B A S E L I N E S U R V E Y R E P O R T
M O Z A M B I Q U E L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L F O O D A I D 
P R O C U R E M E N T P R O G R A M - L R P
FFE - 6 5 6 - 2 0 1 7 / 0 1 8 - 00
Prepared by
International Centre for Evaluation and Development 
March 2018
ii
Contents
Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
Acronyms...................................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive summary..................................................................................................................................... iv
Purpose of the baseline study .......................................................................................................... iv
Findings................................................................................................................................................. v
Limitations of the study...................................................................................................................... vi
Indicators .............................................................................................................................................vii
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Mozambique’s Socioeconomic Situation ................................................................................. 1
1.3 The study area............................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 The National School Feeding Programme .............................................................................. 2
1.5 Purpose of the Survey ................................................................................................................ 3
2. Methodology......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Sampling Strategy ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Survey Design.............................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Survey Plan .................................................................................................................................. 7
3. Findings................................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Students........................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Teachers..................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Management of the Feeding Program ................................................................................... 19
3.3.1School Management Committees................................................................................................ 19
3.3.2School Procurement Committees................................................................................................ 20
Note: WV = World Vision.................................................................................................................. 23
3.3.6Cooks............................................................................................................................................ 24
3.3.7 Food Transporters....................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.8Government Officials................................................................................................................... 27
3.3.9Suppliers of food products........................................................................................................... 27
3.4 Farmers’ production .................................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Market Assessment................................................................................................................... 38
3.6 Supply ......................................................................................................................................... 39
3.7 Demand....................................................................................................................................... 41
4. Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 42
5. Baseline Questions and Related Findings...................................................................................... 43
References.................................................................................................................................................. 45
iii
Acronyms
CIP International Centre of Potatoes
CoP Chief of Party
DIP Detailed Implementation Plan
ECT2 Education Children Together Phase 2
FGD Focus Group Discussion
ICED International Centre for Evaluation and Development
INE Instituto Nacional de Estatística
FFE Food for Education
ITSH Internal Transportation, Storage & Handling
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LPSF Locally Procured School Feeding
LRP Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement
MASA Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
MINEDH Ministry of Education
MISAU Ministry of Health
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MZM Mozambique Currency
PDM Post Distribution Monitoring
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PRONAE National School feeding program of the Government of Mozambique
SPC School Procurement Committee
SDSMAS Serviço Distrital de Saúde Mulher e Acção Social
ToT Trainer of Trainers
USD United States Dollar
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WV World Vision
iv
Executive summary
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has provided funding for a Local and 
Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (LRP) in Mozambique for implementation from May 
2017 to February 2019 in 43 schools in two districts of the Nampula Province. The project is 
being implemented by World Vision Inc through World vision Mozambique (WVM) to 
substantially improve students’ nutrition in the target schools. The goal is to improve the 
efficacy and sustainability of the larger ongoing McGovern-Dole ECT2 school feeding program 
in Mozambique through the procurement of locally produced food commodities.
The project’s intended results are to increase capacity of schools and the Government to 
effectively and efficiently procure local commodities to supply school feeding programs, 
promote the sustainability of school feeding, strengthen farmer groups’ ability to provide high￾quality nutritious commodities and improve the nutrition of students in the target districts of 
Muecate and Nacarôa. World Vision is of the view that if farmer groups provide locally 
produced, high quality, nutritious commodities that are delivered to schools through effective 
school procurement committees, the school feeding programme will be effective and 
sustainable, as well as improve the nutritional status of the targeted school children.
It is against this background that World Vision commissioned an independent baseline survey 
in January–February 2018 to find the current levels of some related indicators and also 
address the following questions:
• What is the capacity of the farmer groups to produce high quality, nutritious 
commodities, especially orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP), and supply them to the
school-feeding program?
• What level of capacity do the schools and the government departments have to procure 
and manage local commodities to supply the school feeding program?
• To what extent can locally procured, good quality and culturally appropriate food 
commodities help to improve the nutrition of students in the target schools?
Purpose of the baseline study
The purpose of the baseline study was to establish benchmarks for indicators against which 
the project’s success would be measured. Specifically, the study aimed to:
• Determine the relevant indicator measurements required to answer the key baseline 
questions;
• Determine the current values of the relevant outcome indicators to measure program 
performance as well as to answer the key baseline questions;
• Collect data for analytical comparison with the final program evaluation data to 
determine the degree of change in output and outcome indicators;
• Help establish or validate annual and end of project targets for the program indicators.
The Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (LRP) baseline survey was based on 
the total number of the schools participating in the ETC2 program and LRP. A total of 160 
schools in two districts are involved. Out of these 43 schools are participating in LRP. These 
schools are classified in this baseline survey as the treatment schools and the remaining 117 
as the control schools. Some 50 schools were randomly selected for the survey, 20 from the 
treatment group and 30 from the control group. 
It should be noted that a number of the LRP interventions had started before the baseline 
which was delayed because of initial problems in finding a suitable consultant for the survey.
v
Findings
The main findings of the study are summarized according to the research questions, as 
follows:
To what extent can locally procured, good quality and culturally appropriate food commodities 
help to improve the nutrition of students in the target schools?
• More students in the treatment schools had two meals per day (288) than in the control 
schools (228), which benefitted from only the ETC2 programme. The same trend 
applied to students who had three meals a day, with fewer children coming from the 
control schools (93) than the treatment schools (104).
• The students in both programs had balanced meals that included food products from 
all the food groups. In the Nacaroa control schools this trend was less evident than in 
the other three areas (Nacaroa and Muecate treatment schools and Muecate control 
schools), where more than 75% of the students interviewed reported eating from the 
four food groups. Three food groups that included sweet potato, vegetables and fruits
was consumed by the least number of students.
• Limited numbers of students reported being sick in the previous month before the 
baseline. The students in the two districts did not have many health complaints and 
only about 28% of them reported to have fallen ill once in the previous month, the 
highest level for illness shown in the survey
What is the capacity of the farmer groups to produce high quality, nutritious commodities, 
especially orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP), and supply them to the school-feeding 
program?
• Farmers had been trained in business skills and agricultural techniques by the LRP 
project before the baseline. 
• OFSP had been introduced to 40% of the farmer associations at the time of the 
baseline. 
• Only 10% of the farmer associations were supplying OFSP to schools as at the time of 
the baseline. However, more than 50% of the procurement committees in the Muecate 
district confirmed that they received food products from farmer associations.
• World Vision vehicles and human porters were the most common means of 
transporting food supplies to the schools
• Farmer association had some experience in commercial or contractual business 
relationships.
What level of capacity do the schools and the government departments have to procure and 
manage local commodities to supply the school feeding program?
• School Procurement Committees had been trained in storage quality and future 
contracts by the LRP project at the time of the baseline.
• School Procurement Committees were present in only the treatment schools at the 
time of the baseline
• Some school procurement committee members had trainings from other NGOs, 
government departments and other workshops as at the time of the baseline
• Some 69% of the treatment school committees reported that their quality control 
method for the food products was visual assessment, 62.5% controlled their stores of 
the products by referring to the delivery notes, while 43.8% did so using a product 
vi
inventory. The quality control procedures were not implemented in the control schools 
in either district.
Limitations of the study
The main limitation of the survey is that it was carried out late during the first year of the project, 
therefore, the data being provided for the outcome indicator are not that of “before the project, 
but after some activities had already taken place in the treatment schools. The assumption 
being made is that the control schools will serve as a comparison baseline for the treatment 
schools.
Also the timing of the survey was at the beginning of the academic year, therefore it was 
difficult to find the respondents, and some information that should have been very recent was 
obtained from the previous school semester. 
Again, the period of the baseline study was associated with the unfavourable weather 
conditions that hit the Nampula province before the survey and made access to the schools 
difficult, since the distance between the schools was long and the logistic resources available
were limited. Some schools were impossible to reach owing to the damaging of bridges and 
had to be replaced, a situation that overstretched the limited resources
This report presents quantitative and qualitative data supporting the observations.
vii
Indicators
Outcomes Outcome indicators Assessed Baseline
Control Treatment
Improved effectiveness and sustainability of school 
feeding through local procurement
Percentage of farmer groups with partnerships with schools 55.3 44.6
Strengthen farmer groups’ ability to provide high quality 
commodities and connect them to school feeding 
programme
Average volume of commodities sold by farmers (Kgs) 0 95
Average value of commodities sold by farmers before project
(MTn)
0 2250
Increased agricultural productivity of farmer groups Percentage of farmers with training in agricultural productivity 34 38
Percentage of farmers trained in business skills 38 61.5
Percentage of farmer group leaders trained in produce storage and 
handling 
10 31
Increased capacity of farmer groups to fulfil 
procurement contracts
Percentage of farmers engaged in food supply contracts 0 8.5
Percentage of farmer group leaders with training in procurement 
contracting 
40 59.2
Increased capacity of schools and the government to 
procure local commodities to supply school feeding 
programmes in the long term
Percentage of schools involved in procurement of local commodities 
for school feeding 
0 43.5
Percentage of government officials involved in local commodities 
procurement for school feeding 
NA NA
Increased skills and knowledge of school management 
in food quality control and stock control
Percentage of school management committee members with 
knowledge in food quality and stock control 
0 37.5
Increased skills and knowledge of school management 
in forward contracts
Percentage of school management committee members with training 
in forward contracts 
0 37.5
Improved nutrition of students by utilizing various, good 
quality and culturally appropriate foods
Average number of daily meals consumed by households – children 2 2
Improved access to nutritious foods Percentage of children consuming at least 3–7 food groups 55.8 44
Increased skills and knowledge on nutritious food 
preparation
Percentage of cooks trained in nutritious food preparation 49 33
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In 2017, World Vision received a two-year grant covering May 8, 2017 to February 28, 2019 
from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement the Local and Regional 
Food Aid Procurement Project (LRP) in Mozambique. The goal was to improve student 
nutrition and the efficacy and sustainability of USDA’s ongoing McGovern-Dole ECT2 school 
feeding program in the country through providing students locally grown and procured food 
commodities. The LRP project aims to obtain dry beans, groundnuts and orange-flesh sweet 
potato (OFSP), plus iodized salt, from local suppliers to provide to 43 schools in the Muecate 
and Nacaroa districts. Procuring foods locally will strengthen the local market supply as well 
as suppliers’ capacity to provide high quality food to schools. This approach is in line with the 
government’s school feeding policy and will complement its efforts in addressing nutritional 
deficiencies, especially vitamin A and iron deficiencies among children.
To provide the food, World Vision planned to work with local suppliers to procure 
approximately 120 MTof beans, 253 MT of groundnuts and 42 MT of salt. The project also 
planned to work with local farmer groups already connected to the selected schools to procure 
230 MT of OFSP through a forward contracting mechanism. These farmer groups received
training to improve the yield and quality of their commodities and their business skills. The 
overall objective was to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the school feeding 
program through local procurement of food. The main intermediate results were to strengthen 
farmer groups’ ability to provide high quality, nutritious commodities and connect them to 
school feeding programmes; increase the capacity of schools and the government to procure 
local commodities to supply the school feeding programs in the long term and improve the 
nutrition of students by utilizing various good quality and culturally appropriate foods.
World Vision commissioned this baseline study on the LRP project with the objective of 
establishing benchmark performance indicators against which the project’s effectiveness 
would be measured. 
1.2 Mozambique’s Socioeconomic Situation
Mozambique is a low income, food deficit country, which in 2016 was ranked 181 out of 188 
countries in the human development index and 104 out of 188 in the global hunger index.
According to INE 2017, the country has a large and growing population of 28 million. Some 
80% of its people cannot afford an adequate diet and 46% in that group live below the poverty 
line.
1 The country has demonstrated significant commitment to improve the health status of 
the population, and government spending on health services has increased. However, 
according to INE and ICF International (2013), the prevalence of stunting, which is associated 
with chronic malnutrition, has increased to 46% and is considered severe. 
Although most of the agricultural production takes place in the northern and central provinces, 
the northern provinces are more severely affected by chronic food insecurity and, thus, 
stunting. In Nampula the chronic malnutrition level is 55%, anaemia affects 70% of the children 
under 5 years of age and 55% of the women in the reproductive age, and vitamin A deficiency 
affects 68% of the children aged 6–12 years.
The country has registered good progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 1 on 
ending poverty in all its forms but needs to make more progress towards the targets of 
Sustainable Development Goal 2, which focuses on access to food, food insecurity, chronic 
1 2014 World Bank development indicators
2
malnutrition and smallholder productivity. To achieve those results the following challenges 
need to be addressed:
• Government institutions suffer from insufficient program implementation capacity, 
shortage of qualified staff, and resource limitations, all of which affect nutrition and 
food security programs, particularly at the provincial and district levels. 
• The national emergency preparedness and response capacities are insufficient to 
address the frequent climate shocks, despite the progress made over recent years. 
• The multisectoral coordination between the government and partners on food security 
and nutrition is fragmented, preventing consistency in programming and limiting
consideration of regional differences;
• Access to markets and sustainable food systems is limited, constraining the 
commercialization of the food produced by smallholder farmers.
1.3 The study area
In 2017 Mozambique had 20,076 primary schools which includes 12,522 EP1 schools (grade 
1-5) and 7,554 EP2 schools (grades 6-7)
2
. There were 5,101,521 pupils enrolled in EP1 and 
922,110 in EP23
. The ratio of teacher to students was 1:594 and the average number of pupils 
per class was 50.9. The average national literacy rate in 2014/2015 was 44.9%, while in the 
Nampula province it was 56%.
The study covered two districts in Nampula province, i.e. Muecate and Nacaroa. Muecate 
district has an area of 4,154 km2 and a population of 107,614, and Nacaroa, whose area is 
2,749 km2
, has a population of 119,893 (INE, 2013). 5
The two districts have a total of 160 schools and the World Vision program serves all of them. 
In 2017 Muecate had 83 schools out of which 36 were EP1 schools and 47 were EPCs 
(complete primary schools) and Nacaroa had 77 schools, out of which 38 were EP1 schools 
and 39 were EPCs.6
There were 46 farmer associations in the study area, 24 in Muecate and 22 in Nacaroa. The 
associations had about 1,100 farmers, and average 5–10 members. They produced a variety 
of five or more products.
Muecate district had 21,593 small and medium-size farms occupying an area of 30,676 m2
and constituting 3% of the farms in the province (INE, 2013). Nacaroa had 23,877 small and 
medium-size farms cultivating an area of 30,681 m2 or 3% of the cultivated area in the 
province.
1.4 The National School Feeding Programme
The Government of Mozambique in 2010 entered into a tripartite agreement with the Brazilian 
Cooperation Agency and the World Food Program to develop the National School Feeding 
2 Annual survey general education public schools –2017 MINED
3 Enrolment by level of education -Day and night shifts – 2017 MINED
4 Global Partnership for Education 2015
5
INE Estatisticas do Distrito 2013
6
Information form World Vision
3
Programme (PRONAE). This program now benefits from the support of other partners and is 
being implemented in two phases. The pilot’s project phase 1 targeted primary schools in 
Cahora Bassa and Changara in Tete province. Pilot 2 is targeting the provinces of Gaza,
Manica, Tete and Nampula.
World Vision is one of the stakeholders in PRONAE. It has been implementing a program to 
substantially improve students’ nutrition and the efficacy and sustainability of the ongoing 
McGovern-Dole ECT2 school feeding program in Mozambique through providing the schools 
with locally grown and procured food commodities. World Vision’s LPR project procures dry 
beans, groundnuts and OFSP, plus iodized salt, from local suppliers to supply 43 schools in 
Muecate and Nacaroa districts of Nampula. The aim is to achieve the objective of improved 
effectiveness and sustainability of school feeding through local procurement. The following 
are the expected intermediate results:
• Strengthen farmer groups’ ability to provide high quality, nutritious commodities and 
connect them to school feeding programmes;
• Increase capacity of schools and the government to procure local commodities to 
supply school feeding programmes in the long term;
• Improve nutrition of students by utilizing various good quality and culturally appropriate 
foods.
1.5 Purpose of the Survey
The overall purpose of the baseline survey and market assessment in Muecate and Nacaroa 
districts was to collect baseline data to establish benchmarks for the LRP project’s
performance indicators against which its success would be measured. Furthermore, the data 
generated on the various outcome indicators would serve to inform the World Vision 
management and partners on the reference situation in the intervention areas.
The baseline survey was meant to answer the following research questions:
• What is the capacity of the farmer groups to produce high quality, nutritious 
commodities, especially OFSP, and supply them to the school feeding programme?
• What level of capacity do the schools and the government departments have to 
procure and manage local commodities to supply the school feeding programme?
• To what extent can locally procured good quality and culturally appropriate food 
commodities help to improve nutrition of students in target schools?
The results from the study were expected to be used to:
• Assist in setting appropriate short-term outcome and performance targets for future 
assessment of the effectiveness of interventions;
• Inform the strategic decisions on the design and implementation of these interventions.
Specifically, the baseline survey was meant to serve the following purposes:
• Determine the relevant short-term outcome indicator measurements required to 
answer the key baseline questions;
• Determine the current values of the relevant outcome indicators to measure program 
performance as well as answer the key baseline questions;
• Collect data for comparison with the final evaluation data to determine the degree of 
change in the output and outcome indicators;
• Help establish/validate annual and end of project targets for the program indicators.
2. Methodology 
The baseline study used a mixed-methods approach that included a desktop review and 
collection of quantitative and qualitative data. The consultant conducted structured
4
questionnaire interviews with teachers, students, government officials and food commodities 
wholesalers and transporters. Focus group discussions were held with farmers, community 
volunteers, procurement committees and school management committees.
The market assessment focused on community markets and trade fairs, mostly markets 
located near the schools selected. It collected data to help determine:
• The number of farmers producing beans, groundnuts and OFSP;
• The production quantities for each crop;
• The quantities of the crops consumed by farmers or sold in the markets, in which 
markets they were sold and at what price;
• The quality of the products and the production chain components for those products
for their input, planting, harvesting, storage and distribution processes;
• The number of intermediaries involved in the distribution of the commodities and the 
prices paid for the crops by these intermediaries.
2.1 Sampling Strategy 
The baseline survey used probability and non-probability sampling methods. Probability 
sampling consisted of randomly selecting both the control and the treatment schools, the 
students, the teachers and the school administrative staff to be interviewed. A simple random 
sampling strategy was used, involving considering the universe of all the 160 schools in the 
treatment and control areas, then the number of students and teachers and sampling them. 
Since the ECT2 program had 43 schools in the LRP project in the treatment area and 117 
schools in the control area, a simple random sampling method was used to select a number 
of schools within the treatment and the control groups. From the selected sample of the 
treatment and control schools the consultant randomly selected from each school students,
teachers (from grade 1 to 3), volunteer cooks and officials. The appropriate sample sizes for 
students, teachers, school administrators, volunteer and cooks were determined after the 
listing. 
To select the key informants such as district and provincial government officials from the 
Ministry of Education, Agriculture and Health to be interviewed on their role and contribution 
to the program, the consultant used a non-probability, purposive sampling approach, which 
involves choosing respondents based on the fact that they are likely to give the best 
information on the intervention.
2.1.1 Sample size determination
After an assessment of the universe of the study using the latest project data, the consultant 
determined the sample size for the study using as the key assumptions the following 
parameters:
• A significance level of 0.05;
• A cluster size (i.e. number of farmers) of 10.
A sample of 50 schools (Tables 1 & 2) was selected from the 160 schools, which was regarded 
as a statistically acceptable size considering the time allowed for the survey and the resources 
with the resultant numbers as follows: 
• Total number of schools = 160
• Total number schools for the treatment = 43
• Total number of schools for the control = 117
• Number of schools selected = 50
• 20 schools selected in the treatment group
• 30 schools selected in the control group
• Number of students per class per school = 15 
5
• Number of teachers selected per school = 2 
• Number of cooks’ focus group discussions = 50
• Number of school committees = 50
Table 1: Schools selected in Muecate district 
ETC2 Control Schools LRP Treatment schools
Nchancha Namina 
Nantica Nacotho 
Tipane Minicane 
Nacopa Mucocola
Mucone Chipacane 
Nanvuca Mutuala
Nametil Carimela
Nalikue Ampuaia 
Imala 25 de Setembro 
Terrene Namicoio
Sapala
Lapa
Mathe
Mucorro
Minheuene
Table 2: Schools selected in Nacaroa district
ETC2 control schools LRP treatment group
EP1 de Naphela EPC Mucuthy
EP1 de Muatelene EPC de Cothocuane
EPC de Muchelia EPC de Munana
EP1 de Nahavara EP1 de Muhiene
EPC de Novane EP1 de Mulapane
EPC de Eduardo 
Mondlane
EPC de Inteta
EP1 de Namacozi EPC de Nachere
EP1 de Cascone EPC de Nacuala
EP1 de Camaculo EPC de Mecuburi-chico
EP1 de Savane EPC de Querramuaha
EP1 de Namachilo EPC Tabuane
EP1 de Trapassa
EPC de Munania
EP1 de Metulula
We included all the farmer associations in the two districts under the LRP since the project 
was working with all of them. In each association we selected five to eight farmers to 
participate in the focus group discussions. 
2.1.2 Methodological guidelines for the qualitative research
The qualitative approach was incorporated into the baseline study to complement the 
quantitative data and provide granular information, allowing for examination of nuances, for 
example the social analysis of gender and age-group-specific deficiencies and related needs,
and other relevant issues that emerged from the quantitative data. The qualitative approach 
was used also to improve understanding about the economic, social and institutional patterns 
that supported or constrained the possible economic and social impact of the intervention. 
6
The qualitative study combined focus group discussions with in-depth key informant 
interviews. The key informants interviewed included local government, regional and local 
officials working on food security. The focus groups included groups of farmers, volunteer
cooks, procurement committees and school management committees.
2.2 Survey Design
The analysis combined data collected using the quantitative and the qualitative survey 
instruments developed by the consultant team. The enumerators were trained after the 
inception and translation of the instruments. The quantitative survey used a structured 
questionnaire to interview the selected students, teachers, school officials, traders and 
transporters. 
2.2.1 Chosen indicators
Normally in a school feeding program the key indicator of reference is the net enrolment, but 
the LRP design monitoring and evaluation plan did not list this item as an indicator. Therefore 
we relied on the World Vision indicators shared with us that had been classified under the 
various outcomes. Depending on the current level of the indicator and the foreseen desired 
level of change, the number of respondents required to reveal such a change varied. The 
sample size was inversely related to the size of the change that the survey intended to capture. 
The key outcome indicators were:
• Percentage of schools depending solely on locally procured food for school feeding 
before the LRP project
• Percentage of farmer groups with partnerships with schools before the project
• Volume of commodities sold by farmers before the project
• Value of commodities sold by farmers before the project
• Percentage of farmers with training in agricultural productivity before the project
• Percentage of farmers trained in business skills before the project
• Percentage of farmer group leaders trained in produce storage and handling before 
the project
• Percentage of farmers engaged in food supply contracts before the project
• Percentage of farmer group leaders with training in procurement contracting before the 
project
• Percentage of schools involved in procurement of local commodities for school feeding 
before the project
• Percentage of government officials involved in local commodity procurement for school 
feeding before the project
• Percentage of school management committee members with knowledge in food quality 
and stock control before the project
• Percentage of school management committee members with training in forward 
contracts before the project
• Average number of daily meals consumed by households (children)
• Percentage of children consuming at least 3–7 food groups 
• Percentage of cooks trained in nutritious food preparation
2.2.2 Stratification and desegregation of data
The common variable for stratification is geographic location, in this case the treatment and 
control school district and the community. The data were desegregated by gender, age group
and school grade, and they were selected on the basis of the analytic needs of the operation.
7
2.3 Survey Plan
2.3.1 Personnel management
Personnel management consisted essentially of:
• Hiring, training, supervising and remunerating survey interviewers and supervisors for 
the quantitative and qualitative surveys. The training lasted three days and provided
enumerators with the opportunity to practise administering the survey in a mock 
setting.
• Ensuring that all the field staff conducted themselves professionally and ethically. Any 
problem with conduct was immediately addressed and repeat violators were taken out 
of the team. 
2.3.2 Fieldwork and data collection 
The International Centre for Evaluation and Development (ICED) team prepared and
pretested the data collection tools, trained the enumerators, and coordinated the survey in the 
two districts. The team conducted a four-day training session for 12 enumerators, focusing on 
the design of the baseline survey, the sampling strategy and the instruments used for data 
collection.
The pilot test was conducted in one day in two schools in Muecate district with two teams of 
six enumerators per school. The instruments were tested with the people found in the schools. 
The instruments for the markets, procurement committees and cooks were prioritized. There 
were not many issues with the content of the instruments but many issues were identified in 
the sequencing of the questions. A feedback session at the end of the day allowed for inputs 
to be shared with the ICED IT officer that were to be used to fine-tune the questionnaires 
accordingly. The questionnaires were revised and adjusted as per the feedback.
The field work was undertaken in two phases. The first phase took place 25 January to 2 of 
February, one week prior to the beginning of the academic year. During that time FGDs were 
conducted with cooks, school procurement committees, market committees and other 
stakeholders. The second phase of data collection occurred 5 to 10 February. During that time 
the survey was conducted among students and teachers, and FGDs were held with school 
management committees. The number of interviews and FGDs in many cases was lower than 
the sample size determined (see Table 3). The reasons for those differences were that:
• Not all schools were linked to a farmer group;
• Not all schools had a market nearby;
• Only LRP schools had procurement committees, although not all of them were 
operational;
• Not all schools had grades 1 to 7; some had only grades 1 to 5.
Table 3: Baseline level response
Instrument Planned of 
FGDs or 
interviews
Actual FGDs or 
interviews
Farmer associations’ FGDs 50 44
Market assessment FGDs 50 11
Procurement committees’ FGDs 20 19
8
Students’ interviews 700 683
Teachers’ interviews 100 99
Cooks’ FGDs 50 50
School management committees’ 
FGDs
50 49
2.3.3 Quality control
Throughout the data collection process, the key consultant and field officer monitored the 
process to ensure that the interviews were conducted ethically and that the data met the 
quality standards set by ICED. This was done using the following steps:
• The enumerators used a computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) setup installed 
on tablets during interviews. At the end of the day team supervisors were required to 
review and upload the data to be sent to the CAPI operations team at the ICED head 
office. The key consultant reviewed the available data and contacted the associated 
team for clarification and corrections to be made for any issue.
• During the survey period, a field coordinator/supervisor visited the field workers to 
monitor the data collection process, provide necessary logistics support and address 
any issues that came up in the field. Field teams reported their progress regularly so 
that the consultant could ensure that field work schedules were adhered to.
3. Findings
3.1 Students
3.1.1 Student profile
The LRP baseline survey covered the total schools participating in the ECT2 program, in which 
LRP was a part. Some 160 schools were participating in the program in two districts. Out of 
these 43 schools were in the LRP project. Those schools were classified in the baseline survey 
as the treatment schools and the remaining 117 as the control schools. A random selection of 
50 schools was made, 20 from the treatment schools and 30 from the control schools.
Fifteen students from each of the classes in the schools were selected by simple random 
sampling for the structured interview. Two teachers from each of the 50 schools were also 
selected randomly for the survey sample.
In the two districts and in both the treatment and the control schools, a total of 652 students 
were interviewed, of whom 50.9% were male and 49.7% were female (Table 4).
Table 4: Student gender disaggregation
Male Female Total
District Muecate 50.3% 49.7% 314
Nacaroa 51.5% 48.5% 338
Total 50.9% 49.1% 652
Muecate control 50% 50% 182
Muecate treatment 50.8% 49.2% 132
Nacaroa control 51.1% 48.9% 182
Nacaroa treatment 51.9% 48.1% 156
9
Total 50.9% 49.1% 652
3.1.2 School enrolment
According to the information provided by teachers on the number of students in each school 
for the 2017 academic year on average there were 291 students enrolled per school.
The number of students enrolled in each school, reported by the teachers, varied considerably 
in both districts. In the 2017 academic year 14% of the schools had 201–250 students, 14% 
had 301–350 students, 11% had 401–450 students and 11% had more than 501 students. In 
2017 more students were enrolled in the treatment schools than in the control schools in the 
same district.
Table 5: Students enrolled in 2017
Students enrolled in 
2017 Total
Mean Median
District Muecate 312 250
Nacaroa 271 259
Total 291 254
Disaggregation
Base
Muecate 
Control
316 249
Muecate 
Treatment
318 337
Nacaroa 
Control
249 254
Nacaroa 
Treatment
295 308
Total 291 254
For the 2018 academic year, the information provided by the teachers on the average number 
of students enrolled in each school, was 257 students.
Again, in 2018 the number of students enrolled reported by the teachers varied considerably 
for both categories in both districts. Some 18% of the schools had 201–250 students, 12% 
had 101–150 students and 15% had 0–50 students. 
Table 6: Student enrolled in 2018
Students Enrolled 2018 
Total
Mean Median
Districts Muecate 298 229
Nacaroa 220 195
Total 257 213
Disaggregation
Base
Muecate 
Control
293 211
10
Muecate 
Treatment
324 315
Nacaroa 
Control
160 149
Nacaroa 
Treatment
295 213
Total 257 213
3.1.3 School attendance
In the last semester of 2017 the control schools had lower attendance than the treatment 
schools. In Muecate district 100% of the treatment schools and 90% of the control schools 
reported an attendance level of above 80% attendance (Table 7). In Nacaroa district 58% of 
the schools reported a level of attendance of above 80% and 82.6% of the treatment schools 
reported a level of attendance of above 80% per class.
Table 7: School attendance during the last trimester of 2017
0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–100
District Muecate 0% 0% 0% 6.4% 93.6%
Nacaroa 13.5% 5.8% 0% 13.5% 67.3%
Total 7.1% 3.0% 0% 10.1% 79.8%
Disaggregati
on base
Muecate control 0% 0% 0% 10.3% 89.7%
Muecate treatment 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Nacaroa control 16.1% 9.7% 0% 16.1% 58.1%
Nacaroa treatment 8.7% 0% 0% 8.7% 82.6%
Total 7.1% 3.0% 0% 10.1% 79.8%
3.1.4 Dropout rate
In the last trimester of 2017, some 75.9% of the control schools in Muecate reported a dropout 
level of less than 19%. For 20% of the schools the dropout rate was less than 35% (Table 8).
Some 81% of the treatment schools had dropout level of less than 20%. 
In Nacaroa 64% of the control schools had a dropout level of 0–20 students while for 25.8% 
of the schools the level was 80–100 students, which is very high. In Nacaroa 82.6% of the 
treatment schools had a dropout level 0–19 students.
Table 8: Student dropout levels in the last trimester of 2017
Percentage of students who dropped out in the last trimester 2017
0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–100 Total
District Muecate 78.7% 12.8% 0% 2.1% 6.4% 47
Nacaroa 71.2% 5.8% 3.8% 3.8% 15.4% 52
Total 74.7% 9.1% 2% 3% 11.1% 99
11
Muecate control 75.9% 20.7% 0% 0% 3.4% 29
Muecate treatment 81.3% 0% 0% 6.3% 12.5% 16
Nacaroa control 64.5% 3.2% 0% 6.5% 25.8% 31
Nacaroa treatment 82.6% 8.7% 8.7% 0% 0% 23
Total 74.7% 9.1% 2% 3% 11.1% 99
3.1.5 Meals per day
About 50% of the total students interviewed had two meals a day at home, that is lunch and 
dinner. In the control group in Muecate, 65% of the students had two meals a day while 28.6% 
had three. In the treatment schools in the same district 50% of students had two meals a day 
while 35% had three. 
In Nacaroa, 46% of the students in the control schools had two meals a day at home, that is 
lunch and dinner, while 43% of students had three. In the treatment schools 50% of the 
students had three meals a day while 36.5% had two (Table 9).
Table 9: Meals consumed by students at home per day before the LRP programme
Breakfast, 
lunch & 
dinner
Breakfa
st & 
lunch
Breakfa
st & 
dinner
Lunch 
& 
dinner
Dinner Lunch Breakfa
st
Any Total
District Muecate 31.2% 1.9% 2.9% 58.9% 1.6% 2.9% 0% 0.6% 314
Nacaroa 45.3% 1.8% 7.7% 41.7% 1.2% 1.8% 0.3% 0.3% 338
Total 38.5% 1.8% 5.4% 50% 1.4% 2.3% 0.2% 0.5% 652
Disaggregati
on base
Muecate 
control
28.6% 0.5% 0.5% 65.4% 1.6% 2.2% 0% 1.1% 182
Muecate 
treatment
34.8% 3.8% 6.1% 50% 1.5% 3.8% 0% 0% 132
Nacaroa 
control
41.8% 3.3% 5.5% 46.2% 1.1% 1.6% 0.5% 0% 182
Nacaroa 
Treatment
49.4% 0% 10.3% 36.5% 1.3% 1.9% 0% 0.6% 156
Total 38.5% 1.8% 5.4% 50% 1.4% 2.3% 0.2% 0.5% 652
3.1.6 Food groups taken at home
The survey sought to find out what foods among the four main groups the students ate at 
home. In group 1 were carbohydrates (maize, sorghum cassava and rice), in group 2 were 
proteins (beans, meat, fish and eggs), in group 3 were fruits and vegetables (OFSP, fruits and 
vegetables) and in group 4 were fats and sugars (peanut, sugarcane, oil and coconut). Almost 
all the students consumed foods in group 1 and only about half ate foods in group 3 (Table 
10).
Table 10: Food consumed by students at home
Maize, 
sorghum 
cassava, rice
Beans, meat, 
fish, eggs
OFSP, 
fruits, 
vegetables
Peanut, 
sugar-cane, 
oil, coconut
Total
District Muecate 99.7% 95.9% 70.4% 85.7% 314
Nacaroa 97% 79.3% 38.5% 62.1% 338
Total 98.3% 87.3% 53.8% 73.5% 652
12
Disaggregatio
n 
Base
Muecate 
control
100% 98.4% 81.3% 93.4% 182
Muecate 
treatment
99.2% 92.4% 55.3% 75% 132
Nacaroa 
control
95.6% 66.5% 28% 41.2% 182
Nacaroa 
treatment
98.7% 94.2% 50.6% 86.5% 156
Total 98.3% 87.3% 53.8% 73.5% 652
3.1.6 Program Participation
The feeding program participation by students and staff was very high in all the schools and
90% of the students interviewed were benefiting from the meals served at school (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Students benefiting from meals served at school
Although as many as 90% of the students in both the control and treatment groups were 
participating in school meals, only 55% of them were getting food from the LRP project, which 
provides beans with peanuts and sweet potato (OFSP) with peanuts. Only 10% of the students 
in Nacaroa treatment schools were in the LRP project (Table 11).
Table 11: Food provided to students at school
CSB 
porridge
Beans Peanuts OFSP Salt Total
District Muecate 92.4% 21.3% 21.3% 23.2% 23.2% 314
Nacaroa 93.2% 5.3% 5.3% 4.4% 8.9% 338
Total 92.8% 13% 13% 13.5% 15.8% 652
Disaggregati
on base
Muecate control 92.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 182
Muecate 
treatment
91.7% 50% 50% 54.5% 54.5% 132
Nacaroa control 93.4% 1.1% 1.1% 0% 6.6% 182
Nacaroa 
treatment
92.9% 10.3% 10.3% 9.6% 11.5% 156
Total 92.8% 13% 13% 13.5% 15.8% 652
92.4% 93.2%
7.6% 6.8%
Muecate Nacaroa
Students benefiting from meals served in school
Do the students benefit from the meals served at school?
Yes
13
Most of the students acceded to liking the food served in school. In Nacaroa more than 90% 
of the students from both the treatment and the control schools reported liking the food (Figure 
2). In Muecate 85.6% of the students in the treatment schools and 87% of students in the 
control schools liked the food.
Figure 2: Students’ liking of the school meals
The students’ reasons for liking the school food were mainly for its taste and quantity (Figure 
3).
Figure 3: Students’ reasons for liking the food provided at school 
3.1.7 Students’ health
The students in the two districts did not have many health complaints and only about 28% of 
them reported to have fallen ill once in the previous month, the highest level for illness shown 
in the survey (Table 10). It seems that the students in the treatment schools had fewer sick 
days than those in the control schools, especially in Nacaroa (Table 11). Over the two weeks 
prior to their interviews the students in the treatment schools in Nacaroa had fewer illness 
incidents (48%) than students in the control schools (58%) (Table 11).
87.4% 85.6%
91.8% 92.9%
5.5% 6.1% 1.6% .0%
Muecate
Control
Muecate
Treatment
Nacaroa
Control
Nacaroa
Treatment
Students liking of the school meals
Do you like the food offered in school Yes
Do you like the food offered in school No
14
In general, the main illnesses reported by the students were headache (42.7%), cold (23%),
malaria (16%) and fever (17%) (see Table 11).
3.1.8 Deworming
In total 78% of the students had been dewormed. A higher percentage (78%) of students were
dewormed at school than in hospitals (17%). On average 80% of the teachers in the treatment 
schools in both districts reported that deworming in their school was conducted by Serviço 
Distrital de Saude Mulher e Acção Social (SDSMAS). It was noted by 50% of the teachers 
that deworming took place once a year, while 45% of the teachers said that it occurred once 
per trimester.
15
Table 12: Number of times students reported sick in the last semester of 2017
Table 13: Types of illness reported in the previous two weeks
Stomach 
pain
Headache Cold Cough Fever Malaria Diarrhoea Total (N)
District Muecate 6.8% 42.5% 26% 10.3% 13% 17.1% 8.2% 146
Nacaroa 8.8% 42.9% 20.9% 8.2% 20.9% 14.8% 19.8% 182
Total 7.9% 42.7% 23.2% 9.1% 17.4% 15.9% 14.6% 328
Disaggregation 
Base
Muecate control 5% 38.8% 27.5% 8.8% 13.8% 21.3% 8.8% 80
Muecate treatment 9.1% 47% 24.2% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 7.6% 66
Nacaroa control 3.8% 39.6% 18.9% 4.7% 19.8% 13.2% 22.6% 106
Nacaroa treatment 15.8% 47.4% 23.7% 13.2% 22.4% 17.1% 15.8% 76
Total 7.9% 42.7% 23.2% 9.1% 17.4% 15.9% 14.6% 328
A week Once 
per 
month
Twice a 
month
Once 
per 
trimeste
r
Twice per 
trimester
Once per 
semester
Twice per 
trimester
Didn’t get 
sick
Once or 
three times a 
year
One per 5 
times a 
year
Other Doesn’t 
know
Total 
(N)
District Muecate 2.2% 25.8% 9.6% 3.8% 5.1% 12.1% 6.1% 31.8% 1.6% 1.6% 0.3% 0% 314
Nacaroa 1.8% 30.2% 11.2% 1.8% 1.8% 7.4% 5.6% 35.2% 4.7% 0% 0% 0.3% 338
Total 2% 28.1% 10.4% 2.8% 3.4% 9.7% 5.8% 33.6% 3.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 652
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 2.7% 26.4% 9.9% 2.2% 3.3% 13.7% 7.1% 31.9% 1.1% 1.6% 0% 0% 182
Muecate 
treatment
1.5% 25% 9.1% 6.1% 7.6% 9.8% 4.5% 31.8% 2.3% 1.5% 8% 0% 132
Nacaroa control 3.3% 35.7% 14.3% 1.6% 2.2% 3.8% 3.8% 26.4% 8.2% 0% 0% 0.5% 182
Nacaroa 
treatment
0% 23.7% 7.7% 1.9% 1.3% 11.5% 7.7% 45.5% 0.6% 0% 0% 0% 156
Total 2% 28.1% 10.4% 2.8% 3.4% 9.7% 5.8% 33.6% 3.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 652
16
Table14: Students’ deworming
Students dewormed in the 
previous semester
Institution that conducted previous
deworming at the school
Frequency of student deworming at school
Yes No Total NGO SDSMAS Other Total Once every 
2 years
Once a year Once per 
semester
Total
District Muecate 79.3% 20.7% 314 27.7% 68.1% 0% 47 2.2% 48.9% 48.9% 45
Nacaroa 78.1% 21.9% 338 21.2% 67.3% 9.6% 52 3.9% 54.9% 41.2% 51
Total 78.7% 21.3% 652 24.2% 67.7% 5.1% 99 3.1% 52.1% 44.8% 96
Disaggregati
on base
Muecate control 79.7% 20.3% 182 37.9% 58.6% 0% 29 0% 60.7% 39.3% 28
Muecate 
treatment
78.8% 21.2% 132 12.5% 81.3% 0% 16 6.7% 33.3% 60% 15
Nacaroa control 75.3% 24.7% 182 32.3% 58.1% 6.5% 31 3.3% 50% 46.7% 30
Nacaroa 
treatment
81.4% 18.6% 156 4.3% 82.6% 13% 23 4.3% 56.5% 39.1% 23
Total 78.7% 21.3% 652 24.2% 67.7% 5.1% 99 3.1% 52.1% 44.8% 96
17
3.2 Teachers
3.2.1 Teachers’ profile
A total of 100 randomly selected teachers were interviewed in the two districts with two teachers 
per school, from grade 1 to grade 3 in both the treatment and the control schools. The 
composition of the teachers was 39% female and 61% male. Only Nacaroa treatment schools 
had more female than male teachers (Figure 4). The teachers disaggregated by grade were 
34% in grade 1, 37.4% in grade 2 and 28% in grade 3 (Figure 5). 
Figure 4: Teachers by gender 
Figure 5: Teachers disaggregated by grade
18
3.2.2 Teachers’ participation in the school meal programme
Almost all the teachers interviewed ate the same food as the students. This was the case for
97% of teachers in both districts (Table 15). Around 90% of the teachers in Nacaroa, 75% of the 
teachers in the control schools and 81% of the teachers in the treatment schools in Muecate 
(Table 15) liked the food served in their school.
Table 15: Teachers’ participation in the program
Do teachers eat the same food 
served to students?
Do teachers like the food provided by the 
school feeding programme?
Yes No Total Yes No Didn't 
answer
Total
District Muecate 95.7% 4.3% 47 78.7% 17% 4.3% 47
Nacaroa 98.1% 1.9% 52 96.2% 1.9% 1.9% 52
Total 97% 3% 99 87.9% 9.1% 3% 99
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 96.6% 3.4% 29 75.9% 20.7% 3.4% 29
Muecate 
treatment
93.8% 6.3% 16 81.3% 12.5% 6.3% 16
Nacaroa control 100% 0% 31 96.8% 3.2% 0% 31
Nacaroa 
treatment
95.7% 4.3% 23 95.7% 0% 4.3% 23
Total 97% 3% 99 87.9% 9.1% 3% 99
The main reason that the teachers gave for liking the food was the taste (91%) followed by the 
quantity served (60%) (Table 16). The teachers in the control schools gave higher scores for 
the food qualities than did the teachers in the treatment schools. Of those who did not like the 
food, 33% attributed that to its taste.
Table 16: Why teachers liked the food provided at school
Why do teachers like the food provided by the feeding project?
Good 
quantity 
served
Food 
served on 
time
Food is 
tasty
Other Total
District Muecate 78.4% 27% 86.5% 75.7% 37
Nacaroa 46% 48% 94% 82% 50
Total 59.8% 39.1% 90.8% 79.3% 87
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 81.8% 27.3% 95.5% 81.8% 22
Muecate 
treatment
69.2% 30.8% 69.2% 69.2% 13
Nacaroa control 46.7% 50% 96.7% 90% 30
Nacaroa 
treatment
50% 40.9% 90.9% 68.2% 22
Total 59.8% 39.1% 90.8% 79.3% 87
3.2.3 Health knowledge
About 98% of the teachers had basic knowledge about first aid treatment for common illnesses. 
They also had been trained in nutrition, hygiene and correct food storage procedures. In both 
districts and for both the treatment and the control schools, 94% of the teachers had received a 
first aid kit and 45% of them reported to have used it twice in the previous two weeks.
19
3.3 Management of the Feeding Program
Phase 1 of the school feeding program (ECT1) was implemented from 2013 to 2015, and phase 
2, which is ECT2, started in 2016 and is planned to last until 2020. It involves providing CSB,
called FUBA, a soya-based porridge, to students. LRP is a new grant to build the capacity of
schools and the government to procure local food to improve nutrition and sustainability of the 
school feeding program in 43 target schools. LRP formalizes the linkage between farmer groups
and the 43 schools and includes training of framers in agronomy, contracting and business skills.
It also provides the 43 schools with training in procurement, contracting, food storage, local food 
preparation and food quality control. LRP is managed directly by the following structures:
• The school procurement committee, which is responsible for the food products;
• The school management committee, which oversees the total administration of the 
school;
• The cooks who prepare the meals. Usually there is one cook for every 100 students. 
3.3.1 School Management Committees
The survey interviewed the management committees in both the treatment and the control 
schools, and 52% of them had an average membership of 5, while 16% had a membership of 
6–10. 
In the groups as a whole, 83% of the committee members said that the school feeding program 
had been going on for over five years. This was the view for 78.3% of the Muecate groups and 
88% for Nacaroa groups (Table 17). There was no significant statistical difference in the 
responses from the treatment and the control schools’ management committees on how long 
the school feeding program had run in their districts. 
Table 17: Length of time the programme had been implemented in the schools
1–2 
years
2–3 
years
3–4 
years
5 
years+
Total
District Muecate 0% 4.3% 17.4% 78.3% 23
Nacaroa 4% 4% 4% 88% 25
Total 2.1% 4.2% 10.4% 83.3% 48
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 0% 7.7% 7.7% 84.6% 13
Muecate treatment 0% 0% 30% 70% 10
Nacaroa control 6.7% 0% 6.7% 86.7% 15
Nacaroa treatment 0% 10% 0% 90% 10
Total 2.1% 4.2% 10.4% 83.3% 48
The school management committees were responsible for the provision and administration of 
the feeding program’s facilities for water, storage and cooking. In total 66% of the committee 
members considered their schools to have water facilities, 85% regarded their schools to have 
storage facilitates for the food and 83% said that their schools had cooking facilities (Table 18).
There was no significant difference between the treatment and the control schools in Muecate 
district in terms of the facilities they had, but that was not the case in Nacaroa district. Some 
80% of the treatment schools in Nacaroa district had water facilities but this was the case for
only 47% of the control schools. In Nacaroa, 80% of the treatment schools and 66% of the 
control schools had storage facilities and, 80% of the treatment schools had cooking facilities 
compared with 73% of the control schools.
20
Table 18: Availability of the facilities required to implement the school feeding programme.
Water Storage Cooking
Yes No Total
(N)
Yes No Total (N) Yes No Total 
(N)
District Muecate 73.9% 26.1% 23 100% 0% 23 91.3% 8.7% 23
Nacaroa 60% 40% 25 72% 28% 25 76% 24% 25
Total 66.7% 33.3% 48 85.4% 14.6% 48 83.3% 16.7% 48
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 84.6% 15.4% 13 100% 0% 13 92.3% 7.7% 13
Muecate treatment 60% 40% 10 100% 0% 10 90% 10% 10
Nacaroa control 46.7% 53.3% 15 66.7% 33.3% 15 73.3% 26.7% 15
Nacaroa treatment 80% 20% 10 80% 20% 10 80% 20% 10
Total 66.7% 33.3% 48 85.4% 14.6% 48 83.3% 16.7% 48
3.3.2 School Procurement Committees
The procurement committees were responsible for managing the food supplies provided by 
World Vision. This structure was not present in all the schools but only in the schools 
implementing the LRP program. Not all the procurement committees had been operational by 
the time of the baseline survey. Field work reports showed that in Muecate only four treatment 
schools had operational procurement committees, but they were operational for all the 10 
treatment schools in Nacaroa.
No procurement committees existed in the control school areas and the school management 
committees did not have any procurement knowledge. In the treatment schools 40% of the 
procurement committee members had some procurement knowledge. In the Nacaroa treatment 
schools 50% of the procurement committees had knowledge in procurement before joining the 
project; in Muecate treatment schools this was 25% (Table 19).
Table 19: Program committee training
Procurement knowledge of the 
procurement committee before the 
project
Procurement committee training
before joining the programme
District
Yes No Total Yes No Total
Muecate 25% 75% 4 25% 75% 4
Nacaroa 45.5% 54.5% 11 66.7% 33.3% 12
Total 40% 60% 15 56.3% 43.8% 16
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0
Muecate treatment 25% 75% 4 25% 75% 4
Nacaroa control 0% 100% 1 50% 50% 2
Nacaroa treatment 50% 50% 10 70% 30% 10
Total 40% 60% 15 56.3% 43.8% 16
The procurement committee members interviewed in Nacaroa treatment schools were 
knowledgeable in procurement, having acquired that knowledge from similar programs, training 
and workshops, other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government training (Figure 
6). The procurement committee members in Muecate schools did not have such training.
21
Figure 6: Institutions involved in training the procurement teams knowledge acquisition 
The specific procurement management areas in which the procurement committee members 
reported having knowledge were warehouse management, quality management and general 
procurement topics (see Table 20). No committee member had knowledge in forward contracts.
Table 20: Procurement committee members’ areas of knowledge in procurement 
Warehouse 
manageme
nt
Quality 
manageme
nt
Procurement 
topics
District Muecate 75% 75% 25%
Nacaroa 58.3% 58.3% 16.7%
Total 62.5% 62.5% 18.8%
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 0% 0% 0%
Muecate 
treatment
75% 75.0% 25%
Nacaroa control 0% 0% 0%
Nacaroa 
treatment
50% 50.0% 20%
Total 62.5% 62.5% 18.8%
3.3.3 Food products received in the schools 
The treatment school’s procurement teams confirmed that they did receive the four main 
products of the LRP programme: beans, peanuts, iodized salt and OFSP. These products were 
being supplied exclusively to the treatment areas in both districts, which is where the LRP project 
is being implemented (Figure 7). Some 75% of the procurement committee members 
interviewed confirmed that they had received enough food to feed all the eligible beneficiaries
(Table 21). The treatment schools in Nacaroa had a higher rate of positive answers (80%) than 
those in Muecate (75%). 
22
Figure 7: Food products received by procurement committees
The school committees also received other food products from the local farmer associations. 
This was particularly so for Muecate treatment schools (Table 21). More than 50% of the 
procurement committees confirmed that they received food products from farmer associations.
In general the procurement teams received from the farmer associations the four food products 
that World Vision supplied plus maize. On average they received about 50 kg of each product.
Table 21: Food products received by procurement committees
Are the products received 
enough to feed eligible 
students?
Do the procurement committees 
receive products from farmer 
associations?
Yes No Total Yes No Total
District Muecate 75% 25% 4 100% 0% 4
Nacaroa 75% 25% 12 41.7% 58.3% 12
Total 75% 25% 16 56.3% 43.8% 16
Disaggregati
on base
Muecate control 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0
Muecate treatment 75% 25% 4 100% 0% 4
Nacaroa control 50% 50% 2 50% 50% 2
Nacaroa treatment 80% 20% 10 40% 60% 10
Total 75% 25% 16 56.3% 43.8% 16
3.3.4 Transportation
The food received from the farmer associations was transported to the schools using a variety 
of means such as vehicles rented from the World Vision, bicycles, private cars, rented cars etc.
In some cases the community ferried the food to the schools. The most commonly used transport 
means were World Vision vehicles (33%) and human porters (22%) (Table 22).
25.0%
75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0%
50.0%
60.0%
40.0%
30.0% 30.0%
20.0%
Cerals Beans Peanuts Sweet
potato
Iodated Salt
Food products received by procuremetn committees
Muecate Control Muecate Treatment
Nacaroa Control Nacaroa Treatment
23
Table 22: Transportation means for the food products supplied by farmer associations
WV 
vehicle
WV 
rented 
vehicle
Own 
vehicle
Rented 
vehicle
Bicycle On the 
head
Total
District Muecate 0% 25% 25% 0% 25% 25% 4
Nacaroa 20% 40% 0% 20% 0% 20% 5
Total 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 9
Disaggregati
on base
Muecate control 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0
Muecate 
treatment
0% 25% 25% 0% 25% 25% 4
Nacaroa control 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1
Nacaroa 
treatment
25% 50% 0% 25% 0% 0% 4
Total 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 9
Note: WV = World Vision
3.3.5 Food Management Procedures 
Some 69% of the school committees reported that their quality control method for the food 
products was visual assessment (Figure 8), 62.5% controlled their stores of the products by 
referring to the delivery notes, while 43.8% did so using a product inventory (Figure 9).
Figure 8: Procedures for quality control of the food products by 
the procurement committees
Figure 9: Methods used by the procurement committees to
check the quantity of food products delivered 
6.3% 6.3%
68.8%
6.3%
Aflotoxin test Phytosanitary
test
Visual
assessment of
the food
Store at an
elveated plave
Quality Control Procedures
6.3% 6.3%
43.8%
62.5%
6.3%
Physical
count
Observation Products
inventory
delivery
notes
weighing the
products
Methods used to check food products 
delivered
24
The quality control procedures were not implemented in the control schools in either district, but 
they all were applied in the Muecate treatment schools, except storage of the foods in an 
elevated location. Only visual assessment of the food and storage in an elevated place were 
used in the Nacaroa treatment schools. The most commonly used quality control measure in 
the treatment schools was visual assessment of the food.
3.3.6 Cooks
The survey interviewed cooks in each school. The number of cooks varied according to the 
number of students per school. In general there was one cook for each 100 students. Most of 
the cooks had between three (15.6%) four (24.4%) and five years (33.3%) of work experience 
as cooks, in the schools in both districts. (Table 23). 
Table 23: Cooks’ years of services 
Cooks ‘ years of experience
1 yrs 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs 5 yrs 6 yrs
Total 
(N)
District Muecate 0.0% 0.0% 20.8% 33.3% 37.5% 8.3% 24
Nacaroa 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 14.3% 28.6% 0.0% 21
Total 4.4% 4.4% 15.6% 24.4% 33.3% 4.4% 45
Disaggregatio
n Base
Muecate 
Control
0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 33.3% 40.0% 0.0% 15
Muecate 
Treatment
0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 33.3% 22.2
%
9
Nacaroa 
Control
8.3% 8.3% 16.7% 25.0% 16.7% 0.0% 12
Nacaroa 
Treatment
11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% 9
Total 4.4% 4.4% 15.6% 24.4% 33.3% 4.4% 45
On average cooks work as volunteers and 80% of them work in shifts as they articulate this 
activity with other responsibilities. (Table 24).
Table 24: Cooks challenges in the implementation of their activities
How did your work as a cook articulates with your responsibilities
Shifts
They do 
not 
manage
They do 
shifts but it 
is difficult
They do 
not have 
other job Total (N)
District Muecate 87.5% 0.0% 8.3% 4.2% 24
Nacaroa 71.4% 9.5% 19.0% 0.0% 21
Total 80.0% 4.4% 13.3% 2.2% 45
Disaggregation 
Base
Muecate 
Control
93.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 15
Muecate
Treatment
77.8% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 9
Nacaroa 
Control
50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 12
Nacaroa 
Treatment
100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9
Total 80.0% 4.4% 13.3% 2.2% 45
25
Most of the cooks had received training before joining the World Vision program; 60 % of them 
received cooking training, 53.3% received training in nutrition, and 64.4% of the cooks received 
training in Hygiene practices. However the cooks working in schools in control areas have 
reported lower percentages of training in all training areas than the cooks in schools in treatment 
areas, where more than 78% of the cooks have been trained in all training areas mentioned.
(Table 25).
Table 25: Cooks trained before the project
Cooks trained before the LRP project
Cooking Nutrition Hygiene Total
District Muecate 41.7% 37.5% 45.8% 24
Nacaroa 81.0% 71.4% 85.7% 21
Total 60.0% 53.3% 64.4% 45
Disaggregation
Baseline
Nacaroa 
control
20.0% 13.3% 26.7% 15
Nacaroa 
treatment
77.8% 77.8% 77.8% 9
Muecate 
Control
66.7% 58.3% 75.0% 12
Muecate 
treatement
100.0% 88.9% 100.0% 9
Total 60.0% 53.3% 64.4% 45
The program trained 82% of the cooks in cooking, 75.6% in nutrition and 71.1% in hygiene 
practices, in both districts. More than 85% of the Cooks in Nacaroa treatment areas were trained 
in all training areas and 66.7% of cooks in Muecate treatment areas were trained in all treatment 
areas. (Table 26).
Table 26: Cooks trained by the project
Cooks trained as part of the LRP program
Cooking Nutrition Hygiene Total
District Muecate 79.2% 70.8% 58.3% 24
Nacaroa 85.7% 81.0% 85.7% 21
Total 82.2% 75.6% 71.1% 45
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate 
Control
86.7% 73.3% 53.3% 15
Muecate 
Treatment
66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 9
Nacaroa 
Control
75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 12
Nacaroa 
Treatment
100.0% 88.9% 100.0% 9
Total 82.2% 75.6% 71.1% 45
26
55.3% of the cooks in the whole program have reported not to have all utensils needed for their 
cooking activities in both districts. In the schools in Muecate treatment areas, 100 % of the cooks 
have reported so. And 55.6 % of cooks in Nacaroa treatment areas have reported the same.
(Table 27).
Table 27: Cooking utensils 
Does the cooks have all utensils to 
cook?
Yes No Total
District Muecate 29.2% 70.8% 24
Nacaroa 66.7% 33.3% 21
Total 46.7% 53.3% 45
Baseline Muecate 
Control
46.7% 53.3% 15
Muecate 
Treatment
0.0% 100.0% 9
Nacaroa 
Control
83.3% 16.7% 12
Nacaroa 
Treatment
44.4% 55.6% 9
Total 46.7% 53.3% 45
When asked what do they lack to perform their activity they reported that they lack uniforms 
(29.2%), hygiene products (37.5%), pans (29.2%), tableware (dishes) (83.3%).
However when asked about how satisfied they are with this activity they have reported levels of 
satisfaction that varied from average to very satisfied, both in treatment and control areas.
Table 28: Cooks’ work satisfaction levels
Cooks’ Work Satisfaction Levels
Little Low Average Good Very good Total
District Muecate 0.0% 4.2% 16.7% 50.0% 29.2% 24
Nacaroa 0.0% 4.8% 33.3% 14.3% 47.6% 21
Total 0.0% 4.4% 24.4% 33.3% 37.8% 45
Disaggreg
ation 
Baseline
Muecate 
Control
0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 60.0% 26.7% 15
Muecate 
Treatment
0.0% 11.1% 22.2% 33.3% 33.3% 9
Nacaroa 
Control
0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 16.7% 58.3% 12
Nacaroa 
Treatment
0.0% 11.1% 44.4% 11.1% 33.3% 9
Total 0.0% 4.4% 24.4% 33.3% 37.8% 45
3.3.7 Food Transporters
The program counted on two transporters, each of whom owned Nissan and Mitsubishi vehicles 
with a capacity of 4 MT each. The transporters had exclusive contracts with World Vision. The 
contract payment terms were related to the mileage and the load in each trip. They charged 128 
Mtn per ton and allowed a minimum of 4 tons per trip. Each trip supplied on average 3–5 schools,
27
depending on the quantity of food each school needed. They transported mainly CSB+ and 
cooking instruments.
3.3.8 Government Officials
Government officials at the district and provincial levels were interviewed. Their perception was 
that the program had been implemented in all the schools in both districts for three years and 
that the implementation of the program was made possible by support from donors and NGOs,
since the government did not a have budget line to finance it. 
The role of the education directorate staff was to disseminate key messages and sensitize the 
community and facilitate coordination of its mobilization in order to assess how the program 
would continue when the donors were gone. In particular, the health district directorate provided
inputs like first aid kits and medicine for common illnesses.
The health directorate staff had the responsibility of monitoring the food management chain from 
the receipt of the products to their distribution and storage, to make sure that they were kept in 
the proper conditions before they were cooked and offered to students. Their main view was 
that the program should consider:
• Improving the variety of the food;
• Providing incentives to volunteers;
• Improving the conditions of volunteers by providing them clothing and hygiene products;
• Including appropriate equipment for preparing the food to ensure that bad practices were 
not perpetuated that end up increasing health risks for the consumers of food;
• Improving coordination between World Vision and the government and the planning for
and distribution of food according to the schooling calendar.
They perceived the programme as contributing to:
• improved health of students 
• improved academic performance 
• increased retention and motivation of students
• increased enrolment
• decreased early marriages
3.3.9 Suppliers of food products
The supplier to World Vision provided beans, peanuts and salt. The first two products were 
obtained locally from farmers in Muecate. She bought 5 MT of beans and 5 MT of peanuts. She 
had no difficulties in obtaining the required quantities. She bought 4 MT of iodized salt from 
regional suppliers in Ilha de Mocambique. She paid 225,000 Mtn for peanuts, 175,000 Mtn for 
beans and 60,000 Mtn for salt. She stored the products in a private warehouse and used her 
private vehicle to transport them.
3.4 Farmers’ production 
3.4.1 Profile of farmer associations
Of the farmer associations that participated in the survey, 59% in Nacaroa and 40% in Muecate 
were officially registered (Table 28). About 47% of the farmer associations were registered 
between 2012 and 2015. In the control school areas fewer than 36% of the associations were 
registered.
28
Out of the total farmer associations, 43% reported that their members paid membership fees
(Table 29). The associations in the treatment areas had high numbers of members paying 
membership fees, at 60% in Muecate and 72% in Nacaroa.
Table 29: Farmer associations’ legal registration and membership 
Is the association legally 
registered?
Do members pay membership 
fees?
Yes No Total Yes No Total
District Muecate 40% 60% 25 40% 60% 25
Nacaroa 59.1% 40.9% 22 45.5% 54.5% 22
Total 48.9% 51.1% 47 42.6% 57.4% 47
Disaggregation 
Baseline
Muecate control 33.3% 66.7% 15 26.7% 73.3% 15
Muecate 
treatment
50% 50% 10 60% 40% 10
Nacaroa control 36.4% 63.6% 11 18.2% 81.8% 11
Nacaroa 
treatment
81.8% 18.2% 11 72.7% 27.3% 11
Total 48.9% 51.1% 47 42.6% 57.4% 47
Some 85% of the farmer associations acknowledged that being registered gave them easier
market access, access to commercial relationships with other stakeholders and lower logistic 
costs, as well as allowing them to increase their volume of production. The most important 
benefit, which was acknowledged by 65% of the farmer associations, was access to commercial 
relationships (Figure 10). As a farmer it is much easier to enter into business with other 
enterprises if you are a part of an officially registered group or association. Another significant 
benefit, which was recognized by 47.5% of the farmer associations, was market access. It would 
be easier for members of an officially registered association to take their produce to the market
than for individual farmers. 
Figure 10: Benefits of being an officially registered farmer association 
Famer associations with 10–14 members constituted 27% of the total as did associations with
15–19 members. Out of the farmer associations that participated in the survey, 55% had 
between 5 and 9 female members and 38% had that number of male members. Some 53% of 
farmer associations reported that their members received training in business management,
with the levels being 70% in the Muecate treatment areas and 82% in Nacaroa treatment areas 
(Table 30).
47.5
65.0
12.5 12.5
Acesso to markets Acess to comercial
relations
Lower logistics and
distributions costs
Increased volumes
of production
Benefits of being an officially registered farmer 
association
29
Table 30: Farmer training
Members who received any training 
in business management
Yes No Total
District Muecate 52% 48% 25
Nacaroa 59.1% 40.9% 22
Total 55.3% 44.7% 47
Disaggregation 
baseline
Muecate control 40% 60% 15
Muecate treatment 70% 30% 10
Nacaroa control 36.4% 63.6% 11
Nacaroa treatment 81.8% 18.2% 11
Total 55.3% 44.7% 47
About 52% of the farmer associations considered their members to have average record 
keeping knowledge and 30% thought that their members’ skills in that area were good. At the 
same time, 37% of the associations reported that their members had average and good skills in 
cash flow analysis (Table 31). The level of knowledge in record keeping and basic cash flow 
analysis was slightly higher for members of farmer associations in the Nacaroa treatment areas.
Table 31: Farmer training in record keeping and cash flow analysis
Level of skills in record 
keeping
Level of skills in basic cash 
flow analysis
Total
Low Average Good Low Average Good
District Muecate 7.7% 46.2% 46.2% 7.7% 30.8% 61.5% 13
Nacaroa 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 14
Total 18.5% 51.9% 29.6% 25.9% 37% 37% 27
Disaggregation 
baseline
Muecate control 16.7% 33.3% 50% 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 6
Muecate 
treatment
0% 57.1% 42.9% 0% 42.9% 57.1% 7
Nacaroa control 20% 80% 0% 40.0% 40% 20% 5
Nacaroa 
treatment
33.3% 44.4% 22.2% 44.4% 44.4% 11.1% 9
Total 18.5% 51.9% 29.6% 25.9% 37% 37% 27
In terms of the knowledge of farmers in profit and loss statement analysis, 52% and 26% of the 
farmer associations considered their members to have average and good skills, respectively, in 
basic profit and loss statement analysis. Some 26% of the farmer associations considered the 
level of knowledge of their members in forward contracts to be average, while 33% of the 
associations thought that their members had good skills in that topic (Table 32).
30
Table 32: Level of skills in profit and loss statement and forward contracts 
Level of skills in profit and 
loss statement
Level of skills in forward 
contracts
Total
Low Averag
e
Good
Not 
answere
d
Low Averag
e
Good Not 
answered
District Muecate 7.7% 69.2% 23.1% 0% 23.1% 53.8% 23.1% 0% 13
Nacaroa 28.6% 35.7% 28.6% 7.1% 35.7% 28.6% 28.6% 7.1% 14
Total 18.5% 51.9% 25.9% 3.7% 29.6% 40.7% 25.9% 3.7% 27
Disaggregation 
baseline
Muecate control 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 0% 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 0% 6
Muecate treatment 0% 71.4% 28.6% 0% 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 0% 7
Nacaroa control 20% 40% 20% 20% 40% 20% 20% 20% 5
Nacaroa treatment 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0% 9
Total 18.5% 51.9% 25.9% 3.7% 29.6% 40.7% 25.9% 3.7% 27
For 33% of the farmer associations the level of knowledge of their members to prepare a labour 
calendar was average, while for 41% of the associations their members had good skills (Table 
33). In regard to business plan preparation, 41% of the associations considered their members’
knowledge to be average while 26% of the associations thought the members’ skills were of a 
good level.
Table 33: Level of skills in labour calendar and business plan 
Level of skills in labour calendar Level of skills in business
plan preparation
Total
Low Average Good Low Average Good Not 
answere
d
District Muecate 7.7% 30.8% 61.5% 23.1% 53.8% 23.1% 0% 13
Nacaroa 42.9% 35.7% 21.4% 35.7% 28.6% 28.6% 7.1% 14
Total 25.9% 33.3% 40.7% 29.6% 40.7% 25.9% 3.7% 27
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 16.7% 33.3% 50% 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 0% 6
Muecate 
treatment
0% 28.6% 71.4% 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 0% 7
Nacaroa control 60% 0% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 5
Nacaroa
treatment
33.3% 55.6% 11.1% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0% 9
Total 25.9% 33.3% 40.7% 29.6% 40.7% 25.9% 3.7% 27
Farmer associations had received training in agriculture techniques. In the Muecate treatment 
areas 90% of the associations were trained, while in Nacaroa this was 82%. In Nacaroa control 
areas only 55% of the associations had received training. This was 66.7 % for Muecate district.
31
Table 34: Training in agronomy skills 
Famers’ associations that received agronomy 
training
Yes No Total (N)
District Muecate 76% 24% 25
Nacaroa 68.2% 31.8% 22
Total 72.3% 27.7% 47
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 66.7% 33.3% 15
Muecate 
treatment
90% 10% 10
Nacaroa control 54.5% 45.5% 11
Nacaroa treatment 81.8% 18.2% 11
Total 72.3% 27.7% 47
For 45% of the farmer associations, the members’ level of skills in quality control was good, 
while for 36% of the associations the members had average skills in quality control (Table 35). 
In regard crop planning skills, 29% of the farmer associations regarded their members’ level of
skills as average, while for 54% of the associations the skill level was good (Table 36).
Table 35: Training in quality control and production planning
Quality control Production planning
Low
Averag
e Good Low
Averag
e Good
District Muecate 4.3% 30.4% 56.5% 4.3% 30.4% 60.9%
Nacaroa 10.5% 42.1% 31.6% 10.5% 26.3% 47.4%
Total 7.1% 35.7% 45.2% 7.1% 28.6% 54.8%
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 7.7% 30.8% 53.8% 7.7% 38.5% 46.2%
Muecate treatment 0% 30% 60% 0% 20% 80%
Nacaroa control 0% 50% 12.5% 0% 25% 37.5%
Nacaroa treatment 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% 18.2% 27.3% 54.5%
Total 7.1% 35.7% 45.2% 7.1% 28.6% 54.8%
Farmer’s agronomy skills for yield increase were considered average by 36% of their 
associations and good by 43% of the associations (Table 35). In terms of skills in the production 
and conservation of sweet potato, 12% and 17% of the farmer associations regarded their 
members to have average and good skills, respectively (Table 36). 
32
Table 36: Farmers’ skills in increasing yields and in sweet potato production and conservation
Yield increasing 
Production and 
conservation of sweet 
potato
Low Average Good Low Average Good Total
District Muecate 4.3% 30.4% 52.2% 26.1% 17.4% 21.7% 23
Nacaroa 10.5% 42.1% 31.6% 15.8% 5.3% 10.5% 19
Total 7.1% 35.7% 42.9% 21.4% 11.9% 16.7% 42
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 7.7% 23.1% 46.2% 38.5% 7.7% 0% 13
Muecate treatment 0% 40% 60% 10% 30% 50% 10
Nacaroa control 0% 50% 12.5% 12.5% 0% 12.5% 8
Nacaroa treatment 18.2% 36.4% 45.5% 18.2% 9.1% 9.1% 11
Total 7.1% 35.7% 42.9% 21.4% 11.9% 16.7% 42
With regard to pest prevention, 41% and 31% of the farmer associations regarded their 
members to have average or good skills, respectively (Table 37).
Table 37: Training in pest prevention
Low Average Good Total
District Muecate 13% 47.8% 26.1% 23
Nacaroa 15.8% 31.6% 36.8% 19
Total 14.3% 40.5% 31% 42
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 15.4% 53.8% 15.4% 13
Muecate 
treatment
10% 40% 40% 10
Nacaroa control 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 8
Nacaroa 
treatment
18.2% 45.5% 36.4% 11
Total 14.3% 40.5% 31% 42
3.4.2 Storage Infrastructure
About 38% of the farmer associations stored their products in their warehouse and 40% of them
used their members’ warehouses. In the Muecate treatment area 60% of the associations stored
their products in the farmer association warehouse while 30% of the associations used their 
members’ households.
In the Nacaroa treatment area, generally farmers stored the products in both their association’s 
warehouses and members’ households (Table 38). In the Muecate treatment areas 60% of the
farmer associations stored their products in their associations’ warehouse and 30% in members’
households.
33
Table 38: Storage facilities for farmer associations’ products 
Farmer 
association 
warehouse
Rent 
warehouse 
space
Members’ 
household
s
Total
District Muecate 36% 4% 44% 25
Nacaroa 40.9% 0% 36.4% 22
Total 38.3% 2.1% 40.4% 47
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate 
control
20% 0% 53.3% 15
Muecate 
treatment
60% 10% 30% 10
Nacaroa 
control
27.3% 0% 27.3% 11
Nacaroa 
treatment
54.5% 0% 45.5% 11
Total 38.3% 2.1% 40.4% 47
The farmer associations considered their main problem in food storage to be theft (57%)
followed by the lack of storage space (Table 39).
Table 39: Product storage challenges
Theft Lack of 
space
Lack of 
adequate 
storage for 
OFSP
Other Total
District Muecate 68% 32% 24% 12% 25
Nacaroa 45.5% 27.3% 4.5% 27.3% 22
Total 57.4% 29.8% 14.9% 19.1% 47
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate 
control
66.7% 26.7% 20% 6.7% 15
Muecate 
treatment
70% 40% 30% 20% 10
Nacaroa 
control
36.4% 18.2% 9.1% 18.2% 11
Nacaroa 
treatment
54.5% 36.4% 0% 36.4% 11
Total 57.4% 29.8% 14.9% 19.1% 47
3.4.3 Production
The farmer associations had a diversified production and 40% of them were producing three to 
four crops, while 38.3% were producing five to six agriculture products (Table 40). The most 
common products were beans, maize, peanuts and sweet potato.
34
Table 40: Number of products produced by farmer associations 
1–2 3–4 5–6 7–8 9–10 Total
District Muecate 4% 28% 52% 4% 12% 25
Nacaroa 13.6% 54.5% 22.7% 4.5% 4.5% 22
Total 8.5% 40.4% 38.3% 4.3% 8.5% 47
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 0% 40% 33.3% 6.7% 20% 15
Muecate 
treatment
10% 10% 80% 0% 0% 10
Nacaroa control 18.2% 54.5% 18.2% 0% 9.1% 11
Nacaroa
treatment
9.1% 54.5% 27.3% 9.1% 0% 11
Total 8.5% 40.4% 38.3% 4.3% 8.5% 47
Among the famers’ associations, 40% produced OFSP (Table 41) and 60% of those were in the 
treatment area in both districts.
Table 41: Farmer associations producing OFSP
Farmers associations producing OFSP
Yes No Total
District Muecate 36% 64% 25
Nacaroa 45.5% 54.5% 22
Total 40.4% 59.6% 47
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 20% 80% 15
Muecate 
treatment
60% 40% 10
Nacaroa control 27.3% 72.7% 11
Nacaroa treatment 63.6% 36.4% 11
Total 40.4% 59.6% 47
Figure 5: Farmers production of orange-fleshed sweet potato
20.0%
60.0%
27.3%
63.6%
80.0%
40.0%
72.7%
36.4%
Muecate Control Muecate
Treatment
Nacaroa Control Nacaroa
Treatment
Farmers production of organge-fleshed sweetpotato
Do you plant sweetpotato? yes Do you plant sweetpotato? no
35
OFSP was a new crop for the farmer associations and only less than 25% of those in the control 
areas were producing it. Of the farmer associations that participated in the survey, only 31% 
started producing it in 2017 and 37% started producing in 2018.
Some 19% of the farmer associations had entered into a commercial relationship with an 
agribusiness. However only 33% of these had a formal relationship, 11% had an informal 
relationship with an agribusiness and 55.6% had another type of relationship (Table 42). 
Table 42: Farmer associations’ relationship with agribusinesses 
Number of 
agribusinesses
Type of relationship
0 1 Total Formal Informa
l
Other Total
District Muecate 75% 25% 4 25% 0% 75% 4
Nacaroa 40% 60% 5 40% 20% 40% 5
Total 55.6% 44.4% 9 33.3% 11.1% 55.6% 9
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate 
control
100% 0% 2 0% 0% 100% 2
Muecate 
treatment
50% 50% 2 50% 0% 50% 2
Nacaroa 
control
66.7% 33.3% 3 0% 33.3% 66.7% 3
Nacaroa 
treatment
0% 100% 2 100% 0% 0% 2
Total 55.6% 44.4% 9 33.3% 11.1% 55.6% 9
Some 17% of the farmer associations had a contractual relationship with an agribusiness. Out 
of those 12.5% had forward contracts and 37.5% had input supply contracts (Table 43). The 
farmer associations in the treatment areas with contractual dealings with agribusinesses
constituted 30% or less of the total farmers, compared with 6.7% or less for the control areas
(Table 43). 
Table 43: Farmer associations in contractual relationship with agribusiness 
Do you have any contractual 
relationship with an 
agribusiness?
If yes, what type of contract do you have?
Yes No Total Future 
contract
Input 
supply
Other Total
District Muecate 16% 84% 25 25% 25% 50% 4
Nacaroa 18.2% 81.8% 22 0% 50% 0% 4
Total 17% 83% 47 12.5% 37.5% 25% 8
Disaggregation 
baseline
Muecate control 6.7% 93.3% 15 0% 0% 100% 1
Muecate 
treatment
30% 70% 10 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Nacaroa control 0% 100% 11 0% 0% 0% 0
Nacaroa 
treatment
36.4% 63.6% 11 0% 50% 0% 4
Total 17% 83% 47 12.5% 37.5% 25% 8
Given the contractual nature of the arrangements between farmer associations and
agribusinesses, farmers made an effort to comply with the standards of quality included in their 
contracts, as 40% of the associations indicated (Table 44). The effort was greater in the 
36
treatment areas. In Muecate 30% of the farmer associations reported that most of their members 
made an effort to comply; in Nacaroa this was 54.5% of the associations.
Table 44: Farmer associations’ compliance with quality standards 
All members 
make an effort to 
comply 
Most 
members 
make an effort 
Some 
members 
make an effort
They do not 
make an 
effort
Other Total
District Muecate 36% 16% 8% 4% 36% 25
Nacaroa 45.5% 13.6% 4.5% 0% 36.4% 22
Total 40.4% 14.9% 6.4% 2.1% 36.2% 47
Disaggregation
baseline
Muecate control 40% 13.3% 0% 0% 46.7% 15
Muecate 
treatment
30% 20% 20% 10% 20% 10
Nacaroa control 36.4% 9.1% 0% 0% 54.5% 11
Nacaroa 
treatment
54.5% 18.2% 9.1% 0% 18.2% 11
Total 40.4% 14.9% 6.4% 2.1% 36.2% 47
In general, 72% of the farmer associations were not happy with the prices offered by crop buyers 
(Table 45).
Table 45: Farmer associations’ satisfaction with their produce selling prices 
Not 
satisfied
Sometime
s happy
Happy 
with the 
price
Very 
happy Total
District Muecate 76% 8% 4% 0% 25
Nacaroa 68.2% 9.1% 9.1% 4.5% 22
Total 72.3% 8.5% 6.4% 2.1% 47
Disaggregation 
baseline
Muecate 
control
73.3% 6.7% 0% 0% 15
Muecate 
treatment
80% 10% 10% 0% 10
Nacaroa
control
63.6% 18.2% 0% 9.1% 11
Nacaroa 
treatment
72.7% 0% 18.2% 0% 11
Total 72.3% 8.5% 6.4% 2.1% 47
About 64% of the farmer associations were able to sell all their produce, but 36% of them could 
not (Table 46). The proportion of associations that could not sell all their members’ produce was 
higher in the treatment areas (at 20% in Muecate and 73% in Nacaroa) than in the control areas
(at 13% in Muecate and 46% in Nacaroa).
37
Table 46: Farmer associations’ ability to sell their production
Is the association able to sell all its members’ products?
Yes No Total
District Muecate 84% 16% 25
Nacaroa 40.9% 59.1% 22
Total 63.8% 36.2% 47
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 86.7% 13.3% 15
Muecate
treatment
80% 20% 10
Nacaroa control 54.5% 45.5% 11
Nacaroa treatment 27.3% 72.7% 11
Total 63.8% 36.2% 47
Farmer associations reported that when they could not sell all their production they consumed 
it (53%), used it for planting in the next season (47%) or offered it to schools (30%). 
The services provided to the farmer associations are shown in Table 47. The main ones were 
extension services, inputs, weather information and market information. For at least 40% of the 
associations those services were provided mainly by Serviço Distrital de Saude Mulher e Acção 
Social (SDAE), except agriculture inputs and extension services, which for 80% and 50% of the 
associations, respectively, were provided by NGOs.
Table 47: Services provided to farmer associations
Weather 
informatio
n
Market 
Informatio
n
Credit 
informatio
n
Receiv
e 
inputs
Extensio
n 
services
District Muecate 48% 24% 20% 48% 64%
Nacaroa 27.3% 27.3% 9.1% 59.1% 59.1%
Total 38.3% 25.5% 14.9% 53.2% 61.7%
Disaggregatio
n base
Muecate control 46.7% 13.3% 13.3% 40% 60%
Muecate 
treatment
50% 40% 30% 60% 70%
Nacaroa control 0% 9.1% 0% 54.5% 54.5%
Nacaroa 
treatment
54.5% 45.5% 18.2% 63.6% 63.6%
Total 38.3% 25.5% 14.9% 53.2% 61.7%
Higher numbers of farmer associations in the treatment areas received the support services 
compared with the control areas (Table 47). In Nacaroa no farmer association in the control 
areas received weather or market information services, but in the treatment areas the 
associations received all the services. We can conclude, therefore, that the impact in Nacaroa 
of those services must have been associated with the programme and was remarkable. 
38
3.5 Market Assessment
According to the market committees interviewed, 30% stated that their committee had two
members (Table 48).
Table 48: Members in market committees
Members in the market management committee
0 1 2 3 5 12 Total
District Muecate 0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 0% 0% 7
Nacaroa 16.7% 16.7% 0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 6
Total 7.7% 15.4% 30.8% 23.1% 15.4% 7.7% 13
Administrativ
e posts
Muecate-sede 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1
Imala 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 2
Muoluane 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1
Nacaroa-sede 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 2
Inteta 0% 0% 0% 33.3% 66.7% 0% 3
Saua 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1
Total 10% 10% 20% 30% 20% 10% 10
3.5.1 Infrastructure 
In general the markets were rudimentary and many of them did not have electricity, so the sellers 
had solar power for lighting. The provision of water also was poor (Table 49). 
Table 49: Market water, lighting and sanitation infrastructure 
Are sellers satisfied with the water supply in the market?
Excellent Good Average Bad Total
District Muecate 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4% 7
Nacaroa 0% 0% 16.7% 83.3% 6
Total 0% 0% 23.1% 76.9% 13
Are sellers satisfied with the lighting in the market?
Excellent Good Average Bad Total
District Muecate 0% 0% 42.9% 57.1% 7
Nacaroa 0% 0% 16.7% 83.3% 6
Total 0% 0% 30.8% 69.2% 13
Are sellers satisfied with the sanitation in the market?
Excellent Good Average Bad Total
District Muecate 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4% 7
Nacaroa 0% 0% 33.3% 66.7% 6
Total 0% 0% 30.8% 69.2% 13
The market stands were considered by 77% of the sellers to be of average quality (Table 50).
39
Table 50 Market infrastructure for stands
Are sellers satisfied with the general infrastructure (stands) of 
the market?
Excellent Good Average Bad Total
District Muecate 0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 7
Nacaroa 0% 0% 100% 0% 6
Total 0% 7.7% 76.9% 15.4% 13
3.6 Supply
3.6.1 Producers 
In all the markets covered in the survey, farmers were present selling their products, and data 
from the market committees showed that 62% of the farmers had farms near markets while 23% 
had farms in other administrative posts (Table 51). Some 71% of the market committees
reported that farmers’ plots were within a walking distance from the market.
Table 51: Location of producers’ plots
In the market 
locality
Other 
administrative 
post
Nearby district Total
District Muecate 71.4% 28.6% 0% 7
Nacaroa 50% 16.7% 33.3% 6
Total 61.5% 23.1% 15.4% 13
The producers who sold their products in the market did sell the four products procured locally 
by the LRP project. Beans and peanuts were available from many sellers, but only 15% of the 
producers sold OFSP (Table 52). Other agricultural products such as cassava, corn, rice, tomato 
and onions also were available. 
Table 52: Products sold by producers
Beans Peanuts Sweet 
potato
Salt Total
District Muecate 42.9% 71.4% 14.3% 0% 7
Nacaroa 66.7% 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 6
Total 53.8% 69.2% 15.4% 7.7% 13
The quantities of beans supplied by farmers are shown in Table 53, with 25 kg, which is supplied 
by 28.6% of the farmers, as the most common quantity. Some 14.3% of the farmers supply lower 
quantities and others supply up to 50,000 kg.
Table 53: Quantities of beans supplied
20 kg 25 kg 50 kg 74 kg 100 kg 50,000 kg Total
District Muecate 0% 25% 0% 25% 25% 25% 4
Nacaroa 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0% 0% 0% 3
Total 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 7
The prices at which farmers expected to sell their beans in the markets are shown in Table 54
and the actual selling prices in Table 46. Some 60% of the farmers expected to sell their beans 
at 30 Mtn per kg. Some 40% of the farmers sold their beans at 20 Mtn per kg (Table 55).
40
Table 54: Expected price of beans per kg
Expected price of beans
30 Mtn 70 Mtn 100 Mtn Total
District Muecate 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Nacaroa 100% 0% 0% 2
Total 60% 20% 20% 5
Table 55: Actual price of beans per kg
Actual price of beans 
20 Mtn 25 Mtn 30 Mtn 70 Mtn Total
District Muecate 66.7% 0% 0% 33.3% 3
Nacaroa 0% 50% 50% 0% 2
Total 40% 20% 20% 20% 5
For peanuts 20% of the farmers sell them in 40 kg lots (Table 56).
Table 56: Quantities in which peanuts were supplied
Quantity of peanuts supplied
40 kg 46 kg 100 kg 400 kg 50,000
kg
Total
District Muecate 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
Nacaroa 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1
Total 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 5
For peanuts, 70 Mtn per kg was the price favoured by most, with 28.6% of the farmers expecting
their crop to fetch that (Table 57). However, peanuts went for 30–75 Mtn (Table 58).
Table 57: Expected price of peanuts per kg
Expected peanut price
30 Mtn 40 Mtn 50 Mtn 60 Mtn 70 Mtn 100 Mtn Total
District Muecate 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 0% 4
Nacaroa 33.3% 0% 0% 0% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Total 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 7
Table 58: Actual price of peanuts per kg
Peanut price
30 Mtn 60 Mtn 70 Mtn 75 Mtn Total
District Muecate 0% 50% 50% 0% 2
Nacaroa 50% 0% 0% 50% 2
Total 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
3.6.2 Intermediaries
Out of the intermediaries who participated in the FGDs, around 70% had their own market stand. 
They had other activities apart from selling produce in the market, including farm work and 
studying. They sold products of a wide range besides beans, peanuts and salt, such as maize, 
rice, onions and tomato. They did not sell OFSP (Table 59).
41
Table 59: Products sold in the markets by intermediaries
Beans Peanuts Salt Total
District Muecate 28.6% 28.6% 0% 7
Nacaroa 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 6
Total 30.8% 23.1% 7.7% 13
Close to 70% of the sellers earned around 200 Mtn per day, while 31% got 1,400 Mtn or more per 
day (Table 60).
Table 60. Intermediaries’ daily income from sale
Value in Mtn resulting form sales
1–200 201–410 401–
600
1201–
1400
1401+ Total
District Muecate 57.1% 0% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 7
Nacaroa 83.3% 33.3% 0% 0% 50% 6
Total 69.2% 15.4% 23.1% 7.7% 30.8% 13
Out of the intermediaries interviewed 54% bought their products from wholesalers and 31% from 
producers (Table 61).
Table 61: Intermediaries’ main produce suppliers
Producers Wholesaler
s
Trade 
fairs
Communit
y
Total
District Muecate 14.3% 71.4% 0% 14.3% 7
Nacaroa 50% 33.3% 16.7% 0% 6
Total 30.8% 53.8% 7.7% 7.7% 13
3.7 Demand
3.7.1 Consumers’ market purchases
Only 31% of the consumers interviewed reported purchasing beans or peanuts and only 8% 
bought salt. They did not buy sweet potato (Table 62).
Table 62: Consumers’ market purchases
Beans Peanuts Salt Total
District Muecate 28.6% 42.9% 0% 7
Nacaroa 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 6
Total 30.8% 30.8% 7.7% 13
3.7.2 Quantities of produce bought and prices
The quantities of peanuts purchased by consumers are shown in Table 63. The number of 
consumers who purchased 14 kg, 25 kg and 50 kg were equal.
42
Table 63: Consumers quantities of peanuts purchased
Peanut quantities purchased 
14 kg 25 kg 30 kg Total
District Muecate 50% 50% 0% 2
Nacaroa 0% 0% 100% 1
Total 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
The consumer peanut prices varied considerably, reaching 50 Mtn to 90 Mtn per kg in the 
scarcity season instead of the usual 20–80 Mtn as illustrated in Table 64.
Table 64: Peanut prices
Peanut prices
20 Mtn 80 Mtn Total
District Muecate 50% 50% 2
Nacaroa 0% 0% 0
Total 50% 50% 2
The consumers bought beans also in 5 kg, 7 kg, 10 kg and 75 kg (Table 65).
Table 65: Bean quantities purchased by consumers 
Bean quantities purchased 
5 kg 7 kg 10 kg 75 kg Total
District Muecate 50% 0% 50% 0% 2
Nacaroa 0% 50% 0% 50% 2
Total 25% 25% 25% 25% 4
According to the consumers, bean prices varied considerably, going from 20 to 40 Mtn per kg in 
the scarcity season instead of 10–20 Mtn, which is the usual price range (Table 66).
Table 66: Bean prices
Bean prices
10 Mtn 15Mtn 20Mtn Total
District Muecate 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 3
Nacaroa 100% 0% 0% 1
Total 50% 25% 25% 4
4. Summary and Conclusions
This report presents the findings from the baseline survey of the World Vision LRP project. The 
survey covered 50 schools distributed across two districts in the province of Nampula. The 
survey focused on school enrolment, student attendance, beneficiaries of the school feeding 
project, and the personnel and operational structures in the management of the project,
including cooking, procurement committees and school management committees. It also covers
farm production and farmers’ knowledge and skills in business management, agronomy,
marketing and contract management. The main findings from this survey are as follows:
43
• OFSP is a new crop. Few farmers produce it and it is therefore not commercialized in 
the markets. 
• OFSP has been introduced in 40% of the farmer associations at the time of the baseline.
• Only 10% of the farmer associations are already supplying OFSP to schools.
• Farmers are starting to produce OFSP crop as a result of the demand from the LRP 
program. They are conscious that it is a nutritive food with a high market price. 
• Farmers have been trained in business skills and agricultural techniques and they have 
some experience in commercial/contractual business processes.
• Most students take only two meals a day at home and, therefore, there is a high demand 
for the school feeding program. 
• The LRP program was reaching more than 900 direct beneficiaries including students,
cooks and teachers as at the time of the baseline.
• The number of students who have two meals a day is higher in the treatment schools 
(288) than in the control schools benefiting from only the ETC2 program (228). This
applies also to students who have three meals a day, where the numbers are 104 for the 
treatment schools and 93 for the control schools.
• Students in both programs received balanced meals that included food from all food 
groups. In the Nacaroa control schools this was less so than in the other three areas, 
where more than 75% of the students reported eating food from the four food groups. 
The sweet, potato, vegetables and fruits food group had the least students (53%) 
including it in their meals.
• The people working with the program were qualified for their responsibilities. This applies 
to the cooks and the procurement team members and it means that they have made
good contribution to the implementation of the programme. Nevertheless, procurement 
committees were trained on storage quality and forward contracts.
5. Baseline Questions and Related Findings
 The following can be considered as the main results of the basline with reference to the research 
 Questions:
 
 To what extent can locally procured, good quality and culturally appropriate food 
commodities help to improve the nutrition of students in the target schools?
• More students in the treatment schools had two meals per day (288) than in the control 
schools (228), which benefitted from only the ETC2 programme. The same trend applied 
to students who had three meals a day, with fewer children coming from the control 
schools (93) than the treatment schools (104). 
• The students in both programs had balanced meals that included food products from all 
the food groups. In the Nacaroa control schools this trend was less evident than in the 
other three areas (Nacaroa and Muecate treatment schools and Muecate control 
schools), where more than 75% of the students interviewed reported eating from the four 
food groups. Three food groups that included sweet potato, vegetables and fruits was 
consumed by the least number of students.
• Limited numbers of students reported being sick in the previous month before the 
baseline. The students in the two districts did not have many health complaints and only 
about 28% of them reported to have fallen ill once in the previous month, the highest 
level for illness shown in the survey
44
What is the capacity of the farmer groups to produce high quality, nutritious commodities, 
especially orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP), and supply them to the school-feeding 
program?
• Farmers had been trained in business skills and agricultural techniques by the LRP 
project before the baseline. 
• OFSP had been introduced to 40% of the farmer associations at the time of the baseline. 
• Only 10% of the farmer associations were supplying OFSP to schools as at the time of 
the baseline. However, more than 50% of the procurement committees in the Muecate 
district confirmed that they received food products from farmer associations.
• World Vision vehicles and human porters were the most common means of transporting 
food supplies to the schools
• Farmer association had some experience in commercial or contractual business 
relationships.
What level of capacity do the schools and the government departments have to procure and 
manage local commodities to supply the school feeding program?
• School Procurement Committees had been trained in storage quality and future 
contracts by the LRP project at the time of the baseline.
• School Procurement Committees were present in only the treatment schools at the time 
of the baseline
• Some school procurement committee members had trainings from other NGOs, 
government departments and other workshops as at the time of the baseline
• Some 69% of the treatment school committees reported that their quality control method 
for the food products was visual assessment, 62.5% controlled their stores of the 
products by referring to the delivery notes, while 43.8% did so using a product inventory. 
The quality control procedures were not implemented in the control schools in either 
district.
45
References
INE & ICF International (2013). Moçambique inquérito demográfico e de saúde 2011 
(Mozambique demographic and health survey 2011. Calverton, Maryland, USA: 
MISA/Moçambique, INE/Moçambique and ICF International 
(https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-fr266-dhs-final-reports.cfm, accessed 20 April 
2018).
Poverty and Equity Brief Sub-Saharan Africa Mozambique April 2018 
(http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/poverty/33EF03BB-9722-4AE2-
ABC7AA2972D68AFE/Global_POVEQ_MOZ.pdf)
LRP DME Performance Monitoring indicators Plan
WV Inc. Mozambique LRP Evaluation Plan
INE Population Census preliminary Results 2017 – population projections
INE Estatisticas do Distrito Nacaroa 2013
INE Estatisticas do Ditrito Muecate 2013
Education Statistics Annual School Survey 2017
Global partnership for education