 51.2% 48.8%
LRP comparison schools (n=21) 4,498 2,230 50.2% 49.8%
12.7 Length of time implementing school feeding 
Year started provision 
of school meals
Years of experience 
of school feeding
LRP case schools 
(n=35)
LRP comparison 
schools (n=21)
2003 (SY2002-2003) 19 years 4 (11.4%) 3 (14.3%)
2004 (SY2003-2004) 18 years 11 (31.4%) 0 (0%)
2005 (SY2004-2005) 17 years 9 (25.7%) 10 (47.6%
2006 (SY2005-2006) 16 years 4 (11.4%) 1 (4.8%)
2009 (SY2008-2009) 13 years 1 (2.9%) 2 (9.5%)
2012 (SY2011-2012) 10 years 0 (0%) 2 (9.5%)
2013 (SY2012-2013) 9 years 5 (14.3%) 2 (9.5%)
2018 (SY2017-2018) 4 years 1 (2.9%) 1 (4.8%)
12.8 Years of experience in HGSF 
Year Years of experience LRP case schools 
(n=35)
LRP comparison 
schools (n=21)
2016 (SY2015-2016) 6 years 3 (8.6%) 0% 
2020 (SY2019-2020) 2 years 7 (20.0%) 0% 
2021 (SY2020-2021) First (1) year 25 (71.4%) 0% 
Percentage of surveyed LRP schools where at least one staff member had received training, mentoring and/or 
coaching on local procurement mechanisms for HGSF from WFP or the government. 
(KCG: 83 percent, KTM: 43 percent and SRP 55 percent). The average number of staff trained in schools that reported 
their staff reported a training by province was KCG 1.40; KTM 1.67 and SRP 1.67.
12.9 Percentage of LRP sample schools reporting at least one staff member trained on some element of 
school meals
Principals and teachers accounted for the highest percentage of staff to participate in capacity building activity on food 
procurement mechanisms. No training was yet provided to the chairmen and accounting staff related to the 
procurement processes.
12.10 Percent school staff involved in trainings for school meals 
83
42.9
54.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Kampong Chhanang Kampong Thom Siem Reap
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 69
12.11 Information on School Meal or Home-Grown School Feeding Programme 
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total % No % No % No %
Programme Type
 HGSF-Hybrid (USDA+Other) 6 86 0 0 1 4.5 7 20
 HGSF-Hybrid (USDA+LRP) 0 0 0 0 21 95.5 21 60
 SMP (USDA+Other) 0 0 7 100 0 0 7 20
Provision of Home-Grown School 
Feeding Programme (HGSF)/School 
Meal Programme (SMP) school meal 
to students within this school year 
2019-2020* 
6 100 7 100 22 100 35 100
Total 6 7 22 35
*From November 2019-mid-March 2020.
12.12 Schools with food storerooms
No. of schools with storerooms % of schools with storerooms
USDALRP schools (case schools) 24 69%
USDA SMP schools (comparison schools) 9 43%
12.13 Schools storing food off the ground
 
 
Total Schools storing food off the ground
# %
USDALRP schools (case schools) 35 16 67%
USDA SMP schools (comparison schools) 21 9 100%
12.14 Schools with vegetable gardens
Total # of schools 
with garden
% of schools with
vegetable garden
% of rehabilitated
vegetable garden
USDALRP schools (case 
schools) 35 27 77% 85%
USDA SMP schools 
(comparison schools) 21 16 76% 81%
12.15 Schools receiving training on food preparation and awareness on cooking management
54.3
28.6
2.9
28.6
2.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Principal Teachers LSFC Cooks Store keepers
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 70
 
 
Schools receiving training on food 
preparation and food storage 
practices
Schools receiving training on good 
health and nutrition practices
# % # %
USDALRP schools (case schools) 31 89% 30 88%
USDA SMP schools (comparison 
schools) 20 95% 20 95%
12.16 Average amount of community contributions to each school in SY 2019/20. 
In Cash
(US$)
In Kind
(US$ equivalent)
USDALRP schools (case schools) 362.41 299.13
USDA SMP schools (comparison 
schools)
189.74 319.12
12.17 Reason for establishing vegetable gardens in school (among schools with vegetable garden) 
Reasons USDALRP schools (case schools)
(n=27) (%)
USDA SMP schools (comparison 
schools) (n=16) (%)
Practicing life skills 13 54
Supplementing SMP recipe 0 8
Both reasons 87 39
12.18 Month of year when school gardens are utilized (among schools with vegetable garden)
Month
USDALRP schools (case schools) (n=27) (%)
USDA SMP schools (comparison schools) 
(n=16) (%)
APR 4 0
MAY 4 0
JUN 4 0
JUL 4 6
AUG 4 0
SEP 4 0
OCT 4 0
NOV 63 31
DEC 74 75
JAN 82 38
FEB 70 63
MAR 56 19
12.19 School individuals reporting receiving training on HGSF from schools
Training, mentoring, and 
coaching received
Total staff #
(min-max)
Total women staff 
# 
(min-max)
% Women
Training 82 (0-10) 46 (0-7) 56%
Mentoring 55 (0-10) 28 (0-7) 51%
Coaching 82 (0-12) 42 (0-9) 51%
Total # of sample schools 35
12.20 School individuals reporting receiving training on HGSF from schools
Training, mentoring, and 
coaching received
Total staff #
(min-max)
Total women 
staff #
(min-max)
% Women
On food procurement 0 0 0%
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 71
mechanisms or procuring food 
from the local suppliers/traders
Staff trained in local food 
processing such as salting, 
smoking, and drying
0 0 0%
Total # of sample schools 35
NONE OF THE SCHOOLS REPORTED ANY TRAINING ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SKILLS.
SUPPLIERS CONTRACTED BY SCHOOLS
12.21 Contracting of suppliers/traders to supply commodities for your school meal (breakfast) for the school year 
2019-2020. 
Suppliers contracted Number of schools
Suppliers contracted by school 11
Suppliers contracted
 One supplier contracted 10
 Two suppliers contracted 1
Men (only) suppliers contracted 6
Women (only) supplier contracted 6
12.22 Types of suppliers contracted by the school for the school year 2019-2020
Suppliers Number of schools
A village vendor 4
A middleman 6
Food producers (farmers) 1
Total 11
12.23 Awareness on three types of food groups.
Food groups USDALRP schools (case 
schools) (%)
USDA SMP schools (comparison 
schools) (%)
Energy (Carbohydrates. Ex: rice, sugar, potato, oil) 100 100
Building (Protein. Ex: meat, fish, peanuts, eggs) 100 100
Protective foods (Vitamins & minerals. Ex: green 
leaves, pumpkin, banana, mango)
100 100
12.24 Availability of school management tools and guidance materials.
USDALRP schools (case 
schools) (%)
USDA SMP schools (comparison 
schools) (%)
School development plan 100 100
Safe school environment (school gate, fence, ... 80 86
Record and reporting system 77 57
12.25 Average number of livelihood activities and sources of income per household.
 Number of livelihoods 
of head of HH Source of income per HH
All USDA supported schools 1.5 1.9
Comparison schools 1.4 2.0
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 72
12.26 Annual household income from different sources (in US dollars).
Income Source
USDA LRP schools (case schools) USDA SMP schools 
(comparison schools)
Work 3353.80 3750.15
Sales 360.52 719.95
Remittances 230.97 173.33
Average of total of household income 4001.39 4797.73
% Work 83.8% 78.2%
% Sales 9.0% 15.0%
% Remittance 6.8% 3.6%
12.27 Percentage of households reporting consumption of each food group in last seven days 
Food groups USDA LRP schools (case schools) USDA SMP schools 
(comparison schools)
Cereals 100% 100% 
Root and tubers 22% 23%
Legumes 33% 40% 
Vegetables 100% 100% 
Fruits 97% 96%
Meat 100% 100% 
Condiments (plus prahok) 100% 100% 
Dairy (milk) products 20% 30% 
Oil and fat 72% 77%
Sweets 60% 80%
Insects 3% 7%
12.28 Household use of consumption coping strategies (in last seven days)
Coping strategies All USDA supported 
schools
Comparison 
schools
Relied on less preferred, less expensive food 57% 65%
Borrowed food or relied on help from friends or relatives 23% 32%
Reduced the number of meals eaten per day 38% 42%
Reduced portion size of meals 36% 39%
Reduction in the quantities consumed by adults/mothers for young 
children 42% 34%
12.29 In what year, the school meal program was started? 
 
Year All USDA supported schools (n=35) Comparison schools (n=21)
2003 (SY2002-2003) 11.4% 14.3%
2004 (SY2003-2004) 31.4% 47.6%
2005 (SY2004-2005) 25.7% 0% 
2006 (SY2005-2006) 11.4% 4.8%
2009 (SY2008-2009) 2.9% 9.5%
2012 (SY2011-2012) 0% 9.5%
2013 (SY2012-2013) 14.3% 9.5%
2018 (SY2017-2018) 2.9% 4.8%
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 73
12.30 In what year, the home-grown school feeding was started? 
 
Year All USDA supported schools (n=35) Comparison schools (n=21)
2016 (SY2015-2016) 8.6% 0% 
2020 (SY2019-2020) 20.0% 0% 
2021 (SY2020-2020) 71.4% 4.8%
12.31 Planned vs. actual delivery time for the fortified rice and vegetable oil (SY2019-2020). 
 
Commodities All USDA supported 
schools (n=35) (Yes%)
Comparison 
schools (n=21) 
(Yes%)
Fortified Rice
Was the fortified rice delivered as per planned time? 100% 100% 
Was the fortified rice delivered before the term began? 83% 100% 
Was the quantity of fortified rice delivered as per the specification? 100% 100% 
Was the quality of fortified rice delivered as per the specification? 100% 100% 
Fortified Vegetable Oil
Was the fortified vegetable oil delivered as per planned time? 100% 100% 
Was the fortified vegetable oil delivered before the term began? 83% 100% 
Was the quantity of fortified vegetable oil delivered as per the 
specification? 100% 100% 
Was the quality of fortified vegetable oil delivered as per the 
specification? 100% 100% 
12.32 Number of students enrolled in Home-Grown School Feeding Programme/School Meal Programme school meal 
(breakfast) for the school year 2019-2020 (from November 2019-mid-March 2020).
Information
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total Per
school # Per
school # Per
school # Per
school
Number of students enrolled 
(grade 1-6) 2853 476 1414 202 4152 189 8419 193
Number of male students 
enrolled (grade 1-6) 1460 243 702 100 2136 97 4298 123
Number of female students 
enrolled (grade 1-6) 1393 232 712 102 2016 92 4121 118
Total 6 7 22 35
12.33 When did the school start providing school meal to students for the school year 2019-2020 (from November 
2019-mid-March 2020)?
Information
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap
Total # % # % # % 
First day of school 0 0 0 0 10 46
After the school started 6 100 7 100 12 55
Average number of days delayed (after 
school started)
16 days
(2-67 days)
2 days
(1-7 days)
9 days
(1-30 days)
Total schools 6 7 22
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 74
12.34 Who funds/provides the food for the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF)/School Meal Programme 
(SMP) school meal for your school for the school year 2019-2020? 
Funding Source
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
No. % No % No % No %
Directly provided by WFP 0 0 1 14.3 11 50 12 34.3
Directly provided by the central 
t
0 0 6 85.7 5 22.7 11 31.4
Parents provide vegetable to 
h l 
0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.9
Staff fund 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.9
Total 6 7 22 35
12.35 Does the school also get food for school meal from the other sources for your school for the school year 2019-
2020? 
Funding Source
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
The local government 0 0 6 85.7 7 31.9 13 37.1
School’s farm 0 0 7 100.0 13 59.1 20 57.1
The parent-teacher association 0 0 3 42.9 11 50.0 14 40.0
From farmers 0 0 1 14.3 8 36.4 9 25.7
Direct contributions from 
parents 0 0 3 42.9 11 50.0 14 40.0
Total 6 7 22 35
12.36 Does your school have a daily menu for the school meal for students? for the school year 2019-2020. 
Menu
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Yes, has school menu 0 0 0 0 10 45.5 10 28.6
Who is responsible for preparing 
menu?
 School director 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.8
 Store keeper 0 0 0 0 9 40.9 9 26.0
 General Manager 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.8
 Store Assistant 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.8
Total 6 7 22 35
12.38 Guideline or any recommendation to prepare menu and food basket.
Guidelines
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# Yes % # Yes % # Yes % # Yes %
Guideline or any 
recommendation to prepare the 
menu for the school meal
 
0 0 0 0 10 45.5 10 28.6
Is the food basket defined?
 0 0 0 0 6 27.3 6 17.1
Total 6 7 22 35
12.39 Kitchen facilities in school.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 75
Kitchen facilities
Kampong
Chhanang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# Yes % # Yes % # Yes % # Yes %
Has kitchen facilities such as 
electricity, water, and 
refrigerator to prepare and store 
meals with fish and pork
 
0 0 5 71.4 16 72.7 21 60
Has salting, smoking, and drying 
facilities for local food 
processing 0 0 1 14.3 0 0 1 2.9
Total 6 7 22 35
12.40 Type of fish in school menu for school meal.
Type of fish
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# Yes % # Yes % # Yes % # Yes %
Fresh fish 0 0 1 14.3 12 54.5 13 37.1
Dried fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Smoked fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 7 22 35
12.41 Storage facility (refrigerator or cabinet) for proper storage of food items at school.
Storage facility
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# Yes % # Yes % # Yes % # Yes %
Has storage facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 7 22 35
None of them reported having storage facility at school.
FOOD SUPPLIERS AND FOOD DELIVERY
12.42 Procurement for school meal.
Food procurement
KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# Yes % # Yes % # Yes % # Yes %
WFP procured the food 6 100 7 100 22 100 35 100
Local government/local bidding 
committee
0 0 0 0 10 45.5 10 28.6
Total 6 7 22 35
12.43 Contracting of suppliers/traders to supply commodities for your school meal (breakfast) for the SY 2019-2020
Suppliers contracted Number of schools
Suppliers contracted by school 11
Suppliers contracted
 One supplier contracted 10
 Two suppliers contracted 1 
Men (only) suppliers contracted 6 
Women (only) supplier contracted 6 
12.44 Types of suppliers contracted by the school for the school year 2019-2020
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 76
Suppliers Number of schools
A village vendor 4 
A middleman 6 
Food producers (farmers) 1 
Total 11
12.45 Was the contracting for food procurement for school meal completed before the start of the school year?
Number of schools
Yes 9 
No 2 
Total 11
12.46 Reasons for not contracting before the start of the school year.
Reasons Number of schools
Yes 9 
No* 2 
Total 11
*Note: Both schools reported that “Bidding process was not announced on time” was the reason for not contracting 
suppliers before the start of the school year.
12.46 Satisfaction with the timeliness of delivery. 
Level Number of schools (%)
Very satisfied 3 (27.3%)
Satisfied 8 (72.7%)
Total 11 (100.0%)
DELIVERY
12.46 Timeliness of delivery of food commodities from the suppliers 
Timeliness How estimated?
Timeliness of delivery (Tot col B/Tot Col D) *100
84/93=90.3%
[1+9+9+……+9] (sum of the number of schools that 
reported each commodity delivered as per the agreed 
upon time frame divided by the total number of schools 
reporting.
Contracted food 
commodities
[COL A]
Response No. (# of 
schools reporting)
[COL B]
Agreed upon timeframe 
with the supplier 
[COL C]
Receipt of commodities as per the 
agreed upon time frame (# Yes)
[COL D]
1. Rice (fortified) 0 0 0
2. Rice (non￾fortified)
1 1 (Fortnightly) 1
3. Morning glory 10 3 (Daily)
7 (Weekly)
9 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
4. Pumpkin (yellow) 10 1 (daily)
9 (weekly)
9 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
5. Spinach 10 4 (daily)
6 (weekly)
9 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
6. Moringa 10 4 (daily)
6 (weekly)
9 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
7. Long bean (green) 9 3 (daily)
6 (weekly)
8 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
9. Eggs 11 2 (daily)
9 (weekly)
10 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
10. Meat (pork) 11 4 (daily)
7 (weekly)
10 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 77
11. Fish 11 4 (daily)
7 (weekly)
10 (Yes, on time)
1 (most of the time)
12. Vegetable oil 0 0 0
13. Iodized salt 10 2 (Fortnightly)
8 (Monthly)
9 (Yes, on time)
1 (HALF OF the time)
Total 93 84 (Yes, on time)
12.47 : Contracting of suppliers/traders to supply commodities for your school meal (breakfast) for the school year 
2019-2020
Commodities Total
# Yes %
Number of schools that reported contacting of at least one supplier 11 31.4%
Contracting of suppliers for specific commodities
Rice (fortified) 0 0%
Rice (non-fortified rice) 1 2.9%
Morning glory 10 28.6%
Pumpkin (yellow) 10 28.6%
Spinach 10 28.6%
Moringa 10 28.6%
Long bean (green) 9 25.7%
Eggs 11 31.4%
Meat (Pork) 11 31.4%
Fish 11 31.4%
Vegetable oil 0 0%
Iodized salt 10 28.6%
Total 35
12.48: Contracting of suppliers/traders to supply commodities for your school meal (breakfast) for the school year 
2019-2020
Suppliers contracted Number of schools
Suppliers contracted by school 11 (31.4%)
Suppliers contracted
 One supplier contracted 10
 Two suppliers contracted 1
Men (only) suppliers contracted 6
Women (only) supplier contracted 6
12.49: Was the contracting for food procurement for school meal completed before the start of the school year? 
Among those who contracted a supplier
Number of schools
Yes 9 (81.8%)
No 2 (18.2%)
Total 11 (100.0%)
12.50: Reasons for not contracting before the start of the school year.
Reasons Number of schools
Yes 9
No* 2
Total 11
12.51: Quantity and value of supplies delivered by suppliers for school meal for the school year 2019-2020. 
Commodities Weight (KG) Total Value in Riels
n Total Avg n Riels US $ Avg US $
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 78
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rice (non-fortified rice) 14 78750 5625 14 148212375 37053 10586598 2647
Morning glory 44 23208 528 44 53172630 13293 1208469 302
Pumpkin (yellow) 42 10393 248 44 22860600 5715 544300 136
Spinach 44 30366 690 44 105275000 26319 2392614 598
Moringa 38 5695 150 38 17607100 4402 463345 116
Long bean (green) 35 9806 281 35 30174950 7544 862141 216
Eggs 41 121296 2959 41 64414150 16104 1571076 393
Meat (Pork) 41 16125 394 41 246296100 61574 6004222 1501
Fish 43 29970 697 43 307222500 76806 7144710 1786
Vegetable oil 14 3355 240 14 14793100 3698 1056650 264
Iodized salt 45 4403 98 45 5357980 1339 119067 30
Total 35
# suppliers who supplied commodities as part of school meal programme
Exchange Rate 
- 1 USD = 4,000 Riels
12.52 Reasons for non-delivery as per the agreed upon time frame. 
Reasons Number of schools
One school reported that the supplier didn’t supply a commodity as per the time 
frame. 1 
12.53 Any commodity returned to the supplier/trader because the delivery was not as per the agreed upon time frame? 
Returned? Number of schools
None of the schools reported that none of the commodity was returned to the 
supplier/trader because the delivery was not as per the agreed upon time frame. 0 
12.54 Reasons for not receiving “monthly payment request” from the suppliers as per the agreement. 
Reasons Number of schools
Except one, all other schools reported that monthly payment request was received 
from the suppliers as per the agreement. The reason is: Time was too short to deliver 
the commodity .
1 
12.55 Reasons for not receiving “monthly payment request” from the suppliers as per the agreement. 
Reasons Number of schools
Except one, all other schools reported that monthly payment request was received 
from the suppliers as per the agreement. The reason is: Time was too short to deliver 
the commodity .
1 
12.56 When was the first delivery of each commodity received?
Contracted food commodities Response
No. of schools
Before the term 
began
After the term 
began
1. Rice (fortified) 10 10 0
2. Rice (non-fortified) 4 3 1
3. Morning glory 11 3 8
4. Pumpkin (yellow) 11 2 9
5. Spinach 11 3 8
6. Moringa 11 3 8
7. Long bean (green) 10 3 7
9. Eggs 11 3 8
10. Meat (pork) 11 3 8
11. Fish 11 3 8
12. Vegetable oil 11 11 0
13. Iodized salt 11 4 7
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 79
12.57 Reasons for not receiving one or more commodity before the beginning of the term. 
Reasons Number of schools
Number schools that reported any one commodity was received after the term began 9
Reasons
 Contract was signed as such. 8
 Time was too short to deliver the commodity 5
 Unsuccessful negotiation with the bidder 1
12.58 During the school year 2019-2020 (Nov 2019-mid-March 2020, when school was in operation), were there any 
days the school was NOT able to provide school meal?
Reasons Number of schools
Number of schools that reported any days the school was NOT able to provide 
school meal 2 
Number days the school was NOT able to provide school meal 23 days (each)
Reasons
 No one to prepare meals 2
QUALITY OF DELIVERY
12.59 Quality of delivery
Contracted food 
commodities
Total 
Response#
Has 
commodity 
specification 
(Yes)
Agreed upon 
commodity 
specification with 
the supplier (Yes)
Commodity 
supplied as per 
the commodity 
specification 
(Yes)
Any commodity 
returned to the 
supplier?
1. Rice (fortified) 11 9 0 Not applicable Not applicable
2. Rice (non￾fortified)
1 1 1 1 0
3. Morning glory 11 8 10 10 0
4. Pumpkin 
(yellow)
11 8 10 10 0
5. Spinach 11 8 10 10 0
6. Moringa 11 8 10 10 0
7. Long bean 
(green)
11 7 9 9 0
9. Eggs 11 8 11 11 0
10. Meat (pork) 11 8 11 11 0
11. Fish 11 8 11 11 0
12. Vegetable oil 11 9 0 Not applicable Not applicable
13. Iodized salt 11 8 10 10 0
12.60 Satisfaction with the quality of food delivered for school meal.
Level of satisfaction Number of schools (%)
Very satisfied 3 (27.3%)
Satisfied 8 (72.7%)
Total 11 (100.0)
12.61 Satisfaction with the service provided by the supplier.
Level of satisfaction Number of schools (%)
Very satisfied 2 (18.2%)
Satisfied 8 (72.7%)
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1 (9.1%)
Total 11 (100.0)
CAPACITY BUILDING
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 80
12.62 Training received by staff in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF) from 
WFP or the Government.
Training received
KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total 
#/Mean % #/Me
an
% #/Me
an
% #/Mean % 
Yes, received 0 0 6 85.7 18 81.8 24 68.6
If Yes, average number of staff 
per school 0 0 3.0 3.6 3.42 Min=2
Max=10
If Yes, average number of 
female staff per school 0 0 1.5 2.1 1.92 Min=0
Max=7
Total schools 6 7 22 35
12.63 Mentoring received by staff in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF) from 
WFP or the Government.
Mentoring received
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap
Total
Total 
#/Mean % #/Me
an
% #/Me
an
% #/Mean % 
Yes, received 0 0 4 57.1 12 54.5 16 45.7
If Yes, average number of staff 
per school 0 0 3.0 3.6 3.44 Min=1
Max=10
If Yes, average number of 
female staff per school 0 0 1.25 1.9 1.75 Min=0
Max=7
Total schools 6 7 22 35
12.64 Coaching received by staff in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF) from 
WFP or the Government.
Coaching received
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap
Total
Total 
#/Mean % #/Me
an
% #/Mea
n % #/Mean % 
Yes, received 4 66.7 5 71.4 17 77.3 26 74.3
If Yes, average number of staff 
per school 1.25 3.0 3.65 3.15 Min=1
Max=12
If Yes, average number of female 
staff per school 0.25 1.40 2.00
1.62 Min=0
Max=9
Total schools 6 7 22 35
12.65 Training, mentoring, and/or coaching in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme 
(HGSF) from WFP/Government
Training, mentoring, and 
coaching received
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap
Total
Total # % # % # % # %
Head Teacher/Principal 3 50 6 85.7 18 81.8 27 77.1
Teachers (Deputy head teacher, 
senior teacher, other teachers) 2 33.3 5 71.4 9 40.9 16 45.7
School meals committee 
members 0 0 2 28.6 5 22.7 7 20.0
School chairman 0 0 0 0 2 9.1 2 5.7
Cooks 0 0 6 85.7 17 77.3 23 65.7
Store keepers 0 0 0 0 7 31.8 7 20.0
Accounting staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total schools 6 7 22 35
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 81
12.66 School received the following learning materials included in the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme 
(HGSF) training toolkit developed by WFP during the school year 2019-2020. 
Learning materials
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap
Total
Total 
response 
#
% # % # % # % 
A summary of program 
instruction manual
 0 0 6 95.7 20 90.9 26 74.3
Checklists 3 50.0 6 85.7 20 90.9 29 82.9
Posters 6 100.0 7 100.0 20 90.9 33 94.3
Booklets 6 100.0 5 71.4 19 86.4 30 85.7
Brochures 6 100.0 6 85.7 13 59.1 25 71.4
Quizzes 5 83.3 2 28.6 15 68.2 22 62.9
Related videos
0 0 1 14.3 4 18.2 5 14.3
Total schools 6 7 22 35
12.67 During the school year 2019-2020, did any staff from your school receive training, mentoring, and coaching on 
food procurement mechanisms or procuring food from local suppliers/traders for school meals from WFP or the 
Government?
Coaching received
KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total 
#/Mean % #/Me
an
% #/Mea
n % #/Mean % 
Yes, received 5 83.3 3 42.9 12 54.5 20 57.1
If Yes, average number of staff 
per school 1.40 1.67 3.42 2.65 Min=1
Max=12
If Yes, average number of female 
staff per school 0.20 1.00 1.67 1.20 Min=0
Max=9
Total schools 6 7 22 35
12.68 Who received the training, mentoring and/or coaching on food procurement mechanisms or procuring food from 
local suppliers/traders for school meals from WFP/Government during the school year 2019-2020? 
Coaching received
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap
Total
Total 
response 
% # % # % # % 
Head Teacher/Principal 4 66.7 3 42.9 12 54.5 19 54.3
Teachers (Deputy head teacher, 
senior teacher, other teachers) 3 50.0 0 0 7 31.8 10 28.6
School meals committee 
members 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.9
School chairman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Cooks 0 0 2 14.3 8 36.4 10 28.6
Store keepers 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 1 2.9
Accounting staff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Total # of schools in sample 6 7 22 35
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 82
12.69 School received the following learning materials included in the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme 
(HGSF) training toolkit developed by WFP during the school year 2019-2020. 
Learning materials Total
# %
A summary of program instruction manual 26 74.3%
Checklists 29 82.9%
Posters 33 94.3%
Booklets 30 85.7%
Brochures 25 71.4%
Quizzes 22 62.9%
Related videos 5 14.3%
# of items total 170
Total schools 35
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 83
Annex 13: Additional Supplier Survey Results
13.1 Supplier Characteristics by Province
Characteristics
Kampong
ChhnangChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Respondent is
 Owner 0 0 12 50.0 4 28.6 16 30.2
 Manager 1 6.7 1 4.2 0 0 2 3.8
 Owner/Manager 14 93.3 11 45.8 10 71.4 35 66.0
Gender
 Male 6 40.0 15 62.5 10 71.4 31 58.5
 Female 9 60.0 9 37.5 4 28.6 22 41.5
Business Establishment
 5 years or less 7 46.7 13 54.2 8 57.1 28 50.8
 6 to 10 years 6 40.0 3 12.5 3 21.4 12 22.6
 11 years or over 2 13.3 8 33.3 3 21.4 13 24.5
Business License
 Valid trade license
 
0 0 0 0 2 14.3 2 3.8
 Business registration 
certificate 
0 0 1 4.2 0 14.3 3 5.7
 Other licenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Age of the respondent
 35 years or below 5 33.3 3 12.5 4 28.6 12 22.6
36 years or over 10 66.7 21 87.5 10 71.4 41 77.7
Respondent’s Education
 Primary 5 33.3 14 58.3 6 57.1 25 47.2
 Secondary 9 60.0 9 37.5 8 57.1 26 49.1
 BA/BSc pass 1 6.7 1 4.2 0 0 2 3.8
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.2 Distribution of Suppliers by Province
Suppliers KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Grocery store 7 47 7 29 4 29 18 34
Vegetable stores 2 13 2 8 7 50 11 21
Meat stores 1 7 1 4 1 7 3 6 
Animal Raising farm 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 
Rice Miller 1 7 0 0 1 7 2 4 
Fish sellers 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 4 
Rice sellers 1 7 0 0 1 7 2 4 
Farmer 2 13 12 50 0 0 14 26
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53 100
*2 households among LRP comparison schools from Kampong Thom not interviewed
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 84
13.6 Types of Suppliers by Province
Suppliers KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
A village vendor 12 80 10 42 8 57 30 57
A rice miller 2 13 0 0 3 21 5 9
A retailer 4 27 1 4 2 14 7 13
A middleman 14 93 10 42 9 64 33 62
A wholesaler 8 53 1 4 1 7 10 19
A food producer (a farmer) 10 67 12 50 3 21 5 9
Others* 1 7 2 8 2 14 5 10
*A veterinarian, a motor cycle repair, handicraft (furniture), food supplier for the school and a wedding 
planner/manager.
13.7 Number of Employees by Province
Employees KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Total Employee
 None 12 80.0 19 79.2 12 85.7 43 81.1
 Only one employee 1 6.7 2 8.3 1 7.1 4 7.5
 Two or more (1 to 20) 2 13.3 3 12.5 1 7.1 6 11.3
Male Employee
 None 12 80.0 19 79.2 12 85.7 43 91.1
 One or more (1 to 6) 3 20.0 5 20.8 2 14.3 10 19.9
Female Employee
 None 14 93.3 21 87.5 13 92.9 48 90.6
 One or more (1 to 5) 1 6.7 3 12.5 1 7.1 5 9.4
Full Time
 None 13 86.7 21 87.5 12 85.7 46 86.8
 One or more (1 to 5) 2 14.3 3 12.5 2 14.2 7 15.2
Part Time
 None 14 93.3 23 95.8 13 92.9 50 94.3
 One or more (1 to 5) 1 6.7 1 4.2 1 7.1 3 6.7
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
*A veterinarian, a motor cycle repair, handicraft (furniture), food supplier for the school and a wedding 
planner/manager.
13.8 Types of suppliers participating in the baseline survey, by province.
Types of Suppliers KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total % No % No % No %
A village vendor 12 80 10 42 8 57 30 57
A rice miller 2 13 0 0 3 21 5 9
A retailer 4 27 1 4 2 14 7 13
A middleman 14 93 10 42 9 64 33 62
A wholesaler 8 53 1 4 1 7 10 19
A food producer (a farmer) 10 67 12 50 3 21 25 47
Others* 1 7 2 8 2 14 5 9
Total 15 24 14 53
*Other’s category included a veterinarian (KCH), a food supplier for the school and a supplier of wedding (in KTM) and 
a motor cycle repairer and a handicraft (furniture) supplier (in SRP).
Note: The table suggests that a supplier had multiple roles to play.
13.9 Commodities handled by suppliers participating in the baseline survey, by province.
Agricultural Produce KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total % No % No % No %
Grains 12 80 31 61 8 16 51 88
Vegetables 8 53 32 65 9 90 49 85
Animals (swine and duck for eggs) 2 13 4 12 2 20 8 14
Fish 0 0 1 3 1 10 2 3
Total 15 33 10 58
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 85
TRADING
13.10 In the fiscal year 2019, what commodities do you trade in?
Commodities KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Rice (non-fortified rice) 9 60.0 3 12.5 5 35.7 17 32.1
Morning glory 11 73.3 16 66.7 11 78.6 38 71.7
Pumpkin (yellow) 11 73.3 16 66.7 9 64.3 36 67.9
Spinach 11 73.3 16 66.7 10 71.4 37 69.9
Moringa 8 53.3 12 50.0 7 50.0 27 50.9
Long bean (green) 11 73.3 13 54.2 9 64.3 33 62.3
Other vegetables* 1 6.7 4 16.7 6 42.9 11 20.8
Eggs 11 73.3 16 66.7 9 64.3 36 67.9
Meat (pork) 10 66.7 14 58.3 6 42.9 30 56.6
Fish 10 66.7 17 70.8 7 50.0 34 64.2
Vegetable oil 9 60.0 5 20.8 7 50.0 21 39.6
Iodized salt 8 53.3 18 75.0 7 50.0 33 62.3
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
*Cucumber, eggplant, papaya, edible amaranth, carrot, was gourd, bottle gourd, tomato, luff gourd, ivy gourd.
13.11 Current estimated volume and value of each commodity in stock in 2020.
Commodities 2020
Total Sellers Average volume Average amount (Riel)
Rice (fortified) 0 
Rice (non-fortified rice) (KG) 8 2356 4637500
Morning glory (KG) 5 8 17000
Pumpkin (yellow) (KG) 5 19 56000
Spinach(KG) 6 19 70416
Moringa(KG) 0 0 0
Long bean (green) (KG) 4 15 53750
Eggs(UNIT/COUNT) 12 160 88833
Meat (pork) (KG) 3 2 48000
Fish(KG) 5 29 296000
Vegetable oil (KG 14 29 138571
Iodized salt (KG) 15 42 49200
Total Suppliers 53
SUPPLY OF FOOD COMMODITIES FOR SCHOOL MEAL 
13.12 For the school year 2019-2020, did you supply any food commodity to any school for the school meal programme?
Employees KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
#/Mean %/ (min￾max) #/Mean Min-max #/Mea
n Min-max#/Mean %/Min￾max Supply of any food 
commodity to school (Yes) 15 100.0 24 100.0 14 100.0 53 100.0
Number of schools served 2.27 1-8 4.4 1-8 3.93 1-7 3.66 1-8 
Number of years served 2.27 1-3 2.3 1-8 1.86 1-4 2.17 1-9 
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.13 Commodities sold to school in SY2019-2020. 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 86
Commodities KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Rice (non-fortified rice) 9 60.0 0 0 5 35.7 14 26.4
Morning glory 10 66.7 22 91.7 12 85.7 44 83.0
Pumpkin (yellow) 8 53.3 22 91.7 12 85.7 42 79.2
Spinach 10 66.7 22 91.7 12 85.7 44 83.0
Moringa 8 53.3 19 79.2 11 78.6 38 71.7
Long bean (green) 8 53.3 15 62.5 12 85.7 35 66.0
Other vegetables* 0 0 7 29.7 4 28.6 11 20.8
Eggs 9 60.0 21 87.5 11 78.6 41 77.4
Meat (pork) 10 66.7 21 87.5 10 71.4 41 77.4
Fish 10 66.7 22 91.7 11 78.6 43 81.1
Vegetable oil 9 60.0 0 0 5 35.7 14 26.4
Iodized salt 9 60.0 24 100.0 12 85.7 45 84.9
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
*Cucumber, eggplant, papaya, edible amaranth, kale, carrot, wax gourd, bottle gourd, tomato, luff gourd, ivy gourd.
13.14Estimated volume and value of each commodity sold to school in 2019-2020. 
Commodities 2020
Total Sellers Average volume Average amount (Riel)
Rice (fortified) 0 0 0
Rice (non-fortified rice) (KG) 14 5625 10586598
Morning glory(KG) 44 527 1208469
Pumpkin (yellow) (KG) 42 247 544300
Spinach(KG) 44 690 2392613
Moringa(KG) 38 150 463345
Long bean (green) (KG) 35 280 862141
Eggs(UNIT/COUNT) 41 2958 1571076
Meat (pork) (KG) 41 393 6007222
Fish(KG) 43 697 7144709
Vegetable oil KG) 14 240 1056650
Iodized salt (KG) 45 98 119066
Total Suppliers 53
13.15 Source of supply of commodities sold to school in SY2019-2020. 
Suppliers KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
1. A village vendor 2 13.3 10 41.7 12 85.7 24 45.7
2. A rice miller 6 40.0 0 0 2 14.3 8 15.1
3. A retailer 1 6.7 2 8.3 3 21.4 6 11.3
4. A middleman 9 60.0 15 62.5 12 85.7 36 67.9
5. A wholesaler 9 60.0 11 45.8 6 42.9 26 49.1
6. A food producer (a farmers 7 46.7 13 54.2 14 100.0 34 64.2
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 87
13.16 Number of source of suppliers of commodities sold to school in SY2019-2020. 
Suppliers
Total Women
# suppliers
reporting
Avg. # of
source suppliers Min-max # suppliers
reporting
Avg. # of
source 
suppliers
Min-max
1. A village vendor 24 6.75 1-30 24 5.50 1-25
2. A rice miller 8 2.25 1-10 8 1.75 1-7
3. A retailer 6 1.50 1-3 6 1.17 1-2
4. A middleman 36 2.36 1-9 36 2.06 1-8
5. A wholesaler 26 1.65 1-5 26 1.46 1-8
6. A food producer
(a farmer) 34 3.85 1-10 34 3.18 1-9 
Total Suppliers 53
13.17 For the school year 2019-2020, from whom did you buy the following food commodities for the school meal 
programme?
Commodities
# of suppliers
reporting Farmers Farmer 
organization Traders/middlemen/millers
# % # % # % 
1. Rice/paddy 53 8 15.1 1 1.9 15 28.3
2. Vegetables 53 38 71.7 13 24.5 32 60.4
3. Eggs 53 22 41.5 2 3.8 34 64.2
4. Meat (pork) 53 11 20.8 1 1.9 39 73.6
5. Fish 53 17 32.1 1 1.9 42 79.2
6. Vegetable oil 53 5 9.4 1 1.9 19 35.8
7. Iodized salt 53 6 11.3 2 3.8 44 83.0
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH OTHER SUPPLIERS TO SUPPLY COMODITY FOR SCHOOL 
MEAL
13.18 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply food commodity for the school meal programme?
Response
KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
There was a verbal/written 
agreement with the supplier 
 
11 73.3 7 29.2 14 100 32 60.4
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 88
13.19 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply the fixed volume of commodity for the school meal programme and delivery of commodities as per the 
agreement
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
There was a verbal/written 
agreement with the supplier 
to supply the fixed volume 
commodity (Yes)
8 53.3 5 20.8 12 85.7 25 47.2
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
Supplier supplied the volume of commodity as per the agreement (among those who had the contract)
Yes, always delivered as per 
the agreement 5 62.5 4 80.0 3 25.0 12 48.0
Yes, delivered most of the 
time as per the agreement 3 37.5 1 20.0 9 75.0 13 52.0
Was any commodity returned 
because the commodity was 
not as per the agreement
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Total Suppliers 8 5 12 25
13.20 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply the commodity on time frame for the school meal programme and delivery of commodities as per the 
agreement
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
There was a verbal/written 
agreement with the supplier 
on time frame to supply 
commodity (Yes)
13 86.7 15 62.5 14 100 42 79.2
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
Supplier supplied the commodity as per the agreed upon time frame (among those who had the contract)
Yes, always delivered as per 
the agreement 7 53.8 13 86.7 10 71.4 30 71.4
Yes, delivered most of the 
time as per the agreement 5 38.5 2 13.3 4 28.6 11 26.2
Yes, delivered half of the time 
as per the agreement 1 7.7 0 0 0 0 1 2.4
Was any commodity returned 
because the commodity was 
not as per the agreement
1 7.7 3 12.5 0 0 4 9.5
Total Suppliers 13 15 14 42
13.21 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply the commodity by specification for the school meal programme and delivery of commodities as per the 
agreement
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
There was a verbal/written 
agreement with the supplier on
commodity specification to 
supply commodity (Yes)
8 53.3 4 16.7 14 100 26 49.1
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
Supplier supplied the commodity as per the agreed upon commodity specification (among those who had the 
contract)
Yes, always delivered as per the 
agreement 6 45.0 4 100.0 7 50.0 17 65.4
Yes, delivered most of the time as 
per the agreement 1 12.5 0 0 7 50.0 8 30.8
Rarely delivered as per the 
agreement 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 1 3.8
Was any commodity returned 
because the commodity was not 
as per the agreement*
0 0 1 25.0 0 0 1 3.8
Total Suppliers 8 4 14 26
*Only one delivery was returned because the bag arrived in poor condition (e.g. open/torn). 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 89
PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT MADE TO THE SUPPLIERS
13.22 Agreement with the supplier on the payment 
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
There was a verbal/written 
agreement with the supplier 
on commodity specification to 
supply commodity (Yes)
11 73.3 8 33.3 14 100.0 33 62.3
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
Paid to the supplier after the delivery of food commodities as per the agreed upon time frame)
Yes, I always paid to the 
supplier as per the agreement 5 45.5 7 87.5 12 85.7 24 72.7
Yes, I paid to the supplier 
most of the time as per the 
agreement
6 54.5 1 12.5 2 14.3 9 27.3
Total Suppliers 11 24 14 33
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY THE SUPPLIERS
13.23 Problems experienced by the supplier while purchasing food commodities from the suppliers 
Problem areas
Total
# % 
The rice quality is not good 1 2 
The cost (price?) of vegetable is increased 7 13.2
The cost (price?) of meat is increased 5 5.7
The road is difficult 4 7.5
The crop is not good 2 3.8
The crop is not grown on time 7 13.2
The goods price is increased 5 9.4
Far as need to cross the river 1 1.9
The weight is not right 2 3.8
The cost (price??) is changed 3 5.7
The goods/commodity price has increased 2 1.9
Total Suppliers 53
OVERALL SATISFACTION OF THE SUPPLIERS WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE 
COMMODITY SUPPLIERS 
13.24 Overall Satisfaction of the suppliers with the service provided by the commodity suppliers 
Satisfaction KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Very satisfied 6 40.0 13 54.2 7 50.0 26 49.1
Satisfied 9 60.0 9 37.5 7 50.0 25 47.2
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0 2 8.3 0 0 2 3.8
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 90
DELIVERY TO SCHOOLS FOR SCHOOL MEAL
13.25 Sell of commodities to schools as part of the school meal programme in 2019.2020.
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Sold to school 4 26.4 13 54.2 10 71.4 27 50.9
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.26 Sell of commodities to schools as part of the school meal programme in 2019.2020.
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Sold to school 4 26.4 13 54.2 10 71.4 27 50.9
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.26 Commodities sold to school commodities did you sell to schools as part of the school meal programme in SY2019-
2020. 
Commodities
Total
# % 
Rice (fortified) 0 0
Rice (non-fortified rice) 4 7.5
Morning glory 11 20.8
Pumpkin (yellow) 5 9.4
Spinach 10 18.9
Moringa 4 7.5
Long bean (green) 10 18.9
Other vegetables* 3 5.7
Eggs 3 5.7
Meat (pork) 2 3.8
Fish 2 3.8
Vegetable oil 0 0
Iodized salt 0 0
Total Suppliers 53
Commodities sold to schools in 2019-2020 THROUGH COMPETITIVE TENDER.
Data shows that all the suppliers sold commodities to schools in 2019-2020 through competitive tender.
13.27 Source of information about the tender [MULTIPLE ANSWER]. 
Source of information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
School and commune public bill 
board 15 100 17 70.8 12 85.7 44 83.0
Bid announcement banner 10 66.7 6 25.0 9 64.3 25 47.2
Public space announcement 13 86.7 11 45.8 9 64.3 33 62.3
Through local bid committee 12 80.0 4 16.7 12 85.7 28 52.8
Facebook 0 0 0 0 3 21.4 3 5.7
Public speakers 2 13.3 1 4.2 1 7.1 4 7.5
Through other villagers 7 46.7 1 4.2 10 71.4 18 34.0
From students etc. 4 26.7 0 0 2 14.3 6 11.3
School and commune public bill 
bd
14 93.3 5 20.8 2 14.3 21 39.6
From teacher 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 1 1.9
Relative 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 91
13.28 Awareness of the process and rules for preparing bid for the tender for school supply.
Response Total
# %
Yes, I was aware 50 94.3
Total Suppliers 53
Note: 1 supplier from Kompong Thom and 2 from Siem Reap reported that they were not aware.
13.29 Receipt of Monthly Purchase Order from the school to supply food commodities for the school meal programme.
Response Total
# %
Yes, I received 52 98.1
Total Suppliers 53
Note: 1 supplier from Siem Reap reported that he/she did not receive the monthly purchase order.
13.30 Delivery of food commodity to the school as per the ‘monthly purchase order’.
Response Total
# %
Yes, delivered all food commodities as per the monthly purchase order 47 88.7
Yes, delivered most of the time as per the monthly purchase order* 6 11.3
Total Suppliers 53
*Note: 
Only six suppliers reported they were not able to deliver all commodities to school as per the monthly order. All these 
six suppliers were from Kampong Chhnang. The reasons were:
3 reported that the time was too short to deliver the commodity.
2 suppliers reported specified commodity was not available on time in the market.
1 supplier reported the cost (I think this is price) increased. 
One of these six suppliers reported that the commodity was returned by the school because the delivery was not as per 
the monthly purchase order. 
AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL
13.31 During the school year 2019-2020, was there any agreed upon (verbal or written) commodity specification with 
the school to supply food commodities for the school meal programme?
Response
Total
# % 
Agreed upon commodity specification with the school (yes) 53 100
Delivery of food commodity to the school as per the commodity specification.
Yes, delivered all food commodities as per the commodity specification 47 88.7
Yes, delivered most of the time as per the commodity specification * 6 11.3
Total Suppliers 53
SUBMISSIION OF FOOD RECEIVED NOTE
13.323 Were you able to submit the monthly payment request ‘food received note’ to the school as per the agreed (verbal 
or written) upon time?
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Submitted food received note on 
time (Yes) 13 86.7 18 75.0 14 100.0 45 84.9
Food received note was returned 
by the school because the 
request was not as per the 
specification or did not follow 
the specification
0 0 4 16.7 0 0 4 15.1
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 92
PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM SCHOOL
13.33 During the school year 2019-2020, did you get paid from the school on time after you submitted the payment 
request to the school?
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes, I always get paid on time 0 0 16 66.7 9 64.3 25 47.2
Yes, I get paid on time most of 
th ti
15 100.0 8 33.3 5 35.7 28 52.8
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PAYMENT SYSTEM
13.34 Overall, how effective is the payment system while delivering food commodities for school meal??
Effectiveness KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Very effective 6 40.0 12 50.0 13 92.9 31 58.5
Effective 9 60.0 11 45.8 1 7.1 21 39.6
Neither effective nor ineffective 0 0 1 4.2 0 0 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
PROBLEMS HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WHILE DELIVERING FOOD ITEMS TO SCHOOL FOR 
SCHOOL MEAL
13.35 What problems have you experienced while delivering food items to school for school meal?
Problems
Total
# % 
The car/motorbike is broken 4 7.6
The road is difficult 21 39.7
The weight measurement is not correct 2 3.8
The weather is not good (heavy rain) 1 1.9
The school doesn’t pay before COVID-19 1 1.9
The chef is not at school at the time delivery 1 1.9
Far 4 7.5
Difficult to find the commodities receiver 1 1.9
The school did not notify related to COVID-19___0 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 53
13.36 Overall, what challenges have you experienced during tendering process for school meal?
Information
Total
# % 
Many competitor 6 11.3
Ask for cheapest price 10 18.9
After bidding, the commodities cost (price??) is increased 2 3.8
Gain small money 1 1.9
Difficult to meet 1 1.9
The other provide higher cost (price??) 1 1.9
The other provide cheapest cost (price??) 3 5.7
Don`t understand about the bidding process 1 1.9
No respect of time 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 93
OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL
13.37 Overall, how satisfied are you with the service provided by the school while delivering food commodities for the 
school meal programme? 
Satisfaction KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Very satisfied 4 26.7 13 54.2 11 78.6 28 52.8
satisfied 11 73.3 9 37.5 3 21.4 23 43.4
Neither satisfied nor satisfied 0 0 2 8.3 0 0 2 3.8
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
MODE AND COST OF FOOD DELIVERY
13.38 During the school year 2019-2020, what means of transportation you usually used when delivering food 
commodities to school? (Multiple response, Mark as they apply)? 
Mode KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Porter (carried on back) 1 6.7 0 0 0 0 1 1.9
Bicycle/motorcycle 14 93.3 24 100.0 13 92.9 51 96.2
Pick-up truck 3 20.0 2 8.3 5 35.7 10 18.9
Tuk tuk 2 13.3 0 0 1 7.1 3 5.7
Lorry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Public transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Tractor 2 13.3 0 0 2 14.3 4 7.5
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.39 During the school year 2019-2020, for what other services payment is required to deliver food commodities to 
school?
Services
Total
# % 
Transportation 49 92.5
Loading/unloading 2 3.8
Storage 0 0 
Total Suppliers 53
13.40 Who bears the cost of food delivery for school meal supply? 
Who bears the cost
Total
# % 
Our business pays 52 98.1
School pays 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 53
CAPACITY BUILDING
13.41 Awareness about Home-Grown School Feeding Program.
Awareness
Total
# % 
Yes 48 90.6
No 5 9.4
Total Suppliers 53
Note: Four suppliers in Kampong Thom and 1 in Siem Reap reported that they were not aware of home-grown school 
feeding programme.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 94
13.42 Training, mentoring, and coaching received
Training, mentoring, and coaching 
received
Total staff #
(min-max)
Total women staff # (min-max) % Women
G3. Training received on HGSF 45 (0-12) 21 (0-7) 47%
G5. Training received on preparing bids 
for tender or any other trainings
27 (0-10) 15 (0-7) 56%
Training on nutrition 34 (0-10) 17 (0-7) 50%
Food quality 45 (0-20) 21 (0-10) 47%
Food handling 25 (0-2) 11 (0-1) 44%
Storage 25 (0-2) 10 (0-1) 40%
Quality transportation 36 (0-11) 18 (0-8) 50%
Total # of sample schools 53
13.43 Did you or any of your staff receive training in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme 
(HGSF) from WFP or the Government? 
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes 13 86.7 3 12.5 3 21.4 19 35.8
No 2 13.3 21 87.5 11 78.6 34 64.2
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.44 How many staff received training in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF) 
from WFP or the Government? How many of them were women? 
Staff KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total trained
Sum Mean Sum Mean Sum Mean Sum Mean
Total 27 2.08 15 5.0 3 1.0 45 2.37
Female 11 0.85 8 2.67 2 0.67 21 1.11
% of women 41% 53% 67% 47%
Supplier who received training 13 3 3 19
13.45 In the past two years, have you or your staff ever received any training on how to prepare bids for tender, or any 
similar training? 
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes 13 86.7 2 8.3 1 7.1 16 30.2
No 2 13.3 22 91.7 13 92.9 37 69.8
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.46 How many staff received training in the last two years on the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF) 
from WFP or the Government? How many of them were women? 
Staff KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total trained
Sum Mean Sum Mean Sum Mean Sum Mean
Total 15 1.15 11 5.50 1 1.0 27 1.69
Female 7 0.54 7 3.50 1 1.0 15 0.94
% of women 50% 64% 100% 56%
Supplier who received training 13 2 1 16
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 95
13.47 Have you or any of your staff received any training on nutrition, food quality, food handling, storage, and quality 
transportation in the past two years from WFP or the Government?
Areas of training KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Yes# % Yes# % Yes# % Yes# % 
1. Nutrition 15 100.0 2 8.3 5 35.7 22 41.5
2. Food quality 15 100.0 3 12.5 5 35.7 23 43.4
3. Food handling 15 100.0 2 8.3 5 35.7 22 41.5
4. Storage 15 100.0 2 8.3 5 35.7 22 41.5
5. Quality transportation 15 100.0 3 12.5 5 35.7 23 43.4
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
13.48 How many staff received any training on nutrition, food quality, food handling, storage, and quality 
transportation in the past two years from WFP or the Government from WFP or the Government? How many of them 
were women? 
Areas of training # suppliers Total staff Women staff
Sum Mean Sum Mean % of total
1. Nutrition 22 34 1.55 17 0.77 50%
2. Food quality 23 45 1.96 21 0.91 47%
3. Food handling 22 25 1.14 11 0.50 44%
4. Storage 22 25 1.14 10 0.45 40%
5. Quality transportation 23 36 1.57 18 0.78 50%
OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE TRAINING RECEIVED
13.49 How satisfied are you with the trainings you or your staff received on HGSF procurement process? 
Satisfaction KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Very satisfied 5 33.3 11 45.8 7 50.0 23 43.4
satisfied 10 66.7 10 41.7 3 21.4 23 43.4
Neither satisfiednor satisfied 0 0 3 12.5 4 28.6 7 13.2
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
CONFIDENCE TO HANDLE AND MANAGE FOOD PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR SCHOOL MEAL
13.50 How confident are you or your business/organization is to handle and manage food procurement process for 
school meal? 
Confidence KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Very confident 4 26.7 12 50.0 8 57.1 24 45.3
Confident 11 73.3 9 37.5 3 21.4 23 43.4
Neither confident nor not confident
0 0 3 12.5 3 21.4 6 11.3
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
TRAINING NEEDS OF SUPPLIERS
13.51 Do you think you or your staff need further training to effectively handle and manage food procurement process 
for school meal programme? 
Response KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Yes 10 66.7 20 83.3 11 78.6 41 77.4
No 5 33.3 4 16.7 3 21.4 12 22.6
Total Suppliers 15 24 14 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 96
13.52 In what areas do you expect more trainings to you or your staff to effectively handle and manage food 
procurement process for school meal programme? 
Areas
Total
# % 
Storage 11 20.7
Planting techniques 24 45.3
New knowledge on crop 7 13.2
Packaging 4 7.5
Additional experience 6 11.3
Bidding 1 1.9
Animal raising technic 13 24.5
Commodities supply 4 7.5
Quality value 3 5.7
Fertilize use 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 53
INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAM AND BUSINESS
13.53. Has your involvement with the school meal programme helped you expand your business?
Response
Total
# % 
Yes 52 98.1%
No 1 1.9%
Total Suppliers 53 100.0%
13.54 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply the fixed volume of commodity for the school meal programme and delivery of commodities as per the 
agreement.
Response Total
# %
There was a verbal/written agreement with the supplier to supply the fixed volume commodity (Yes) 25 47.2
Total Suppliers 53
Was any commodity returned because the commodity was not delivered as per the agreement 0 0
Total Suppliers 25
13.55 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply the commodity on time frame for the school meal programme and delivery of commodities as per the 
agreement
Response Total
# %
There was a verbal/written agreement with the supplier on time frame to supply commodity (Yes) 42 79.2
Total Suppliers 53
Was any commodity returned because the commodity was not delivered as per the agreement 4 9.5
Total Suppliers 42
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 97
13.56 For the school year 2019-2020, agreement (verbal or written) with the supplier/trader/middlemen/rice miller or 
farmer to supply commodity on specification for the school meal programme and delivery of commodities as per the 
agreement
Response Total
# %
There was a verbal/written agreement with the supplier on commodity specification to supply 
commodity (Yes) 26 49.1
Total Suppliers 53
Was any commodity returned because the commodity was not as per the agreement* 1 3.8
Total Suppliers 26
*Only one delivery was returned because the bag arrived in poor condition (e.g., open/torn). 
13.57 Delivery of food commodity to the school as per the ‘monthly purchase order’.
Response Total
# %
Yes, delivered all food commodities as per the monthly purchase order 47 88.7
Yes, delivered most of the time as per the monthly purchase order* 6 11.3
Total Suppliers 53
*Note: 
Only six suppliers reported they were not able to deliver all commodities to school as per the monthly order. All these 
six suppliers were from Kampong Chhnang. The reasons were:
3 reported that the time was too short to deliver the commodity.
2 suppliers reported specified commodity was not available on time in the market.
1 supplier reported the cost (I think this is price) increased. 
One of these six suppliers reported that the commodity was returned by the school because the delivery was not as per 
the monthly purchase order. 
13.58 Who bears the cost of food delivery for school meal supply? 
Who bears the cost Total
# %
Our business pays 52 98.1
School pays 1 1.9
Total Suppliers 53
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 98
Annex 14: Farmer Survey Results
14.1 NUMBER OF FARMERS PARTICIPATING IN THE BASELINE SURVEY, BY PROVINCE (N=58)
14.1 Number of farmers participating in the baseline survey, by province (n=58)
Agricultural Produce KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Total % No % No % No %
Grains 12 80 31 61 8 16 51 88
Vegetables 8 53 32 65 9 90 49 85
Animals (swine and duck for eggs) 2 13 4 12 2 20 8 14
Fish 0 0 1 3 1 10 2 3
Total 15 33 10 58
14.2 Farmer Characteristics by Province
Characteristics KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Gender
 Male 8 53.3 17 51.5 4 40.0 29 50.0
 Female 7 46.7 16 48.5 6 60.0 29 50.0
Respondent is
 Head of the family 6 40.0 24 72.7 6 60.0 36 62.1
 Spouse of the head 9 60.0 6 18.2 4 40.0 19 32.8
 Other member is the head 0 0 3 9.1 0 0 3 5.2
Age of the respondent
 18-35 years or below 2 13.3 1 3.0 5 50.0 8 13.8
 36-55 years or over 9 60.0 22 66.7 1 10.0 32 55.2
 56 and over 4 26.7 10 30.3 4 40.0 18 31.0
Age of the HH head
 18-35 years or below 2 13.3 1 3.0 4 40.0 7 12.1
 36-55 years or over 8 53.3 22 66.7 2 20.0 32 55.2
 56 and over 5 33.3 10 30.3 4 40.0 19 32.8
Respondent’s Education
 Primary 6 40.0 26 78.8 6 60.0 39 67.2
 Secondary 8 53.3 4 12.1 3 30.0 15 25.9
 Vocational training 0 0 1 3.0 0 0 1 1.7
 Never attended school 1 6.7 2 6.1 1 10.0 3 5.2
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
14.3 Family size by Province
Characteristics KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max
Total family size 4.40 2-8 5.39 2-10 5.10 3-8 5.09 2-10
Female members 2.60 1-5 2.70 1-8 2.50 1-5 2.64 1-8
65 years and over age 0.60 0-2 0.42 0-2 0.10 0-1 0.41 0-2
65 years and over age females 0.40 0-1 0.30 0-2 0.0 0 0.28 0-2
14 years and below 1.0 0-3 1.12 0-5 0.80 0-3 1.03 0-5
14 years and below females 0.67 0-2 0.58 0-5 0.50 0-2 0.59 0-5
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 99
14.4 Land ownership by Province
Characteristics
KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max Avg # Min￾max Avg # Min-max
Total land owned M2 20267 4000-
40000
20516 583-
50000
20860 600-
35000
20511 583-50000
Total land suitable for crop 
production
14030 600-30000 11734 200-
50000
18060 100-
30000
13418 100-50000
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
14.4 Farming status by Province
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Farming last year (2019): Yes 13 86.7 31 93.9 8 80.0 52 89.7
Farming this year (2020): Yes 14 93.3 33 100.0 10 100.0 57 89.7
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
Note: A total of six farmers did farming this year: 1 from Kampong Chhnang, 2 from Kampong Thom and 2 from Siem 
Reap did farming in 2020 while one farmer in Kampong Chhnang did not farm this year in 2020. 
GRAIN PRODUCTION AND SALES
14.5 Grain and legume crops production: Area, volume of production and volume of sale (2020). 
Name of 
crops
Crops 
grown 
Area (… 
Khmer) under 
crop 
Total production (KG) Crops sold Total volume of 
sale (KG)
# % Mean Min￾max
#farmers Mean Min-max Yes 
#
% Mean Min￾max
Rice 49 86.0 16047 100-
49980
22 4915 500-
14000
18 81.8 3783 500-
10000
Corn 6 10.5 1873 10-
5000
4 187.5 30-300 4 100.0 186 25-300
Beans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cowpeas 19 33.3 201 5-500 17 157.0 10-800 16 94.1 160 10-800
Pigeon peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green 
grams
1 1.8 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 
farmers
57
14.6 Rice sold to schools as part of school meal programme (2020). 
Information Sold (Yes)
#/Mean %/Min-max
Sold as part of school meal program 8 44.4%
Volume of RICE crop sold as part of the school meal programme? (Kg) 2250KG 1000-2250KG
For how many years, you have been selling RICE as part of the school meal 
programme? Years
2 Years 1-3 Years
Did you sell RICE/PADDY to others other than for the school meal programme? 12 20.7
Volume of RICE crop you sold to others other than for school meal programme? Kg 3841 KG 1000-
10000KG
Total farmers who sold rice in 2019-2020. 18
Note: Only 8 farmers (44.4%) out 18 farmers who sold rice in 2019-2020 sold rice as part of school meal 
programme in 2019-2020. Among total rice producers, this proportion is only 16.3% (8 out of 49). 
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 100
VEGETABLE PRODUCTION AND SALES
14.7 Vegetable crops production: Area, volume of production and volume of sale (2020). 
Vegetables Crops 
grown 
Area (Sq 
meter) under 
crop 
Total production (KG) Crops sold Total volume of 
sale (KG)
# % Mean Min￾max
#farmers Mean Min￾max
Yes 
# 
% Mean Min￾max
Morning 
glory
43 87.8 274.6 5-2500 43 226.0 10-
2400
43 100.0 188.3 10-
1200
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
17 34.7 146.4 5-1000 16 65.6 25-200 16 100.0 61.9 10-200
Spinach 30 61.2 218.3 4-
2000
29 160.6 8-900 29 100.0 148.6 5-900
Moringa 5 8.6 17.4 7-50 5 10..0 5-300 4 80.0 107.5 30-900
Long bean 
(green)
24 49.0 232.3 3-
2000
23 154.8 5-800 22 95.7 151.3 4-800
Total 
farmers
49
14.8 Vegetable sold to schools as part of school meal programme (2020). 
Vegetabl
es
Crop 
sold as 
To 
schools
Who did you sell to? Total volume of sale 
(KG) 
Sold to 
others 
other 
than 
SMP?
Total 
volume 
of sale 
(KG) 
n % A 
trader/miller/middle
men
School # 
farmer
s
Mea
n 
Mean
-max
n % n Mea
n 
Morning 
glory 
4
3 
74.1 33 (76.7%) 10 
(23.3
%)
43 167 2-
2000
2
7 
62.8
% 
2
7 
114
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
1
6 
27.
6 
14 (87.5%) 2 
(12.5%
)
16 44 10-
100
11 68.8
% 
11 45
Spinach 2
9 
50.
0 
21 (74.2%) 8 
(27.6%
)
29 84 7-
500
2
0 
69.0
% 
2
0 
148
Moringa 4 6.9 3 (75.0%) 1 
(25.0
%)
4 60 10-
150
3 75.0
% 
3 73
Long 
bean 
(green)
2
2 
37.
9 
17 (77.3%) 5 
(22.7%
)
22 93 5-
500
14 63.6
% 
14 120
Total 
farmers
5
8 
Among those who sold as part of SMP only Among 
those 
who sold 
to others
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 101
ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND SALES
14.9 Animal production: Animals raised, number, and sale of animals (2020). 
Animals Animals 
raised
Number Sell 
animals? 
Yes
Numbers sold Value
# % Mean Min￾max
n % #farmer
s
Mean Min￾max
Mean Min-max
Swine/por
k 
7 87.5
% 
30.3 1-100 3 42.9% 3 19.7 4-30 4773333 320000-
800000
0
Duck (for 
eggs)
6 75.0
%
635.8 4-
3000
1 16.7% 1 20.0 20-
20
400000 400000
Duck egg 3 37.5
% 
95466.
7 
5000-
27600
0 
3 100.0
% 
3 9540
0 
4800
-
9540
0
4055250
0 
270000
0-
4055250
0
Total 
farmers
8 Among whom raised Among those who sold
Sale of animal as part of school meal programme (2020). 
*None of the farmers sold swine/pork as part of school meal programme.
*One 3 farmer sold duck eggs as part of school meal programme.
*All these three of these farmers sold to a trader/miller/supplier/middleman to sell duck eggs as part of 
school meal programme.
 
GRAIN (CEREALS AND LEGUMES) CROPS
14.10 Area used to produce grain and legume crops this year (2020) by Province
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max Avg # Min-max
Total land used to grow grain 
and legume crops in 2020 M2
15352 900-30000 16176 0-50000 16050 0-30000 12622 13340
Total Farmers 14 33 10 57
14.11Grain and legume crops production: Area, volume of production and volume of sale (2020). 
Name of 
crops
Crops 
grown
Area (… Khmer) 
under crop
Total production (KG) Crops sold Total volume of sale
(KG)
# % Mean Min-max #farmers Mean Min-max Yes # % Mean Min-max
Rice 49 86.0 16047 100-
49980
22 4915 500-14000 18 81.8 3783 500-10000
Corn 6 10.5 1873 10-5000 4 187.5 30-300 4 100.0 186 25-300
Beans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cowpeas 19 33.3 201 5-500 17 157.0 10-800 16 94.1 160 10-800
Pigeon peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green grams 1 1.8 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total farmers 57
14.12 Rice sold to schools as part of school meal programme (2020). 
Information Sold (Yes)
#/Mean %/Min-max
Sold as part of school meal program 8 44.4%
Volume of RICE crop sold as part of the school meal programme? (Kg) 2250KG 1000-2250KG
For how many years, you have been selling RICE as part of the school meal programme? Years 2 Years 1-3 Years
Did you sell RICE/PADDY to others other than for the school meal programme? 12 20.7
Volume of RICE crop you sold to others other than for school meal programme? Kg 3841 KG 1000-10000KG
Total farmers who sold rice in 2019-2020. 18
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 102
Note: Only 8 farmers (44.4%) out 18 farmers who sold rice in 2019-2020 sold rice as part of school meal programme in 
2019-2020. Among total rice producers, this proportion is only 16.3% (8 out of 49). 
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, MODE AND FREQUENCY OF DELIVERY 
14.13 Who did you sell rice as part of school meal programme (2020)? 
Information Response
# %
Who did you sell rice (as part of school meal programme)
 A trader/miller/retailer/middlemen/wholesaler 7 87.5
 Directly supplied to school 1 12.5
Total farmers who sold rice in 2019-2020 as part of school meal programme. 8
Note: Among 8 farmers who sold rice as part of school meal programme, 7 (87.5%) sold rice/paddy to 
traders/millers/middlemen/wholesaler. Only one of the reported that the rice was directly supplied to school.
14.14 Was there a verbal or written agreement with the buyer (trader/miller/retailer/middlemen/wholesaler/school) of 
rice? 
Information Sold (Yes)
#/Mean %/Min-max
Yes, there was a verbal or written agreement with the buyer 2 25%
No, there was no verbal or written agreement with the buyer 6 75.0
Total farmers who sold rice in 2019-2020 as part of school meal programme. 8
14.15 Vegetable crops production (2020). 
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Yes 8 53.3 32 97.1 9 90.0 49 84.5
No 7 46.7 1 3.0 1 10.0 9 15.5
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
14.16 Vegetable crops production: Area, volume of production and volume of sale (2020). 
Vegetables Crops 
grown
Area (Sq meter) 
under crop
Total production (KG) Crops sold Total volume of sale
(KG)
# % Mean Min-max #farmers Mean Min-max Yes # % Mean Min-max
Morning glory 43 87.8 274.6 5-2500 43 226.0 10-2400 43 100.0 188.3 10-1200
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
17 34.7 146.4 5-1000 16 65.6 25-200 16 100.0 61.9 10-200
Spinach 30 61.2 218.3 4-2000 29 160.6 8-900 29 100.0 148.6 5-900
Moringa 5 8.6 17.4 7-50 5 10..0 5-300 4 80.0 107.5 30-900
Long bean 
(green)
24 49.0 232.3 3-2000 23 154.8 5-800 22 95.7 151.3 4-800
Total farmers 49
14.17 Vegetable sold to schools as part of school meal programme (2020). 
Vegetables Crop sold 
as smp
Who did you sell? Total volume of sale 
(KG)
Sold to others 
other than 
SMP?
Total v 
sale 
(KG)
n % A 
trader/miller/middlemen
School # farmers Mean Mean-max n % n
Morning 
glory
43 74.1 33 (76.7%) 10 (23.3%) 43 167 2-2000 27 62.8% 27
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
16 27.6 14 (87.5%) 2 (12.5%) 16 44 10-100 11 68.8% 11
Spinach 29 50.0 21 (74.2%) 8 (27.6%) 29 84 7-500 20 69.0% 20
Moringa 4 6.9 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 4 60 10-150 3 75.0% 3
Long bean 
(green)
22 37.9 17 (77.3%) 5 (22.7%) 22 93 5-500 14 63.6% 14
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 103
Total 
farmers
58 Among those who sold as part of SMP only Amon 
who so 
others
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, MODE AND FREQUENCY OF DELIVERY
14.18 Who did you sell vegetables as part of school meal programme (2020)? 
Information Response
# %
Who did you sell rice (as part of school meal programme)
 A trader/miller/retailer/middlemen/wholesaler 38 77.6%
 Directly supplied to school 11 22.4%
Total farmers who produced and sold vegetables in 2019-2020 as part of school meal 
programme.
49
Note: Among 49 farmers who either produced or sold vegetables part of school meal programme, 38 (77.6%) sold 
vegetables to traders/millers/middlemen/wholesaler. Eleven (22.4%) farmers reported that the vegetables were directly 
supplied to school.
14.19 For the school year 2019-2020, if you sold any vegetable for school meal program, do you have any agreement 
(verbal or written) with the buyer (trader/middleman/school)? 
Information Contract Yes or No
# %
Yes 21 42.9%
No 28 57.1%
Total farmers who produced and sold vegetables in 2019-2020 as part of school meal 
programme.
49
14.20 Contractual agreement on vegetables. 
Vegetables Agreement
Yes
If Yes, when signed? Frequency of 
delivery
Quality of 
delivery?
Quantity of 
delivery?
Price?
n % At the 
beginning 
(n, %)
After the 
term 
began (n, 
%)
Daily (n, 
%)
Weekly 
(n, %)
n % n % n %
Morning 
glory
18 31.0% 11 (61.1%) 7 (38.9) 18 
(100.0%)
0% 17 94.4% 16 88.9% 13 72.2%
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
7 12.1% 4 (57.1%) 3 (42.9%) 0% 7 
(100.0%)
7 100.0% 7 100.0% 7 100.0%
Spinach 12 20.7% 8 (66.7%) 4 (33.3%) 0% 12 
(100.0%)
12 100.0% 11 91.7% 10 83.3%
Moringa 1 1.7% 1 (100.0%) 0% 0% 1 (100%) 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
Long bean 
(green)
7 12.1% 3 (42.9%) 4 (57.1%) 0% 7 
(100.0%)
6 85.7% 6 8537% 6 85.7%
Total 
farmers
58 Among those who has a contract
14.21 Delivery of vegetables. 
Vegetables Farmers 
with 
contract
Delivered on 
time (Yes)
Delivered the right 
quantity (Yes)
Delivered the 
right quality (Yes)
n % n % n %
Morning 
glory
18 16 88.9% 13 81.3% 16 88.9%
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
7 7 100.0% 6 85.7% 7 100.0%
Spinach 12 10 83.3% 7 70.0% 9 90.0%
Moringa 1 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0%
Long bean 
(green)
7 6 85.7 5 83.3% 6 100.0%
Total 
farmers
Among those who has a contract
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 104
14.22 Delivery of Vegetables. 
Vegetables Farmers who 
delivered
How delivered?
I delivered to 
buyer (n, %)
Buyer come to 
pick up (n, %)
Morning glory 16 4 (25.0%) 12 (75.0%)
Pumpkin (yellow) 7 1 (14.3%) 6 (85.7%)
Spinach 10 2 (20.0%) 8 (80.0%)
Moringa 1 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%)
Long bean (green) 6 0 (0.0%) 6 (100.0%)
Total farmers Among those who has a contract
14.23 Mode and Cost of Delivery of Vegetables. 
Vegetables Farmers 
who 
delivered
Mode of delivery? Was the cost of delivery cheap or 
expensive?
Porter 
(carried on 
back)
Bicycle/motorcycle Others Cheap Neither 
cheap nor 
expensive
Expensive
Morning 
glory
16 3 (18.8%) 12 (75.0%) 1 (6.3%) 3 
(18.8%)
13 (81.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Pumpkin 
(yellow)
7 2 (28.6%) 5 (71.4%) 0 (0.0%) 1 
(14.3%)
6 (85.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Spinach 10 3 (30.0%) 5 (71.4%) 0 (0.0%) 2 
(20.0%) 
8 (80.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Moringa 1 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 
(0.0%)
1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Long bean 
(green)
6 0 (0.0%) 6 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 
(16.7%)
5 (83.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Total 
farmers
Among those who had delivered
ANIMAL PRODUCTION 
14.24 Animal Production. 
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Yes 2 13.3% 4 12.1% 2 20.0% 8 13.8%
No 13 86.7% 29 87.9% 8 80.0% 50 86.2%
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58 100.0
14.25 Animals raised, number, and sale of animals (2020). 
Animals Animals 
raised
Number Sell 
animals? 
Yes
Numbers sold Value
# % Mean Min￾max
n % #farmers Mean Min￾max
Mean Min-max
Swine/pork 7 87.5% 30.3 1-100 3 42.9% 3 19.7 4-30 4773333 320000-
8000000
Duck (for 
eggs)
6 75.0% 635.8 4-3000 1 16.7% 1 20.0 20-20 400000 400000
Duck egg 3 37.5% 95466.7 5000-
276000
3 100.0% 3 95400 4800-
95400
40552500 2700000-
40552500
Total farmers 8 Among whom raised Among those who sold
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 105
FISH FARMING
14.26 Fish Production. 
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # %
Yes 0 0% 1 3.0% 1 10.0% 2 3.4%
No 15 100.0% 32 97.0% 9 90.0% 56 96.6%
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58 100.0
INFORMATION SOURCE
14.27 During the school year 2019-2020, did you sell commodities to the trader or school through a competitive 
bidding? By Province.
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes, sold through a competitive 
bidding
1 6.7 5 15.2 10 100.0 16 27.6
No 14 93.3 28 84.8 0 0 42 72.4
Total Farmers who sold any 
commodity in 2019-2020
15 33 10 58
14.28 Source of information about the tender used by farmers, by Province.
Information
Total
# % 
School and commune public bill board 3 18.8
Bid announcement banner 1 6.3
Public space announcement 1 12.5
Through local bid committee 6 37.5
Facebook 0 0
Public speakers 0 0
Through other villagers 5 31.3
From students etc. 2 12.5
School and commune public bill board 1 6.3
Suppliers 8 50.0
Total farmers who sold any commodity in 2019-2020 through 
competitive bidding
16
14.29 Awareness of the process and rules for preparing a bid for the tender for school supply.
Information
Total
# % 
Yes, I was aware 6 37.5
No 10 62.5
Total farmers who sold any commodity in 2019-2020 through 
competitive bidding
16
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 106
14.30 Commodities sold to traders or school(s) through a competitive tender?
Information Total
# %
Rice 2 12.5
Vegetables 13 81.3
Fish 1 1.7
Meat (Pork) 0 0
Eggs 0 0
Total farmers who sold any commodity in 2019-2020 through competitive bidding 16
CAPACITY BUILDING
14.31 Awareness about home-grown school feeding programme.
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes, I am aware 10 66.7 26 78.8 8 80.0 44 75.9
No 5 33.3 7 21.2 2 20.0 14 24.1
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
14.32 Did you or any of your family/household members receive any training in the last two years on the Home-Grown 
School Feeding Programme (HGSF) from WFP/Government?
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes 1 10.0 13 50.0 0 0 14 31.8
No 9 90.0 13 50.0 8 100.0 30 68.2
Total Farmers who were aware 
of HGSF.
10 33 8 44
14.33 How many family/household members received training in the last two years on the Home-Grown School 
Feeding Programme (HGSF) from WFP/Government?
Information
Total
Total Mean/HH Min-max
Total 25 1.79 1-4
Females 16 1.14 0-3
Total Farmers who received HGSF training 14
Note: Of the total family members who received training, 64% (16 out of 25) were female family members.
14.34 Training, mentoring, and coaching received by family members
Training, mentoring, and coaching received Total family 
members #
(min-max)
Total women # 
(min-max)
% Women
Training received on HGSF 25 16 (0-3) 64%
Training on how to prepare bids for tender 5 3 (0-1) 60%
Other Trainings
Safe food production 18 13 (0-3) 72.2%
Food safety and safety handling 14 12 (0-3) 85.7%
Good agricultural practices 14 12 (0-3) 85.7%
Participatory guarantee systems 4 3 (0-1) 75.0%
Organic standards 9 8 (0-3) 88.9%
Post-harvest handling of food 8 6 (0-1) 75.0%
Proper storage of food 12 10 (0-3) 83.3%
Food quality and food quality standards 6 6 (0-3) 100.0%
Food marketing 7 6 (0-2) 85.7%
Proper transportation of food 9 8 (0-1) 88.9%
Total # of sample farmers 58
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 107
14.35 Did you or your family/household members receive training in the following toolkit areas?
Information
Total (among those who received 
HGSF training)
Out of Total 58 
farmers
# % 
% Safe food production 12 85.7 20.7
Food safety and safety handling 10 71.4 17.2
Good agricultural practices 11 78.6 19.0
Participatory guarantee systems 4 28.6 6.9
Organic standards 7 50.0 12.1
Post-harvest handling of food 7 50.0 12.1
Proper storage of food 8 57.1 13.8
Food quality and food quality standards 4 28.6 6.9
Food marketing 6 42.9 10.3
Proper transportation of food 9 64.3 15.5
Total Farmers who received HGSF training 14 Of 58 farmers
14.36 Number of family members (total and female) who received training in various toolkit areas.
Information
Total (among those who
received HGSF training)
Total women (among those 
who
received HGSF training)
Sum Mean Min-Max Sum Mean Min-Max % female
Safe food production 18 1.50 1-3 13 1.08 0-3 72.2%
Food safety and safety handling 14 1.40 1-3 12 1.20 0-3 85.7%
Good agricultural practices 14 1.27 1-3 12 1.09 0-3 85.7%
Participatory guarantee systems 4 1.00 1-1 3 0.75 0-1 75.0%
Organic standards 9 1.29 1-3 8 1.14 0-3 88.9%
Post-harvest handling of food 8 1.14 1-2 6 0.86 0-1 75.0%
Proper storage of food 12 1.50 1-3 10 1.25 1-3 83.3%
Food quality and food quality standards 6 1.50 1-3 6 1.50 1-3 100.0%
Food marketing 7 1.17 1-2 6 1.0 0-2 85.7%
Proper transportation of food 9 1.0 1-1 8 0.89 0-1 88.9%
Total Farmers who received HGSF training 14
14.37 In the past two years, have you or any of your family/household member ever received any training on how to 
prepare bids for tender? 
Training to prepare bids KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes 1 6.7 4 12.1 0 0 5 8.6
No 14 93.3 29 87.9 10 100.0 53 91.4
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
Note: A total of 5 family members had received training on how to prepare bids for tender. Among them, 3 were 
females and 2 were males.
14.38 How confident are you to handle and manage food procurement process for school meal? 
Training to prepare bids KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Very confident 1 6.7 28 84.8 3 30.0 32 55.2
Confident 13 86.7 4 12.1 7 70.0 24 41.4
Neither confident nor not 
fid t
1 6.7 1 3.0 0 0 2 3.4
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
Note: Farmers in all three provinces report confidence to handle and manage food procurement process for school 
meals.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 108
TRAINING NEEDS
14.39 Do you think you or your family members need further training to effectively handle and manage food 
procurement process for school meal? 
Training to prepare bids KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
# % # % # % # % 
Yes 5 33.3 29 87.9 6 60.0 40 69.0
No 10 66.7 4 12.1 4 40.0 18 31.0
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
14.40 In what areas do you expect more trainings to you or your family members to effectively handle and manage food 
procurement process for school meal? 
Learning materials Total (among those who reported 
training is needed for them) 
n %
Vegetable planting techniques 17 42.5
Techniques of raising (fast growing) animals 12 30.0
Techniques of raising fish (fast growing) 7 17.5
New experience of farming 11 27.5
Knowledge on food management 3 7.5
How to take care vegetable 14 35.0
Techniques of mushroom planting 1 2.5
How to make composted fertilizer 5 12.5
Those Farmers who reported training is needed for them 40
14.41 Your involvement with the school meal program has helped increase the production of your enterprise. Do you 
strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement? 
Training to prepare bids
Total
# % 
Strongly agree 38 65.5
Agree 19 32.8
Neither agree nor disagree 1 1.7
Total Farmers 58
Note: Almost all farmers believe that their involvement with the school meal program has helped increase the 
production of your enterprise.
14.42 Your involvement with the school meal program has helped increase the total income of your household? 
Training to prepare bids
Total
# % 
Strongly agree 37 63.8
Agree 19 32.8
Neither agree nor disagree 2 3.4
Total Farmers 58
Note: Almost all farmers believe that their involvement with the school meal program has helped increase the total 
income of your household.
14.43 Did COVID-19 affect your overall household income?? 
Training to prepare bids
Total
# % 
Yes 53 91.4
No 5 8.6
Total Farmers 58
Note: 91.4 percent of the farmers reported that their overall household income was affected by COVID-19. Additional 
result shows that all of them (n=53) reported that COVID-19 has decreased their overall household income.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 109
14.44 Annual household income (Riel) reported.
Information KampongChhnang KampongThom Siem Reap Total
Mean income 15,706,667 8,756,060 11,700,000 11,061,207
Median income 14,000,000 6,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000
Min-max 4,000,000-40,000,000 2,000,000-32,850,000 9,000,000-
15,000,000
2,000,000-40,000,000
Total Farmers 15 33 10 58
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 110
Annex 15: LRP Performance Management Plan Baseline Summary 
Activity Indicator Baseline Values End of 
Project 
Target
2023
Cash transfers 
to support the 
HGSF 
Programme45
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average number of school days per 
month on which multi-fortified or 
at least 4 food groups were 
provided
Schools reported serving at least 4 food groups 
or fortified rice during school meals
XX
20
Number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA funded 
interventions
0 26,459
Number of individuals 
participating in USDA food 
security programs
0 21,881
Number of schools reached as a 
result of USDA assistance
0 71
Number of USDA social assistance 
beneficiaries participating in 
productive safety nets
0 20,789
Percent of HGSF orders delivered 
on time as per contract
90.3% 
Out of the 93 assessments in the survey, 84 
(90.3%) reported on time deliveries all the time 
with the remainder reporting on time deliveries 
most of the time. 
85
Percent of HGSF supplier contracts 
signed before the start of the school 
year
91% 
(10 of 11 contracts signed before school year 
start).
75
Percentage of HGSF deliveries 
rejected due to poor quality as 
reported by schools
0 
(no quality rejection reported among 11 LRP 
case schools with local supplier contracts
3
Strengthen 
capacity of 
HGSF 
stakeholders 
on 
procurement 
mechanisms
 
 
 
 
Cost of commodity (USD) procured 
as a result of USDA assistance
Prior to the start of the LRP suppliers recorded 
average of USD 4,789 per supplier (n=53) and 
an average of USD 5,641 per school (n=45). 
School side data for commodity cost not 
available.
369,275
Number of individuals trained in 
HGSF implementation, including 
procurement process and 
procedures as a result of USDA 
assistance
0 
No one has yet been trained under LRP 
however 43% of sampled suppliers and 40% of 
sampled farmers have been trained through 
other means of support (USDA)
192
Number of local suppliers for 
HGSF program contracted
0 
Prior to the start of LRP 11 schools report 
contracting suppliers. 53 suppliers in sample.
35
45 for LRP although individuals have received trainings or kits from HGSF trainings in targeted provinces and some 
schools have begun to contract suppliers.
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 111
Number of toolkits distributed as a 
result of USDA assistance
107 1,136
Quantity of commodity procured 
(MT) as a result of USDA 
assistance 
Prior to the start of the LRP, 333,367 kg 
commodities reported by 53 suppliers 
delivering to 45 schools
254
Strengthen 
national 
institutional 
capacities and 
systems
 
Number of policies, regulations, or 
administrative procedures in each 
of the following stages of 
development as a result of USAD 
assistance:
Stage 1: Analysed
Stage 2: Drafted and presented for 
public stakeholder consultation 
Stage 3: Presented for 
legislation/decree
Stage 4: Passed/Approved Stage
Stage 5: Passed for which 
implementation has begun
0 0
Value of new USG commitments 
and new public and private sector 
investments leveraged by USDA to 
support food security and nutrition
0 10,508
Technical 
assistance to 
producers and 
suppliers to 
strengthen 
HGSF market 
engagement
 
 
 
Number of individuals in the 
agriculture system who have 
applied improved management 
practices or technologies with 
USDA assistance
0 600
Number of individuals who have 
received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security 
training as a result of USDA 
assistance
0 900
Value of sales of farms and firms 
receiving USDA assistance
Not recorded in baseline 30
Volume of commodities sold by 
farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance
0 
Prior to the start of the LRP the surveyed 
farmers reported a total of 160 Kg of grains and 
legumes, 657 Kg of vegetables, and 2250 Kg of 
rice. No protein was sold to schools by farmers.
30
LRP 1.3.2.2: 
Increased 
Value Added 
to Post￾Production 
Agricultural 
Products
LRP INDICATOR 9: Total increase 
in installed storage capacity (dry or 
cold storage) as a result of USDA 
assistance46
69% of LRP case schools reported having 
storage capacity versus 43% of comparison 
schools.
46 From LRP Indicator Definition Document
LRP Baseline Annexes – February 2021 112
WFP Cambodia Country Office
https://www.wfp.org/countries/cambodia
Phnom Penh, February 2021, Report number