FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE FEED THE FUTURE ETHIOPIAN VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITY September 13, 2021 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by ME&A, Inc. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE FEED THE FUTURE ETHIOPIAN VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITY September 13, 2021 Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development under USAID Contract Number: AID-OAA-TO-16-00008 Submitted to: USAID/Ethiopia Melat Getahun mgetahun@usaid.gov and USAID/Bureau for Resilience and Food Security Lindsey Anna lanna@usaid.gov Submitted by: Dr. Brandy Jones, Team Leader Mr. Mekbib Hilegebrile Seife, M&E Specialist Mr. Ahmed Yesuf, Nutrition Specialist Mr. Efrem Tesfaye, Agriculture/Agribusiness Specialist Ms. Beredu Tessema Goskora, Gender Specialist Contractor: Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning (PEEL) ME&A 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-652-4334 DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Evaluation Purpose and Audience ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Evaluation Questions.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Activity Description................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Approach and Implementation............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................... 4 3.1 Qualitative Data Collection Methods................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Quantitative Data Collection Methods.............................................................................................. 5 3.3 Data Analysis Methods........................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Methodological Limitations................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1 Relevance................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.3 Outcomes................................................................................................................................................ 29 4.4 Efficiency .................................................................................................................................................. 38 4.5 Sustainability............................................................................................................................................ 41 5.0 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................ 43 Annex 1: Evaluation Work Plan...................................................................................................................... 44 Annex 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide .................................................................................................... 58 Annex 3: Key Informant and Group Interview Guides............................................................................. 62 Annex 4: Key Informant and Group Interview Guides............................................................................. 66 Annex 5: Key Informant and Group Interview Guides............................................................................. 69 Annex 6: CATI Survey Questionnaire........................................................................................................... 71 Annex 7: Online Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 91 Annex 8: Ethiopia VCA Results Framework................................................................................................ 99 Annex 9: Evaluation Matrix........................................................................................................................... 100 Annex 10: Ethiopia VCA Intervention Zone Map ................................................................................... 102 Annex 11: List of Documents Reviewed.................................................................................................... 103 Annex 12: Feed the Future Ethiopia VCA Sub-Award Obligations as of April 8, 2021 ................. 105 Annex 13: Sub-Purpose 3 .............................................................................................................................. 115 Annex 14: Cup of Excellence Auction Data ............................................................................................. 124 Annex 15: Complete List of Prioritized Recommendations................................................................. 125 Annex 16: Team Bios, Statements of Conflict of Interest, and Nondisclosure Agreements........ 128 Annex 17: Expression of Interest................................................................................................................ 143 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Qualitative Sample by Gender........................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2: CATI Survey Respondents by Sex, Region, Value Chain, and Age........................................................ 5 Table 3: VCA Performance Monitoring Data on Smallholder Beneficiaries by VC, Sex, and Crosscutting Activities................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: VCA Performance Monitoring Data on Smallholder Beneficiaries by VC and Region................... 10 Table 5: Women Beneficiaries by Region.................................................................................................................. 11 Table 6: Monitoring Data on Youth Value Chain Participation............................................................................ 11 Table 7: VCA Monitoring Data on THM Training (March 2021)......................................................................... 12 Table 8: Types of Activity Support Provided to the Dairy VC: CATI Survey................................................... 13 Table 9: Types of Activity Support Received in the MLA VC: CATI Survey .................................................... 14 Table 10: Types of Activity Support Received in the Poultry VC: CATI Survey.............................................. 15 Table 11: Types of Activity Support Received in the Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee VCs: CATI Survey..... 16 Table 12: Smallholder Most Useful VCA Support Provided: CATI Survey ....................................................... 17 Table 13: VCA Support for Access to Input and Market Linkages: CATI Survey............................................ 18 Table 14: VCA Support for Access to Markets and Finance: Online Survey.................................................... 19 Table 15: Respondents’ Perceptions of Improved Market Access/Linkages by VC: CATI Survey .............. 19 Table 16: Support Received in Marketing/Sales and Book/Record Keeping by VC: CATI Survey............... 22 Table 17: Partner Fund and Technology Fund Grants by Value Chain............................................................... 25 Table 18: Respondents’ Perceptions of Household Nutritional Health Contributions by VC: CATI Survey … ................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Table 19: Respondents’ Perceptions of Improved Production Outcomes by VC: CATI Survey................. 32 Table 20: Smallholder Income Diversification by Value Chain: CATI Survey ................................................... 33 Table 21: Level of Satisfaction with VCA Support: CATI Survey ........................................................................ 39 Table 22: Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Smallholder Production, Yields, Costs, Sales, and Income: CATI Survey .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Types of Support Received Overall (Blue) and by Women (Orange): CATI Survey .................... 13 Figure 2: VCA Monitoring Data DCA/IDFC Loans by Value Chain.................................................................... 21 Figure 3: Do You Feel That the VCA Activity Is Being Managed Well Overall?.............................................. 38 ABSTRACT This final performance evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, conducted by ME&A, used a mixed- methods approach to examine the Activity’s relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency, and sustainability and provide recommendations for the Activity's closeout and USAID follow-on programming. Implemented by Fintrac, VCA’s purpose is to improve agriculture sector performance in the coffee, chickpea, maize, dairy, poultry, and meat and live animals value chains (VCs) in Tigray; Amhara; Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region; and Oromia. To date VCA has surpassed its overall life of activity outreach targets. The Activity has had a positive impact on cooperative membership and opportunities, and leadership for women and youth, while improved production and post-production methods have helped smallholder farmers improve their market access. VCA’s work with diverse market actors as critical entry points is an effective approach that has yielded positive results. The USAID Development Finance Corporation outreach to VCA beneficiaries, especially smallholders, has been limited. VCA’s partnership strategy succeeded in increasing VC effectiveness by bringing the government, private sector, and smallholders together to improve VC performance. VCA has contributed to improving a range of production outcomes among smallholders and to increased diversification of agriculture and non-agriculture income generating activities. VCA demonstrated flexible and adaptable management that enabled it to respond effectively to emerging needs, while its pandemic response was aggressive and proactive. There remain serious obstacles to Activity sustainability, especially lack of continued government support, civil instability, and lack of access to finance and foreign exchange. ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AGP II Agricultural Growth Program II AI artificial insemination ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency B2B Business-to-Business CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview CIG Common Interest Group COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture CSO Civil Society Organization DAC Development Assistance Committee DCA United States International Development Credit Authority EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FGD Focus Group Discussion FTC Farmer Training Center FTF Feed the Future FY Fiscal Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GI Group Interview GOE Government of Ethiopia GTN Growth through Nutrition Activity HST Hermetic Storage Technology IGA Income-Generating Activity IMC International Medical Corp KG Kilogram KII Key Informant Interview LOA Life of Activity M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCC Milk Collection Center MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MFI Microfinance Institution MLA Meat and Live Animals MoA Ministry of Agriculture NGO Nongovernmental Organization NSA Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PEEL Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning PICS Purdue Improved Crop Storage Acronym Definition SBCC Social and Behavior Change Communication SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region TBD To Be Determined THM Transformative Household Methodology USAID United States Agency for International Development VC Value Chain VCA Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (VCA) is a $60,229,208.00, five-year activity (January 2017–December 2021) funded by USAID (AID-663-C-17-00001) as part of the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future Initiative and the Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE’s) Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) II. VCA is implemented by Fintrac with contributions from Banyan Global (gender) and International Medical Corps (IMC) (nutrition). USAID commissioned a final performance evaluation of VCA to assess how VCA has performed from its launch in January 2017 to the present in terms of its relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency, and sustainability; highlight implementation strengths and weaknesses; identify lessons learned; and provide recommendations for the Activity's closeout or for USAID follow-on programming. ACTIVITY BACKGROUND VCA’s purpose is to improve agriculture sector performance, focusing on coffee, chickpea, maize, dairy, poultry, and meat and live animals (MLA) value chains (VCs) in more than 100 woredas across Tigray; Amhara; Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR); and Oromia. Sub-purposes include increasing nutrition-sensitive productivity inclusive of women and youth, strengthening inclusive market systems and trade, and improving the enabling environment for agricultural transformation. Under AGP II, VCA contributes to the GOE objective of improving agricultural productivity and smallholder farmers' commercialization through an inclusive VC and market system development strategy integrating nutrition-sensitive interventions, climate-smart agriculture, and USAID/Ethiopia's push-pull strategy. EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation team adopted a mixed-methods approach to answer the evaluation questions. Qualitative data collection methods included desk review of Activity reports and documents, key informant interviews, group interviews, and focus group discussion with 132 Activity stakeholders. Quantitative data collection methods included 513 computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) surveys with farmers in targeted VCs and 100 online surveys of Activity stakeholders. All data were triangulated to inform the evaluation report and ensure accuracy of findings. The main limitation affecting the evaluation was the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to COVID-19-related restrictions, the team leader managed the evaluation remotely and World Health Organization COVID-19 protocols were employed during the fieldwork. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Relevance VCA Design and Approach Recommendations: Because VCA’s approach was born out of Ethiopian agriculture and livestock development aims, its relevance to supporting these aims is unquestioned. Stakeholders generally approved of Activity management and the VCs prioritized by the Activity. The main concern raised was that crop-based VCs (i.e., maize, chickpea, and coffee) were not accessible to women and youth because of their land and capital requirements. There were also critics of VCA’s co-financing approach and the combination of livestock and crop VCs; however, they were in the minority. 1. Follow-on activities should include conducting gender- and youth-specific research to address the specific needs of these groups. The research should also include gender analysis to inform policy, research, and extension, particularly around access to land and capital for women and youth. 2. Activity impact as it relates to nutrition outcomes would benefit from scaling up horticulture and vegetable gardening interventions with assistance to acquire the associated inputs. ii Effectiveness Outreach of VCA Services: By March 31, 2021, VCA had already exceeded its life-of-activity (LOA) beneficiary outreach targets. Closer inspection of Activity monitoring data, however, shows substantial variation across VCs. Coffee remains short of its LOA targets by 1,903 beneficiaries and maize by more than 4,281. In contrast, the remaining four VCs have already exceeded their LOA targets by a combined 10,589 beneficiaries. In addition, VCA crosscutting activities, including nutrition, gender and youth, and capacity building, have added 34,923 unplanned direct beneficiaries. Adding these beneficiaries to those in the six VCs has allowed VCA to surpass its LOA targets by more than 24,467 beneficiaries with nine months remaining until Activity end (as of March 31). Gender and Youth: By March 31, 2021, VCA had narrowly missed (28 percent) its LOA target of 30 percent women participation, albeit with several months remaining until Activity end. The chickpea, maize, and coffee VCs remain short of this target, while the dairy, poultry and MLA VCs have surpassed the target by wide margins. VCA remains four percentage points short of achieving its LOA 25 percent youth participation target. Coffee (26 percent) and poultry (35 percent) have so far exceeded it; MLA (22 percent) falls just short; and maize, chickpea, and dairy lag by more than five percentage points each. Dairy: VCA uses a whole-VC approach to build up the extension system so it can maintain VCA’s role once the Activity ends. In the dairy sector, VCA has linked smallholder dairy producers to milk collection centers (MCCs) for a better price, while MCCs have the technology to process more milk and maintain higher quality. VCA’s support for the installation of a tank cleaning system by the Almi Dairy Training Institute and its ongoing technical support to operate the chillers and strengthen milk production and management systems constitute an important investment in the milk cold chain infrastructure, with a total of 96 MCCs now classified as equipment ready. MLA: VCA has provided technical support to 108 renovated and upgraded fattening units that have acted as learning and demonstration centers for promoting proper feedlot structures and improved management practices. About 50 percent of CATI survey respondents in the MLA VC reported receiving support in animal fattening, feed handling and storage, animal breeding, animal feed and feeding, and animal health. Poultry: VCA has covered 17 woredas and focused on 103 demonstration sites, field days, trade fairs, and training events. The poultry VC has had the highest female participation rates of VCA’s six VCs. More than 70 percent of CATI survey respondents in the poultry VC reported receiving support on breeding and feed and feeding, and more than one-half reported receiving support in stocking, fattening, and feed handling and storage. As in the dairy and MLA VCs, VCA support in this VC has focused on technical and production support, with little direct support for production inputs or technologies. This is consistent with VCA’s whole-VC approach of promoting sustainability by focusing on capacity building and exposing smallholders to new technologies and cultivation techniques through demonstrations and training. Maize and Chickpea: Training in crop postharvest handling practices, integrated pest management, and field days have been the most common type of training received in the maize and chickpea VCs. VCA has promoted Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags using hermetic storage technology for postharvest management through village-based demonstrations and trade fairs involving farmers, extension staff, vendors, radio, and market demonstrations. The Activity has also provided support in pest management with a focus on the fall armyworm in the maize VC and integrated pest management in the chickpea VC. Coffee: Coffee is Ethiopia’s most important and valuable export commodity, and the promotion of specialty coffee is one of the Activity’s key objectives. To date, VCA has supported more than 66 cooperatives and commercial farms producing washed and natural coffee. The package of agronomic training and improvements for harvesting and processing has contributed to increased coffee value and farm profitability. The most frequent trainings received in this VC have been (in order of frequency) postharvest handling, postharvest processing, field days, and pest management. iii Most Useful Support Received: CATI survey respondents listed training events as the most useful type of Activity support, followed at a distance by demonstrations and at an even greater distance by material support, experience-sharing events, extension services, and field days. Market Access and Linkages: Direct beneficiary support to access markets and commercial buyers has been relatively low across all VCs (less than 30 percent of CATI survey respondents), indicating that VCA has placed more emphasis on production quality and technical inputs and less emphasis on the market side of the market systems approach. Agribusinesses partnering with VCA through the grants/technology fund have expanded their markets and clientele, while smallholders, by virtue of their membership and engagement with these institutions, have accessed second-order improved market linkages. In fact, more than one-half of CATI respondents in each of the six VCs reported improvement of their commercial linkages to buyers over the course of the Activity, suggesting that VCA’s use of cooperatives/associations, MCCs, abattoirs, and other market actors as entry points, while linking smallholders to buyers through these institutions, has been an effective strategy. Access to Finance: USAID’s Development Finance Corporation (DFC) has supported 42 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to access $5.7 million in working capital finance from four DFC partner banks. SMEs in the MLA, dairy, and coffee VCs have had the most success accessing bank financing through the DFC, compared with one in the chickpea VC and none in the maize and poultry VCs. Commercial finance remains out of reach for smallholder farmers, although there is potential for downstream benefits to smallholders in the form of increased demand for their products. Key informants see this as a major shortcoming of the Activity. Impediments to accessing commercial finance by smallholders include the lack of collateral and business literacy skills, including proper bookkeeping and product valuation. To address this limitation, VCA has provided training in marketing, sales, and bookkeeping. However, fewer than one￾third of CATI survey respondents have received training in these areas. VCA support to Vision MicroFinance helped it secure a DFC-backed $1 million loan from Awash Bank, and it continues work with banks to develop agricultural loan products; however, these have not been finalized. VCA Partnership Approach: The heart of VCA’s contribution to the AGP II has focused on supporting the private sector and cooperatives through sub-awards from the Partner and Technology Funds to fulfill their role in the livestock and crop VCs at all levels. Specifically, VCA has engaged agribusinesses and cooperatives to extend access to training and agricultural equipment and technologies to target smallholders in each of the six VCs at the woreda and kebele levels, establishing partnerships with several key VCA actors. This aspect of VCA has been critical as it has helped operationalize many of the Activity’s VC studies to have the highest impact on VC performance. VCA’s Grants Under Contract component has awarded $10,072,302 to agribusinesses and cooperatives. Through the grants, VCA has sought to support demonstration and scale-up of technologies through trainings, awareness raising, and business-to￾business market linkages. The Partner and Technology Funds have allowed VCA to procure technologies for smallholder beneficiaries in all six VCs and have expanded markets in both directions, providing needed technology/equipment to smallholders at reasonable prices, allowing them to decrease production losses and improve transport of their goods to local and national markets. However, the VCA partnership approach does consider how to address gender and youth participation in selected VCs effectively. OUTCOMES Nutrition Outcomes: VCA’s approach to nutritional outcomes has focused on nutrition-sensitive interventions to improve dietary diversity and promote the consumption of targeted nutrient-rich commodities, with emphasis on a whole-family approach across its interventions. More than 80 percent of CATI survey respondents who participated in Activity nutritional training agreed that the training had contributed to improved household health outcomes, including consumption of a more diversified and nutritious diet and the nutritional status of household members. However, the extent to which these findings can be attributed to VCA, other GOE nutritional programming, or USAID/Ethiopia’s Growth through Nutrition Activity working in the same regions as VCA is unclear. iv Production Outcomes: A majority (57–89 percent) of CATI survey respondents across the six VCs reported that the following production outcomes had improved since they received support from VCA: product quality, prices, sales volume, sales value, and income. Further, 80 percent or more of the same respondents attributed the improvements to VCA support in all cases. These findings were corroborated in interviews with Activity beneficiaries. The positive benefits, however, have not been uniform as multiple beneficiaries reside in hard-to-reach kebeles and thus have not received much Activity support. The percentage of respondents reporting improvements was consistently the lowest in the chickpea VC. The chickpea VC has also had the lowest level of investment for the Partner and Technology Funds. Income Diversification: The coffee VC had the most respondents that diversified their IGAs, whereas the poultry VC had the fewest, being the sole VC not to reach the 50 percent threshold. More than 60 percent of CATI respondents in each VC attributed their IGA diversification to VCA support. Approximately three-quarters of those who diversified their IGAs did so into non-agriculture/agribusiness IGAs. The most cited benefits of IGA diversification included increased household income (56 percent), increased food expenditures (24 percent), and increased non-food expenditures (9 percent). Enabling Environment: VCA’s work on the enabling environment has included advocacy and awareness raising for behavior change and facilitated dialogue between stakeholders. One critique of VCA’s policy work was the lack of policy-related awareness or discussion at the regional, woreda, and smallholder levels. VCA’s policy role stops at facilitating research and dialogue and drafting documents, while the GOE is responsible for drafting, implementing, and operationalizing legislation—a slow, complex process outside the Activity’s control. Thus, no Activity-supported policy has been finalized or has reached the validation phase. Moreover, VCA’s policy work is spread across six VCs, stretching resources to address more issues, which may limit its ability to follow all the processes to fruition. Efficiency VCA has provided various forms of COVID-19 support to its smallholder beneficiaries. Sixty percent of CATI survey respondents have received COVID-19 support. Of these, 85 percent have received prevention and awareness-raising campaign messages, 66 percent have received masks and gel, and 24 percent have received equipment or services. VCA has demonstrated a flexible and adaptable leadership and management approach that has enabled it to respond to emerging needs while still achieving Activity goals. The pandemic response has been aggressive and proactive and led by a management model founded on a flexible and solutions-oriented approach. More than 70 percent of respondents agreed that VCA is well managed; 80 percent or more were satisfied with the knowledge and expertise of support providers and the relevance, usefulness, effectiveness, and overall quality of Activity support; and 79 percent had implemented what they had learned from VCA to a “good” or “great” extent. Sustainability VCA has worked directly with smallholder farmers organized in cooperatives and common interest groups and with agribusiness and commercial farms to forge the types of market-driven relationships necessary for Activity sustainability. Nonetheless, stakeholders expressed concerns about the Activity’s sustainability, particularly the sustainability of GOE leadership and support. Although VCA’s market-driven VC interventions are more likely to continue on their own to the extent that they deliver improved outcomes for participating stakeholders, the GOE must provide a supportive and favorable environment. Moreover, the ongoing conflict in Tigray poses a serious threat to Activity sustainability not only in Tigray but throughout the other VCA regions. The limited access to finance and foreign exchange also threatens Activity sustainability. COVID-19 has created large uncertainties that in turn affect business and investment decisions. Currently VCA has a formal exit strategy only for the Cup of Excellence and lacks an Activity-wide exist strategy document. v RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Follow-on programming needs to be more intentional about selecting VCs that are appropriate for women and youth, who typically do not enjoy equal access to land or capital as do men or non-youth. 2. Follow-on programming should also explore strategic ways to work with women and youth at institutional levels to have greater impact on VC participation and influence. 3. Future programming should include gender analysis to inform policy, research, and extension, particularly around access to land and capital for women and youth. 4. VCA should prioritize support to agribusinesses, cooperatives, CIGs, abattoirs, etc. to develop quality control mechanisms so their role in the activity remains at a high level and reaches smallholders in hard-to-reach kebeles. 5. VCA should consider working with the GOE and key market actors to support the creation of a strategy to sustain and expand this approach for each VC in light of VCA’s eventual closure. 6. Follow-on programming will need to consider additional approaches to mainstream gender, youth, and nutrition into interventions aimed at increasing access to markets, for example by diversifying interventions into other VCs like horticulture, spices, honey, and home-based vegetable gardens. 7. Follow-on programming should focus on increasing smallholder and agribusiness preparedness to access financing and ensure that MFIs are included in any future DFC program. 8. Provide training on business management and bookkeeping and create a list of smallholders and agribusinesses that complete the training as potential clients for loans from formal financial institutions. 9. USAID and VCA should continue to work with Ethiopian financial institutions to develop financing models that are appropriate and viable for livestock and crop VC actors. 10. USAID and the GOE should seek to create spaces for tripartite collaboration and communication between the private sector, the GOE, and farmer organizations to ensure Activity sustainability. 11. VCA and USAID should continue their efforts to advocate for improved conditions surrounding access to capital and financing in Ethiopia, including the availability of foreign exchange. 12. Future VC activities should scale up horticulture VC interventions and the provision of home gardening kits to improve nutritional outcomes and increase access to nutritious, low-cost foods. 13. Follow-on programs should include a focus on building business management capacity of agribusinesses and smallholder beneficiaries to further support their income diversification outcomes. 14. Future programming should consider taking a more targeted approach to working on policy issues that involves strategic engagement on a select set of priority VC policy issues. 15. VCA should assess the policy work conducted thus far and resolve and complete any outstanding policy work that is deemed feasible within the remaining implementation period. 16. VCA stakeholders should consider workshops to identify and document the best practices emerging from working in such a complicated context, including the COVID-19 pandemic and civil instability. 17. Because of delays at the Activity’s outset and the ongoing pandemic, USAID and Fintrac should consider a no-cost extension to consolidate accomplishments and finalize outstanding efforts. 18. A clear and well-communicated sustainability plan and exit strategy for VCA should be put in place down to the kebele levels as soon as possible. 19. VCA stakeholders and USAID should continue advocacy efforts with the GOE and the African Union to address issues such as foreign exchange and business-unfriendly policies and practices. 1 1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE USAID commissioned a final performance evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (VCA) in the four regions of Tigray; Amhara; Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR); and Oromia. Priority value chains (VCs) to be evaluated included coffee, chickpea, maize, dairy, poultry, and meat and live animals (MLA). The evaluation aimed to assess how VCA has performed from its launch in January 2017 to the present. The evaluation is guided by five of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency, and sustainability. The evaluation report highlights the Activity’s implementation strengths and weaknesses, identifies best practices and lessons learned, and provides actionable recommendations for the Activity's closeout or for USAID follow-on programming.1 This evaluation's primary users are USAID and Activity stakeholders, including the implementing agencies Fintrac (prime), Banyan Global (gender), and International Medical Corps (IMC) (nutrition); the Government of Ethiopia (GOE); and local government entities working in the agriculture sector. The findings and recommendations will be used to guide future USAID programming and the design of follow￾on or related activities. Lessons learned from Activity implementation will help inform USAID's future approach to support the GOE's Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) II. 1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The OECD DAC evaluation criteria and questions that guide this evaluation were reviewed and validated during a kickoff call between USAID/Ethiopia, the evaluation team (ET) leader, and ME&A. Toward this end, the initial evaluation questions (EQs) listed in the evaluation Expression of Interest (see Annex 17) were modified to align with the OECD DAC. Several EQs and sub-EQs were added or revised to ensure clarity and/or reinforce the exploration of performance using the DAC evaluation criteria. Below are the primary EQs organized by evaluation criteria (see Section 4 and Annex 9 for a full listing of EQs and sub￾EQs).2 Relevance 1. What changes would you recommend to improve the VCA design and approach as it relates to selected value chains, targeting the inclusion of women and youth particularly, and management and oversight? 1 The VCA final evaluation methodology and protocol were informed by the VCA midterm evaluation protocol, which was prepared in 2020 but later canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2 The six EQs in the Expression of Interest were as follows: 1) To what extent did interventions change the economic structure of beneficiary households? Which value chains were successful in engaging more women and youth, significantly increasing yield and income, and contributing to improvements in household nutrition?; 2) Did the program’s services, products, and resources reach their intended beneficiaries in terms of geographic coverage and value chain penetration?; 3) What were the major achievements in the partnerships that VCA built (government, private sector, development partners, others)? What were the critical success factors and failures of each? How well did the current arrangement of partnership based on component sharing with government work? What are the recommendations to improve engagement, especially but not exclusively with the government?; 4) Does USAID’s development credit authority (DCA) support and grant mechanism (in-kind or cost-sharing) work for all value chain actors in accessing finance? If “no,” why? What are the obstacles and the recommended changes (in policy and others)?; 5) How did VCA’s exit strategy change over time as a result of internal and external changes?; 6) How has Fintrac’s management of VCA evolved over time due to internal and external changes? What were the major lessons learned from these changes and change management process? What lessons can be drawn for USAID in designing complexity-aware programming and allow for adaptive management? 2 Effectiveness and Impact 2. To what extent did interventions change the economic structure of beneficiary households? 3. Did the Activity's services, products, and resources reach their intended beneficiaries in terms of geographic coverage and value chain penetration?3 4. What were the main achievements in the partnerships that VCA built (government, private sector, development partners, others)? 5. Does USAID's Development Finance Corporation (DFC) support and grant mechanism (in-kind or cost-sharing) work for all value chain actors in accessing finance? Efficiency and Sustainability 6. Was the oversight and administrative management of VCA appropriate to the Activity's context and design? 7. How did VCA's exit strategy change over time as a result of internal and external changes? 2.0 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 2.1 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Ethiopia is the second most populated country in Africa after Nigeria, with a population of 105 million people comprising more than 90 ethnic and linguistic groups. Growing at an annual rate of 2.6 percent, the population is young, with 41 percent below 15 years of age. Approximately 80 percent of the population lives in remote and rural areas, making Ethiopia one of the world's least urbanized countries. Ethiopia is a landlocked country with approximately 1.14 million square kilometers and shares borders with Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Kenya. The country's administration is subdivided into 10 regional and ethnic-language states and two administrative councils. The regions are further divided into zones, woredas, and kebeles, the latter of which represents the smallest administration unit. The country’s most important economic sector is services, accounting for 39 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), closely followed by agriculture, which accounts for 35 percent of GDP as of 2018. However, more than three-quarters of the economically active population are employed in agriculture. The Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity is a $60,229,208, five-year activity (January 2017– December 2021) funded by USAID (AID-663-C-17-00001) as part of the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future Initiative and the GOE’s AGP II, Component Four: Agriculture Marketing and Value Chains. The Activity is implemented by a consortium led by Fintrac with contributions from Banyan Global (gender) and IMC (nutrition). VCA’s purpose is to improve agriculture sector performance. Its sub-purposes are described below. Sub-Purpose 1: Increased nutrition-sensitive productivity of targeted VCs inclusive of women and youth. • 1.1: Strengthened and scaled-up input supply system's delivery of affordable, high-quality technologies and services. • 1.2: Expanded use of improved technologies and practices by male and female smallholders, including youth. • 1.3: Increased availability of, access to, and consumption of safe, diverse foods. Sub-Purpose 2: Strengthen inclusive market systems and trade. • 2.1: Strengthened market access and organization of the market systems. • 2.2: Increased access to financial services. • 2.3: Increased access to non-financial supporting services. 3 Is VCA reaching and serving the intended Activity targets and beneficiaries? 3 • 2.4: Strengthened lead firms, including agribusinesses, agro-processors, and farmer cooperative unions. • 2.5: Increased trade in domestic, regional, and international markets. Sub-Purpose 3: Improve the enabling environment in support of agricultural transformation. • 3.1: Strengthened capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and improved cooperation with the Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) at the federal, regional, and local levels for developing, implementing, and monitoring policies. • 3.2: Strengthened public and private sector dialogue related to policy review and implementation. • 3.3: Strengthened policies, regulations, and laws to support an improved business and investment environment around the selected VCs, particularly through the New Alliance Cooperation Framework. 2.2 APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION VCA functions as the principal contributor to Component 4 of AGP II, Agriculture Marketing and Value Chains, in more than 100 woredas across Tigray, Amhara, SNNPR, and Oromia. Priority VCs include coffee, chickpea, maize, dairy, poultry, and MLA. (See Annex 10 for a map showing the woredas across the four implementation regions where VCA is working.) VCA also mainstreams nutrition, gender, and youth to ensure transformative community change. VCA's primary goal is to improve agricultural productivity and commercialization of smallholder agriculture and facilitate public-private partnerships. In addition to working with smallholder farmers; dairy, meat, and poultry producers; and cooperatives, VCA works closely with various GOE entities, including the MoA, Ministry of Trade, Cooperative Agency, ATA, Coffee and Tea Authority, and other public institutions through commodity-based platforms, regional agricultural bureaus, and working groups. As of June 30, 2020, VCA worked in four regional offices (Oromia, SNNPR, Amhara, and Tigray) and two satellite offices (Mizan and Jimma) in 105 woredas. Also, the Activity works with 82 milk collection centers (MCC) in 42 woredas, some of which are outside AGP II, to sequence on previous USAID investments in the dairy sector. The Activity approach emphasizes collaboration at all levels, from strengthening commercial (business-to-business [B2B]) relationships between smallholder farmers and agribusinesses to building consensus and action around key constraints to enhance VC efficiency and stimulate growth. There is also an emphasis on introducing new and improved technologies that facilitate improved yields/production, conservation, and access to established and new markets. Capacity building is also a significant component of supporting the introduction of new technologies, techniques, and business practices, such as commercialization/marketing. In addition to its six priority VCs, VCA pursues the following crosscutting themes: 1. Nutrition: This crosscutting theme aims to mainstream nutrition by increasing the availability and utilization of healthy foods; broadening knowledge of appropriate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) practices; and expanding household purchasing power, all essential to food security. 2. Gender and youth: All Activity programming seeks to integrate women and youth into Activity planning and service delivery to respond to the needs of entire Ethiopian households. Initiatives under this crosscutting theme are central to the Activity's income generation and food security strategies to improve household nutrition and increase yields and sales. The Activity has a 30 percent life-of-activity (LOA) female participation target. 3. Capacity building: This crosscutting theme emphasizes training and technical support to GOE structures, smallholder farmers, cooperatives, and agribusinesses to facilitate marketing and communication and strengthen input supply outlets and markets, financial planning, marketing, entrepreneurship, and business plan/proposal development. 4 4. Enabling environment: This crosscutting theme aims to create an enabling environment that supports agricultural transformation by strengthening private and public dialogue, strengthening human and institutional capacity within the GOE, and making it easier for businesses to operate. Finally, VCA manages a sub-award portfolio consisting of around 30 sub-awardee organizations that are private sector–led partnerships designed to support activities that improve local capacity for market system development, reduce risk, and increase access to new technologies. Sub-award partners include cooperatives, unions, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), agribusinesses, private firms, and commercial farms. VCA also collaborates with other donor-funded projects and key government entities, including directorates at the MoA, ATA, and the Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority. 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The ET adopted a mixed-methods approach using qualitative and quantitative data collection methods to answer the EQs, consisting of (1) desk review of Activity reports and documents and related third-party sources, (2) key informant interviews (KIIs) and group interviews (GIs), (3) focus group discussions (FGDs); (4) computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) surveys implemented by ME&A's subcontractor GeoPoll (www.geopoll.com), (5) online survey of Activity stakeholders, and (6) collection and analysis of Activity performance monitoring data (see Evaluation Matrix in Annex 9). The data from all these sources have been triangulated to tease out mutually reinforcing points that are verifiable across all sources. 3.1 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS 3.1.1 Document Review The ET used the evaluation’s inception phase to understand the Activity and design with input and guidance from USAID and Fintrac. (See Annex 11 for a full list of documents reviewed.) Documents reviewed included quarterly and annual reports; annual work plans; Activity monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plans; strategy documents; market assessments; Activity survey data; Activity/event reports and presentations; partnership agreements; memoranda of understanding; and related third-party sources. 3.1.2 KIIs, GIs, and FGDs Qualitative data collection took place between April 5 and April 30, 2021, in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR. Because of the ongoing conflict in Tigray, the ET did not interview any stakeholders in that region. Overall, the ET conducted KIIs, GIs,4 and FGDs with 132 individuals (Table 1) selected using purposive sampling methods designed to achieve as comprehensive coverage as possible of key stakeholders given budget, time, and other constraints, while also reflecting the diversity within those groups.5 (See Annexes 2-5 for copies of the KII, GI, and FGD discussion guides.) Qualitative data collection provided the ET with the opportunity to solicit insights, opinions, and explanations from a wide range of stakeholders, including the following: • Fintrac, IMC, and Banyan Global management and staff, including Activity and MEL and operational staff 4 GIs were used in cases where more than one participant was unexpectedly included in a planned KII. 5 The main objective of a purposive sample is to produce a sample that can be logically assumed to be representative of the population. This is accomplished by applying the researcher’s knowledge of the population to select in a nonrandom manner a sample of elements that represents a cross-section of the population. 5 • GOE entities, including the MoA, Ministry of Trade, Cooperative Agency, ATA, Coffee and Tea Authority, and other public institutions, such as commodity-based platforms, regional agricultural bureaus, and working groups • Market actors in selected VCs • Other USAID or donor-funded development projects, cooperatives, unions, NGOs, agribusinesses, private firms, commercial farms, etc. • Activity beneficiaries (i.e., smallholder farmers in targeted VCs) • Small-scale farmers and producers across the six priority VCs Table 1: Qualitative Sample by Gender Region Men Women M & F (FGDs) Amhara 30 2 4 Oromia (with Addis) 62 7 5 SNNPR 18 2 2 Total 110 11 11 This diverse and multidimensional range of respondents provided complementary and juxtaposing perspectives for the ET to understand all dimensions of VCA performance related to the evaluation criteria and EQs that guided this evaluation. They further helped clarify the degree to which VCA's efforts and support have reached the grassroots level to connect producers in the six VCs with the markets and improved techniques, technologies, and practices in their respective VCs. 3.2 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS 3.2.1 CATI Survey The CATI survey surveyed a sample of 513 farmers across the six targeted VCs and four implementation regions (Oromia, Amhara, SNNPR, and Tigray) that have benefited from Activity interventions.6 (See Annex 6 for a copy of the CATI survey questionnaire.) The survey repeated some questions from the midterm CATI survey (i.e., adoption of improved production and postharvest practices, on-farm yields and income, access to finance) and asked new questions to measure how Activity interventions have affected household income, nutritional status, livelihood diversification options and participation in non￾farming income-generating activities (IGAs), female and youth empowerment, and other areas of interest to Fintrac and USAID/Ethiopia.7 Table 2 shows the demographic breakdown of the CATI survey. With a total of 513 respondents, the sample is disproportionately male and more or less evenly split among the regions, VCs, and age groups, although with relatively more respondents in the maize VC, relatively fewer respondents from Tigray, and relatively fewer youth respondents. Table 2: CATI Survey Respondents by Sex, Region, Value Chain, and Age Sex % Men 61% Women 39% 6 For the CATI survey sample more than 3,546 beneficiaries were contacted, of which 513 (15 percent) opted to participate, were eligible, and completed the survey. 7 ME&A was originally contracted by USAID/Ethiopia to conduct a midterm evaluation of VCA in 2020. Unfortunately, the qualitative data collection for the midterm was canceled because of the COVID-19 outbreak. Nonetheless, ME&A, through its subcontractor GeoPoll, managed to complete the CATI survey for the midterm evaluation of 500 beneficiary farmers. This evaluation report focuses on the findings from the endline CATI survey. ME&A is preparing a second report as a companion to this evaluation report highlighting the key findings from the two CATI surveys. 6 Region % Amhara 27% Oromia 28% SNNPR 25% Tigray 21% Value Chain % Maize 23% Chickpea 17% Coffee 19% Dairy 18% Poultry 18% MLA 20% Age Group8 % Below 29 years old (youth) 28% 30 years old and above 72% 3.2.2 Online Survey The ET designed and administered an online survey to assess stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of the Activity, including its implementation, outcomes, challenges, and sustainability. (See Annex 7 for a copy of the online survey questionnaire.) The online survey's sampling frame was the key informants within the targeted stakeholder groups for whom the ET had a working email address and who were expected to have reasonably reliable internet access. The online survey aimed to provide expanded data points to fill gaps and limitations presented by conducting fieldwork during a pandemic. The online survey explored many of the same issues and questions explored in the KIIs, GIs, and FGDs. Of the 186 persons invited to take the online survey, 100 completed the survey for a response rate of 53.8 percent. The sample is 88 percent male, reflecting the fact that the sampling frame was also overwhelmingly male. 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 3.3.1 Qualitative Data Analysis The ET recorded each KII, GI, and FGD, which were then transcribed by ME&A’s local contractor Daystar Management Consultancy. The ET analyzed/coded the transcriptions using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti, identifying themes and subthemes within the data and assessing their relative importance in answering the EQs, supported by key quotations and examples extracted from the data. 3.3.2 Quantitative Data Analysis ME&A’s CATI subcontractor GeoPoll presented the ET with a complete set of survey response frequencies disaggregated by gender, region, and age. The ET conducted additional disaggregation analysis by computing frequencies for each survey question disaggregated by VC. Next, the ET analyzed whether response patterns differed significantly by gender, region, and VC using the chi square test. Chi square tests are used for categorical variables to determine whether there exists a significant difference in an outcome (dependent variable) (e.g., types of support received) among categories of an independent variable (e.g., gender). It does this by comparing observed results (or frequency counts) with expected results (frequencies) for each outcome (e.g., Yes/No) and each group (e.g., male/female). Chi square tests the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the outcome variable of interest and the relevant independent variable. Using the example above to illustrate (e.g., support received as outcome variable and gender as independent variable), a statistically significant chi square test is interpreted to mean that there is a statistically significant difference in the types of support received by men and women. 8 For the purposes of this report, the evaluation team has adopted the Feed the Future definition of youth: 15–29 years of age. 7 In the Findings section below, all instances in which a statistically significant result is presented in relation to the CATI survey are the results of the chi square test. Only differences found to be statistically significant are presented in the report. 3.4 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the strategy for this evaluation had to be adjusted. First, the team leader oversaw and participated in the evaluation remotely. To mitigate this limitation, ME&A developed a rigorous oversight and management system that allowed the team leader to oversee and manage the ET remotely. This included selecting two field managers from among the local team members responsible for daily check-ins with ME&A and the team leader. The team leader also conducted weekly note sharing, biweekly team meetings, and weekly data quality assessments. Also, data collection protocols were adjusted; no GIs or FGDs were held with parties numbering more than five participants. In addition, all data collection activities were conducted in well-ventilated spaces or preferably outdoors with respect for all COVID-19 protocols and procedures. During fieldwork, several requests were made for virtual interviews by Skype, Zoom, or WhatsApp, which the ET accommodated. Local team members were also provided with supplies of personal protective equipment, including masks and hand sanitizer, for both themselves and those they interviewed and practiced social distancing at all times while in the field. Further, local team members presented a negative COVID-19 test before departing for the field and were tested for COVID-19 on return from the field. Qualitative primary data collection presented several challenges, including the availability, accessibility, and willingness of selected KII, GI, and FGD respondents; despite several meeting requests, some were not available. To address linguistic constraints (translation necessary in some places) and unplanned alterations to evaluation fieldwork due to logistical, climatic, and security problems (e.g., regional tensions), ME&A engaged a local logistics firm, Daystar, that supported the ET while they were in the field to work with the field teams to manage challenges as they arose using a flexible and results-driven framework. There were security issues, such as protests, fuel shortages, and local tensions in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR that led to minor adjustments to the fieldwork in those regions. This decreased the amount of data collected in SNNPR. Daystar also managed the transcription of more than 90 interviews. The transcription took some time, which delayed data availability and slowed the elaboration of this report. Collecting data across the targeted regions during the four weeks allotted to fieldwork was challenging. The team was split into two teams: a southern and a northern team. The northern team covered Amhara and Northern Oromia, while the southern team covered SNNPR and Southern Oromia. The team leader conducted KIIs remotely with English-speaking respondents with access to telecommunication technologies. Tigray was removed from the qualitative sample because of ongoing civil instability; however, it remained in the quantitative sample despite concerns regarding telecommunications access. In the end, GeoPoll completed the targeted number of CATI surveys in Tigray without significant difficulty. Also, the gender specialist ET member had a family emergency, which caused her to have to leave the field and collect data remotely in Amhara. Although this was an effective strategy, the change did limit the amount of data collected through gender focus groups. A final methodological limitation is the potential for sampling bias in the CATI survey sample, owing to two factors. The first factor is that the sampling frame (or VCA client farmer population from which the CATI survey sample was drawn) included only persons with a listed mobile phone number in VCA’s client database. Thus, beneficiary farmers without a mobile phone, or whose mobile phone numbers were not included in the client database, were automatically screened out of survey participation. The second factor is the generally lower rate of mobile phone ownership, or access to mobile phones, among women. There was nothing the ET could do to mitigate the first factor; it had no other option than to work with the established client database at VCA. To mitigate the second factor, the ET instructed GeoPoll to oversample women, even extending the data collection period by a couple of weeks so as to achieve a 8 higher share of women in the sample. In the end, GeoPoll achieved a 39 percent share of women in the endline CATI survey sample, compared with women’s 22 percent share in the VCA client database, 28 percent share in the overall beneficiary population (Table 5), and VCA’s 30 percent LOA female participation target. In contrast, GeoPoll achieved a 50 percent share of women in the midterm CATI survey sample. 4.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 4.1 RELEVANCE 4.1.1 What changes would you recommend to improve the VCA design and approach as it relates to selected value chains, targeting particularly the inclusion of women and youth, management, and oversight? Below is a brief overview of the recommendations linked to VC selection, nutrition programming, and management and oversight made by key informants during KIIs. GIs, and FGDs. These crosscutting themes and data and findings supporting these recommendations will be fully explored in the relevant sections on effectiveness, impact, and efficiency. VCA Design and Approach Recommendations Because the VCA design and approach were born out of Ethiopian agriculture and livestock development aims, their relevance to supporting the Ethiopian government’s development aims is unquestioned. Moreover, they fully align with the GOE’s AGP I and II in design and co-financing. Therefore, this EQ is interested principally in recommendations for improving the VCA design and approach. In general, the evaluation did not find many critics of the VCs prioritized by VCA; the main issues raised on the VCs were related to nutrition, gender, and oversight. They included the following: • Most crop-based VCs have not been accessible to women and youth because of their land and capital requirements. On the other hand, poultry, dairy, and, in some cases, MLA have been more accessible to women. • Follow-on activities need to be more intentional about selecting VCs that are appropriate for women and youth, who typically do not have much access to land or capital. This would include conducting gender- and youth-specific research to identify and design an activity that addresses the needs of these groups.9 • Given the complexity of land governance issues within the African context, the Mission realizes that it is not realistic for programs like VCA to attempt to take this on; however, future programming should include gender analysis to inform policy, research, and extension, particularly around access to land and capital for women and youth. • Activity impact as it relates to nutrition outcomes would benefit from the inclusion of horticulture and vegetable gardening with assistance to acquire the associated inputs. Key informants generally rated VCA management positively; however, there were critics of VCA’s co￾financing approach. Specifically, critics felt that there was duplication and overlap between VCA and AGP II activities and inputs and preferred to see a more cohesive AGP II program. Regarding access to markets and finance, although the Activity has succeeded in improving productivity and quality, progress in each area remains a significant challenge for improving the success of the targeted VCs. Finally, several stakeholders noted that the combination of livestock and crop VCs has made the program too large and untargeted, and they suggested that splitting the Activity into two—with one part focusing 9 By way of context, USAID selected VCA’s six priority VCs, not VCA. 9 on crop VCs and one part focusing on livestock VCs—would promote more effective and successful programming. 4.2 EFFECTIVENESS 4.2.1 Did the Activity's services, products, and resources reach their intended beneficiaries in terms of geographic coverage and value chain penetration? Outreach of VCA Services, Products, and Resources The core of the EQs posited for the VCA final performance evaluation focused on effectiveness. As defined by the OECD and USAID, effectiveness is the extent to which the Activity’s stated objectives have been met. The analysis here focuses on the degree to which VCA has the resources, training, and technologies to reach the intended number of smallholder beneficiaries in the Activity’s priority regions and VCs. To answer this question, the analysis looked at VCA’s performance monitoring data measuring the Activity’s outreach to smallholder beneficiaries relative to its internal LOA performance targets (Table 3).10 As of March 2021, VCA had already exceeded its 300,000-beneficiary target by just under 25,000 beneficiaries overall and by 15,911 in its six priority VCs, with nine months remaining until Activity end in December 2021. Table 3: VCA Performance Monitoring Data on Smallholder Beneficiaries by VC, Sex, and Crosscutting Activities Value Chain Planned (LOA) Achieved (Cumulative to End of March 2021) Total Combined Women Youth11 Women Men Combined Chickpea 15,000 4,500 3,750 8,069 26,897 34,966 Maize 89,500 26,850 22,375 22,569 79,391 101,960 Coffee 45,000 13,500 11,250 11,597 41,130 52,727 Dairy 80,500 24,150 20,125 27,158 44,897 72,055 Poultry 25,000 7,500 6,250 7,976 7,947 15,923 MLA 45,000 13,500 11,250 17,036 21,244 38,280 Nutrition 16,612 8,272 24,884 Gender and youth 3,492 2.637 6,129 Capacity building 946 2.964 3,910 Total 300,000 90,000 75,000 99,440 225,027 324,46712 Although VCA has so far surpassed its overall beneficiary target, the same is not true in each of the Activity’s six priority VCs. In the chickpea, maize, and coffee VCs, VCA has exceeded its LOA targets by 40,153 beneficiaries, including by 19,966 in the chickpea VC, 12,460 in the maize VC, and 7,727 in the coffee VC. Conversely, VCA has fallen short of its LOA targets by 24,242 beneficiaries in the three livestock VCs, including by 8,445 beneficiaries in the dairy VC, 9,077 in the poultry VC, and 6,720 in the MLA VC. 10 The performance targets cited in Table 3 are VCA’s internal performance targets (i.e., work plan guidelines and internal goals), not formal, preestablished contractual targets. 11 No monitoring data were provided by Fintrac for youth beneficiaries. 12 The total unique number of beneficiaries (women: 99,440; men: 225,027; and combined: 324,467) is not the same as the arithmetic sum of individual value chain beneficiaries because some beneficiaries may have benefited in more than one VC. 10 In addition, as shown in Table 3, VCA has had 34,923 unplanned direct beneficiaries of crosscutting standalone activities (not mainstreamed), including nutrition, gender, youth, and capacity building, which, combined with its performance across the VCs, has allowed VCA to surpass its planned LOA targets by more than 24,467 beneficiaries. In performance at the regional level, VCA has so far surpassed its LOA targets in Amhara (76,500) by almost 15,000 beneficiaries but has yet to meet its LOA targets in Oromia (117,000), SNNPR (75,000), and Tigray (31,500) (Table 4). The ongoing instability in Tigray (i.e., an ongoing armed conflict that began early November 2020) helps explain the low beneficiary outreach in Tigray relative to the other regions. The violence and civil instability in Tigray also caused many of the gains made under the Activity in this region to be lost. In SNNPR and Oromia, VCA has so far fallen short of LOA targets by approximately 3,000 and 6,000 beneficiaries, respectively, with nine months to make up the difference. Table 4: VCA Performance Monitoring Data on Smallholder Beneficiaries by VC and Region VC Achieved (Cumulative to End of March 2021) Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total Chickpea 15,840 15,003 0 4,123 34,966 Maize 39,740 33,240 19,442 9,538 101,960 Coffee 2,898 27,327 22,502 0 52,727 Dairy 25,529 22,214 15,368 8,944 72,055 Poultry 3,777 5,225 2,237 4,684 15,923 MLA 7,992 11,481 13,702 5,105 38,280 Total 91,493 110,934 72,023 29,592 304,042 Gender and Youth According to Fintrac, VCA seeks to mainstream gender and youth in all its interventions, as the following quote indicates: “Gender and youth are integrated throughout the program we work with the technical advisors and the value chain to reach the small holders and the partners. We mainstream gender and youth throughout our strategy we work with them (youth and women) all the time, with our value chain staff we have targeted trainings that try to reach women and youth. They have general trainings or targeted training outside of the work period to reach women that may not be available during the regular working hours…Also, we adjust or strategy, for example when we train small holders, while women came to the trainings, we noticed that they were distracted by their children, so VCA set up a pilot childcare facility, one woman watched the children while the women focused on the training…We also try to integrate women and children into our regular activities for the program. Thirty percent women and 25 percent youth are the life of activity (LOA) targets. In some cases, we have met this, in others we have not met this target…because we work so closely with these groups, the gender and youth components are a normal part of the way we work.” Fintrac Staff, April 7, 2021 Table 5 shows how the Activity has performed on gender as measured by the percentage of women beneficiaries across each of the VCs based on Activity monitoring data. As of the end of March 2021, VCA had narrowly missed its overall LOA target of 30 percent by two percentage points. At a VC level, closer the chickpea, maize, and coffee VCs have so far fallen short of the 30 percent women participation target while the dairy, poultry, and MLA VCs have so far surpassed the 30 percent target, thus allowing VCA to narrowly miss achieving its overall gender participation targets to date.13 13 According to Fintrac, as of May 31, 2021, VCA had achieved 31 percent gender participation, exceeding its LOA target, and 23 percent youth participation, falling short of its LOA target by two percentage points but on target to achieve the target by Activity end. 11 Table 5: Women Beneficiaries by Region14 Value Chain Amhara Oromia SNNPR Tigray Total Chickpea 20% 25% 28% 23% Maize 21% 22% 21% 29% 22% Coffee 32% 19% 24% 22% Dairy 34% 30% 54% 38% 38% Poultry 47% 38% 56% 63% 50% MLA 24% 70% 41% 29% 45% Total 26% 24% 34% 37% 28% Women and youth have an inherent disadvantage when it comes to participation in crop-based VCs due to their lack of access to the land and capital required to participate in them. Thus, it is not surprising that the Activity has not met its gender targets in the crop-based VCs even though the Activity has made a concerted effort to do so, at times making innovative adaptations to its implementation strategy, as the quote above demonstrates. As for youth, VCA has fallen short by four percentage points in achieving its LOA 25 percent participation target. As Table 6 demonstrates, VCA monitoring results show that coffee (26 percent) and poultry (35 percent) are the only VCs where VCA has met or exceeded its targets for youth participation. Although MLA, at 22 percent, has come close, the other three VCs have fallen short by more than five percentage points each. Table 6: Monitoring Data on Youth Value Chain Participation VC Percentage of Youth Chickpea 16% Maize 18% Coffee 26% Dairy 18% MLA 22% Poultry 35% VCA developed a Gender and Youth Action Plan based on a gender and diversity situation analysis in 2013 and 2017 (VCA Gender and Youth Action Plan, 2018). The Action Plan highlights the importance of improving access to land and capital for women and youth, as well as increasing leadership skills and roles for women and youth in key VC institutions—such as common interest groups (CIGs), cooperatives, and associations—as a key to improving youth involvement in Activity VCs. As one means to achieve this, the Activity implements Transformative Household Methodology training (THM). THM aims to create awareness among household members about gender-related power imbalances—specifically, access to, control over, and benefits from resources and the division of labor—to transform and improve intra￾household gender relations.15 14 Neither Fintrac’s contract nor its approved MEL plan states that female or youth targets are to be reached based on specific VCs; the focus on gender and youth is crosscutting and not VC specific. 15 USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity: Gender and Youth Action Plan (2018). 12 Table 7: VCA Monitoring Data on THM Training (March 2021) Region Male Female Total Amhara 5,512 1,944 7,456 Tigray 1,013 1,012 2,025 Oromia 16,069 6,782 22,851 SNNPR 5,953 3,391 9,344 Total 28,547 13,129 41,676 In the sections on the impact related to Sub-Purposes 1, 2, and 3, the report explores some of the Activity’s gender-specific achievements. However, here it is worth noting that the majority of THM participants have been men (69 percent), which is arguably beneficial in transforming behaviors by improving the awareness, knowledge, and capacity of gatekeepers (men) in target communities to improve the gender and diversity outcomes within those communities. Although at the household level, this presumably addresses power dynamics, the issues related to access to capital and land that would allow women and youth to overcome barriers to participation in the crop-based VCs remain unresolved across the country.16 As one woreda-level agricultural official noted, “Individual women and youth were included in the project design and approach. It would be more relevant if organized women institutions, or women’s groups, were part of the project. For example, women self-help groups, women’s associations….in a more coordinated way.” MoA Woreda Staff, April 23, 2021 With that said, VCA has made several midcourse corrections to improve gender and youth incorporation into the Activity, as reflected in the following quote: “Although nutrition and gender were included [in VCA], they were not the focus of the program. While gender is crosscutting, it is not as intentional as it could have been in terms of how it has been integrated. They got an increase in funds (from USAID) for Banyan Global to increase the activities and support dedicated to gender after the first two years of implementation approximately…We recruited gender and youth staff in each regional and sub-office so that they could be looking at how youth and gender would be included in the project.” Fintrac staff, April 8, 2021 The result of these efforts is reflected in the findings from the smallholder respondents who answered the CATI survey questions related to women and youth. Sixty-two percent of respondents affirmed that VCA has had a good/great influence on women’s participation in cooperatives/associations, and 68 percent of respondents felt that VCA has had a good or great positive influence on the placement of women in leadership positions in their farmer cooperative/associations. Fifty-seven percent of respondents felt that VCA has had a good/great influence on youth participation in cooperatives/associations, and the same percentage felt that VCA has had a good/great influence on youth opportunities in their farmer cooperative/association. Top performing value chains for women’s participation in cooperatives/associations were coffee, poultry, and dairy. Particularly the poultry value chain shows promise in influencing the women’s participation in cooperatives/associations as it requires limited capital and can be managed around the house. In addition, coffee seedling production also highly influences women’s participation in CIGs and cooperatives; the Activity strongly supported and equipped both the existing and new coffee nurseries for seedling production. Top-performing value chains for youth participation in cooperatives/associations were coffee, 16 Land access is a highly complex, longstanding barrier to female economic participation in Ethiopia. Although addressing land access issues was not part of VCA’s scope of work, there are other USAID projects addressing land issues. 13 maize, and poultry. Contributing to higher youth participation in these value chains are youth involvement in hermetic storage bags as sales agents, as spray service providers for crops, in coffee nurseries, and coffee seedling production. Overall, the findings suggest that the Activity has performed slightly better in empowering women’s participation than youth participation. (The evaluation found no major statistically significant differences in responses relative to gender or age to these questions.) VCA Support Provided Figure 1 summarizes the types of Activity support provided to CATI survey respondents, including cooperatives, agribusinesses, private sector organizations, implementing partners (VCA consortium members), and GOE (including AGP II). Figure 1: Types of Support Received Overall (Blue) and by Women (Orange): CATI Survey 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Smallholder-Type of Support Recieved Total Women Youth Value Chain-Specific Support Received by Smallholder Beneficiaries Dairy: VCA’s approach to the dairy VC has been strategic and informed by rigorous value chain analysis and research. VCA linked smallholder dairy producers selling to local actors for low return on investment to MCCs for a better price. At the same time, the MCCs (presumably) have the technology to process more milk and maintain higher quality. It is a whole-VC approach that seeks to build up the extension system so it can maintain VCA’s role once the Activity ends.17 VCA’s support for the installation of a tank cleaning system by the Almi Dairy Training Institute, together with its ongoing technical support to operate the chillers and to strengthen milk production and management systems, constitutes an important investment in the milk cold chain infrastructure, with a total of 96 MCCs now classified as equipment ready.18 More than 43 MCCs have received intensive marketing support to develop long-term contracts to supply customers and processors and have since started showing impressive results for milk volumes and sales values. Moreover, MCCs are the entry for much of the training and support that VCA has provided to small-scale farmers. Approximately one-half or more of dairy producers responding to the CATI survey reported receiving support in milk hygiene, feed handling and storage, feed and feeding, and animal health. Table 8: Types of Activity Support Provided to the Dairy VC: CATI Survey Type of Support Overall Women Youth Milk hygiene 74% 77% 69% 17 Interview Fintrac staff, April 9, 2021. 18 FY 2021 Q1 (Oct. 2020–Dec. 2020) Quarterly Report, Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity. 14 Type of Support Overall Women Youth Feed handling and storage 64% 85% 58% Dairy feed and feeding 51% 56% 42% Animal health 49% 54% 54% Dairy breeding 39% 38% 46% Access to production inputs 15% 10% 0% Access to equipment and improved technologies 6% 8% 4% The results in Table 8 suggest that the bulk of dairy VC support has been placed on the technical training and knowledge related to production, which is critical; however, the business aspects linked to managing operations, expanding markets, and scale-up have not been provided the same degree of outreach. At the regional level, the evaluation found several statistically significant variations in the types of support received. In Oromia, respondents have received proportionately less support in milk hygiene and animal health than the other three regions, whereas in Tigray respondents have received proportionately more support in animal health. A possible explanation for these differences is that whereas some regions, such as Tigray, have had a higher livestock outreach, other regions, such as Oromia, have achieved wide outreach across almost all the VCs. As for gender, the only statistically significant difference relates to feed handling and storage, where women have received disproportionately more support than men. As for youth, the finding that 0 percent of youth reported access to production inputs is statistically significant. MLA: In the MLA VC, VCA focused on technical support to 108 renovated and upgraded fattening units, which, like the MCCs in the dairy VC, acted as learning and demonstration centers—in this case for promoting proper feedlot structures and improved management practices. As seen in Table 9, approximately 50 percent or more of CATI survey respondents in the MLA VC reported receiving support in animal fattening, feed handling and storage, animal breeding, animal feed and feeding, and animal health. This again suggests that VCA has put a strong emphasis on providing the technical training to smallholders to improve the quality of production along the MLA VC, with less emphasis on access to production inputs and equipment and technology. At the regional level, the evaluation found only two statistically significant variations. First, respondents in SNNPR received proportionately more support in feed and feeding, whereas respondents in Oromia received proportionately less support in feed handling and storage. The evaluation found no statistically significant differences in terms of gender and age. Table 9: Types of Activity Support Received in the MLA VC: CATI Survey Type of Support Overall Women Youth Animal fattening 55% 65% 67% Feed handling and storage 54% 68% 63% Animal breeding 49% 58% 56% Animal feed and feeding 49% 52% 44% Animal health 49% 48% 41% Access to production inputs 10% 10% 11% Access to equipment and improved technologies 8% 6% 4% Poultry: Poultry was not initially included as part of VCA’s design. It was included after USAID conducted a cost-benefit analysis and determined it would be beneficial to engage this VC because it was a more accessible VC through which to target women and youth and because it was linked to VCA’s nutrition strategy through increased access to poultry and eggs. VCA’s poultry VC approach has covered 17 woredas and focused on 103 demonstration sites, field days, trade fairs, and training events. The poultry VC has had the highest female participation rates of the Activity’s six priority VCs. 15 The findings from the CATI survey of smallholder beneficiaries show that more than 70 percent of respondents have received support related to breeding and feed and feeding, and more than one-half of respondents have received support in stocking, fattening, and feed handling and storage. Like the dairy and MLA VCs, VCA support to the poultry VC has focused on support for VC-specific production and training, with the exception of support for production inputs or technologies.19 This falls in line with the VCA approach of promoting sustainability by focusing on capacity building and exposing smallholders to new cultivation techniques through demonstrations and training. Table 10: Types of Activity Support Received in the Poultry VC: CATI Survey Type of Support Overall Women Youth Poultry breeding 74% 83% 76% Poultry feed and feeding 72% 74% 60% Poultry stocking 57% 62% 56% Feed handling and storage 52% 49% 48% Poultry health 44% 38% 32% Access to production inputs 5% 6% 4% Access to equipment and improved technologies 4% 6% 4% In the three crop VCs, proportionately fewer respondents reported receiving VC-specific technical and production support and training than in the three livestock/dairy VCs (Table 11). Also, in contrast to the three livestock VCs, the type of support received has been less concentrated in the crop VCs in that fewer than one-half of survey respondents have received any type of Activity training. Finally, no significant differences exist in the types of training received in terms of gender or region. More details on the CATI survey results for the three crop VCs are presented below. Maize and Chickpea: As seen in Table 11, training in crop postharvest handling practices, integrated pest management, and field days are the most common type of training received in these two VCs. VCA has promoted Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags using hermetic storage technology (HST) for postharvest management through village-based demonstrations and trade fairs involving farmers, extension staff, vendors, mass media (radio), and market demonstrations.20 HST uses semipermeable plastic liners to reduce the oxygen level in bags of stored grain, which in turn dramatically reduces the level of pest damage and the risk of spoilage. The Activity has also provided support in pest management with a focus on the fall armyworm in the maize VC and on integrated pest management in the chickpea VC. Under maize, the evaluation found a few statistically significant variations worth noting; data suggest that youth have received more training for the integrated pest management/fall armyworm and postharvest handling practices and less for postharvest processing. For chickpea, the only statistically significant finding was that a higher percentage of youth than non-youth reported receiving access to production inputs. Coffee: VCA’s work in the coffee VC represents a major success in Activity support. Coffee is Ethiopia’s most important and valuable export commodity, and the promotion of specialty coffee is one of the Activity’s key objectives. To date, technical staff operating from satellite offices in Jimma, Bonga, and Mizan have supported more than 66 cooperatives and commercial farms through various processes supporting washed and natural coffee. The package of agronomic training and improvements for harvesting and processing is achieving noteworthy increases in both coffee value and farm profitability. The most frequent 19 Fintrac reports that there is a full Technology Fund dedicated to providing poultry-related technologies and inputs. The low rates of support in accessing production inputs and access to equipment and technologies reported by poultry farmers in the CATI survey suggest that the number of smallholders benefiting from this Technology Fund activity was not large relative to the population of poultry farmers in VCA’s client database. 20 The Mission notes that other HST bags were also promoted under FTFE VCA. 16 trainings received in this VC have been (in order of frequency) postharvest handling, postharvest processing, field days, and pest management (Table 11). Table 11: Types of Activity Support Received in the Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee VCs: CATI Survey Maize Chickpea Coffee Type of Support Overall Women Youth Overall Women Youth Overall Women Youth Field days 25% 25% 30% 30% 29% 24% 38% 41% 39% Pest management 35% 46% 47% 40% 56% 57% 37% 52% 32% PH handling 48% 57% 61% 32% 53% 43% 48% 52% 50% PH processing 13% 11% 21% 13% 18% 14% 41% 48% 54% Access to production inputs 19% 21% 26% 15% 24% 29% 14% 11% 18% Access to equipment and improved technologies 9% 4% 5% 9% 6% 0% 14% 15% 11% Seed multiplication 60% 68% 67% Across some capacity-building activities, VCA has used NGOs and consultants to conduct trainings and has partnered with the GOE at the woreda and kebele levels to organize farmers to receive training through their cooperatives. The farmers selected were those that could benefit from the training on a particular subject or theme. Essentially, in this subset of VCA capacity building, the Activity has conducted training-of-trainers with extension agents, cooperatives, and private agencies that have then provided direct training to beneficiaries. As is typical in such “cascade training” approaches, the quality of trainings delivered moving down the cascade is a constant concern that VCA attempts to monitor closely using pre-and post-test and spot checks. However, its capacity to do this across all six VCs and regions down to the kebele level is limited. According to Fintrac, the majority of VCA trainings to beneficiaries have been done through direct VCA field-based staff and partners. Trainings typically are field based using either Farmer Training Centers (FTCs) that are part of the GOE extension system or open fields. Demonstration sites for new techniques and technology are typically at the beneficiary level and located at a smallholder farm on a small site or at an abattoir or MCC for livestock/dairy.21 The rainfed nature of agriculture in Ethiopia means that the activity period for crop training is limited compared with year-round livestock/dairy activities, which potentially explains why the livestock VCs have had greater outreach in support provided. When asked to rate the most useful type of support received, CATI survey respondents cited training events as the single most useful type of support, followed by demonstrations, material support (inputs, equipment, etc.), experience-sharing events, extension services, and field days. When asked to rate the second and third most useful types of support received, the results were the same, although with some variation in the ordering. Overall, training events, in particular, and demonstrations stand out as the most useful types of training provided, followed at a distance by material support and experience-sharing events. 21 Fintrac Staff Interview, April 16, 2021. 17 Table 12: Smallholder Most Useful VCA Support Provided: CATI Survey Type of Support Most Useful Second Most Useful Third Most Useful Total Training events 53.8% 15.3% 6.7% 75.8% Demonstrations 19.1% 13.4% 5.3% 37.8% Material support 7.4% 9.3% 2.5% 19.2% Experience-sharing events 6.6% 8.0% 2.8% 17.4% Extension services 3.5% 2.3% 3.9% 9.7% Field days 3.3% 3.5% 3.9% 10.7% Trade fairs 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% 1.8% Radio commercials 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 1.3% Telephone-based TA 0.4% 1.6% 0.7% 2.7% Radio talk shows 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% Other 0.4% 4.1% 1.4% 5.9% None 4.3% 34.2% 57.7% 96.2% Don’t know 0% 8.0% 14.1% 22.1% Conclusions As of March 31, 2021, VCA has so far surpassed its overall internal LOA beneficiary outreach targets by 15,911 across its six priority VCs and by 24,467 beneficiaries overall when crosscutting activities related to gender/youth, nutrition, and capacity building are counted. Closer inspection of Activity performance monitoring data shows that the Activity has exceeded LOA targets in the chickpea, maize, and coffee VCs and has yet to achieve LOA targets in the dairy, poultry, and MLA VCs. On gender and youth, the Activity had barely missed achieving its beneficiary targets. Smallholder cooperative members interviewed felt the Activity has had a positive impact on their membership, opportunities, and leadership in cooperatives, albeit with ample room for improvement. The three livestock/dairy VCs outperformed the three crop VCs in terms of beneficiary outreach support among smallholder farmers/producers; however, the latter have substantially more beneficiaries and a seasonal work period limitation. Findings revealed relatively few significant differences in the types of support received by gender, age, and region, indicating that support has been relatively evenly distributed across these three groups where it has been provided. The above conclusions reflect Activity performance with nine months remaining in the Activity (April– December 2021) and therefore should not be interpreted to imply that the Activity will not or cannot reach its LOA targets where it is currently falling short of them or that it will continue to exceed its LOA targets at the same rate as before where it is currently exceeding them. Lessons Learned The flexible management approach has allowed the Activity to meet its overall outreach targets despite falling short of beneficiary outreach targets in certain VCs. Although the Activity has met its gender targets at a superficial level, it has missed opportunities to achieve sustainable impact on women and youth VC participation at institutional level and in terms of VCs that are more accessible and appropriate for these constituencies. Demonstrations of new techniques and technologies have been appreciated by small-scale farmers/producers in terms of the capacity building and support received. Although farmers have been exposed to new technologies through VCA training and demonstrations, they have not received corresponding levels of support in accessing them, as reported by CATI survey respondents. 18 Recommendations • Follow-on programming needs to be more intentional about the selection of VCs that are appropriate for women and youth, who typically do not enjoy equal access to land or capital as do men or non-youth. This would involve conducting gender- and youth-specific research to identify and design an activity that addresses the needs of these vulnerable groups. • Follow-on programming should also explore strategic ways to work with women and youth at institutional levels to have greater impact on VC participation and influence. • Given the complexity of land governance issues within the African context, the Mission realizes that it is not realistic for programs like VCA to attempt to take this on; however, future programming should include gender analysis to inform policy, research, and extension, particularly around access to land and capital for women and youth. 4.2.2 Does USAID's Development Finance Corporation (DFC) support and grant mechanism (in-kind or cost-sharing) work for all value chain actors in accessing finance? If not, why? Like other Feed the Future agricultural VC activities, VCA is a market-oriented, demand-driven activity with an emphasis on market system development (USAID 2011). A market system is a dynamic space in which private and public actors collaborate, coordinate, and compete for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. This is at the foundation of the VCA’s collaboration with the GOE and its AGP II. Although AGP II looks across public and private actors to improve VC performance at all levels, VCA emphasizes the private sector and smallholder farmers/producers. The key to improving the performance of the private sector and smallholders is improving the capacity of private sector actors to operate, produce quality products, and get those products to local, domestic, and international markets to command the best price to ensure a profitable return on investment. This section of the report explores questions related to the following: 1) Did VCA address weaknesses in the market linkages and 2) Did the USAID DFC support and grant mechanism (in-kind or cost-sharing) work for all VC actors? VCA Support for Market Access and Linkages Although the findings reported above show good beneficiary outreach of VC-specific technical and production support to smallholder farmers, outreach levels for Activity support provided to access markets and linkages are much lower. Across the six VCs, support for access to production inputs, market linkages, market information, and machinery and equipment has been low, reaching the 25 percent threshold of CATI survey respondents in only one case (Table 13). Table 13: VCA Support for Access to Input and Market Linkages: CATI Survey Type of Support Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee Access to production inputs 15% 10% 5% 19% 15% 14% Access to market linkages 13% 7% 9% 23% 15% 29% Access to market information 11% 10% 8% 17% 18% 18% Access to machinery and equipment 6% 8% 4% 9% 9% 14% Table 13 suggests that VCA has fallen short in this regard, apparently placing more emphasis at the smallholder level on production quality and technical inputs with less emphasis on the market side of the market systems approach. However, when similar questions were asked of online survey respondents (i.e., Activity implementers, partners, institutional stakeholders), responses were much more positive (Table 14). The partnership approach that VCA has used focuses on partnering with agribusinesses (including cooperatives) to enable them to extend their services and technologies to communities and regions they were not previously reaching. This approach has empowered these institutions not only to provide previously inaccessible equipment/technology, resources, and training to new constituencies but 19 also to serve as the entry point through which smallholders could have greater access to market information and markets. Hence, it makes sense that online survey respondents had a different perspective about Activity outreach in these areas. While the agribusinesses that have partnered with VCA through the grants/technology fund expanded their markets and clientele, smallholders, by virtue of their membership and engagement with these institutions, have been provided with second-order improved market linkages. Table 14: VCA Support for Access to Markets and Finance: Online Survey Type of Support Yes Limited Market and price information for crops 50.0% 27.9% Market and price information for livestock 46.0% 28.5% Facilitated access to markets/agribusiness actors 72.6% 25.0% Indeed, when CATI survey respondents were asked about the extent to which their market access/linkages to input suppliers, service providers, and commercial buyers had improved since receiving Activity support, their responses were, on the whole, positive. As seen in Table 15, the percentage of respondents in each VC who answered that their access/linkages had improved a “good deal” or a “great deal” exceeded one-half of respondents in all but two cases. When further asked to rate the Activity’s contribution to the improvement, 80 percent or more of respondents in each case attributed the improvement to Activity support to either a “good” or a “great” extent. Table 15: Respondents’ Perceptions of Improved Market Access/Linkages by VC: CATI Survey Input/Service Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee Access to vet services 71% 74% 60% Access to artificial insemination 61% Access to quality feed 60% 70% 70% Commercial linkages to buyers 67% 72% 54% 53% 71% Access to production inputs 63% 68% 69% 54% 69% Access to certified/hybrid seeds 61% 49% Use of HST/PIC 68% 63% Use commercial spray services 67% 57% Access to machinery and equipment 52% 54% 54% 40% 58% In interviews, Fintrac staff highlighted the challenges they face working to improve access to markets, while also ensuring that VCA beneficiaries are producing the quality products enhanced market access requires: “VCA covers Component 4 of the AGPII and some of capacity building that is part of Component 5. The value chain is extremely broad and includes many elements. VCA studies the entire value chain and identifies the gaps, and then we work to build the capacity and skill to address those weaknesses. For example, we work with improving the yields through improved practices and technologies and then the post-harvest management and then getting the product to local and national markets. We have to tackle quality and production if you want to improve the performance of the overall value chain. Where the systems are working well, we are not needed but in general the need is great in Ethiopia, and the farmers are hungry for improved market access and sales, but you cannot start at this level, you have to start with production and quality control so that farmers are producing for the market at the regional, national, and international levels. Our role has gone beyond marketing to look at productivity, quality, and post￾harvest losses in addition to marketing and market access.” Fintrac Staff, April 9, 2021 The quote above explains VCA’s whole-VC approach. Seeking to improve the quality of goods produced and the storage of those goods is part of addressing clear and present market weaknesses. For example, the PICS hermetically sealed storage bags technology and the milk chillers for the MCCs have been critical to reducing post-production loses and facilitating the extended conservation/preservation of goods, which 20 has enabled producers to increase market access by facilitating transport of goods to market as well. As a result, although findings on specific support received to production inputs and market linkages were not very substantial among smallholder beneficiaries, actual outcomes were substantially more positive. This positive performance suggests that VCA’s use of cooperatives/associations, MCCs, abattoirs, and other market actors as entry points to build marketing and sales capacity, while linking smallholders to buyers through these institutions, has been an effective strategy that has yielded positive results. Conclusions The main inference is that VCA’s approach of supporting improved production quality and post￾production preservation techniques has helped smallholders in each of the six Activity VCs improve their market access, as defined by improved market access to input suppliers, service providers, and commercial buyers, notwithstanding the relatively limited direct support they have received to improve their market access. VCA’s work with market actors such as agribusinesses, cooperatives/associations, MCCs, abattoirs, and other market actors as critical entry points to expand access to markets is an effective approach that has yielded positive results. Lesson Learned Improving production and post-production preservation is fundamental to improving access to markets, potentially affecting the transport of goods to market and demand for improved quality goods once at market. Recommendations • It would be beneficial for VCA to prioritize support to market actors (e.g., agribusinesses, cooperatives/associations, MCCs, and abattoirs) to develop quality control mechanisms to ensure that the role these institutional actors serve providing training, market information, and linkages remains at a high level and reaches smallholders in hard-to-reach kebeles. a. This could include the creation of a tripartite steering committee that includes the GOE, agribusinesses, and smallholders and holds quarterly meetings to address VC-related priorities linked to production, technology, training, quality control, and access to markets. • VCA should consider working with the GOE and key market actors to support the creation of a strategy to sustain and expand this approach for each VC in light of VCA’s eventual closure. • Follow-on programming will need to consider additional approaches to mainstream gender, youth, and nutrition into interventions aimed at increasing access to markets. a. One way to achieve this is to diversify interventions into other VCs. Potential VCs include horticulture, spices, honey, and home-based vegetable gardens. b. There is a clear need to scale up gender and youth interventions at the community level and in community-level institutions to ensure sustainability. VCA and DFC Access to finance remains an ongoing challenge for actors throughout each of VCA’s six priority VCs. On top of this, access to finance initiatives targeted to these sectors typically lacks the institutional arrangements to ensure sustainability. According to one donor, for example, “It (Ethiopia) is a credit constrained market of extremely limited liquidity. Agri-financing is barely there, so in this context, any effort you can make to provide increased access to capital and financial resources is useful and important. What happens once the credit guarantees are withdrawn; will the financing stop or continue? There is a whole dialogue about financial sector 21 reform. All of these are short gap arrangements, none of them addresses the structural issues with the financial sector in the country.” Donor, April 20, 2021 The above quote summarizes the situation surrounding the challenges that confront the financial sector and agri-finance generally in Ethiopia, which are the backdrop in which the DFC initiative is being implemented. USAID Feed the Future research and programming throughout the developing world systematically recognizes that access to finance is a limiting factor for many VCs and VC actors and is a significant barrier for actors to increase their capacity, operations, sales, profitability, and so forth. The DFC (originally known as the Development Credit Authority, or DCA) was established in 1999 to support access to bank financing for VC actors by building relationships with private financial institutions. In Ethiopia, the DFC offers partial credit guarantees that cover either a single loan or a loan portfolio that motivates private commercial banks to lend to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (USAID FTF 2020). The program has successfully supported 42 SMEs in accessing ETB 248 million ($5.7 million) in working capital financing from four DFC partner banks. Actors in the MLA, dairy, and coffee VCs so far have had the most success accessing bank financing through the DFC, while only one actor in the chickpea VC and no actors in the maize VC have so far accessed bank financing through the DFC (Figure 2). Figure 2: VCA Monitoring Data DCA/IDFC Loans by Value Chain Overall, the total number (42) and volume ($5.7 million) of loans accessed in the six VCs represents relatively shallow market penetration to the Activity’s 300,000+ smallholder beneficiaries across its priority VCs. Moreover, these funding opportunities are not accessible to smallholders with the recipients being established agribusinesses and large-scale producers. Although there is potential for downstream benefits to smallholders resulting from lending to agribusinesses and large producers (e.g., increased demand for smallholder products), key informants see this as a major shortcoming of the program. According to a key informant at Fintrac, for example, “DFC is open for every value chain, but all value chains haven't received the financing. DFC banks such as Addis International, Enat Bank, Oromia International Union Bank, and Awash bank have signed an agreement with USAID. Oromia International Bank has phased out this year. So as other business loans, USAID (DFC) covers 50 percent of the loan, and 50 percent of the physical collateral is covered by the service taker. However, in my personal view, I do not think it is entirely successful. One of the main reasons is that the banks are not performing as they promised. Their asset valuation system is not good. They estimate the value of assets of the companies that go through DFC lower and give a high estimation for similar assets that private loan takers provide. The second fundamental problem is the banks do not use USAID's collateral. They mention they 3 1 8 11 2 11 1 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Animal Feed Processer Chickpea Coffee Dairy MFI MLA MLA& Dairy Poultry Value Chains/SMEs 22 have used USAID’s collateral on their report, but practically they do not take it as collateral when they provide the loan.” Fintrac Staff, April 12, 2021 The above quote clearly explains the factors limiting the number of financing opportunities provided to VCA beneficiaries through the DFC. The collateral-based financing loans commonly used by Ethiopian banks are not appropriate for many smallholders or agribusinesses because 1) they lack the collateral required as a guarantee to be eligible for the funding, 2) they often cannot comply with the processes to apply for the funding, and 3) when they can apply and provide collateral, the banks undervalue their collateral. The valuation of collateral for loans also influences the amount of the loan that applicants can qualify to receive. However, for most VCA beneficiaries, particularly smallholders, by far the principal issues with improving access to finance are linked to both the lack of collateral and their lack of business literacy skills required to demonstrate to banks the viability of their operations during the loan application process. The core of this is proper book and record keeping and product valuation. To address this limitation, VCA provided training in marketing and sales and book and record keeping. However, the CATI survey results show that relatively few beneficiaries (i.e., one-fifth to one-third of respondents) in any of the six VCs have received training in marketing and sales or in book and record keeping (Table 16). Smallholders and the agriculture sector in general are still at a major disadvantage because banks either still do not see them as a viable lending market or continue to use collateral-based lending methods that put them at a disadvantage.22 Table 16: Support Received in Marketing/Sales and Book/Record Keeping by VC: CATI Survey Type of Support Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee Marketing and sales 22% 26% 26% 24% 31% 35% Book and record keeping 20% 25% 20% 28% 19% Important explanatory context to the above findings is that the option to provide DFC financing to smallholders was approved only in Year 4 of VCA operations. Subsequently, VCA support provided to Vision MicroFinance helped it secure a DFC-backed $1 million loan from Awash Bank. In addition, VCA continues working with banks to develop loan products that are appropriate for the agriculture sector; however, at the time of the evaluation, these initiatives had not been finalized. Agribusinesses that have received financing, including many who have received smaller loans than solicited, were overall pleased with the program. As one DFC borrower stated, “The DFC loan was my first experience to expand and scale up my business and was a spring to totally change my business. I have bought a land and different technologies to expand my business.” Conclusions The importance of programs such as the DFC providing VC actors and smallholders opportunities to expand their businesses in a credit-restrictive environment such as Ethiopia is undeniable; however, the DFC’s outreach to VCA beneficiaries, especially smallholder farmers but also including agribusinesses, has been limited. Lessons Learned Access to capital for smallholder farmers, youth, and women through formal finance, microfinance, and internal savings and lending communities is critical to creating impact at the kebele and smallholder levels. However, standard DFC programs do not reach these groups. To do so, they must systematically include microfinance institutions (MFIs) in the program. 22 Notes from Interview with Fintrac Staff, April 7, 2021. 23 Recommendations • Follow-on programming should focus on increasing smallholder and agribusiness preparedness to access financing and ensure that MFIs are included in any DFC program to provide accessible and appropriate access to capital products to this demographic. • Ensure that any outstanding training on business management and bookkeeping is completed and an assessment conducted to identify and create a list of VCA smallholders and agribusinesses that successfully complete the full course of training and are potential clients to access loans through formal institutions. • USAID and VCA should continue to urgently work with Ethiopian financial institutions to develop financing models that are appropriate and viable for livestock and crop VC actors. 4.2.3 What were the main achievements in the partnerships that VCA built (government, private sector, development partners, others)? What were the critical success factors and failures of each? How well did the current arrangement of partnership based on component sharing with government work? What are the recommendations to improve engagement, especially but not exclusively with the government? VCA Partnership Approach “The [Activity’s] successes are not due to the government and Fintrac effort only. Its achievements made so far are because of the contribution of stakeholders, including government, implementing partners, private sector actors, and the community from higher level to the lower level.” Zone Agriculture Department Head VCA’s strategic and focused approach has aimed to build partnerships with the GOE and the private sector. The Activity’s core aim has been to support the GOE’s AGP II, and to do this, VCA has focused on both supporting and collaborating with the GOE and building up the private sector to support its ability to fulfill its critical role in the selected VCs. While the Activity works through GOE extension services, key private sector interventions have included sub-awards and the Technology Fund. Activity monitoring systems are supported and coordinated in direct partnership with the GOE. Fintrac participates in an Activity steering committee alongside the GOE, while the GOE participates in an AGP steering committee chaired by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture at the national level. This steering committee, which constitutes the second leg of a parallel Activity monitoring structure, meets twice a year to approve plans and review progress. In addition, a technical committee supports the AGP steering committee and meets quarterly. Fintrac staff describe the management system as follows: “AGP II coordinates with the GOE, and they work in parallel particularly through the extension workers. The GOE helps the beneficiaries and the value chains that they work on, it is collaborative to make sure that VCA is aligned with AGP and the government from the local to the national level.” Fintrac Staff Interview, April 8, 2021 “We do not work in a vacuum, we work in a country where the public institutions are there and want to have a say and how the program is implemented, so it is our role to bridge this perceived gap and get the necessary institutional and government support for the VCA. At the woreda level, where much of the planning and the actual implementation the VCA takes place, we engage all the public and private actors at this level, and we seek input and buy-in from the public and private sectors, and the GOE signs off before we move forward. Let’s say you want to invite farmers to see a technique for seed multiplication, you have to rely on the woreda-level extension office to mobilize the community, and this empowers them, and they feel they have a role in the execution of the program. There is no way we could mobilize the local actors without the extension services that have the presence and relationships.” Fintrac Staff, April 9, 2021 24 VCA’s collaboration with the GOE has taken the following forms: • VCA worked through MoA extension services to provide training, demonstrations, and awareness raising for all livestock and crop VCs. • VCA sought to engage implementing entities and counterparts of key ministries in the regions, including the MoA, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Trade, Cooperative Agency, ATA, Coffee and Tea Authority, and other public institutions through commodity-based platforms and working groups. In addition, collaboration with the regional bureaus of agriculture and natural resources was essential in leveraging extension resources provided by development agents and the network of FTCs for diffusion of technologies and good agricultural practices. • VCA’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Department seeks to ensure that its system is responsive to AGP II reporting requirements. • VCA successfully used farmers’ field day and demonstration sites for experience sharing and networking. It further works with the GOE and AGP II to organize trade fairs and technology exhibitions. • AGP II supports Activity M&E and joint planning and oversight. VCA’s partnership approach clearly adds more work for Fintrac—for example, reporting their performance in alignment with AGP II and GOE indicators that often differ from USAID’s. However, many feel that the extra effort is critical for building support for the Activity with the GOE and further bolstering the program success. The heart of VCA’s contribution to AGP II has focused on supporting the private sector and cooperatives through sub-awards from the Partner Fund and Technology Fund to effectively fulfill their role in the livestock and crop VCs at all levels. Specifically, VCA has engaged agribusinesses and cooperatives to extend access to training and agricultural equipment and resources (technology) to smallholders for each of VCA’s six VCs at the woreda and kebele levels. Partnership agreements have been established with several key VCA actors. This aspect of VCA has been critical because it is where the many VC studies conducted by the Activity were operationalized to have the highest impact on VC performance. VCA has used a grants under contract component that has awarded around $10,072,302 to agribusinesses and cooperatives.23 As part of its sub-award component, VCA provides small grants ranging between $150,000 and $530,000 to NGOs and private sector companies. The grants last for about two years and include a cost share component in which the grantee must contribute 10–25 percent of the grant’s total value. As part of these grants, VCA has sought to support the demonstration and scale up of technologies through trainings, awareness raising, and B2B market linkages. The Partner Fund and Technology Fund have allowed VCA to procure technologies to co-finance joint activities with private sector and other counterparts that help meet the Activity’s objectives and broaden the outreach of its interventions. The funds have been used mainly for equipment purchases (see Annex 12 for further detail). Table 17 summarizes the share of Partner Fund and Technology Fund grants by VC. Following that is a brief overview by VC of some of the Partner and Technology Fund grants that VCA has made to improve VC performance. 23 This amount excludes the approximately $2,192,611 granted for the Tigray Recovery Fund. 25 Table 17: Partner Fund and Technology Fund Grants by Value Chain Category Percentage Maize 24% Tigray Recovery 22% Dairy 19% Coffee 17% MLA 5% Chickpea 5% Poultry 5% Capacity Building 3% Dairy: VCA used the Technology Fund to acquire cold chain technology for 100 MCCs and Dairy Tech Centers as a first link in the dairy VC for newly commercializing smallholders. The Technology Fund has been used to purchase recommended equipment, tanks, pipework, and ancillary fittings required at each MCC for proper operation. VCA has used a combined approach consisting of technical assistance, onsite training resources, and the equipment from the Technology Fund to build capacity to ensure that the sites become fully operational as quickly as possible. Now, according to Fintrac monitoring data, more than 90 percent have fully functional equipment and trained staff. MLA: The Partner Fund award to Sirawe Abeje Veterinary Clinic has helped increase artificial insemination (AI) services to smallholder MLA producers and dairy farmers, in addition to creating job opportunities for women and youth within dairy production and marketing. The clinic has taken an integrated approach that includes veterinary services, animal disease prevention and control, education on the husbandry system, and input supply together with traditional AI services. As a result, 3,000 households in Bahir Dar will be reached by increasing the availability and access to reproduction￾enhancing technologies, including 1,500 AI services through the vet clinic and door-to-door services. To help stimulate breed improvement, the clinic has also provided AI clients with concentrate feed through a voucher program with partner commercial farm centers and feed processors. Coffee: Cup of Excellence Ethiopia was made possible through collaboration among the VCA, Alliance for the Cup of Excellence, and the Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority. The competition aimed to build a more robust and sustainable coffee supply system to benefit Ethiopian smallholder coffee farmers. Although Ethiopia is the largest coffee producer in Africa and prides itself as the origin of coffee, it has not succeeded in obtaining the premium value for its coffee products. Cup of Excellence Ethiopia created a new opportunity to introduce Ethiopian quality coffee to new specialty coffee market destinations all over the world. The competition is rigorous, with cupping evaluations conducted over three stages. A record￾breaking 1,462 coffee samples were submitted to collection points in Hawassa, Jimma, Diredawa, and Addis Ababa. The prestigious international auction realized sales totaling $1,348,690, beating the previous sales record of $830,245 from El Salvador (2011). The average price paid per pound was $28 per pound, with the highest rated coffee sold at $185.10 per pound.24 Through the Partner Fund, VCA supported the Kata Muduga Farmers' Cooperative Union to provide training to cooperative union members to improve the quality of their coffee. Working with farmer cooperative union members, activities under this award will work toward improving smallholders’ knowledge and skills on postharvest handling practices and factors affecting coffee quality. Other objectives include building the capacity of washing and drying stations in technical knowhow, establishing a union cupping lab, and increasing the marketing of specialty coffee produced by union members to the international market. Poultry: The Technology Fund award for Poultry Technologies for Smallholder Development is supporting the recovery and stimulating the growth of the poultry sector by providing key poultry-related 24 USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, Year IV Annual Report FY 2020 (October 2019–September 2020). 26 technology packages to individual poultry producers, SMEs, CIGs, and cooperatives with majority youth and women membership. This Technology Fund grant supports more than 15,000 VCA poultry beneficiaries. This continuation of technical assistance includes repeat visits, building in-depth and technical expertise, and widening geographic impact from a few lead farmers to include the adjacent community. In addition, it will provide resources to expand VCA outreach, in collaboration with commercial service providers, to a similar level of new beneficiaries so that the total number of beneficiaries exceeds 30,000 by mid-2021.25 Maize: Fall armyworm is a new pest to Ethiopia that threatens to damage farmers’ maize crops and negatively impact overall food security in Ethiopia. As maize is one of VCA’s key VCs, the Activity invested in combating the spread of fall armyworm through its Technology Fund grant to support the fall armyworm Monitoring, Reporting, and Early Warning System. One key component of the action plan was investment in equipment and training to establish a national scouting and monitoring system for fall armyworm. Working with MoA, VCA purchased essential inputs for proper monitoring of fall armyworm. These inputs are used in conjunction with trainings, demonstration plots, scouting schools, and the establishment of a fall armyworm monitoring system. VCA also created partnerships with commercial seed companies such as the Ethiopian Seed Enterprise, Monsanto, Ambo Research Centre, TARI, Hargu FCU, and Oromia Seed Enterprise to promote improved varieties among beneficiaries. Chickpea: VCA promoted the use and increased the availability of low-cost agricultural technologies for smallholder maize and chickpea farmers via its grant to Aybar Engineering PLC. Technologies promoted under this award include broad bed maker, tie ridgers, and berken maresha, technologies that help improve tillage by helping clear land that was previously unsuitable for planting, thereby allowing farmers additional planting seasons each year. These technologies have been tested and are proven to enhance production of chickpea and maize. Other objectives included supporting Abyar in the creation of a distribution network for these agricultural technologies, encouraging involvement of private sector distributers, creating marketing linkages throughout the supply chain, providing trainings on good agricultural practices, and demonstrations on the benefits of these agricultural technologies. Activities under this award also targeted women and youth by providing low-cost time-saving technologies and increasing job opportunities. VCA Partnership Successes and Challenges VCA has had some major successes with the partnerships it has created, especially because it has focused on supporting private sector services such as hermetically sealed bags, commercial seed production, and the milk cold chain to expand their services to smallholder producers who, without VCA support, would not have been able to access these technologies. The Partner and Technology Funds expanded markets in both directions, providing needed technology/equipment at reasonable prices to smallholders who previously did not have access, which in turn allowed them to decrease production losses and, in some cases, improve transport of their goods to local and national markets.26 Successes Each of VCA’s Partner and Technology Fund grants has aimed to promote the local economy, support agribusiness actors, increase productivity, and enhance commercialization using a variety of mechanisms. Prior to receiving the grants, selected partners were struggling to scale up and reach VCA target areas. Key informants involved with the grant program report that the grants, and grantee partnership with VCA, have helped increase the productivity and commercialization of the support partner. The grant approach has also been successful because it diminishes risk. Often farmers and agribusiness are reluctant to test new technologies or expand their operations to unknown regional or local markets, but with support from the Partner and Technology Funds, agribusinesses have been able to introduce technologies and 25 USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, Year 1–IV Annual Reports (FY 2017–2020). 26 USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, Year IV Annual Report FY 2020 (October 2019–September 2020). 27 demo them for smallholders throughout VCA’s four target regions, which in turn has helped facilitate the scale-up and adoption among VCA’s smallholder beneficiaries. One key informant characterized VCA’s achievements from its partnership approach as follows: “I think three activities [of the grant funds] were more effective. The first was on seed production, where the farmers got intensive training on bio-fertilizer application and safety in chemical spraying, including protective closing. The production was increased by up to 50 qt, which was 34-35 qt previously. Farmers were learning pest assessment techniques and spraying time. Demonstration sites were also prepared in the successful farmers' field. The second is on the cauterization of seed producers. More farmers were demanding to be included in the cluster. Before we started the project, the numbers of out-growers were 100 in Lumi and Adea woredas. Currently, we have more than 400 participant seed producers, though they were not fully supported by the project. The third success was on the issue of gender awareness, where both men and women received training on the division of labor in relation to gender.” Agribusiness, April 27 The above quote highlights the success of the partnership approach in Oromia in the crop VCs related to seed production, pest control for the fall armyworm, and THM training. Through its partnership approach, the Activity has increased seed production (quality and quantity) and confronted the fall armyworm infestation. The fall armyworm was first reported in Ethiopia in 2017 and since then has infested vast hectares of land planted with maize. Fall armyworm pest control was not originally part of VCA design, but given the infestation that has occurred, VCA has worked with its partner CropLife to adapt its strategy to address the problem. Working with the MoA and AGP II, VCA took a three-pronged approach. First, it built the extension capacity in the MoA by cascading training down to the smallholder level. Second, it partnered with CropLife to provide smallholder access to a network of spray service providers, later scaling up the network to 16 woredas because of the success of the approach. Third, it helped the MoA develop an early warning system through its extension system, composed of 160 focal points in all four regions, to provide early warning data. VCA also worked with the GOE, CropLife, and Farm Radio International to create mass messaging providing up-to-date information on how to identify and control fall armyworm.27 The Cup of Excellence Ethiopia 2020 auction was held on July 25, 2020. The auction broke multiple records, with total sales of $1,348,690 topping the previous record of $830,245 in El Salvador in 2011 and achieving a record average price of $28 per pound. The top-scoring coffee in the 2020 COE Ethiopia competition sold at $185.10 per pound, or $407 per kilogram (kg). This is the highest price ever recorded for an Ethiopian coffee. To put this price level in perspective, small amounts of this winning coffee were subsequently sold to consumers in one of London’s most prestigious coffee shops at a price of $65 per cup. The auction was extremely competitive; buyers bid 4,137 times over five hours to secure the sought￾after winning coffees. The second top-scoring coffees had a total of 902 bids, another record number in the competition history. Challenges Ethiopia’s male-dominated agricultural and private sector, in addition to barriers to female and youth participation in the chickpea, maize, and coffee VCs, have posed challenges to the inclusion of women and youth in VCA’s market interventions even though the Activity is on track to exceed its outreach targets in both cases. Also, not all GOE representatives have been as involved in the Activity at the regional and local levels as they would have liked, as highlighted in the quote below: 27 Fintrac Staff Interview, April 7, 2021, and Quarterly Report, Q3 FY 2018 (April–June 2018) Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity. 28 “There was no type of training delivered for agricultural experts. One of the gaps of the project is that we did not get information on new technologies, and sometimes we became aware of these technologies after they are delivered to the farmer. For example, I am not a focal person, because I don't know what is going on, I simply act [want to help] because the staff are very sociable and committed. We do not know their packages and curriculums, except for some participation in field days and demonstrations.” Woreda Livestock Expert, April 15, 2021 Another challenge identified by key informants concerned the sustainability of the partnership approach focused on private sector collaborations in which the GOE was not at the center. According to one key informant, for example, “How to integrate the USAID activities with the GOE system? AGP is the GOE activity and then having the international contractor is a major issue, because how will this continue once the program is closed. We prefer a uniquely integrated agricultural development project, and we will not be using the parallel financing approach.” Donor, April 20, 2021 However, other key informants disagreed with the above concern, emphasizing the fact that USAID operates with a private sector–driven approach and that the private sector is the economic driver of the country and key to it becoming successful and fulfilling its economic potential and stability. However, the Mission notes that it is critical that these technology demonstrations and promotion initiatives are institutionalized and owned by the GOE for scale-up and sustainability. Even the partnership around seed production for maize has had challenges. The support has focused mainly on seed support, training, and a follow-up system. This creates a choice for a farmer’s alternative seed source at local level, but it is difficult to verify the initiative’s influence on the overall country-wide seed system because it is not linked with regional seed multiplication centers for scale-up and sustainability. Thus, its influence is not system-wide, and it is narrowly focused with short-term interventions as there is no formal linkage/support with seed multipliers (both private and government). Moreover, it is difficult to verify how promoting these varieties benefits farmers in terms of the adoption and diffusion of technology and what the relative cost and benefits of these varieties are compared with other varieties. Conclusions VCA’s strategic and effective partnership and implementation strategy has sought to support AGP II through a private sector–led partnership initiative designed to incentivize and support activities that improve local capacity for market system development and increase access to new technologies along the entire VC. To this end, data suggest that the approach has succeeded in increasing VC effectiveness through strategic partnerships that have brought the GOE, the private sector, and smallholder VC actors together to improve VC performance. Lessons Learned The Activity has reinforced private sector actors’ ability to expand their operations and improve performance, thus demonstrating that a partnership approach, integrated within a sound market system development strategy, can improve VC functioning to the benefit of diverse VC actors, including, critically, smallholder farmers. Although the VCA partnership has introduced new techniques and technologies, it is critical that these technology demonstration and promotion initiatives be institutionalized and owned by the GOE for scale￾up and sustainability. Recommendations • Where possible, USAID and the GOE should seek to create spaces for tripartite collaboration and communication between the private sector, the GOE, and farmer organizations to ensure that Activity successes are more sustainable and to continue to encourage public-private 29 collaboration and problem resolution. These entities should be created from the national to the kebele levels. a. VCA and AGP II should work together to institutionalize the demonstration initiatives under GOE leadership to support sustainability and continuity. • The backbone of VCA’s gains in expanding private sector activities and markets for new resources and technologies is linked to the infusion of capital for Ethiopian private sector VC actors. VCA and USAID should continue their efforts to advocate for improved conditions surrounding access to capital and financing in Ethiopia, including the availability of foreign exchange. 4.3 OUTCOMES 4.3.1 To what extent did interventions change the economic structure of beneficiary households? Which value chains were successful in engaging more women and youth and contributing to improvements in household nutrition (Sub-Purpose 1) and significantly increasing yield and income (livelihood diversification options and non-farming incoming generating activities) (Sub-Purpose 2), enabling environment in support of agricultural transformation (Sub-Purpose 3), capacity-building, dialogue, and policy/regulatory frameworks? Outcomes: Nutrition “Ethiopia has problems with stunting. The program launched with a baseline for women’s dietary and diversity, and it found many taboos that made women and children vulnerable to malnutrition and stunting.” Fintrac Staff, April 7, 2021 VCA has sought to improve the performance of key agricultural VCs and increase nutrition-sensitive productivity among households in target regions. VCA has further sought to increase availability, access, and consumption of safe and diverse foods for smallholder households with an emphasis on women of reproductive age, while also empowering women (through THM) to make decisions about home consumption, savings, and investments with the aim of improving their households’ health, productivity, and overall well-being. VCA’s approach has focused on nutrition-sensitive interventions that improve dietary diversity and promote the consumption of targeted nutrient-rich commodities, with emphasis on a whole-family approach across its program activities. This intersection of the VCA program is where Fintrac, Banyan Global (gender lead), and IMC (nutrition lead) have worked together to encourage improving target households’ ability to diversify crop and livestock production and consume an improved diet of nutritious foods. VCA has achieved these aims through a multipronged approach. • The THM approach has sought to empower women to have a voice in household decision making around diet, managing household resources, and the division of labor. • VCA nutrition training has sought to improve mothers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward nutritious food consumption with practical cooking demonstrations, promotion of home gardening, and mainstreaming of nutrition awareness across VCA. • A social behavior communication change (SBCC) campaign has used community members, religious leaders, radio, TV, and other community-level awareness-raising methods to scale up and improve nutrition messaging. Messaging has focused on the advantages of nutritious food for pregnant and lactating women and children, as well as the importance of dietary diversity and nutritious food consumption for the entire family.28 • VCA has sought to build capacity and knowledge on nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) (i.e., production and consumption of diversified foods). Toward this end, VCA has sought to train 28 USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity: Gender and Youth Action Plan (Updated April 2018). 30 health extension workers, agricultural extension workers, religious leaders, VC specialists, and beneficiaries in NSA practices. • VCA has also collaborated with and held regular dialogue with USAID’s Growth through Nutrition (GTN) implementing partners, which has facilitated joint planning and coordination in areas of alignment.29 Perceptions of the Activity’s contribution to household nutrition outcomes among CATI survey respondents participating in Activity nutritional training were overwhelmingly positive (Table 18). In excess of 80 percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the training contributed to a variety of improved household health outcomes, including consumption of a more diversified and nutritious diet and the nutritional status of household members. Table 18: Respondents’ Perceptions of Household Nutritional Health Contributions by VC: CATI Survey The data in Table 18 highlight strong performance by VCA and its partners on integrating effective nutrition-sensitive training and messaging across Activity VCs. This finding, however, must be understood in context given that the data are self-reported and do not necessarily reflect actual improvements in nutritional well-being measured through unbiased diet diversity and nutritional well-being indicators. The sentiment is clearly articulated by a Fintrac staff member below: “It is simplistic to attribute the diet diversity or value chain activities to nutrition outcomes and diet diversity. We find that the GOE awareness campaigns for encouraging dietary diversity have been critical. Wider selection of foodstuffs and the village level is also critical.” Fintrac Staff, April 7, 2021 The data give a glimpse into the VCA beneficiaries’ overwhelmingly positive beliefs about their own nutritional well-being. It remains unclear whether these findings can be attributed to VCA, other government nutritional programming, or USAID/Ethiopia’s GTN initiatives working in the same regions as VCA, with the two projects coordinating and collaborating regularly. A glimpse into what might be occurring was noted by an FGD participant as follows: “The food was there in our back yard, which we usually sold. We were lacking knowledge of how important it is to consume the foods, especially vegetables and fruits. Now we are starting to diversify our foods we consume.” FGD participant, April 26, 2021 According to multiple interviewees, VCA has provided a home gardening kit (small-scale agricultural tools and seeds) as part of its nutrition activities; however, VCA monitoring data show that only 3,755 of the more than 300,000 VCA beneficiaries have received gardening kits and the majority of those have gone to Oromia. According to those key informants interviewed who had received home gardening kits, the kits had positive effects on the amount and diversity of vegetable consumption and increased their intention to grow vegetables in the future. 29 USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (FTFE VCA): 2020 Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women Survey in Selected Woredas of Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray. Deep Dive Research and Consulting PLC (September 2020). Nutritional Outcomes (Agree or Strongly Agree) Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee Children eating a more diversified/nutritious diet 89% 94% 93% 94% 91% 97% Women eating a more diversified/nutritious diet 91% 92% 96% 90% 87% 95% Adults eating a more diversified/nutritious diet 88% 92% 92% 88% 85% 92% Nutritional status of children has improved 90% 93% 99% 92% 93% 97% Nutritional status of women has improved 88% 94% 92% 87% 88% 96% Nutritional status of adults has improved 89% 96% 94% 91% 87% 96% 31 The qualitative data also suggest that MLA, poultry, and dairy VCs have held a comparative advantage for improving nutritional outcomes because these VCs have tended to contribute to improving household nutrition by directly providing increased access to nutritious foods such as eggs and milk. Also, several key informants felt that horticulture should have been included as an additional VC to further improve access to nutritious food options among VCA beneficiaries. Conclusions The data suggest that VCA beneficiaries have improved knowledge about nutrition and self-reported results suggest improved household-level dietary diversity and nutritional well-being. It appears that VCA’s integration of NSA training across all VCs has had positive outcomes irrespective of the VC. Moreover, there may have been cross-contributions via mutually reinforcing outcomes from other GOE and donor￾funded programs, such as USAID’s GTN Activity. Lessons Learned Because poultry and dairy provide direct access to nutrition-rich foods such as eggs and milk, are more accessible, and do not require as much land and capital, they are an obvious VC to promote improved nutrition among women and youth and other vulnerable groups. Recommendations • Future VC activities should scale up the size of the horticulture VC interventions and the provision of home gardening kits provided to smallholder households to improve their nutritional outcomes and increase access to nutritious, low-cost foods. VCA Outcomes: Production VCA emphasizes a whole-VC approach that promotes collaboration at all levels, from strengthening commercial relationships between smallholder farmers and agribusinesses to building consensus and action around key constraints to enhance VC efficiency and induce growth that leads to better yields and incomes. Here the report examines whether VCA has been able to improve farmer yields and incomes through the whole-VC approach. This approach included VC studies identifying VC weaknesses that VCA then sought to address through collaboration with agribusinesses and the GOE using a package of partnerships organized through grants and sub-awards across all six prioritized VCs. VCA’s key approach has been to reinforce the ability of agribusinesses, associations, and cooperatives to fulfill their role of facilitating access to VC equipment/technology, resources, training, and market information and linkages. The CATI survey results in Table 19 show the percentage of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that various production outcomes had improved since receiving Activity support. (For these questions, responses related to poultry were divided into pullets and eggs, since they represent very different activities in the poultry VC.) As seen there, respondents working in each of the six VCs were strongly in agreement that a range of production outcomes had improved since they received Activity support. In all cases, 80 percent or more of respondents attributed the improved production outcome to Activity support to either a “good” or a “great” extent. 32 Table 19: Respondents’ Perceptions of Improved Production Outcomes by VC: CATI Survey Production Outcome Dairy MLA Pullets Eggs Maize Chickpea Coffee Increased land under cultivation 68% 47% 77% Increased number of trees 70% Increased total production 62% 77% 58% 79% Increased stocking capacity 55% Improved animal health 73% 80% Increased animal weight 74% Increased yields 67% 70% 63% 89% Reduced postharvest losses 62% 55% 75% Seed production/multiplication 51% Improved quality 71% 77% 61% 65% 74% 68% 89% Increased prices 63% 78% 65% 66% 77% 65% 79% Increased sales volume 67% 66% 67% 67% 74% 61% 84% Increased sales value 65% 75% 67% 67% 75% 67% 82% Increased sales to cooperatives 59% Increased sales to MCCs 65% Increased income from sales 68% 73% 64% 63% 73% 57% 81% The above findings were supported during fieldwork across multiple interviews, as illustrated by the following quotes: “They gave us training in making of coffee. Before joining the project, our knowledge was not enough to become profitable. But now we are profitable.” Cooperative representative, April 19, 2021 “Optimizing seed consumption through sowing proper amounts of seeds is the most important benefit that we obtained from the list of training given by the project. Before the training, we were sowing 40 kg of seed in a certain plot of land. Currently, we sow 3 kg of seed in the same land that was taking up to 40 kg of seed before. Secondly, market linkages and the production of quality seeds are important benefits.” Cooperative Farmers, April 26, 2021 “To increase production, the first thing is creating awareness and the project has done that. The chickpea is the main crop produced, and farmers produce an average of 30 quintals per hectare, but this project has changed that to 42 quintals per hectare.” GOE official, April 15, 2021 “They have done a lot on creating market linkages since they work in many places. They have linked us with customers by distributing our business cards in field workshops and exhibitions prepared in Millennium Hall, Addis Ababa. There were two exhibitions, and we promoted our products when the National Poultry Exhibition was organized. They gave us a booth, and during which a very big market was created for us. In Lume woreda, there was also an exhibition, and we had a good market linkage.” Farmer, April 28, 2021 The above quotes highlight how VCA’s whole-VC approach sought to work from the top to the bottom to improve production and sales outcomes for beneficiaries. These findings were corroborated across qualitative and quantitative data collection. Overall, the chickpea VC has performed less well that the other VCs across the production outcomes in Table 19, albeit still favorably in nearly all cases. The chickpea VC has also had the lowest level of investment of all the VCs for the Partner and Technology 33 Funds. Yet, even in this VC, close to 60 percent or more of CATI survey respondents claimed to have increased their yields and sales. VCA Outcomes: Income Diversification Another level at which VCA sought to influence household-level outcomes was relative to the diversification of IGAs, both on and off the farm. Table 20 explores data on CATI survey respondents who reported that they had diversified their income since participating in the VCA program. To explore the data relative to how the VCs performed in this regard, the data were disaggregated by VC across several key variables to explore bivariate relationships with several findings: • The coffee VC has had the most respondents that diversified their IGAs. • The poultry VC has been the weakest performer, failing to reach the 50 percent threshold of IGA diversification. • Furthermore, 60 percent or more across all VCs attributed their IGA diversification to support they have received from the VCA program; the top performer in this regard was dairy at 76 percent, with poultry and maize tied for last at 61 percent. Another critical finding is that approximately three-quarters of those who have diversified their IGAs have done so outside of agriculture and/or agribusiness, and this was the case across all six VCA VCs.30 Poultry was the lowest performer at 69 percent and MLA was the top performer at 82 percent. Table 20: Smallholder Income Diversification by Value Chain: CATI Survey Income-Generating Activities Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee Increased diversity of IGAs 54% 60% 45% 72% 59% 73% Increased diversity of non-agriculture IGAs 76% 82% 69% 73% 77% 73% Attribute increased IGA diversity to VCA 79% 73% 61% 61% 54% 67% The poultry VC performance is interesting because poultry has strong participation from women. Further analysis of the data reveals that only 44 percent of women respondents in the poultry VC have diversified their IGAs, compared with 61 percent of men. Moreover, during several poultry smallholder FGDs, the high cost of poultry was identified as a potential barrier to participating in the VC. The following quote is illustrative of this finding: “I didn’t have anything before, except the small land my family gave me. Now because of the project, I am able to work. But recent business is not good because of the high price of chicken food. I didn’t have work before this. The project has given us work to sustain ourselves, but the price of chicken food in the market is really hard to work with now.” Smallholder, April 26, 2021 The quote suggests a tangible explanation for the relatively poor performance of the poultry VC on income: profit margins are small because of the cost of feed, which limits poultry producers’ ability to invest in other activities. According to Fintrac, moreover, most beneficiaries in the poultry VC are small startup businesses who have invested in poultry already as part of an IGA diversification strategy. It thus makes sense that they would not necessarily be looking to diversify in yet another IGA. Similar challenges to income diversification do not appear to be present in the other VCs. Examples taken from the KIIs and FGDs that indicated VCA’s contribution to increasing income from production activities and/or diversifying IGAs include the following: 30 In this context, non-agricultural IGAs include IGAs that were not involved in any activity along the agricultural VC (i.e., production, post-harvest processing, transport, marketing, etc.) Unfortunately, the CATI survey did not include a question to define or identify the non-agricultural IGAs. 34 • The Activity financed coffee nurseries to replace old coffee trees with improved varieties and quality. In addition to producing improved coffee seedling at affordable prices, it also gave youth and women engaging in seedling production income-generating opportunities. • The spray program for fall armyworm created jobs for male youth. • The PICS bags technology helped decrease postharvest loss in the maize and chickpea VCs, which improved profits and created limited jobs selling PICS bags. • In the dairy VC, the 2,000-liter milk chillers (preserving milk up to 72 hours) enabled small dairy farmers to transport their milk to national markets, particularly Addis Ababa. • In the dairy (primarily) and MLA VCs, private veterinary clinic service and AI using trained youth technicians created jobs for youth and improved productivity by providing quality and efficient service for beneficiaries. • The Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority and Alliance for Coffee Excellence (ACE) Cup of Excellence increased awareness across the coffee VC about coffee grades, and 39 coffee farmers • “During the time of surplus production, some cooperatives and dairy farms process milk to cheese and butter and store it until they get (find) a market.”31 When asked what the primary results of income diversification have been, 56 percent of the relevant CATI survey respondents cited increased household incomes, 24 percent cited increased food expenditures/consumption of nutritious foods, and 9 percent cited increased non-food expenditures. Conclusions Respondent data strongly suggest that VCA has contributed to improving a range of production outcomes among the smallholder farmers participating in the six priority VCs. Smallholder beneficiaries have also increased their income diversification through both non-agricultural IGAs (principally) and agricultural/agribusiness IGAs. The primary benefits of income diversification have been increased household incomes and increased overall food expenditures and expenditures on nutritious foods. Lessons Learned Data suggest that the whole-VC approach employed by VCA to address VC weaknesses has empowered beneficiaries and agribusinesses to increase their production outcomes and diversify their IGAs, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The value chain analysis approach allowed VCA to identify effective entry points to influence actors across the priority VCs. Recommendations • Follow-on programming design should include a focus on building advanced business management and operations capacity among VCA agribusinesses and smallholder beneficiaries to further support their income diversification outcomes. Outcomes: Enabling Environment VCA Sub-Purpose 3 seeks to improve the enabling environment in support of agricultural transformation. The regulatory and policy work done by VCA is demand driven and typically takes place at the national level in response to requests from the MoA, associations, or the private sector.32 VCA typically conducts an assessment, presents the results at stakeholder meetings for discussion and reflection, and submits a report to the government and legislatures that manage the relevant policy. Typically, the government 31 Interview Fintrac Staff, April 12, 2021. 32 Fintrac Staff Interview April 9, 2021, and Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity | Six-Month Progress Report. 35 interprets the findings and creates policy based on their analysis. VCA also encourages producer and consumer associations to participate in this process as they have their own interests to represent. VCA works on improving the enabling environment in three ways: direct policy; forum establishment/dialogue between various actors; and financial forums with banks, the private sector, and the government. The key outputs linked to VCA Sub-Purpose 3 can be structured by capacity building, policy work, and advocacy. Examples of each are presented below. Capacity Building • Training for Strategic Leadership provided to 350 participants with decision-making roles drawn from key MoA directorates and regional, zonal, and woreda-level offices. Regions involved included federal, SNNPR, Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray. Policy Work • Legal Framework for Dairy Marketing in Ethiopia based on a review of the state of dairy marketing and consisting of a draft legal framework to regulate trade. Presented to MoA for internal review, involved a stakeholder validation workshop involving regional officials (90 participants). Handed over the document to MoA in a ceremony. Regions involved Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Addis Ababa, Afar, and Tigray. • Live Animal Marketing Proclamation Amendment #819/2014 reviews Proclamation N0. 819/2014 in light of its relevance for VC actors as well as its inclusiveness. Proposed legal and regulatory framework that improves private sector investment and trade in live animals. Drafted amendment to proclamation that is inclusive of major market actors in the live animal trade. • Warehouse Receipt Financing and Maize and Chickpea Marketing, a document identifying three aspects of the Ethiopian Commodity Exchange operations that require further inquiry for practical reform to upgrade the warehouse system and improve the competitiveness of target VCs. This includes Warehouse Receipt Finance, Coffee Warehousing/Logistics, and Structured Grain/Pulse Trade. • Policy and Regulatory Issues in Rhizobia Inoculant Technology for Commercialization document discussing current policy and regulatory practices in relation to commercialization of rhizobia inoculants used to boost chickpea production and productivity. MoA has adopted the document to prepare a policy and has encouraged private sector investment in the sector. The MoA officially acknowledged the benefit of the document in a letter dated September 17, 2018. The MoA also uses the document as a reference for knowledge transfer. • Poultry Development and Marketing Regulatory Framework Background work completed with a draft proclamation under way and expected to be submitted soon. This is a legal framework to formalize poultry development and marketing practice in the country. • Governance Structure and Sustainability Mechanisms of Primary and Tertiary Market Centers documentation outlining the operation and management of the marketing centers handed over to the Regional Bureau of Trade. This was well received; however, to institute effective operation and management, it was recommended that the government introduce supporting legislation.33 Advocacy VCA has also fostered multiple advocacy-related forums and workshops to foster dialogue and exchange between the GOE, private sector actors, donors, and civil society. 33 See Annex 13 for more details. 36 • Maize Alliance Platform, which sought to discuss strategic issues in maize production, processing, and marketing and bring key issues to the attention of decision makers. Major focus areas include the status of maize production, market linkages and technologies, and fall armyworm control. • Chickpea National and Regional Platforms aimed to create alliances among chickpea VC actors, discuss postharvest handling technologies and market linkages (both domestic and export market), and identify opportunities and challenges for chickpea VC commercialization. • Financial Forum for Coffee, which created awareness among potential borrowers on the various financing options available within the banking Industry; aimed at facilitating finance for micro mill owners. • Financial Forum for Agribusiness, a tailored forum creating understanding of opportunities to finance agribusiness activities through commercial loans and the DFC scheme. An additional agenda item includes improving financial access to women-operated agribusiness. • Coffee Quality and Marketing Forum, a demand-driven request from commercial farms and coffee growers, processors, and exporters’ associations to convene a forum to map out strategies. • International Conference on Pulses facilitated B2Bs between international buyers and exporters with farmers and agribusinesses and to promote export of chickpea and other pulse crops. • Agro-Dealers’ and Commercial Input Suppliers’ Forum created awareness on the new input marketing licensing procedures, established reliable sources of commercial linkages for quality and timely input supply to farmers, and served as a medium for technology transfer to increase productivity. • High-Level Policy Forum on Contract Farming, a Jimma forum organized at the request of the MoA with the objective of understanding VCA’s contribution on the ground and draw input for the upcoming legislation on contract farming for commercialization in the country. The objective was also to draw some lessons for the 10-year development plan for the agriculture sector. • Regional Forum on Coffee Seedling Commercialization, a regional workshop for key stakeholders to deliberate on a strategy for commercial coffee seedling production and marketing organized by VCA in collaboration with the Coffee and Tea Authority of Kaffa and Bench Sheko Zones. • Regional Forum on Chickpea Seed Commercialization, a forum to promote a sustainable improved chickpea seed supply chain to expand the production and productivity of the grain in Awabel, Dejen, and Enemay woredas, Amhara Region. Sought to establish a common understanding on chickpea seed and grain production in East Gojjam Zone. • Regional Forum on Dairy Processing and Marketing, a forum for stakeholders from the private and public sectors to deliberate challenges involving dairy processing and marketing in SNNPR and map appropriate strategies. • Youth and Women Entrepreneurs’ Forum sought to facilitate improved access to finance to women and youth entrepreneurs and increase their investment in VCs and agribusiness activities. • Direct Seed Marketing Workshop, a regional forum to deliberate on direct seed marketing, improve the efficiency of the seed system, and encourage commercial investment and adoption. • National Workshop on Scaling Up Hermetic Storage Technology, a national workshop to wrap up the campaign on HST bags across the country. The objective was to promote HST bags for 37 postharvest loss reduction, raise policymakers’ awareness, and encourage private sector investment in manufacturing the products.34 VCA advocacy and policy work has reached beyond legislation; it has included advocacy for behavior change and awareness raising and has facilitated dialogue between stakeholders to solve issues and problems affecting Activity VCs. VCA’s role stops at facilitating research, dialogue, and drafting documents, while the GOE is responsible for drafting, implementing, and operationalizing new legislation. One critique of the work under this sub-purpose was that there is not enough policy-related awareness or discussion happening at the regional, woreda, and smallholder levels. Notwithstanding the Activity’s many initiatives in the enabling environment area, no policy has been finalized or has reached the validation phase. Moreover, VCA’s policy work is spread across six VCs, stretching resources to address more issues, which may limit the Activity’s ability to follow all the processes to fruition. Conclusions VCA’s policy and advocacy work has been multifaceted and has covered all six VCs. The Activity has launched policy initiatives that, although they have surpassed the research and development stage, have yet to complete the process of becoming formal GOE policy. The conclusion acknowledges the fact that an activity like VCA can do only so much to advance the policy agenda within a country, which is ultimately determined by a host of other factors outside activity control (i.e., the political, economic, and social environments). The capacity-building and advocacy initiatives are the pillars that support the Activity’s policy work by building the capacity of elected officials to legislate and promoting dialogue between all key VC stakeholders, which include the GOE, donors, the private sector, and civil society. Lessons Learned Although VCA has an aggressive and multipronged strategy for its regulatory work, ultimately legislation and regulatory work depends fully on legislators to develop and convert into law. Without political will from government officials, it is difficult to achieve results in this area. VCA’s attempt to work across six VCs using a demand-driven model to promote policy reform has yielded a substantial quantity of small gains but may have diluted the contribution the Activity could have made with a more focused approach that puts more resources behind a limited number of strategically important policy areas. Recommendations • Future programming should consider taking a more targeted approach over a demand-driven all￾inclusive approach to working on policy issues that involves strategic engagement on a select set of priority VC policy issues as well as coordinated sustained engagement. Some priorities raised in this evaluation included the following: a. Foreign exchange and access to capital b. Access to land and capital for women and youth c. A tripartite (GOE, agribusinesses, and civil society/smallholders) steering committee to facilitate continued VCA outcome sustainability • VCA should assess the policy work conducted thus far and resolve and complete any outstanding policy work that is deemed feasible within the remaining implementation period. For all remaining policy and advocacy work, the VCA exit strategy should include policy status and identify a duty bearer that will be responsible for taking the Activity forward within AGP II. 34 See Annex 13 for more details. 38 4.4 EFFICIENCY 4.4.1 How has Fintrac's management of VCA evolved due to internal and external changes? What were the major lessons learned from these changes and the change management process? What lessons can be drawn for USAID in designing complexity-aware programming and allow for adaptive management? VCA Oversight and Management “It [Fintrac responsiveness] is very good. The personnel were experienced professionals, and they were always positive. Their follow-up is motivating.” Agribusiness, April 7, 2021 Working with more than 50 partner agencies in six VCs spread across four regions in a geographically large country would be complex and challenging to manage even under the best of circumstances. Indeed, VCA has faced a host of challenges from the outset. The first set of challenges is linked to working in the Ethiopian context, including high levels of poverty and a nascent private sector in what has been a state￾run economy. Add to these challenges civil instability and tensions, including the eruption of a full-scale conflict in Tigray in November 2020 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020, and one can see that the circumstances have been far from the best, requiring VCA leadership and consortium members to adapt to successfully implement Activity interventions and achieve objectives and targets. Indeed, VCA has demonstrated flexibility and adaptability to internal challenges it has confronted, as illustrated by the following examples: • The VCA leadership team used the delay early in the launch of the program to build buy-in and relationships with the GOE and the AGP II program to help facilitate Activity program success once full funding was allotted. • VCA’s status as a co-finance to support and contribute to the GOE’s AGP II Components 4 and 5 means that, while it is a standalone program, it is technically part of AGP, which requires that it share monthly, quarterly, and annual reports, as well as monthly and annual work plans. It also participates in AGP’s technical oversight and implementation process with the World Bank and the GOE, which includes contributing to AGP II data collection and conducting joint site visits. • VCA must collaborate and manage relationships with a complex web of actors, which include the government at the regional and national levels. This can be challenging because their interests do not always align, so VCA must meet and communicate with the GOE and AGP II at the local and national levels. This in turn requires capable staff and a well-developed Activity infrastructure in each of the regions. • To improve performance related to gender and to respond to findings from early VC research, the Activity, with USAID approval, added the poultry VC to improve its ability to integrate gender and youth into Activity design. In addition, to make it easier for women to participate in trainings, workshops, and events, VCA established a childcare system. • The 50-organization partnership with sub-awards and Partner Fund and Technology Fund require a team that is capable of managing the grants, overseeing the technical oversight and support required for compliance with USAID obligations and expectations, and supporting organizations that lack the capacity to respect USAID compliance and award requirements.35 The Activity’s success in managing the above challenges is reflected in the online survey results, which show that more than 70 percent of respondents agreed that, overall, VCA is well managed, with another one-quarter of respondents agreeing that the Activity is being “somewhat” well managed (Figure 3). 35 Interview Fintrac Staff, April 7–8, 2021. 39 Figure 3: Do You Feel That the VCA Activity Is Being Managed Well Overall? 71.4% 26.5% 1.0% 1.0% Yes Somewhat No Don't know CATI survey respondents also expressed strong satisfaction with various aspects of Activity support; 80 percent or more said they were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the aspects of Activity support shown in Table 21. Table 21: Level of Satisfaction with VCA Support: CATI Survey Satisfied Very Satisfied Total Knowledge and expertise of persons providing support 47% 39% 86% Relevance of support to respondent’s situation 52% 32% 84% Usefulness/practically of support 47% 32% 79% Effectiveness of support in terms of improving respondent’s situation 52% 32% 84% Overall quality of support 53% 33% 86% Further, 69 percent of CATI survey respondents said that they had implemented what they learned from Activity support to either a “good extent” or a “great extent,” and another 21 percent said that they had implemented what they learned to a “moderate extent.” In addition to a complex set of internal factors the VCA leadership has had to manage, the Activity has been confronted by several external challenges that the VCA consortium has responded to, including those described below. Civil Instability, Conflict, and Pests • Civil instability in Tigray is ongoing; to facilitate the post-conflict recovery of agricultural VCs in Tigray, VCA has developed and is implementing an integrated package of technical, marketing, and hardware support to address anticipated challenges in the Tigray region. This includes rebooting the micro, small, and medium enterprise private sector on a rapid recovery path to normal operations; resolving challenges in local food markets with disrupted demand-supply channels and infrastructure needs; supporting the reestablishment of commercial transport networks; and mitigating backward sliding in agricultural production and processing. o Latent tensions and civil instability exist throughout Ethiopia. While Tigray has escalated into armed conflict, ethnic conflicts in other parts of the country can also affect Activity implementation environments without warning.36 • The fall armyworm infestation accelerated the offering and scaling up of spray services in the maize and chickpea VCs. This is not to say that VCA could not have implemented this intervention at some point, but the infestation created an immediate need, and VCA was flexible enough to identify this need and act quickly to address it. 36 Interview Fintrac Staff, April 7–8, 2021. 40 COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world’s global supply chain, disrupting movements of persons and goods and causing shutdowns throughout the world, and it has affected VCA implementation accordingly. VCA has addressed the pandemic internally in how it functions as a consortium and has sought to extend support to program beneficiaries. With the pandemic’s onset, VCA immediately decided it would not stop operations; rather, it developed a COVID-19 response plan. Elements of the plan initially emphasized fully remote work (with the office closed) using Microsoft Teams, eventually opening the office but implementing social distancing of the staff in the office and allowing only half of the staff to be in the office at a time. Field staff came into the office one day a week and spent the rest of the time in the field. The Activity provided personal protective equipment to all staff, set up outdoor meetings, and avoided large indoor meetings. The Activity also provided mental health training for the staff that needed support. With COVID-19 rates ticking up, the Activity initiated contact tracing. The Activity has now fully integrated COVID-19-related protocols into its planning, security, and foreign exchange shortfalls that stall and block implementation.37 The CATI survey asked respondents how they have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of total production, yields/productivity, production costs, sales, and income. A plurality of respondents in each case indicated that they were unaffected by the pandemic, with around one-fifth in each case saying they were only a little worse off. Those saying they were worse or much worse off totaled between 25 and 29 percent of respondents (Table 22). Table 22: Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Smallholder Production, Yields, Costs, Sales, and Income: CATI Survey Outcome Better Same Little Worse Worse Much Worse Don’t Know Total production 13% 41% 19% 13% 12% 2% Yield/productivity 12% 42% 19% 12% 12% 2% Production costs 14% 38% 19% 13% 14% 2% Sales 13% 37% 19% 15% 14% 2% Income 12% 38% 20% 14% 14% 3% In response to the challenges presented by COVID-19, VCA provided various forms of support to its smallholder beneficiaries. Sixty percent of CATI survey respondents acknowledged that they had received COVID-19-related support from VCA. Of those receiving COVID-19-related support, 85 percent received prevention and awareness-raising campaign messages, 66 percent received masks and gel, and 24 percent received equipment or services. Conclusions The VCA consortium demonstrated flexible and adaptable leadership and management of the Activity that enabled VCA to respond effectively to emerging and previously unplanned needs while still achieving the Activity’s preestablished goals. The pandemic response was aggressive and proactive and led by a management model that evinced a flexible and solutions-oriented approach. Lessons Learned In complex programming environments like that faced by VCA, team presence and relationships are critical at both national and regional levels. VCA’s presence and capacity at both levels is helping drive Activity success. In addition, securing buy-in and relationships with the GOE at the Activity’s outset and maintaining 37 Interview Fintrac Staff, April 7–8, 2021. 41 those relationships through the AGP II contributions and collaboration have been critical to VCA’s success. The strategic, adaptable, and flexible approach that VCA management has taken to implementing the program has allowed it to find appropriate solutions to emerging and unplanned developments. This approach has allowed VCA to adapt the Activity design and implementation to add the poultry VC, business management training, COVID-19-related training and resources, and the Tigray relief and recovery program. One key lesson learned from the VCA experience is that complex programs like VCA must develop and utilize contingency and risk mitigation plans and participate in global sharing and learning. Recommendations • VCA management, stakeholders, and USAID may want to consider workshops to identify and document the best practices emerging from working in such a complicated context, including the COVID-19 pandemic and civil instability. • Because of delays at the outset of the program and the ongoing pandemic, USAID and Fintrac may want to discuss the merits of a no-cost extension as a vehicle to consolidate the Activity’s accomplishments and finalize outstanding Activity efforts. 4.5 SUSTAINABILITY 4.5.1 How did VCA's exit strategy change over time as a result of internal and external changes? VCA Sustainability VCA has targeted the private sector by working directly with smallholder farmers organized in cooperatives and CIGs, as well as with agribusiness and commercial farms, with the belief that promoting market-driven relationships—for example, by changing smallholder farmers to business partners for large private firms through strong commercial linkages—would promote sustainability. VCA has also included crosscutting initiatives involving institutional strengthening, improving the enabling environment, and the DFC financial mechanism to increase access to finance, which are all part of its sustainability strategy. The VCA approach assumed that most of the activities will sustain themselves because it is a market and needs￾based approach. Also, as previously discussed under partnerships, VCA works with the GOE/AGP II to plan, share, coordinate, and implement, which is another foundation of the Activity’s sustainability. Notwithstanding, stakeholders expressed concern about the Activity’s sustainability. One Fintrac staff member, for example, expressed concern that VCA’s accomplishments depend fully on GOE leadership and continued support. Although VC activities that are driven by an economic supply and demand–driven model are more likely to continue on their own, the GOE must provide the supportive and favorable environment. Moreover, peace and civil stability are key components of promoting a favorable business environment for the private sector; thus, the ongoing conflict in Tigray poses a serious threat to Activity sustainability not only in Tigray but throughout the other VCA regions. Foreign exchange issues also present potential challenges to Activity sustainability, as one interview respondent explained: “The private sector here lacks access to currency in order to export and import needed technology and resources. They need foreign exchange in order to access the technology and resources abroad. Ethiopia does not have the exports to generate foreign exchange to buy anything, including food or medicine. They import $60 million of ultra-high temperature (UHT) milk, meanwhile there is no foreign exchange for dairy producers to buy UHT technology. It is way beyond the scope of VCA, but it affects the project on a daily basis, some companies cannot access foreign exchange to import raw materials.” Fintrac Staff, April 8, 2021 42 This and the generalized lack of access to financing are major issues threatening sustainability. Many of the supported businesses will not survive without access to capital and/or foreign exchange. COVID-19 has further worsened the business climate and has created massive uncertainties that in turn affect business and investment decisions. Currently the Activity has an exit strategy only for the Cup of Excellence and does not have an Activity￾wide document, although it does have exit strategies for most of its individual activities and elements of an exit strategy can be found in its Year 5 work plan and in its partnership agreements. Reflecting the sustainability issues raised above, 48 percent of online survey respondents were confident that VCA achievements and successes will be sustained on closure of the Activity, and 45 percent were somewhat confident that they would be sustained. Conclusions Despite VCA’s many accomplishments, there are many potentially serious obstacles to their sustainability, especially related to its work with the private sector. Although the Activity has integrated its work with the GOE as it relates to training and policy, lack of continued government support, civil instability, and lack of access to finance and foreign exchange could hinder sustainability of program results. On the flip side, VCA’s private sector–focused whole-VC approach offers potential for sustainability to the extent that targeted private sector actors are incentivized to sustain Activity interventions once VCA ends. Lessons Learned VCA demonstrates that creating a favorable business environment is critical to supporting program success and sustainability, including access to finance and foreign exchange and civil stability. The Ethiopian private sector and agribusinesses are still in the nascent stages and require continued training in business management and operations to support successful continuation and scale-up of their activities. This is likely to remain true even after the Activity ends. Recommendations • A clear and well-communicated sustainability plan and exit strategy for VCA should be put in place down to the kebele levels as soon as possible. a. A participatory process should be engaged in with the GOE/AGP II and VCA stakeholders at all levels. • VCA stakeholders and USAID should continue advocacy efforts with the GOE and the African Union to address issues such as foreign exchange and business-unfriendly policies and practices. 43 5.0 ANNEXES 44 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION WORK PLAN Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects 1. Training and In￾Brief/data collection Addis 2. (Meeting Space required) April 6, 2021 ET • Presentation of Program • Review of Logistical Arrangements and planning • Review and finalization of Data Collection Tools • Simulation 3. In-Brief for USAID/Ethiopia April 5, 2021 ET • Conduct In-Brief with USAID must confirm the location and time of In￾Brief with Mission. Participants (TBD) 4. Addis data collection April 7-9, 2021 ET • April 7-9, 2021 • Addis Fintrac Staff GOE • Keberu Belayneh (AGPII CPU National Coordinator) • Ibrahim Mohammed (AGPII Technical Advisor) • Assefa Melku (AGPII M&E Office) • Zebdewos Selato (MoA-Crop Protection Directorate) • Tadesse Sori (MoA-AGPII livestock focal) • Tsigerrda Fekadu (Poultry Directorate) Sub-contractors & Partners • Yared Sertse (Shayashone PLC-General Manager) • Fasil Tadesse (Ph.D.) (Crop Life-General Manager) • Willem Boot (Boot Coffee-CEO) USAID Projects & IPs Donors Financial Institutions • Tsega T/Yesus (Addis International Bank (AdIB)-Director Credit • Ephrem Bogale (Awash Bank-Director SME Banking) Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD CIGs/Association/Platform • Addis Gashaw (Ethiopian Chamber of Sectoral Association￾Manager) • Misgina Fitsumbirhan (Ph.D.) (Ethiopian Poultry Producers and Processors Association (EPPPA)-G/Manager) 45 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects • Gizat Worku (Ethiopian Coffee Exporter Association￾G/Manager) Actor/Producers/Lead clients/Processors • TBD DFC Loan • Azalech Tesfaye (Azalech Tesfaye-Owner and Manager) • (Kibre Mulat (Kibre Mulat-Manager) • TBD-Ask Fintrac Smallholder Focus Groups 1. TBD Focus Group 2. TBD Focus Group 5. ET departs Addis to launch fieldwork) April 10, 2021 ET • Team A Amhara • Team B SNNPR Amhara 6. Team A to Amhara (VC to be explored dairy and maize) Logistical considerations: Hotel April 10- 20, 2021 x • Day 1 April 10, 2021 • Travel Day • Bahir Dar o Fintrac & GOE x • Day 2 April 11, 2021 • Sunday 46 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects reservations required for the team. Please consider arrangements for focus groups and team meetings. x • Day 3 April 12, 2021 • Bahir Dar City o Dairy & Maize Fintrac Staff • Temesgen Kassa (Regional Manager) • Gebremedhin Tibebu (Senior Agribusiness Coordinator) • Simegnew Eshetie (MEL Manager) • Haimanot Wudu (Senior Crop Value Chain and Mechanization Specialist) • Negussie Mohammed (Dairy Value Chain Specialist) South Achefer GOE • Ayehu Zerihun (Ag-Crop Health Clinic Director) • Mitiku Melaku (Ag-Post Harvest Expert) • Debebe Admasu (Livestock Head) • Mequaninet Damtie (Livestock Extension Directorate Director) • Habtamu Segahu (AGP-II Coordination Unit, Coordinator) • Lawayew Ayale (Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) • Tesfaye Kassie (ATA-Expert) • Asnake Lewoye (Amhara Women and Children Office-Expert) Sub-contractors & Partners • Tefera balcha (Dr.) (Vet Clinic-General Manager) • Shimelis Tarekegne (IMC-Senior Regional Nutrition Specialist) • Lakachew Getnet (IMC -Regional Nutrition Coordinator) • Yemane Leuel (Banyan-Youth Specialist) • Emebet Achenef (Banyan-Gender and Youth Specialists) Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD-confirmation with Fintrac CIGs/Association/Platform • Ermias Abate Desta (Dr) (Regional Maize Stakeholders Innovation Platform-Deputy head) • Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Gashaw Chekol (Dairy Producer-Owner) • Gashaw Chekol (Dairy Producer-Owner) • Emebet Mekonnen (Dairy Producer-Owner) • Yimam Tessema (Maize producer-Yinam Tessema-Manager) • Teshale Adigo (Maize Producer-Avallo Seed Enterprise￾Manager) 47 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects • Abirham Zerihun (Maize Producer Ayehu Zingini Manager) DFC Loan • TBD Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Maize Focus Group (Optional) 2. Dairy Focus Group 3. Women and/or Youth x • Day 4 April 13, 2021 • Bahir Dar City o Dairy & Maize Bahir Dar City continued 48 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects x • Day 5 April 14, 2021 • Dangila o Dairy & Maize Fintrac Staff • Tewehbo Miheret Livestock Technician GOE • Ayana Abie (Woreda Ag-Office Head) • Wondale Genetu (Woreda Ag-Deputy Head) • Andargachew Bitew (Woreda-Ag. Expert) Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD-Ask Fintrac none on the list • Coops and Union & MCCs • Tesfaye Semie (Hiwot Primary Dairy Cooperative-Manager) CIGs/Association/Platform • Ermias Abate Desta (Dr) (Regional Maize Stakeholders Innovation Platform-Deputy Head) Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Tayachew Asmare (Dairy Producer-Owner) • Mulugeta Bayleyegn (Dairy Producer-Owner) • Workineh Genetu (Dairy Producer-Owner) DFC Loan • TBD Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Maize Focus Group 2. Dairy Focus Group (Optional) 3. Women and/or Youth • Day 6 April 15, 2021 • Dangila o Dairy & Maize Complete Dangila Woreda data collection x • Day 7 April 16, 20021 • South Achefar o Dairy & Maize Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • Aragaw Alem (Woreda Ag-Post Harvest Expert) Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD-Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD-Ask Fintrac CIGs/Association/Platform • TBD- Ask Fintrac, none on list 49 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Amanuel, Yesewzer (& friends Animal feed supplier-Owner) • Muket, Wolela, & Friends (Shoat Fattening Women Group￾Group leader) • Derso Demlash (Dikuli Multipurpose Farmers’ Cooperative￾Chairman of the MPC) • Mergat Aragaw (Dikuli Multipurpose Farmers’ Cooperative - Veterinary) South Achefer, Dikuli DFC Loan • TBD Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Dairy Focus Group (Optional) 2. Maize Focus Group Women and/or Youth x • Day 8 April 17, 2021 • Bahir Dar Zuria (South Lake Tana) o Dairy Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • TBD Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD-Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD-Ask Fintrac, none on list CIGs/Association/Platform • TBD-Ask Fintrac, none on list Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • TBD-Ask Fintrac, none on list DFC Loan • TBD Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Dairy Focus Group 2. Women and/or Youth Focus Group x • Day 9 April 18, 2021 Sunday 50 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects x • Day 10 April 19, 2021 Team To determine based outstanding data collection best way to use time. x • Day 11 April 20, 2021 Travel to Oromia to begin data collection SNNPR 7. Team to SNNPR (VCs to be explored coffee and meat and live animals) Logistical considerations: Hotel reservations required for the team. Please consider arrangements for focus groups and team meetings. April 10- 24, 2021 x Day 1 April 10, 2021 • MLA • Road or Air travel to Hawassa/Malga If possible, team to conduct interviews with Fintrac Staff • Mundino Shanko (Regional Manager) • Zemedie Teshome (Dairy Value Chain Specialist) • Tekeba Tsige (Meat & Live Animal Value Chain Specialist) • Mifta Sefa (Poultry Technician) • Tigist Tesfaye (Regional M&E Specialist GOE) • Duguna Dole Waume (Woreda Meliga, Livestock Expert) x Day 2 April 11, 2021 Sunday x Day 3 April 12, 2021 • MLA • Hawassa/Malga GOE • Mesfin Zeleke (Regional crop expert,) • Ato Teklu Tesemma (Regional Livestock Breeding Directorate Director) • Ato Zeynu Bilka (Regional TBD Fintrac) • Yehualeshet Aschenaki (Regional-Agri-Marketing Expert) • Redwan Kedir (Regional Head/Director) • Duguna Dole Waume (Woreda Meliga, Livestock Expert) Sub-contractors & Partners • Selamu Mathewos (IMC, Regional nutrition coordinator) • Etaferahu Alemayehu (Banyan Global, Gender and Youth Specialists) • Simayehu Dubale S (ACDI/VOCA, SNNP Regional Coordinator) Coops and Union & MCCs • Matewos Butasha (Wujigra Multi-Purpose Primary Cooperative Manager) CIGs/Association/Platform 51 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects • Adanech Woldetensay (Livestock Fattening-Mente Women shoat fattening Group (CIG) Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Ashenafi Amello (Agro-dealer-Title-TBD) • Esayas Teko (Lead farmer5, on shoat fattening) DFC Loan • TBD - Ask Fintrac Smallholder Focus Groups 1. MLA Focus Group 2. Women and/or Youth • Day 4 April 13, 2021 • MLA • Hawassa/Malga Hawassa/Malga continued Travel to Addis in the afternoon • Day 5 April 14, 2021 • Travel Day Travel to Jimma Start data collection following 10:40 am flight and road travel. The team could collect data with Jimma team upon arrival. x • Day 6 April 15, 2021 • Coffee o Goma (Oromia)* Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • Amino Abafita (Woreda Ag. Office-Vice Head) • Husen Abamecha (Woreda Cooperative Promotion Expert) • Rijal Nura (Kebele Development Agent) Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD- Ask Fintrac none on the list Coops and Union & MCCs • Tijani Abajobir (Kanisa Primary Cooperative-Manger) • Abajihad Abasambi (Bikiltu Kiole Coperative- Manger) • Mohamed Hajiabafita (Dry Coffee Processing Cooperative￾Manager) CIGs/Association/Platform • Sabri Mohmedzen (Coffee seedlings- Chairman/Demekistu CIG) • Mifta Delil (Coffee Seedlings-chairman/Chefe Arba CIG) • Fatuma Jemal (Coffee Seedlings- chairman/Tokuma CIG) • Abdulaziz (Coffee Seedlings- CHAIRMAN /Adegagu CIG) 52 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects • Bulcha (Coffee Seedlings- chain man /Dungo Biya CIG) Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Mustefa Abalulessa (Micro-Mill Washed and dry Coffee Processor- Lead farmer) • Gugu Abalulesa Micro-Mill Washed and dry Coffee Processor Lead farmer • Mustefa Abalulessa Micro-Mill Washed and dry Coffee Processor Lead farmer • Sabiko Abmecha Micro-Mill Washed and dry Coffee Processor -Lead farmer • Mustefa Abakeno Micro-Mill Washed and dry Coffee Processor -Lead farmer • Mariam Abafogi Micro-Mill Washed and dry Coffee Processor -Lead farmer • Gugu Abalulesa (Dry Coffee processing -Lead farmer) • Teyibo Ababulgu (Dry Coffee processing Lead farmer) • JAFAR MOHAMEDNUR (Dry Coffee processing Lead farmer) • Mohamed Haji abfita (Dry Coffee processing Lead farmer) DFC Loan • Mariam Abafogi (Mairam Abafogi Washed Coffee Processing Station-Owner) Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Coffee Focus Group (Optional) 2. Women and/or Youth x • Day 7 April 16, 2021 • Coffee o Goma (Oromia)* Data collection in Goma continues x • Day 8 April 17, 2021 • Coffee o Gera (Oromia)* Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • Abdulaziz Jemal (Woreda Ag. Office-Head) • Chanenalew Belay (Kebele Development Agent) Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD Ask Fintrac, none on list 53 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects CIGs/Association/Platform • Bashir Yalew (Coffee Seedlings-chairperson/Biftu chariko CIG) Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Tadese Gudina (Coffee Production-Lead farmer) • Najib Haji Sadik (Micro Mill washed coffee processor-Lead farmer) • Abajihad Ababulgu (Micro Mill washed coffee processor-Lead farmer) • Tijani Abajobir (Micro Mill washed coffee processor-Lead farmer) • Abanega (Micro Mill washed coffee processor-Lead farmer) DFC Loan • TBD- Ask Fintrac none on the list Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Coffee Focus Group 2. Women and/or Youth • Day 9 April 18, 2021 Sunday • Day 10 April 19, 2021 • Coffee o Gera (Oromia)* Gera continued x • Day 11 April 20, 2021 • Gimbo/BONGO o Coffee Fintrac Staff • Wogayehu Redi, Crop Value Chain Specialist, Bonga GOE • Firew Hailu (Woreda Livestock- Gimbo woreda Agriculture office Expert) • Mogos Tekile (Zonal Ag- Coffee and Tea department head) Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • Tiume (Taga Tula coffee Commercial farm- General Manager) CIGs/Association/Platform • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Wubshet terefa (Agro-dealer- Manager) - bongo • Zinabu Abamech (Coffee Production- ZAT plc owner) DFC Loan 54 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Coffee Focus Group 2. Women and/or Youth (Optional) x • Day 12 April 21, 2021 • Gimbo/BONGO o Coffee Gimbo/Bongo Continued x • Day 13 April 22, 2021 • Decha o Coffee Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list CIGs/Association/Platform • Tsehaynesh Kopito (Coffee Seedlings-Yoffa women CIG secretary) Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • TBD - Ask Fintrac DFC Loan • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Coffee Focus Group 2. Women and/or Youth • Day 14 April 23, 2021 • Decha o Coffee Continue Decha if necessary or travel back to Oromia x • Day 15 April 24, 2021 Travel to Oromia/Addis to continue data collection Oromia April 20- 27, 2021 TBD TBD • Day 12 April 21, 2021 • Lume o Chickpea Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • Tadese, Woreda Ag-Extension- Expert, Agronomy 55 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects 8. Team to Oromia (VCs to be explored MLA, chickpea, and poultry) Logistical considerations: Hotel reservations required for the team. Please consider arrangements for focus groups and team meetings. Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list CIGs/Association/Platform • Ashebir (Seed Multiplication- Head of CIG) Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/ Processors • Yirdaw Yeyi (Chickpea seed Producer-Farmer) • Demsachew Girma (Seed Producer) DFC Loan • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Chickpea Focus Group 2. Women and/or Youth Focus Group TBD TBD • Day 13 April 22, 2021 • Lume o Chickpea Data collection Lume Continued TBD TBD • Day 14 April 23, 2021 • Adea o Chickpea & Poultry/MLA Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list GOE • Dr. Geda (Woreda Livestock Head) • Natoli Angasu (Woreda Livestock-Fattening Expert) Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list CIGs/Association/Platform • TBD Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/Processors • Abrerham G/ silase (Pullet Grower, owner) • Getahun Girma, owner • Tilahun Mamuye (Fattening Center Owner & Manager) DFC Loan • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on list Smallholder Focus Groups 56 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects 1. Chickpea Focus Group 2. Poultry Focus Group (Optional) 3. Women and/or Youth Focus Group TBD TBD • Day 15 April 24, 2021 • Adea/Ada’a o Chickpea & Poultry/MLA Data Collection Ada’a/Adea continued TBD TBD • Day 16 April 25, 2021 Sunday • Day 17 April 26, 2021 • Gimbichu o Poultry/MLA Fintrac Staff • TBD - Ask FInrtac, none on the list GOE • TBD Sub-contractors & Partners • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Coops and Union & MCCs • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list CIGs/Association/Platform • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Value Chain Actor/Producers/Lead clients/Processors • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list DFC Loan • TBD - Ask Fintrac, none on the list Smallholder Focus Groups 1. Poultry Focus Group 2. MLA Focus Group 3. Women and/or Youth Focus TBD TBD • Day 18 April 27, 2021 • Gimbichu o Poultry/MLA Data collection Gimbichu continued 57 Evaluation Activities/ Deliverables Key Dates Southern Team Northern Team Notes and Details Potential Interview or FGD Subjects 9. Team in Addis (Any outstanding data collection around Addis) & ET sessions to design Out-Brief and preliminary data analysis (final meetings in Addis) April 27- 30, 2021 ET • Day 19 April 28, 2021 • Addis Team to determine outstanding interviews/FGDs and how to use the time Field Managers Preparation Out-Brief ET • Day 20 April 29, 2021 • Addis o Meeting Space may be required o Meeting Space Required ET Preparation Out-Brief Team to determine outstanding interviews/FGDs and how to use the time ET • Day 21 April 30, 2021 • Outbrief • USAID, Fintrac, and TBD 58 ANNEX 2: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FGD Guide for VCA Smallholder Farmers Date: Name of Region: Name of Woreda: Name of Kebele: Facilitators’ Names: Note-Taker Name: Value Chain/Theme: VCA Beneficiaries: Crop or livestock smallholder farmers in one or more of the VCA's target value chains having an average of 0.5 hectares of land or a few heads of livestock. List of FGD Participants and Gender # Full Name Gender Cell # Introduction • Greetings • Introduce Facilitators, Note-Taker, Translator, et. al. • Mention who we are, why we are here and how we are working on the USAID Evaluation Team, the purpose of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD), and what the results will be used for. • Explain the mechanics of the FGD. Background questions 1. Which group/organization are you a member of (primary cooperative, common interest group, or another producer organization? 2. How long have you been involved in the VCA Project? 3. Can you tell us about the VCA approach, how does the VCA program work? Effectiveness 1. Tell us about the support that you received from VCA Program? Probe the following? • Agricultural or livestock inputs (seek specifics) o Post-harvest storage (HST)Seeds, tillage plows, fodder chopping machines, etc. o Technology Fund type sub-award – (a grant from the VCA to lower the risk of investing in new or improved technology) from the VCA? If so, what type of sub￾award? • Agricultural or livestock-related training (seek specifics) 59 o Climate-smart agriculture o Integrated pest management o Farmer field days o Demonstration sites o Post-harvest storage and handling o Food safety training o Seed multiplication o Village level demonstrations o Promotional campaigns and demonstrations o Other • Support and demonstrations on how to use new agricultural or livestock technologies o Demonstration sites, and are they helpful? • Market and price information for your crops or livestock? o What support do you get for access to markets, if any? • Access to markets or market actors (Business to Business linkages) i. Cooperatives and CIGs ii. Meetings with Outgrowers iii. Business Development Center Access iv. unions, cooperatives and processors, exporters, and feed plants to increase commercialization and sales b. Access to financing and Loans (DFC and Finance) c. Dialogues regarding agriculture, livestock, value, and policy in Ethiopia? i. Discussions, campaigns, or roundtables, etc., d. Improved access to nutritious foods and diet diversity i. Home gardens, nutrition training (e.g., Nutrition sensitive productivity training), ii. Awareness campaigns and Nutrition SBCC (promoting consumption of nutrition￾rich crop varieties and protein-rich livestock sources), iii. Demonstration of optimal complementary food preparation (e.g., cooking demonstration) iv. Food safety and food hygiene techniques dehydration and preservation techniques for fruits and vegetables. e. How do you balance consumption vs. sale of selected value chains, either crops or livestock and its products? f. Outreach to youth and women through training (leadership, youth empowerment training, Transformative household methodology (THM)), mentorship, access to financing and loans (DFC and MFI), business plan development, employment opportunities) 2. What was the most appreciated support they received from the program (VCA), in your opinion? a. What was the least successful aspect of the program (refer to the components above if required)? b. What were the factors that facilitated the VCA program's success? Probe the following: i. GOE support ii. Trainings (Which) iii. Fintrac support and oversight iv. Inputs and technology v. Community engagement vi. Financing and loans vii. other c. What were the challenges to program success during your participation in VCA? i. Lack of buy-in ii. Lack of GOE support 60 iii. Insufficient training iv. Insufficient financing and loans v. Insufficient inputs, technology, and materials 3. Did VCA provide access to loans or credits? a. If yes, how was credit provided b. How much was provided c. What were the conditions for accessing the credit and repaying? d. If No, did you want to and were unable to do so? i. If yes, what kept you from accessing the financing or loans? 4. What support did the VCA program provide to promote Women and youths' involvement in value chain activities or organizations? a. If so, in what ways did the program do this? Probe the following i. Inputs, materials, and tools ii. Sub-awards or grants for agricultural or livestock inputs and resources iii. Specific training iv. Access to financing in loans v. Access to cooperatives and common interest groups vi. Other a. Have these efforts been successful at promoting women and youths' involvement in agricultural and livestock value chains? 1) If yes, how so? 2) If not why? Impact 1. Did VCA interventions to support your agricultural or livestock activities positively or negatively affect you and your family's wellbeing? Probe the following: i. Household revenue increase or decrease? (How much?) ii. Increase or decrease agricultural or livestock yields? (How much?) iii. Diversify revenue streams? (How) iv. New or expanded value chain activities? (Details) v. Improved nutrition and diet diversity? (Details) vi. Increase involvement of women and youth in agriculture and livestock activities vii. Connect you to cooperatives or common interest groups viii. Access to markets or private sectors actors (Business to Business linkages) ix. Other Relevance Question: Is the VCA design appropriate to your local community? 1. Do you feel that the VCA approach is an appropriate/ideal/good fit in terms of? a. The Value Chains selected by the program b. The support provided for improving your value chain activities c. Activity ad input selection d. The responsiveness and support provided by the VCA program led by Fintrac e. Targeting of regions/woreda/kebele or f. Targeting of beneficiaries/participants? g. Support to women and youth? h. Other 2. What recommendations or changes could have made the program more successful or beneficial to you and your community? Probe the following: a. Other or different value chains b. Support to women and youth c. Include different regions, woreda or kebele 61 d. Beneficiary selection i. Additional criteria for beneficiary selection ii. Cover additional target group iii. Establishing a compliant response mechanism on the selection of beneficiaries e. Need more activities or inputs f. More support and responsiveness from Fintrac or GOE g. Other Efficiency 1. Do you feel the program was implemented and managed well? • Why or why not? • What was positive about the VCA implementation and management? • What could have been improved or changed regarding the VCA implementation or management • How was collaboration with GOE, Private Sector, and development partners? 2. How has VCA implementation evolved to adapt to the Pandemic? • How did theCovid19 affect the VCA implementation? • What worked well, and what could have been improved? Sustainability 1. Has Fintrac discussed the closure of the program with your community? • How do you and your community members plan to continue these activities and build on what you have achieved until now? 62 ANNEX 3: KEY INFORMANT AND GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDES KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE KII Guide for Private Sector (VC actors, Agribusiness, Cooperatives, and CIGs) Date: Name of Region: Name of Woreda: Name of Kebele: Organization: Interviewers’ Names: Interviewee’s Name: ________________________ Gender: M/F Contact information: email phone: Value Chain/Theme: Introduction 1. Are you familiar with the VCA program? 2. Which of the six value chains are you involved in, and at what level of the value chain (Chickpea, Maize, Coffee, Poultry, Meat and Live Animals and Dairy) are you involved? Effectiveness 1. Tell us about the type of support that your organization received from the VCA Program? Probe the following? a. Agricultural or livestock inputs (seek specifics) i. Post-harvest storage (HST) Seeds, tillage plows, fodder chopping machines, etc., ii. Technology Fund type sub-award – (a grant from the VCA to lower the risk of investing in new or improved technology) from the VCA? If so, what type of sub￾award? iii. Other b. Agricultural or livestock-related training (seek specifics) i. Climate-smart agriculture ii. Integrated pest management iii. Farmer field days iv. Demonstration sites v. Post-harvest storage and handling vi. Food safety training vii. Seed multiplication viii. Village level demonstrations ix. Promotional campaigns and demonstrations x. Nutrition sensitive agriculture (production and productivity) xi. Other c. Support and demonstrations on how to use new agricultural or livestock technologies i. Demonstration sites, and are they helpful? d. Market and price information for your crops or livestock? i. What support do you get for access to markets, if any? e. Access to markets or market actors (Business to Business linkages) i. Smallholder farmer meetings Cooperatives and CIGs ii. Meetings with outgrowers/fora and events iii. Business Development Center Access 63 iv. Unions, cooperatives and processors, exporters, and feed plants to increase commercialization and sales v. GOE meetings and dialogue at the regional, woreda, or Kebele levels b. Access to financing and Loans (DFC and Finance) c. Dialogues regarding agriculture, livestock, value, and policy in Ethiopia? i. Discussions, campaigns, or roundtables, etc., ii. Multilateral communication between GOE, Private sector actors, and local community actors/associations iii. Policy and leadership trainings iv. Curriculum development v. Other d. Improved access to nutritious foods and diet diversity i. Home gardens, nutrition training (e.g., Nutrition sensitive productivity training), ii. Awareness campaigns and Nutrition SBCC (promoting consumption of nutrition￾rich crop varieties and protein-rich livestock sources), iii. Demonstration of optimal diversified food preparation (e.g., cooking demonstration) iv. Food safety and food hygiene techniques dehydration and preservation techniques for fruits and vegetables. e. Outreach to youth and women through training (leadership, youth empowerment training, Transformative household methodology (THM)), mentorship, access to financing and loans (DFC and MFI), business plan development, employment opportunities) 2. What was the most successful component of the VCA program, in your opinion? a. What was the least successful aspect/component of the program (refer to the components above if required)? b. What were the factors that facilitated the program's success? Probe the following: i. GOE support ii. Trainings iii. Fintrac support and oversight iv. Inputs and technology v. Community engagement vi. Financing and loans vii. other c. What were the factors that challenged the VCA program success, in your opinion? i. Lack of buy-in ii. Lack of GOE support iii. Insufficient training iv. Insufficient financing and loans v. Insufficient inputs, technology, and materials 3. Did VCA provide information regarding loans or credits a. If yes, what support and information was provided by Fintrac or VCA program b. What were the conditions for accessing the credit and repaying? c. If No, did you want to and were unable to do so? d. Are you familiar with the USAID development credit authority (DFC)? i. If yes, what kept you from accessing the financing or loans? 4. Are you aware of any support the VCA program provided to promote Women and youths' involvement in value chain activities or organizations? a. If so, in what ways did the program do this? Probe the following i. Inputs, materials, and tools ii. Sub-awards or grants for agricultural or livestock inputs and resources 64 iii. Specific training iv. Access to financing in loans v. Access to cooperatives and common interest groups vi. Mentorship vii. Mainstreaming of nutrition, especially in terms of improving Women's nutritional status. viii. Other b. Have these efforts been successful at promoting women and youths' involvement in agricultural and livestock value chains? 1) If yes, how so? 2) If not, why? Impact 2. Did VCA interventions support your organization's agricultural or livestock activities positively or negatively? Probe the following: a. Increased or decreased agricultural or livestock yields? (How much?) b. New or expanded value chain activities? (Details) c. Increase involvement of women and youth in agriculture and livestock activities d. Connect you to other value chain actors out-growers, cooperatives, or common interest groups, GOE actors e. Access critical financing and loans for expansion and growth. f. Other Relevance Question: Is the VCA design appropriate to the Ethiopian context? 3. Do you feel that the VCA approach is an appropriate/ideal/good fit in terms of? a. The Value Chains selected by the program b. The support provided for improving your value chain performance c. The responsiveness and support provided by the VCA program led by Fintrac d. Support to women and youth? e. Facilitation of Business to Business and GOE dialogue and communication f. Other 4. What recommendations or changes could have made the program more successful or beneficial to you and your community? a. Other or different value chains b. Targeting different woreda or kebele c. More support to women and youth d. More support and responsiveness from Fintrac or GOE e. Other Efficiency 3. Do you feel the program was implemented and managed well? • Why or why not? • What was positive about the VCA implementation and management? • What could have been improved or changed regarding VCA implementation or management? What was the contracting or partnership approach, and did it work? Why or why not? o Have you established a partnership agreement with Fintrac (e.g., ToR)? o If yes, what services or materials were included in the partnership agreement? o And how did you ensure whether parties adhere to the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement? o Have you reviewed the operationalization of the partnership agreement? If yes, When? How? What were the lessons? 65 4. How has VCA implementation evolved to adapt to the Pandemic? • What worked well, and what could have been improved? Sustainability • Has Fintrac discussed the closure of the program with your organization? • Have they discussed their exit strategy, and if so, can you tell me about it (Who, when, what, why)? • How will your organizations continue the gains and activities you have achieved with support from the VCA program? 66 ANNEX 4: KEY INFORMANT AND GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDES KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE KII Guide for Government Officials (MoA and ATA – Federal and Regional) Date: Name of Region: Name of Woreda: Name of Kebele: Organization & Position: Interviewers’ Names: Interviewee’s Name: ________________________ Gender: M/F Contact information: email phone: Introduction 1. Are you familiar with the VCA program? 2. Can you tell me about you and your organization’s involvement in the VCA program? Effectiveness 2. Tell us about the support that the VCA program provided in your community/targeted zones? Probe the following? a. Agricultural or livestock inputs (seek specifics) i. Post-harvest storage (HST)Seeds, tillage plows, fodder chopping machines, etc., ii. Technology Fund type sub-award – (a grant from the VCA to lower the risk of investing in new or improved technology) from the VCA? If so, what type of sub￾award? iii. Other b. Agricultural or livestock-related training (seek specifics) i. climate-smart agriculture ii. Integrated pest management iii. Farmer field days iv. Demonstration sites v. Post-harvest storage and handling vi. Seed multiplication vii. Village level demonstrations viii. Promotional campaigns and demonstrations ix. Other c. Support and demonstrations on how to use new agricultural or livestock technologies i. Demonstration sites, and are they helpful? d. Market and price information for your crops or livestock? i. What support do you get for access to markets, if any? e. Access to markets or market actors (Business to Business linkages) i. Meetings and dialogue with Outgrowers, Cooperatives, agribusiness, CIGs, unions, processors, exporters, and feed plants to increase commercialization and sales ii. Business Development Center Access iii. Meetings and dialogue at the regional, woreda, or Kebele levels c. Access to financing and Loans (DFC and Finance) d. Dialogues regarding agriculture, livestock, and policy in Ethiopia? i. Discussions, campaigns, or roundtables, etc., 67 ii. Multilateral communication between GOE, Private sector actors, and local community actors/associations iii. Policy and leadership trainings iv. Curriculum development v. Other e. Outreach to youth and women through training (leadership, youth empowerment training, Transformative household methodology (THM)), mentorship, access to financing and loans (DFC and MFI), business plan development, employment opportunities) 5. Did your institution benefit from the program directly? If so, how? 6. What was the most successful component of the VCA program from, in your opinion? a. What was the least successful aspect/component of the program (refer to the components above if required)? b. What were the factors that facilitated the program's success? Probe the following: i. GOE support ii. Trainings iii. Fintrac support and oversight iv. Inputs and technology v. Community engagement vi. Financing and loans vii. other c. What were the factors that blocked or slowed down the success of the program? i. Lack of buy-in ii. Lack of GOE support iii. Insufficient training iv. Insufficient financing and loans v. Insufficient inputs, technology, and materials 7. Do you know if VCA provided support to access loans or credits? a. If yes, how what support did they offer to partners and beneficiaries b. Are you familiar with the USAID development credit authority (DFC)? i. If yes, have your constituencies accessed the financing or loans? If no, why not? 8. Do you feel the VCA program support promoted women and youths’ involvement in value chain activities or organizations? a. If yes, in what ways did the program do this? Probe the following i. Inputs, materials, and tools ii. Sub-awards or grants for agricultural or livestock inputs and resources iii. Specific training iv. Access to financing in loans v. Access to cooperatives and common interest groups vi. Mentorship vii. Other b. Have these efforts been successful at promoting women and youths' involvement in agricultural and livestock value chains? 1) If yes, how so? 2) If not, why? Impact 3. Did VCA interventions to support targeted community members agricultural or livestock activities positively or negatively in the targeted regions/woreda/kebele Probe the following: a. Improve economic structure of beneficiary households (increased revenue or income diversification) b. Increased or decreased agricultural or livestock yields? (How much?) c. New or expanded value chain activities? (Details) 68 d. Increase involvement of women and youth in agriculture and livestock activities e. Connect you to other value chain actors Outgrowers, cooperatives, or common interest groups, GOE actors f. Access critical financing and loans for expansion and growth. g. Promote transformative and enabling policy frameworks and curricula h. Other Relevance Question: Is the VCA design appropriate to the Ethiopian context and aligned with the AGP II (National/regional/kebele) aims and objectives? 5. Do you feel that the VCA approach is an appropriate/ideal/good fit in terms of? a. The Value Chains selected by the program b. The support provided for improving value chain performance c. The responsiveness and support provided by the VCA program led by Fintrac d. Support to women and youth? e. Facilitation of Business to Business and dialogue and communication with the private sector and local actors f. Other 6. What recommendations or changes would you suggest to make the VCA program more successful or beneficial to AGPII and target communities? a. Other or different value chains b. Targeting different woreda or kebele c. More support to women and youth d. More support and responsiveness from Fintrac or Private Sector e. More support to the GOE at the ministry/regional/kebele levels f. Other Efficiency 5. Do you feel the program was implemented and managed well? • Why or why not? • Was Fintrac a good partner partnership approach, and did it work? Why or why not? • What was positive about the VCA implementation and management approach? • How well did the Fintrac/ VCA partnership based on component sharing with government/AGP work? • What could have been improved or changed regarding VCA implementation or management? • What are the recommendations to improve engagement and partnership, especially, but not exclusively with the government and AGPII? 6. How has VCA implementation evolved to adapt to the Pandemic? • Did the Pandemic affect VCA implementation? If yes, how? • What worked well, and what could have been improved? Sustainability 7. Has Fintrac discussed the closure of the program? • Have they discussed their exit strategy, and if so, can you tell me about it (Who, when, what, why)? • Will activities and efforts continue should the program end? What recommendations would you make to Fintrac and USAID regarding the closeout of the VCA program? 69 ANNEX 5: KEY INFORMANT AND GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDES KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE KII Guide for FINTRAC Professional Staff in the FTFE VCA Project Date: Name of Region: Name of Woreda: Name of Kebele: Position: Interviewers’ Names: Interviewee’s Name: ________________________ Gender: M/F Contact information: email phone: Value Chain/Theme: Introduction 1. What is your role in the VCA Project? And for how long? Where? 2. Can you tell me about the VCA design and approach? Effectiveness 3. Did the programs succeed at providing services, products, and resources to their intended beneficiaries in terms of geographic coverage and value chain penetration? • Is VCA reaching and serving the intended activity targets and beneficiaries? • Probe by region Amhara, Tigray, SNNPR, and Oromia? 4. What were the main achievements in the partnerships that VCA built (government, private sector, development partners, others)? • What were the factors that facilitated program success or acted as obstacles? • How well did the current arrangement of partnership based on component sharing with government work? • What are the recommendations to improve partnership and engagement, especially, but not exclusively with the government? 5. Does USAID's development credit authority (DFC) support and grant mechanism (in-kind or cost￾sharing) work for all value chain actors in accessing finance? • If no, why? • What are the obstacles and the recommended changes (in policy and others)? Impact 6. To what extent did interventions change beneficiary households' economic structure? • Increased crop yields or livestock productivity • Increased revenue and diversified revenue streams • Empower women and youth-led households and value chain activities • Improved technologies • Improved skills • Improved market information 7. How did VCA support inspire farming households to explore and take up livelihood diversification options and engage in non-farming income-generating activities (IGAs)? 8. What were the main successes of the program as it relates to each of the sub-purposes? Probe the following? 70 • Engaging more women and youth and contributing to improvements in household nutrition (Sub-Purpose 1) • Significantly increasing yield and income (livelihood diversification options and non-farming incoming generating activities) (Sub-Purpose 2) • Enabling environment in support of agricultural transformation (Sub-Purpose 3, Capacity building, dialogue, and policy/regulatory framework) 9. Do you feel that the VCA program successfully addressed known market weaknesses, were they well￾tailored to the audience? If yes, how so? If no, why not? Relevance 10. What changes would you recommend to improve the VCA design and approach as it relates to: • Selected value chains • Targeting the inclusion of women and youth particularly • Management and oversight Efficiency 11. Was the oversight and administrative management of VCA appropriate to the activity's context and design? • What were the major challenges, and how did Fintrac address them? • Were there issues surround collaboration/coordination with other projects/ initiatives? • What worked well in the partnerships and implementation approach with the GOE, CIGs, Cooperatives, MFI/Finance Institutions, smallholder farmers, etc.? 12. How has Fintrac's management of VCA evolved due to internal and external changes? • What were the major lessons learned from these changes and the change management process, especially as it relates to the Pandemic and civil instability throughout the country? o What mechanisms did Fintrac put in place to manage the Pandemic and address the security threats in-country? o What support was provided to partners and beneficiaries by the program? • What lessons can be drawn for USAID in designing complexity-aware programming and allow for adaptive management? Sustainability 13. How did VCA's exit strategy change over time because of internal and external changes? • Is there an exit strategy, and if so, can you tell me about it (Who, when, what, why)? o What is the process for revisiting/revising, and why? Who participates? 14. What is the likelihood that gains achieved will be sustained, and why or why not? • What mechanisms have been put in place at the national, regional, woreda, and kebele levels to support the program achievements sustainability after VCAs conclusion? • At what level have these mechanisms been operationalized? What were the results from the implementation? 71 ANNEX 6: CATI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Focus Area Questions Age How old are you? [OPERATOR: RECORD THE AGE IN YEARS – ROUND UP TO NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER. IF THE RESPONDENT GIVES BIRTH YEAR, REPEAT THE QUESTION] Gender WHAT IS THE GENDER OF THE RESPONDENT? [OPERATOR: LISTEN TO THE VOICE AND CHECK THE BOX WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS MALE OR FEMALE.] 1) Male 2) Female ADM1 Which Region do you culitvate crops or raise livestock in? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Addis Ababa 2) Amhara 3) Afar 4) Benshangul Gumuz 5) Dire Dawa City Administration 6) Gambela 7) Harar 8) Oromia 9) Somali 10) SNNPR 11) Tigray 12) Other 13) Don’t know 14) Refused Woreda In which Woreda did you cultivate crops or raise livestock? [OPERATOR: RECORD THE OPEN RESPONSE GIVEN. ENTER 88 FOR DON'T KNOW OR 99 FOR REFUSED] Activities In which of the following activities do you participate? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Maize production 2) Chickpea production 3) Coffee production 4) Dairy production 5) Poultry [pullets and/or eggs] 6) Meat and live animals [cattle/sheep/goats] 7) Other 8) Don't know 9) Refused 72 Focus Area Questions Familiar With the Activity Are you familiar with the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused Received Support Have you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused Activities Received Support For which of the following activities have you received support from the USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Maize 2) Chickpea 3) Coffee 4) Dairy 5) Poultry 6) Meat and live animals [cattle/sheep/goats] 7) Other 8) Don't know 9) Refused Received Most Support Of all the chain activities you received support, for which one did you receive the most support? [OPERATOR: IF ONLY ONE ACTIVITY WAS SELECTED FROM THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, SELECT IT HERE AND PROCEED. SINGLE RESPONSE] 73 Focus Area Questions Type Of Support Received What types of support did you receive from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Demonstrations 2) Field days promoting good agricultural practices 3) Trade fairs 4) Training events 5) Extension services 6) Material support [for example/coffee nursery equipment and tools/poultry production materials/improved technologies to establish dairy technology centers/production inputs/equipment and so forth] 7) Experience sharing visits 8) Telephone-based technical assistance 9) Radio commercials 10) Radio talk shows 11) Other [specify] 12) Don't know 13) Refused Most Useful Support Of the types of support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, which do you think was the most useful? [OPERATOR: SINGLE SELECTION] 1) Other [specify] 2) No most useful support 3) Don't know 4) Refused 2nd Most Useful Support Of the types of support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, which do you think was the second most useful? [OPERATOR: SINGLE SELECTION] 1) Other [specify] 2) No second most useful support 3) Don't know 4) Refused 3rd Most Useful Support Of the types of support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, which do you think was the third most useful? [OPERATOR: SINGLE SELECTION] 1) Other [specify] 2) No third most useful support 3) Don't know 4) Refused 74 Focus Area Questions Dairy Topics On which dairy topics did you receive support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Milk hygiene 2) Dairy feed and feeding [e.g., forage/fodder/silage] 3) Feed handling and storage 4) Long-life or ultra-high temperature [UHT] milk production 5) Effective micro-organism solution 6) Other Dairy technologies [e.g., electric or diesel feed chopper/manual hay baler/milking machines] 7) Dairy breeding – including artificial insemination 8) Access to production inputs 9) Access to equipment/machinery and improved technologies 10) Access to market information 11) Accessing markets [market linkages] 12) Marketing and sales 13) Book or record keeping 14) Access to finance 15) Animal health 16) Other [specify] 17) Don't know 18) Refused Meat & Live Animals Topics On which meat and live animals topics did you receive support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Animal feed and feeding [e.g., forage/fodder/silage] 2) Animal fattening 3) Animal health 4) Feed handling and storage 5) Animal breeding 6) Livestock body condition assessment 7) Access to production inputs 8) Access to equipment/machinery and improved technologies 9) Access to market information 10) Accessing markets [market linkages] 11) Marketing and sales 12) Book or record keeping 13) Access to finance 14) Other [specify] 15) Don't know 16) Refused 75 Focus Area Questions Poultry Topics On which poultry topics did you receive support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Poultry feed and feeding 2) Feed handling and storage 3) Poultry breeding 4) Poultry stocking 5 )Poultry health 6) Access to production inputs 7) Access to equipment/machinery and improved technologies 8) Access to market information 9) Accessing markets [market linkages] 10) Marketing and sales 11) Book or record keeping 12) Access to finance 13) Other [specify] 14) Don't know 15) Refused Maize Topics On which Maize topics did you receive support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Field days promoting hands-on good agricultural practices 2) Integrated pest management- including fall armyworm control 3) Crop postharvest drying/storage/and handling practices 4) Post-harvest processing to add value 5) Marketing and sales 6) Access to production inputs 7) Access to equipment/machinery and improved technologies 8) Access to market information 9) Accessing markets [market linkages] 10) Marketing and sales 11) Book or record keeping 12) Access to finance 13) Other [specify] 14) Don't know 15) Refused 76 Focus Area Questions Chickpea Topics On which Chickpea topics did you receive support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Seed multiplication 2) Field days promoting hands-on good agricultural practices 3) Integrated pest management 4) Crop postharvest drying/storage/and handling practices 5) Post-harvest processing to add value 6) Marketing and sales 7) Access to production inputs 8) Access to equipment/machinery and improved technologies 9) Access to market information 10) Accessing markets [market linkages] 11) Marketing and sales 12) Book or record keeping 13)Access to finance 14) Other [specify] 15) Don't know 16) Refused Coffee Topics On which Coffee topics did you receive support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Integrated pest management 2) Crop postharvest drying/storage/and handling practices 3) Post-harvest processing to add value 4) Marketing and sales 5) Access to production inputs 6) Access to equipment/machinery and improved technologies 7) Access to market information 8) Accessing markets [market linkages] 9) Marketing and sales 10) Access to finance 11) Field days promoting hands-on good agricultural practices 12) Other [specify] 13) Don't know 14) Refused Satisfaction Level Referring to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, how satisfied were you with this support in the following areas? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Knowledge and expertise of persons providing support 2) Relevance of support to your situation 3) Usefulness/practically of support 4) Effectiveness of support in terms of improving your situation 5) Overall quality of support 77 Focus Area Questions Implementation Extent To what extent have you implemented what you learned from the support provided by the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Not at all 2) A small extent 3) A moderate extent 4) A good extent 5) A great extent 6) Don't know 7) Refused Dairy Outcomes How have the following dairy outcomes changed since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain? Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Access to veterinary services 2) Access to artificial insemination 3) Animal health 4) Access to quality feed 5) Total production in liters 6) Yields [for example/the number of liters produced for the amount of labor and money spent the produce it] 7) Quality of milk sold 8) Commercial linkages to buyers 9) Access to production inputs 10) Access to artificial insemination 11) Access to machinery/equipment and improved technologies 12) Price per liter sold 13) Volume of milk sales 14) Value of milk sales 15) Sales to milk collection centers 16) Income from milk sales 17) Access to finance 18) Record keeping 19) Sales to cooperatives/association Dairy Improvement To what extent do you attribute this improvement to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] Milk Produced Regarding the milk that you produce, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] 78 Focus Area Questions Milk Buyers Of the milk you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Cooperative/Association 2) Milk collection center 3) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 4) Buyers at local market 5) Other Meat & Live Animals Outcomes How have the following Meat and Live Animals outcomes changed since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Animal health 2) Animal weight 3) Access to quality feed 4) Commercial linkages to buyers 5) Access to production inputs 6) Access to veterinary services 7) Access to machinery/equipment and improved technologies 8) Price per animal sold 9) Number of animals sold 10) Value of animals sold 11) Income from animal sales 12) Access to finance 13) Record keeping Livestock Improvement To what extent do you attribute this improvement to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] Livestock Raised Regarding the livestock you raise, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] Livestock Buyers Of the livestock you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Cooperative/association 2) Abattoir 3) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 4) Buyers at the local market 5) Other 79 Focus Area Questions Poultry Outcomes How have the following Poultry outcomes changed since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Animal health 2) Access to quality feed 3) Quality of pullets sold 4) Quality of eggs sold 5) Commercial linkages to buyers 6) Access to production inputs 7) Access to veterinary services 8) Access to machinery/equipment and improved technologies 9) Stocking capacity 10) Price per pullet sold 11) Price per egg sold 12) Volume of pullet sales 13) Volume of egg sales 14) Value of pullet sales 15) Value of egg sales 16) Income from pullet sales 17) Income from egg sales 18) Access to finance 19) Record keeping Poultry Improvement To what extent do you attribute this improvement to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] Eggs Produced Regarding the eggs you produce, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] Eggs Buyers Of the eggs you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Cooperative/association 2) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 3) Consumers who come and buy at the farm 4) Buyers at the local markets 5) Other Pullets Raised Regarding the pullets that you raise, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] 80 Focus Area Questions Pullets Buyers Of the pullets you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Cooperative/association 2) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 3) Consumers who come and buy at the farm 4) Buyers at the local market 5) Other Maize Outcomes How have the following Maize outcomes changed since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Total land under cultivation [hectares] 2) Total production in quintals 3) Productivity [ratio of total production to resources used] 4) Post-harvest losses 5) Quality of maize sold 6) Commercial linkages to buyers 7) Access to improved/certified/hybrid seeds 8) Use of commercial spray services 9) Use of hermetic storage technology or PIC bags 10) Access to other production inputs 11) Access to machinery/equipment and improved technologies 12) Price per quintal sold 13) Volume of maize sold 14) Value of maize sold 15) Income from maize sales 16) Access to finance Maize Improvement To what extent do you attribute this improvement to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] Maize Produced Regarding the maize that you produce, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] Maize Buyers Of the maize you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Buyer as part of a contract farming [or outgrower] arrangement 2) Cooperative/association 3) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 4) Buyers at the local market 5) Other 81 Focus Area Questions Chickpea Outcomes How have the following Chickpea outcomes changed since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Total land under cultivation [hectares] 2) Total production in kilograms 3) Productivity [ratio of total production to inputs used] 4) Post-harvest losses 5) Quality of chickpeas sold 6) Commercial linkages to buyers 7) Seed production/multiplication 8) Access to improved/certified/hybrid seeds 9) Use of commercial spray services 10) Use of hermetic storage technology or PIC bags 11) Access to other production inputs 12) Access to machinery/equipment and improved technologies 13) Price per kilogram sold 14) Volume of chickpeas sold 15) Value of chickpeas sold 16) Income from chickpea sales 17) Access to finance Chickpea Improvement To what extent do you attribute this improvement to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] Chickpeas Produced Regarding the chickpeas that you produce, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] Chickpeas Buyers Of the chickpeas you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Buyer as part of a contract farming [or outgrower] arrangement 2) Cooperative/association 3) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 4) Buyers at the local market 5) Other 82 Focus Area Questions Coffee Outcomes How have the following Coffee outcomes changed since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Total land under cultivation [hectares] 2) Number of trees 3) Total coffee production 4) Productivity [ratio of total coffee production to coffee trees] 5) Post-harvest losses 6) Quality of coffee sold 7) Commercial linkages to buyers 8) Access to production inputs 9) Access to machinery/equipment and improved technologies 10) Prices for coffee products sold [coffee products include for example red coffee cherries/dried coffee with pulp and green coffee or coffee beans] 11) Volume of coffee products sold 12) Value of coffee products sold 13) Income from coffee product sales 14) Access to finance Coffee Improvement To what extent do you attribute this improvement to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] Coffee Produced Regarding the coffee that you produce, about what percentage do you… [OPERATOR: RECORD PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED AND ENSURE THAT ALL VALUES ADD UP TO 100%] Coffee Buyers Of the coffee you sell, how important are the following buyers based on how much you sell to them? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Buyer as part of a contract farming [or outgrower] arrangement 2) Cooperative/association 3) Trader who comes and buys at the farm 4) Wet mill/processor 5) Buyers at local market 6) Other Belong To Cooperative Do you belong to a farmer cooperative or association? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused 83 Focus Area Questions Cooperative Assistance Did your farmer cooperative or association receive assistance from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity to improve its capacity or how it operates? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused Services Level How has the level of services provided to members of your cooperative/association changed since receiving support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Fewer services 2) About the same as before 3) More services 4) Don't know 5) Refused Production Amount How has the amount production that your cooperative or association is buying from its members changed since receiving support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Buying less 2) Buying about the same as before 3) Buying more 4) Don't know 5) Refused Women Participation To what extent has the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity positively influenced the participation of women in your farmer cooperative/association? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) No influence 2) A little influence 3) Moderate influence 4) Good influence 5) Great influence 6) Don't know 7) Refused 84 Focus Area Questions Women Training To what extent has the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity positively influenced the training of women for leadership positions in your farmer cooperative/association? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) No influence 2) A little influence 3) Moderate influence 4) Good influence 5) Great influence 6) Don't know 7) Refused Women Leadership To what extent has the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity positively influenced the placement of women in leadership positions in your farmer cooperative/association? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) No influence 2) A little influence 3) Moderate influence 4) Good influence 5) Great influence 6) Don't know 7) Refused Youth Participation To what extent has the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity positively influenced the participation of youth in your farmer cooperative/association? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) No influence 2) A little influence 3) Moderate influence 4) Good influence 5) Great influence 6) Don't know 7) Refused Youth Opportunities To what extent has the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity positively influenced the opportunities for youth in in your farmer cooperative/association? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) No influence 2) A little influence 3) Moderate influence 4) Good influence 5) Great influence 6) Don't know 7) Refused 85 Focus Area Questions Cooperative Operation Overall, how much better or worse is your farmer cooperative or association operating compared to before it received assistance from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Much worse 2) A little worse 3) About the same 4) Better 5) Much better 6) Don't know 7) Refused Trainings Received Have you received trainings in the Transformative Household Methodology or in other trainings on topics related to women and/or youth from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [INSTRUCTIONS TO HELP RESPONDENT UNDERSTAND WHAT TRANSFORMATIVE HOUSEHOLD METHODOLOGY IS: 1 - Awareness of gender relations at the household level 2 - Identification of who does what work in the household and the extent of the workload among specific household members 3 - Identification of who in the household has access to which resources and who in the household control and benefits from different resources 4 - Creation of an action plan to make the workload and control over resources more equitable within the household] [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Transformative Household Methodology 2) Other training on women 3) Other training on youth 4) Don’t know 5) Refused 86 Focus Area Questions Women & Youth Training To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the training on women and/or youth you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) The training has contributed to a more equitable sharing of decision-making about financial matters between women and men in your household 2) The training has contributed to a more equitable sharing of decision-making about agriculture or agri-business activities between women and men in your household 3) The training contributed to a more equitable sharing of domestic tasks between women and men in your household 4) The training contributed to a more equitable sharing of agricultural or agri￾business tasks between women and men in your household 5) The training contributed to increased opportunities for women to participate in agriculture and agri-business activities 6) The training contributed to increased leadership opportunities for women in agriculture and agri-business activities 7) The training contributed to increased opportunities for youth to participate in agriculture and agri-business activities 8) The training contributed to increased leadership opportunities for youth in agriculture and agri-business activities Nutritional Status To what extent do you think the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity is working to improve the nutritional status of women and children? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Not at all 2) To a small extent 3) To a moderate extent 4) To a good extent 5) To a large extent 6) Don't know 7) Refused Nutritional Habits Training Have you participated in any training programs related to nutritional habits provided by the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused 87 Focus Area Questions Nutrition-Related Trainings In which of the following nutrition-related trainings have you participated? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) Vegetable production training 2) Cooking demonstrations 3) Nutrition education on dietary diversity 4) Increased access to nutrition foods – such as eggs/legumes/pulses/vegetables/milk and milk products – through household production 5) Nutritional information from radio advertisements or programs 6) Other [specify] 7) Don’t know 8) Refused Nutritional Training Received To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the nutritional training you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) The training helped improve your household’s access to diverse and nutritious foods 2) The training helped stimulate a behavior change in the eating habits of the children in your household 3) The training helped stimulate a behavior change in the eating habits of the women in your household 4) The training helped stimulate a behavior change in the eating habits of the adults in your household 5) Children in your household are now eating a more diversified and nutritious diet 6) Women in your household are now eating a more diversified and nutritious diet 7) Adults in your household are now eating a more diversified and nutritious diet 8) The nutritional status of children in your household has improved 9) The nutritional status of women in your household has improved 10) The nutritional status of adults in your household has improved Increased Income Since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, have you increased the number of income generating activities by members of your household? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused 88 Focus Area Questions Diversified Income Since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, have you increased the diversity of income generating activities by members of your household? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused Diversified Income Extent To what extent do you attribute this increase/diversification of income sources to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Not at all 2) A little 3) A moderate extent 4) A good extent 5) A great extent 6) Don't know 7) Refused Diversified Income Outside Since you received support from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, have you diversified income generating activities outside of agriculture or agri-business by members of your household? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused Diversified Income Outside Extent To what extent do you attribute this increase/diversification of income sources to the support you received from the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Not at all 2) A little 3) A moderate extent 4) A good extent 5) A great extent 6) Don't know 7) Refused 89 Focus Area Questions Impacts To Household What impacts have these increased/diversified sources of income had on your household? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Increased income 2) More stable income [less variability in income] 3) Increased food expenditures 4) Increased non-food household expenditures 5) Improved diet [for example/more diversified diet or increased consumption of nutritious foods] 6) Increased participation in income-generating activities for women in the household 7) Increased participation in income-generating activities for youth in the household 8) No impact 9) Other 10) Don't know 11) Refused COVID-19 Effects Referring to the agriculture or agri-business activities for which you received support from the Ethiopia Value Chain Activity, how has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the following outcomes from this activity? [OPERATOR: SELECT ONE RESPONSE PER ROW] 1) Total production 2) Yield/productivity 3) Production costs 4) Sales 5) Income Received Any Support Did the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity provide you awareness raising or other forms of support to help you deal with COVID-19? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't know 4) Refused Support Received What kind of support was this? [OPERATOR: MULTIPLE RESPONSE] 1) COVID Prevention awareness-raising campaign 2) Mask and Gel 3) Other equipment and materials 4) Activities were stopped 5) Other 6) Nothing 7) Don't know 8) Refused 90 Focus Area Questions How Useful How useful was this support? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Not at all useful 2) A little useful 3) Moderately useful 4) Useful 5) Very useful 6) Don't know 7) Refused Political Civil Effects Overall, how has political or civil instability or violence affected your agriculture or agri-business activity? [OPERATOR: SINGLE RESPONSE] 1) Better 2) Same 3) A little worse 4) A good deal worse 5) A great deal worse 6) Don't know 7) Refused Language Select the language that was mostly used to complete the interview. [OPERATOR: DO NOT READ OPTIONS. CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION] 1) Amharic 2) Oromo 91 ANNEX 7: ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity Final Performance Evaluation Online Survey E-Survey: Final Performance Evaluation of the USAID Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity This survey is part of the USAID-commissioned final performance evaluation of the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (VCA) implemented in the four regions of Tigray, Amhara, SNNPR, and Oromia. The evaluation aims to assess how VCA has performed from launch in January 2017 to the present. The evaluation will produce a report highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of activity implementation and outcomes and identify actionable recommendations for the activity's closeout or follow-on programming in addition to best practices and lessons learned. USAID and Fintrac (VCA’s implementing agency) have identified you as a key stakeholder of the activity and request your input and participation in this online survey. Even if you have or will participate in a face-to-face or remote interview, your participation is still highly solicited and necessary to complete this evaluation exercise. (Please see the letter from USAID/Ethiopia below requesting your participation in this survey.) Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. All responses and data will be kept confidential in line with USAID and ME&A ethical standards. Kind regards, ME&A 92 93 1. What organization do you represent? Please select the "best" response. Agricultural Transformation Agency Government of Ethiopia Agricultural Growth Program (AGP II) Local or International nongovernmental organization Private sector organizations Cooperative Common interest group Milk collection center Association/platform Ethiopian Commodity Exchange Coffee and Tea Authority Microfinance/finance Institution USAID USAID Development Credit Authority (DCA) Women or youth organization Fintrac Don't know Prefer not to answer Other (please specify) 2. Gender Male Female Prefer not to answer 3. How long have you been involved with the USAID-funded Feed the Future VCA Activity? Less than one year 1-2 years 2-4 years 4-5 years Don't know Other (please specify) 4. In which of the following regions did you collaborate or work with the Feed the Future Value Chain Activity? (Select all that apply.) Oromia Amhara SNNPR Tigray National/Addis Don't know/Not applicable Other (please specify) 5. In which of the following value chain(s) did your work with the VCA activity primarily focus? (Select all that apply.) Chickpea Maize Coffee Meat and live animals Poultry 94 Dairy Don't know/Not applicable Other (please specify) 6. What support has the VCA activity provided to you, your constituencies/beneficiaries, or your organization? (Yes, Yes, limited, No, Don’t know) Agricultural inputs Livestock inputs Agricultural training Livestock training General skills and business management training Support and demonstrations of new agricultural technologies and/or techniques Support and demonstrations of new livestock technologies and/or techniques Market and price information for crops Market and price information for livestock Facilitated access to markets/agribusiness actors Facilitated access to information about pursuing financing and loans Access to business development services (i.e., business plan development and record keeping) Improved access to nutritious foods and diet diversity Support to women and youth (i.e., training or access to inputs and/or value chain actors) Dialogue and advocacy activities focused on agricultural and livestock policy and curricula 7. Please rank the components of the VCA activity from most successful to least successful, where 1=most successful, 2=next most successful, and so forth. (If you are unfamiliar with a particular component, mark "Don't know" and rank the remaining components.) Agricultural or livestock inputs Agricultural or livestock training General skills and business management training Support and demonstrations of new agricultural/livestock technologies and/or techniques Market and price information for crops or livestock Facilitated access to markets/agribusiness actors Facilitated access to information about pursuing financing and loans Access to business development services (i.e., business plan development and record keeping) Improved access to nutritious foods and diet diversity Support to women and youth (i.e., training or access to inputs, and/or value chain actors) Dialogue and advocacy activities focused on agricultural and livestock policy and curricula 8. Based upon your response above, what was the least successful VCA component and why was it unsuccessful? (If you are unable to answer this question, please leave it blank.) 9. To what extent do you agree that each of the following factors have contributed to the VCA activity's success? (Agree, Somewhat agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know) Government of Ethiopia Ministry support Government of Ethiopia local level support Trainings Fintrac support and oversight Demonstrations and awareness campaigns Inputs and technology Community engagement Financing and loans 95 AGP II alignment and component sharing VCA's adaptable and flexible management style 10. To what extent do you agree that the following factors blocked or slowed down the VCA activity's success? (Agree, Somewhat agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know) Government of Ethiopia Ministry and Local level support Quality of trainings Quality of Fintrac support and oversight Quality or quantity of demonstration and awareness raising campaigns Lack of community and stakeholder engagement Lack of access to loans and financing COVID-19 Pandemic Tensions in Tigray Lack of foreign exchange and capital for transactions Tensions and civil instability throughout the country VCA administrative requirements and procedures (too vigorous and demanding) 11. Based on your knowledge or experience, what support did the VCA activity provide to promote women and youth's involvement in value chain activities and organizations? (Yes, Yes, limited, No, Don’t know) Inputs, materials, and technology Sub-awards or grants for agricultural or livestock inputs and resources Training on women/youth leadership or empowerment (i.e., Gender/Transformative Household Methodology) Training on improved agriculture or livestock methods Access to financing and loans Mentoring and coaching Access to cooperatives and common interest groups Access to market and pricing information 12. Please indicate whether you feel the VCA activity was successful at promoting the following outcomes for youth at the household level? Chickpea, Maize, Coffee, Poultry, Dairy, Meat and live animals) Participating youth have increased revenues or income Participating youth have improved nutrition and diet diversity Participating youth have diversified their income generating activities Participating youth have increased market access and market information 13. Please indicate whether you feel the VCA activity was successful at promoting the following outcomes for women at the household level? (Chickpea, Maize, Coffee, Poultry, Dairy, Meat and live animals) Participating women have increased revenues or income Participating women have improved nutrition and diet diversity Participating women have diversified their income generating activities Participating women have increased market access and market information 14. Overall, have VCA activity efforts successfully promoted women and youths' involvement in agricultural and livestock value chains? 1) If yes, how so? Give specific examples? 2) If no, why not? (If you are unable to answer this question, please leave it blank.) 96 15. To what extent do you agree that VCA interventions have impacted the performance of value chain actors' agricultural and livestock activities in the following areas? (Agree, Somewhat agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Don’t know) Increased agricultural yields Increased livestock productivity Increased revenue Diversified revenue streams New or expanded value chain activities Increased involvement of women and youth in agricultural and livestock activities Increased connections/linkages with actors at various levels of the value chain Increased access to financing and loans for expansion and growth Improved policy and regulatory environment Improved market access and pricing information Increased collaboration between private sector and public sector on agriculture and livestock efforts Successfully addressed specific value chain weaknesses and vulnerabilities 16. What was the most important success emerging from the VCA activity in your opinion and why? (If you are unable to answer this question, please leave it blank.) 17. What were the VCA activity's most notable contributions to support the Government of Ethiopia's ongoing work to reform the country's regulatory and/or policy framework related to agriculture and livestock and why? (If you are unable to answer the question, please leave it blank.) 18. Please rank the value chains in terms of your view of their overall success where 1=most successful, 2=next most successful, and so on. (If you are unfamiliar with a particular value chain, mark "Don't know" and rank the remaining value chains.) Chickpea Don't know Maize Don't know Coffee Don't know Meat and Live Animals Don't know Poultry Don't know Dairy Don't know 97 19. Please tell us about the overall least successful VCA supported value chain (i.e., maize, chickpea, coffee, dairy, poultry, and meat and live animals) and why you feel it performed poorly? (If you are unable to answer the question, please leave it blank.) 20. How appropriate you feel that the following aspects of the VCA activity's design are for the Ethiopian context? (Appropriate, Somewhat appropriate, Neither appropriate nor inappropriate, Inappropriate, Don’t know) Overall Management/partnership and implementation approach Selection of supported value chains (i.e., maize, chickpea, dairy, coffee, poultry, and meat and live animals) Types of support provided for selected value chains Quantity and quality of support provided for improving value chain performance Quality and quantity of support provided for women Quality and quantity of support provided for youth Facilitation of business-to-business opportunities Dialogue and advocacy for agricultural policy reforms Quantity and quality of support to access financing and loans Intervention zones and regions selected down to the Woreda level 21. What three recommendations would you propose to improve the VCA activity's design or performance? (If you are unable to answer the question, please leave it blank.) Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3 22. Do you feel that the VCA program is being managed well overall? Yes Somewhat No Don't know 23. Was the partnership approach that VCA leadership used with private sector and public sector actors appropriate and effective? Yes Somewhat No Don't know 24. How, if at all, could VCA leadership have improved the oversight and management of the VCA activity? (If you are unable to answer the question, please leave it blank.) 25. How was program implementation and management affected by the Pandemic? What worked well and what could have been improved? (If you are unable to answer the question, please leave it blank.) 98 26. Will VCA achievements and successes be sustained upon the closure of the VCA activity? Question Title 27. What mechanisms, if any, have been put in place at the National, Regional, Woreda, or Kebele levels to support the sustainability and continuation of the gains made through the VCA activity? This includes public or private sectors. Please describe up to three sustainability mechanisms below. (If you are unable to answer the question, please leave it blank.) Sustainability Mechanism 1 Sustainability Mechanism 1 Sustainability Mechanism 1 99 ANNEX 8: ETHIOPIA VCA RESULTS FRAMEWORK 100 ANNEX 9: EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Criteria & Question Sub-Question Data Sources and Tools Data Collection Method Notes Relevance Is the VCA design appropriate to the Ethiopian context? Relevance 1. What changes would you recommend to improve the VCA design and approach as it relates to: • Selected value chains, • Targeting particularly the inclusion of women and youth, • Management and oversight. • Activity-related documents, reports, and databases, including VCA performance monitoring data • KII, GI, and FGD guides • Survey questionnaires • Site visits • Document review and database analysis • KIIs • GIs • FGDs • CATI survey • Online survey • The aim here is to explore the VCA design's appropriateness as it relates to gender, youth, and selected value chain and the oversight and management approach. Effectiveness and Impact To what extent has the activity made progress toward pre￾established 2. To what extent did interventions change the economic structure of beneficiary households? Which value chains were successful in38 • Engaging more women and youth and contributing to improvements in household nutrition (Sub￾Purpose 1), and • Significantly increasing yield and income (livelihood diversification options and non-farming incoming generating activities) (Sub-Purpose 2) • Enabling environment in support of agricultural transformation (Sub-Purpose 3, Capacity building, dialogue, and policy/regulatory framework) 3. Did the program's services, products, and resources reach their intended beneficiaries in terms of geographic coverage and value chain penetration?39 4. What were the main achievements in the partnerships that VCA built (government, private sector, development partners, others)? • Activity-related documents, reports, and databases, including VCA performance monitoring data • Baseline data • KII, GI, and FGD guides • Survey questionnaires • Site visits • Document review and database analysis • KIIs • GIs • FGDs • CATI Survey • Online Survey • Here the evaluation should explore the activity's achievement, particularly related to Sub-Purpose 1 and 2. • Inputs will be sought from activity reports, workplans, databases, GOE beneficiaries, Smallholder farmers, agribusinesses, and other key actors. • It will be critical for Fintrac to provide access to all existing databases, sub-award information/partnership agreements, and 38 Note: EQ1 is meant to understand if and how VCA support inspired farming households to explore and take up livelihood diversification options and engage in non-farming income-generating activities (IGAs). 39 Is VCA reaching and serving the intended activity targets and beneficiaries? 101 Evaluation Criteria & Question Sub-Question Data Sources and Tools Data Collection Method Notes • What were the critical success factors and failures of each? • How well did the current arrangement of partnership based on component sharing with government work? • What are the recommendations to improve engagement, especially, but not exclusively with the government? 5. Does USAID's development credit authority (DFC) support and grant mechanism (in-kind or cost￾sharing) work for all value chain actors in accessing finance? • If no, why? • What are the obstacles and the recommended changes (in policy and others)? baseline data to facilitate analysis. • The ET will also require information related to the development credit authority design and implementation. Efficiency and Sustainability Was the oversight and administrative management of VCA appropriate to the activity's context and design? 6. How has Fintrac's management of VCA evolved due to internal and external changes? • What were the major lessons learned from these changes and the change management process? • What lessons can be drawn for USAID in designing complexity-aware programming and allow for adaptive management? 7. How did VCA's exit strategy change over time as a result of internal and external changes? • Is there an exit strategy, and if so, can you tell me about it (Who, when, what, why)? • What is the process for revisiting/revising, and why? Who participates? • Activity-related documents, reports, and databases, including VCA performance monitoring data • KII, GI, and FGD guides • Survey Questionnaires • Site visits • Document review • KIIs • GIs • FGDs • Online Survey • Here the data will be sought to explore activity oversight and management related to facilitators and challenges to activity performance. • The ET will also solicit information from program stakeholders regarding the VCA exit strategy 102 ANNEX 10: ETHIOPIA VCA INTERVENTION ZONE MAP 103 ANNEX 11: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 1. FTFE VCA six-month report: FTFE VCA’s first six months of implementation were significantly stalled due to funding issues. As a result, USAID agreed that the first progress report from VCA would include the first six months of implementation. 2. FTFE VCA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2017 3. FTFE VCA Q1 Fiscal Year 2018 Quarterly Report 4. FTFE VCA Q2 Fiscal Year 2018 Quarterly Report 5. FTFE VCA Q3 Fiscal Year 2018 Quarterly Report 6. FTFE VCA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018 7. FTFE VCA Q1 Fiscal Year 2019 Quarterly Report 8. FTFE VCA Q2 Fiscal Year 2019 Quarterly Report 9. FTFE VCA Q3 Fiscal Year 2019 Quarterly Report 10. FTFE VCA Annual Report Fiscal Year 2019 11. FTFE VCA Q1 Fiscal Year 2020 Quarterly Report 12. FTFE VCA Q2 Fiscal Year 2020 Quarterly Report 13. FTFE VCA Q3 Fiscal Year 2020 Quarterly Report 14. FTFE VCA Annual Report FY 2020 15. FTFE VCA Q1 Fiscal Year 2021 Quarterly Report 16. Reports for AGP II • VCA AGP II TC Meeting Work Plan Presentation • VCA AGP II TC Meeting Annual Progress Report Presentation • VCA AGP II Annual Reports 17. Coffee Export Positioning COVID-19 18. 2020 Cup of Excellence 19. Gulf Food Fair 2019 20. Fall Army Worm STTA Report 21. Youth Enterprises Engaged in Tractor business 22. Bahir Dar Agricultural Products Terminal Market Center Operations Modality 23. Livestock Proclamation Amendment 24. VC Analysis and CBAs: • Poultry • Coffee • Dairy • MLA • Maize • Poultry – CBA and VC Analysis 25. Analytical Support to the Ethiopia Commodity Exchange 26. Chickpea inoculant Assessment of Policy and Regulatory Issues in Inoculants Commercialization in Ethiopia 27. Inception Report – Framework for Milk and Milk Products 28. Draft Proclamation for Milk and Milk Products 29. Humera Milk Processing Assessment 30. Coffee Standards Unification and Revision Report 31. DFC Investors Report 32. M&E materials • VCA MEL Operations Manual • VCA MEL Plan 2020-2021 • VCA Women’s Dietary Diversity Survey 2020 • Hydroponic Fodder CBA • January 2021 Data Visualization Reports • Jarco Report on Coffee Nursery • Assessment on Effect of PICS bags 104 • Market Outlook Briefs: Chickpea and Maize • Data Visualization February 2021 33. Maps of Woredas and Activities 34. Program training and marketing materials for all value chains and program components • Various training materials from partners organized by value chain 35. Management and oversight information • 2021 work plan uploaded shows implementation and partnership approach at national and regional levels. Also shows exit strategy and planning. • Organigram • Summary of contractual modifications which includes information on two budget realignments • COVID Response/Continuity of Operations Plan • Tigray Technology Fund • Tigray Response Plan • Updated EMMR • VCA Operational Status Update • Impact of COVID on Milk Processors • USAID Ethiopia Mission PERSUAP • COE Sustainability and Exit Strategy 105 ANNEX 12: FEED THE FUTURE ETHIOPIA VCA SUB-AWARD OBLIGATIONS AS OF APRIL 8, 2021 Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (FTFE VCA) has two separate areas of funding for sub￾awards. All Subcontracts are part of FTFE VCA’s Other Direct Cost budgetary cost category. All Grants, which include Partner Funds (PF) and Technology Funds (TF), are part of FTFE VCA’s Grants budgetary cost category. Below is a snapshot of all obligated funds under a sub-award by category since the beginning of FTFEVCA. SUB-AWARDS (GRANTS AND SUBCONTRACTS) AWARDED BY VALUE CHAIN/CATEGORY Category Percentage of Total Obligated Nutrition 18% Coffee 15% Maize 15% Dairy 13% Tigray 11% Gender 8% Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 7% Crops (maize and chickpea) 4% MLA 3% Chickpea 2% Poultry 2% Capacity Building 2% Summary • The nutrition category is the highest as it encompasses all VCs and all targeted FTFE VCA regions. • The gender category also encompasses all VCs and targeted FTFE VCA regions. • Coffee, maize, and dairy are the three VCs in which FTFE VCA has invested the most money. • Funds allocated for Tigray are focused on recovery efforts from a market perspective. These cover all VCA VCs. • Crop VCs (coffee, maize, chickpea) have a combined total of 36 percent of all sub-awards. • Livestock VCs (dairy, poultry, MLA) have a combined total of 18 percent of all sub-awards. GRANTS (PF AND TF) AWARDED BY VALUE CHAIN/CATEGORY Category Percentage Maize 24% Tigray 22% Dairy 19% Coffee 17% MLA 5% Chickpea 5% Poultry 5% Capacity Building 3% 106 d S DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF GRANTS Award Local/U Name Amount VC Capacity Building PF-19 Local LED Consultant 45,605.00 Capacity Building PF-07 Local ORDA 72,460.29 Capacity Building PF-09 Local RATSON 104,186.00 Capacity Building PF-20 Local RATSON 126,447.00 Capacity Building Subtotal 348,698.29 Chickpea PF-11 Local Bale Green Spice and Grain Development Plc 144,931.00 Chickpea PF-12 Local Amuari High Yielding Varities & Ag Product PLC 134,152.00 Chickpea PF-18 Local Tsehay Multipurpose Farmers' Cooperative Union 213,412.00 Chickpea Subtotal 492,495.00 Coffee PF-04 Local Kata Muduga Farmers' Cooperative Union (KMU) 136,112.86 Coffee PF-05 Local Ethio Wetlands and Natural Resources Association 151,549.70 Coffee TF-03 Local Coffee Nursery 369,951.00 Coffee TF-05 Local Coffee Processing Equipment 636,567.75 Coffee TF-09 Local Cup of Excellence Laboratory Equipment 391,135.00 Coffee Subtotal 1,685,316.31 Dairy PF-06 Local Sirawe Abeje Veterinary Clinic 120,683.00 Dairy PF-10 Local Tefera Veterinary Clinic 101,355.87 Dairy PF-16 Local Amanuel Dairy Processing and Marketing Cooperative 135,925.00 Dairy PF-22 Local Family Milk 185,152.00 Dairy TF-02 Local Artificial Insemination 61,300.00 Dairy TF-04 Local Milk Collection Centers 424,130.00 Dairy TF-06 Local Dairy Tech Center 394,435.84 Dairy TF-07 Local Milk Collection Centers Phase II 512,568.86 Dairy PF-25 Local Humera Union 27,982.43 Dairy Subtotal 1,963,533.00 Maize PF-01 Local Shayashone Trading PLC 437,072.33 Maize PF-02 Local Self Help Africa 248,146.00 Maize PF-17 Local Biniyam Mulat Seed Enterprise 128,447.00 Maize TF-01 Local Fall Armyworm Monitoring, Reporting, and Early 119,575.00 Maize PF-03 Local Aybar Engineering PLC 149,741.00 Maize/Chickpea PF-23 Local EGAA 249,593.00 Maize TF-08 Local Agrodealers 324,810.00 Mainly Crops PF-21 Local HITEC Trading House 249,286.00 Maize TF-10 Local Mechanization for Production and Processing of Seed 575,263.00 Maize Subtotal 2,481,933.33 Meat and Live Animals (MLA) PF-14 Local Temesgen Retebo Integrated Farm 163,269.00 MLA TF-12 Local Meat and Live Animals 360,794.00 MLA Subtotal 524,063.00 Poultry TF-11 Local Poultry Technologies for Smallholder Development 491,978.00 Poultry Subtotal 491,978.00 Tigray TF-13 Local Tigray Response 2,192,611.10 Tigray Subtotal 2,192,611.10 107 SUBCONTRACTS AWARDED BY VALUE CHAIN/CATEGORY Category Percentage Nutrition 37.39% Gender 16.00% Capacity Building 0.36% Crops (Maize/Chickpea) 12.40% Dairy 6.06% Coffee 13.50% M&E 14.28% • The subcontracts for nutrition are awarded to IMC International to mainstream nutrition throughout all VCs. • The subcontracts for the gender and youth category are awarded to Banyan Global as a crosscutting component. • M&E studies are based on the requirement for annual performance monitoring surveys, annual dietary diversity surveys, and a number of spot surveys as part of the learning agenda. DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF ALL SUBCONTRACTS Award # Local/ US Name Amount Value Chain(s) Nutrition CRC-01 US International Medical Corps (IMC) 3,593,271.00 Nutrition Subtotal 3,593,271.00 Gender CRC-02 US Banyan Global 1,537,389.00 Gender Subtotal 1,537,389.00 Capacity Building FPC-03 Local DAB Development Research and Training PLC 34,780.00 Capacity Building Subtotal 34,780.00 Maize/Chickpea FPC-02 Local Farm Radio International 365,669.55 Maize/FAW CRC-03 Local CropLife 253,354.00 Maize/FAW CRC-06 US ACDI/VOCA 324,572.00 Maize FPC-12 Local CropLife Ethiopia 248,413.00 Maize/Chickpea Subtotal 1,192,008.55 Dairy FPC-05 Local Almi Dairy Training Institute 219,470.00 Dairy FPC-17 Local LM Quality Management PLC 183,360.15 Dairy FPC-06 Local LM Quality Management PLC 179,566.64 Dairy Subtotal 582,396.79 Coffee CRC-05 US Boot Coffee 552,665.00 Coffee CRC-04 US Coffee Quality Institute (CQI) 524,621.00 Coffee 108 Award # Local/ US Name Amount Value Chain(s) FPC-07 US Alliance for Coffee Excellence 220,543.00 Coffee Subtotal 1,297,829.00 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) FPC-08 Local HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy 249,637.49 M&E FPC-15 Local HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy 237,849.36 M&E FPC-13 Local HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy 195,941.71 M&E FPC-04 Local HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy 187,587.33 M&E FPC-01 Local HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy 178,451.00 M&E FPC-09 Local JaRco Consulting PLC 94,934.34 M&E FPC-14 Local Deep Dive Research & Consulting Plc 56,146.37 M&E FPC-10 Local Deep Dive Research & Consulting Plc 51,423.19 M&E FPC-11 Local HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy 32,974.07 M&E FPC-16 Local Deep Dive Research & Consulting Plc 54785.56 M&E FPC-18 Local Deep Dive Research & Consulting Plc 32796.24 M&E Subtotal 1,372,526.66 TOTAL 9,610,201.00 SUMMARY OF EACH GRANT’S SCOPE PF-01 Shayashone Trading PLC This award promoted the use and increased the availability of hermetic storage technologies (specifically PICS bags) for smallholder farmers. Other objectives included job creation targeted at youth and reduction of postharvest loss for smallholder farmers. The promotion of this technology contributed to household food and income security by eliminating the costs and health risks stemming from the use of chemicals for fumigation and preserving higher levels of essential micronutrients during storage. The PICS bag technology is chemical-free storage that keeps grainsfree from insects,rodents, and mold, which are the most common causes of postharvest quality depreciation and wastage for maize. Activities under this award also targeted women and youth by providing simple labor- and cost-saving technology and increasing job opportunities. PF-02 Self-Help Africa The main objective under this sub-award was to optimize the limited working capital and build capacity of smallholder farmers to improve maize quality, marketing, and access to financing to invest in these activities. Secondary objectives under this sub-award emphasized and promoted the importance of food diversity and participation of women. Working with farmer cooperative union members, activities worked toward improving smallholders’ knowledge and skills on postharvest handling practices and nutrition, improving integration among marketing actors in the maize VC (farmers, cooperative unions, and potential buyers), and improving overall governance and management capacity of smallholder organizations (maize cooperatives and unions). PF-03 Aybar Engineering PLC Through this award, FTFE VCA promoted the use and increased the availability of low-cost agricultural technologies for smallholder maize and chickpea farmers. Technologies promoted under this award include Aybar Broad Bed Maker (BBM), Aybar Tie Ridgers, and Berken Maresha, technologies that help improve tillage by helping clear land that was previously unsuitable for planting, allowing farmers additional 109 planting seasons each year. These technologies have been tested and are proven to enhance production of chickpea and maize, hence increasing smallholder farmer incomes. Other objectives included supporting Abyar in the creation of a distribution network for these agricultural technologies, encouraging involvement of private sector distributers, creating marketing linkages throughout the supply chain, and providing trainings on GAPs and demonstrations on the benefits of these agricultural technologies. Activities under this award also targeted women and youth by providing low￾cost time-saving technologies and increasing job opportunities. PF-04 KATA Muduga Farmers' Cooperative Union Through this award, FTFE VCA has supported the training of smallholder coffee farmer cooperative union members to improve the quality of coffee, hence increasing prices and volumes of coffee sold and increasing incomes. Working with farmer cooperative union members, activities under this award will work toward improving smallholders’ knowledge and skills on postharvest handling practices and factors affecting coffee quality. Other objectives include building the capacity of washing stations in technical knowhow and facilities, establishment of a union cupping lab, and increased marketing of specialty coffee produced by union members to the international market. PF-05 ETHIO Wetlands and Natural Resources Association Through this partner fund, FTFE VCA will support Ethio Wetlands and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA) in strengthening the capacity of coffee cooperatives in Bench Maji Zone, Debub Bench Woreda, to assist in their sustainable management of their cooperatives, improve members’ coffee quality, and trade their coffee through domestic and international market outlets. This project increased the capacity of 17 coffee cooperatives, increased cooperative membership, and increased production and incomes for smallholder coffee farmers. This activity also focused on improving cooperative members’ access to finance, increasing female membership in coffee cooperatives, and increasing the dialogue between public and private players within the coffee VC. PF-06 SIRAWE Abeje Veterinary Clinic Through this award, FTFE VCA has increased AI services to boost dairy production and productivity of smallholder dairy farmers. Activities have also created job opportunities for women and youth within dairy production and marketing. The partner has taken an integrated approach, including veterinary services, animal disease prevention and control, education on husbandry system, and input supply, together with traditional AI services. Three thousand households in Bahir Dar will be reached through increasing the availability and access to reproduction-enhancing technologies such as AI. A total of 1,500 AI services will be provided through the vet clinic and door-to-door services. To help stimulate breed improvement, the partner also provided AI clients with concentrate feed through a voucher program with partner commercial farm centers and feed processors. PF-07 Organization for Rehabilitation & Development in Amhara This award built private sector capacity by providing agribusiness development and financial management training to facilitate transformation of traditional farming into a business farming approach in Amhara. Underthese three partnerships, FTFE VCA provided trainingsto smallholderfarmersin four geographical regions in Ethiopia. These activities have helped small producers incorporate their products into stable, profitable market channels by providing necessary services and assistance in business development, planning, marketing, and market linkages development. These trainings strengthened the business management skills of CIGs and agribusiness operators engaged in the VC and enabled them to lead competitive agribusinesses. A total of 2,015 smallholders were trained under these three awards. 110 PF-09 RATSON Women Youth and Children Development Program This award built private sector capacity by providing agribusiness development and financial management training to facilitate transformation of traditional farming into a business farming approach in Oromia. Under these three partnerships, FTFE VCA has provided trainings to smallholder farmers in four geographical regions in Ethiopia. These activities helped small producers incorporate their products into stable, profitable market channels by providing necessary services and assistance in business development, planning, marketing, and market linkages development. These trainings strengthened the business management skills of CIGs and agribusiness operators engaged in the VC and enabled them to lead competitive agribusinesses. PF-10 TEFERA Veterinary Clinic This award increased access to AI services to boost dairy production and productivity of smallholder dairy farmers. Activities also created job opportunities for women and youth within dairy production and marketing. A total of 3,000 smallholder farmers will be trained on dairy reproductive management and 6,575 AI services conducted by the end of the award. PF-12 AMUARI High-Yielding Varieties & Ag Product PLC The main objective was to enhance commercialization of chickpea seed and grain production through smallholder chickpea farmers in Ethiopia. Under this partnership, the partner will commercialize seed grower groups through improving availability and access to recently released improved quality chickpea seed varieties through outgrower farmers. The partner has established an outgrower scheme and long￾term marketing relationships with surrounding farmers. The partner will help build the capacity of targeted farmers to fulfil certified seed production and marketing requirements and enhance adoption of appropriate production practices and technologies through on-farm trainings and establishment of commercial demonstration sites. PF-14 TEMESGEN Retebo Integrated Farm This award aimed to expand and strengthen the productivity, market linkages, and sales of the MLA VC of the Temesgen Retebo Integrated Farm and surrounding smallholder MLA producers in SNNPR. Through this award the partner has built on its established partnerships with smallholders and regional extension services to expand and strengthen the services it provides to livestock producers and expand its own export business within the MLA VC, focused on shoats. PF-16 AMANUEL Dairy Processing and Marketing Cooperative The award has expanded the market for dairy cooperative farmers through diversifying Amanuel’s dairy capabilities into the cheese production sector. This has helped reduce the fasting season market shortage for member farmers as converting milk to cheese allows for a longer shelf life, creating a year-round market that is not affected by fasting periods. To complement the increased market, the partner is working with farmers to increase the quality of milk by training farmers on proper feed, good animal husbandry practice, and hygienic milk production for the purpose of converting milk into cheese. By diversifying into cheese production, the cooperative’s milk collection and processing capacity will increase to 5,000 liters per day, creating a sustainable milk market for 2,000 smallholder farmer households. 111 PF-17 BINIYAM Mulat Seed Enterprise The award aims to increase maize production through improved access to certified local hybrid maize seed by working with smallholder farmers as outgrowers to support the multiplication of certified hybrid maize seed. Activities under this award will focus on increasing access to agricultural technologies, such as hybrid maize seed, as well as improving the good agricultural practices of farmers in seed multiplication. Ultimately, access to improved maize seeds and seed multiplication technologies will help scale up and improve the quality of smallholder maize production. This activity will also strengthen the competitiveness of the maize VC, as it will help increase the supply of high-quality maize to national markets. PF-18 TSEHAY Multipurpose Farmers' Cooperative Union The award has improved the productivity and market access of smallholder chickpea farmers. Under this award Tsehay Union is creating a sustainable market access for smallholder farmers by entering into outgrower agreements with primary cooperatives; promoting good agricultural and postharvest practices for chickpea grain production; facilitating access to quality inputs and agricultural technologies; building the capacity of surrounding seed cooperatives to supply the market with quality, certified chickpea seeds; establishing chickpea processing and value-addition facilities and activities at the local level; and increasing the participation of women and youth in the chickpea VC by creating employment opportunities related to chickpea processing and retail. PF-19 LED Consultant This award has built private sector capacity by providing agribusiness development and financial managementtrainingstofacilitate the transformation oftraditional farming approaches into business￾oriented farming models. These trainings have been used to upgrade the business management skills of CIGs and agribusiness operators engaged in the VC and enable them to lead competitive agribusinesses. PF-20 RATSON Women Youth and Children Development Program The objective under this award has built capacity of youth groups by providing agribusiness development and financial management training. Through partnership with RATSON, FTFE VCA has provided active support to youth groups involved in tractor mechanization schemes. These youth groups have obtained or are in the process of obtaining loans to purchase tractors. These trainings provided required support for these youth groups to understand their financial obligations/loans; how to properly run their businesses as stable ventures; profitable market channels; and obtaining necessary services and assistance in business development, planning, marketing, and market linkages development. These trainings have helped upgrade the business management skills of youth groups engaged in the tractor mechanization scheme. PF-21 HITEC Trading House Under this award HITEC will help increase the availability of hermetic storage technologies such as the Grainsafe bag (1,000 kg) and heavy-duty weatherproof storage solutions called Cocoons with capacities between 20,000 kg and 50,000 kg. Other objectives include job creation targeted at youth and reduction of postharvest loss for smallholder farmers. The promotion of this technology will contribute to household food and income security by eliminating the costs and health risks stemming from the use of chemicals for fumigation and preserving higher levels of essential micronutrients during storage. Activities under this award will also target women and youth by providing simple labor- and cost-saving technology as well as increased job opportunities. 112 PF-22 Family Milk This sub-award invested in Family Milk’s UHT Technology, increased Family Milk’s productive capacity and improve the capacity of downstream operations. This sub-award will ultimately increase the availability of high-quality raw milk sold to Family Milk, improve the consistency of milk deliveries, and increase the overall volumes of UHT milk processed and sold both domestically and regionally as exports. PF-23 EGAA EGAA is working with the partner to increase smallholder access to hermetic storage technologies. Under this award the partner will increase the demand, awareness, and prevalence of hermetic storage technology in Ethiopia. Other objectives include job creation targeted at youth and reduction of postharvest loss for smallholder farmers. PF-25 Humera Union The objective of this sub-award is to create access to reliable market outlets for dairy products, both in the surrounding rural areas and other urban market centers. This will enable the partner to produce pasteurized milk for the first time in Humera and help the processing facility diversify its products, such as yogurt, cheese, and butter, for customers. The award has been on hold because of the conflict in Tigray. TF-01 Fall Armyworm Monitoring, Reporting, and Early Warning Fall armyworm is a new pest to Ethiopia that threatens to seriously damage farmers’ maize crops and negatively impact overall food security in Ethiopia. As maize is one of FTFE VCA’s key VCs, the Activity invested in combating the pest’s spread. One key component of the action plan was investment in equipment and training to establish a national scouting and monitoring system for fall armyworm. Working with MoANR, FTFE VCA will purchase essential inputsfor proper monitoring of fall armyworm. These inputs will be used in conjunction with trainings, demonstration plots, scouting schools, and establishment of a monitoring system. TF-03 Coffee Nursery Many coffee nursery sites lack much of the required equipment, tools, and reliable water supply to achieve the necessary volume and quality of seedlings to achieve a sustainable profitable business plan. This tech fund has supported newly established coffee nursery sites to introduce CIGs, cooperative members, and farmers to a package of improved nursery infrastructure technology, seedling propagation technology, and small business management systems. The goal is for each nursery site to become a self￾sustaining business unit within two seasons and to generate sufficient profit to cover working capital requirements and depreciation costs. TF-04 Milk Collection Centers FTFE VCA is building on work carried out by previous USAID activities to address the cold chain challenge of the dairy VC. One of these initiatives, the Livestock Market Development Project (AGP-LMD), provided funds for cold chain technology for 100 MCCs as a first link in the dairy VC for newly commercializing smallholders. This Technology Fund has been used to purchase recommended equipment, tanks, pipework, and ancillary fittings required at each site for proper operation. FTFE VCA has used a combined approach of technical assistance, on-site training resources, and equipment from the Technology Fund to build solid capacity to ensure the sites become fully operational in as short a time as possible. TF-05 Coffee Processing Equipment This Technology Fund directly supports the goals of VCA’s subcontractor consortium, Specialty Coffee Optimization Program Ethiopia (SCOPE), which is working to increase coffee productivity, quality, and 113 sales to improve smallholder incomes and livelihoods. This Tech Fund is addressing both wet (washed) and dry (sun-dried or natural) coffee processing by installing wet processing equipment at 32 sites and dry processing infrastructure at 18 sites. TF-06 Dairy Tech Center This Technology Fund is supporting smallholder dairy producers by providing access to improved technologies and embedded services at 250 Dairy Technology Centers (DTCs), including 160 demonstration sites on lead farmer plots. By promoting technologies appropriate to each DTC site, the DTCs will improve productivity, quality, and commercialization throughout the dairy VC. Technologies and practices to be promoted through DTCs include the following: • Improved forage seed and cuttings • Silage production practices and silage bags • Simple machinery for fodder production, including choppers, balers, scythe, and sickle • New genetics for crossbreed dairy cows through AIservices • Incorporation of molasses into properly formulated feed rations TF-07 Milk Collection Centers Phase II FTFE VCA is building on the work carried out by previous USAID activities to address the cold chain challenge faced by the dairy VC by facilitating access to bulk storage tanks and refrigeration units for 100 milk collection centers. Through support under Technology Fund #04, which targeted 60 MCCs – FTFE VCA supported the operationalization of 47 MCCs to date. The remaining 13 MCCs from the original target of 60 will become functional over the next few months. This Technology Fund is facilitating the purchase of the recommended equipment, tanks, pipework, and ancillary fittings required to operationalize the 40 remaining targeted MCCs. A combined approach, using the technical assistance and on-site training resources from VCA subcontractor combined with equipment from the Technology Fund, will build solid capacity to ensure the sites become operational. This Technology Fund is also providing selected equipment and process software to assist the commissioning of dairy processors and increase MCC capability. TF-08 Agrodealers Under this Tech Fund FTFE VCA is supporting the physical infrastructure of smaller agrodealers to provide a sustainable platform for stronger economic growth throughout the supply chain and encourage product diversification and competition. The range of inputs, consumables, and equipment stocked by the agrodealers covers crop and livestock sectors. Crop inputs include seeds, agrochemicals and knapsack sprayers, fertilizers, ploughs and cultivation machinery, grain storage bags and silos, and pumps and irrigation equipment. Livestock inputs include cuttings for forage crops, feed and associated machinery, veterinary drugs, fencing materials, and poultry equipment, including incubators, egg trays, feeders, and drinkers. General items include protective clothing, cement and construction materials, and farm tools. TF-09 Cup of Excellence Laboratory Equipment Under this Tech Fund FTFE VCA is improving access to a suitably equipped laboratory for the Cup of Excellence competition, creating new opportunities for international promotion of Ethiopian specialty coffee. To establish a consistent and high-quality network of laboratory facilities, which must be accredited to recognized standards, required investments include roasting machinery; sensory analysis expertise; quality control and sampling equipment; grinding and grading machinery; cupping equipment such as kettles, spoons, and trays; and other laboratory equipment such as scales, controlled￾environment cabinets and ventilation, protective clothing, and safety equipment. 114 TF-10 Mechanization for Production and Processing of Seed Maize The limited availability of processing capacity of seed enterprises is resulting in wastage and damage to maize seed. This Technology Fund is supporting 13 carefully selected unions and private commercial farms currently engaged in multiplication of local hybrid seed varieties with a set of postharvest technologies to operate optimally and increase the supply of quality-assured improved seed varieties. The following postharvest technologies are included: • Maize shellers/threshers • Large hermetic storage bags • Small portable seed cleaning and packaging machines • Lab equipment (balances, moisture meters, stitching machines) TF-11 Poultry Technologies for Smallholder Development This Technology Fund is supporting the recovery and stimulating growth of the poultry industry through providing key poultry-related technology packages to individual poultry producers, SMEs, CIGs, and cooperatives with majority membership of youth and women. This Tech Fund is supporting more than 15,000 VCA poultry beneficiaries. This continuation of technical assistance includes repeat visits, building in-depth and technical expertise, and widening geographic impact from a few lead farmers to include the adjacent community. In addition, it will provide resources to expand VCA outreach, in collaboration with commercial service providers, to a similar level of new beneficiaries so that total poultry number of beneficiaries exceeds 30,000 by mid-2021. TF-12 Meat and Live Animals The selected technologies for the MLA VC will improve technical and commercial performance of farming clients and agribusiness and scale up best practices. The scope of the Technology Fund includes cattle fattening, as well as smaller-scale fattening of sheep and goats (small ruminants). The emphasis on livestock feed availability and utilization addresses the need for more efficient live weight gain, carcass quality, and reduced cost for smallholder producers. Effective fattening rations include a mix of concentrate feed blended with locally available byproducts, crop residues, and on-farm forage. Reducing feed wastage and applying appropriate feed management practices are essential for commercial performance and cost control. TF-13 Tigray Response The Technology Fund is providing an integrated package of technical, marketing and hardware support to address anticipated challenges in the Tigray region. This includes rebooting the MSME private sector on a rapid recovery path to normal operations; resolving challenges in local food markets with disrupted demand-supply channels and infrastructure needs; supporting the reestablishment of commercial transport networks; and mitigating backward sliding in agricultural production and processing. The Technology Fund is facilitating procurement and distribution of substantial volumes of key agricultural inputs that act as immediate support to affected communities through an in-kind mechanism. At the same time, it will kick-start the recovery of normal VC processes by engaging trade flows, production processes, and commercial linkages to processorsand markets. 115 ANNEX 13: SUB-PURPOSE 3 Summary for Endline Evaluation – April 2021 Improved Enabling Environment: Capacity Building; Policy Initiatives; PPD Forums and Workshops: Sub-Purpose 3 I. Capacity Building 1. Training for Strategic Leadership Objectives: Design and deliver tailored training to high-level leaders from the MoA and regions on strategic leadership for commercialization of agriculture. Key Activities: Hire consultants, design training modules, and deliver training. Key topics covered include food security issues, the eight leadership qualities based on Kotter’s principles, value chain, and strategic leadership. Participants/Stakeholders: More than 350 participants with decision-making roles drawn from key MoA directorates and regional, zonal, and woreda-level offices. Regions involved: Federal, SNNPR, Amhara, Oromia, Tigray. Outcome: Enhanced awareness among high-level officials to provide effective leadership to support agriculture commercialization and transformation. II. Policy Initiatives Leading to Legislation 1. Legal Framework for Dairy Marketing in Ethiopia Objective: Review the state of dairy marketing and draft legal framework to regulating the trade. Improve enabling environment to encourage private sector investment, increase productivity and commercialization. Key Activities: A demand-driven request from the MoA to assess the marketing of milk and milk products to develop a regulatory framework. This involved several steps: Establish a technical task force led by MoA but involving the private sector; prepare a TOR and hire consultants through STTA; Present Inception Report for review and approval by EVCA and MoA technical task force and build consensus to start fieldwork. Undertake field study/survey setting sample (# 10 FGD, 15 key informants, 10 key institutions and professionals) and organize a review meeting before presenting to a workshop to validate (four rounds of meetings held). Finally, convene validation workshop with national policymakers, revise the study incorporating feedback, and present the final document to MoA for endorsement (2x meetings). Draft the legal framework and present to MoA for internal review of the proclamation (4x meetings); stakeholder workshop for validation involving regional officials (# 90 participants). Finally, hand over the document to MoA in a ceremony. Participants/Stakeholders: Two State Ministers; Dairy Directorate (focal person); Marketing Directorate; Livestock State Minister; Marketing State Minister, Dairy Producers’ and Processors’ Associations; Feed Associations; ESAP, MoA staff; Dairy Directorate; EMTDI, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Legal Directorate at MoA; Ethiopian Food Medicines Control Authority, Quality Standard Authority. Regions Involved: Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Addis Ababa, Afar, and Tigray Outcome: Draft legal framework regulating milk marketing and endorsed by the MoA (Amharic and English version). Awaiting final approval by legislative body. 116 2. Live Animal Marketing Proclamation Amendment #819/2014 Objective: To review Proclamation No. 819/2014 in light of its relevance for value chain actors as well as its inclusiveness and propose legal and regulatory framework that improves private sector investment and trade in live animals. Key Activities: Demand-driven request from Live Animal Traders’ Association. Organize policy forum in collaboration with the Association and MoA based on private sector priorities. Identify key issues for policy analysis. Prepare TOR and STTA and hire professional consultants. Establish a technical task force led by MoA and conduct the study in Amharic. Submit inception report for review by EVCA and MoA technical taskforce. Launch field study/survey setting the samples (# 15 FGD, 10 key informants, 20 key processors and professionals). Introduce consultants to regions, complete background study on marketing for amendment to the legal framework, and seek task force agreement before presenting to stakeholder workshop for validation (4x). Validation workshop at a national level with 60 persons attending. Revise the findings incorporating feedback from MoA. Draft the legal framework for MoA internal review. Participants/Stakeholders: Livestock Directorate (focal person), Marketing Directorate, Livestock State Minister, Marketing State Minister, Live Animals Traders Association, Feed Associations, Universities, ESAP, MoA staff; dairy directorate, EMTDI, EIAR, MoA Legal Directorate, EFMCA, Quality Standard Agency. Regions Involved: Amhara, Oromia, Somali, SNNPR, Tigray, Addis Ababa. Outcome: Background document outlining the status of live animal marketing. Draft amendment to existing proclamation that is inclusive of major market actors in the live animal trade. 3. Warehouse Receipt Financing and Maize and Chickpea Marketing Objective: Demand-driven support from Coffee and Tea Authority and Ethiopian Commodity Exchange to reconcile Ethiopian coffee standard methodology for grades and origin. Identify practical steps to improve exchange operations to respond to private sector demand and deliver tangible benefits to producers, particularly to those involved in coffee, maize, and chickpea value chains. Key Activities: Meeting with ECX technical task force on multiple occasions to agree on main tenets of the study requiring policy decision. Prepare TOR and STTA and hire international consultants; meet with ECX CEO and department heads and introduce consultants. Review and endorse inception report and agree on the methodology. Conduct field survey and literature review. Submit draft report for review. Meet with ECX task force for approval of the report. Conduct policy workshop and briefing summary. Review final report with recommendations. Participants/Stakeholders: ECX leadership; Ministry of Trade and Industry; experts from ECX quality assurance department with a total of 30 participants attending. Regions Involved: Addis Ababa and Federal. Outcome: A document identifying three aspects of ECX operations that require further inquiry for practical reform to upgrade the warehouse system and improve competitiveness of target value chains. This includes Warehouse Receipt Finance, Coffee Warehousing/Logistics, and Structured Grain/Pulse Trade. 4. Policy and Regulatory Issues in Rhizobia Inoculant Technology for Commercialization Objective: Review and document practices of inoculant manufacturing and distribution and quality control system and standards; develop guidelines and identify steps in registration and certification of private sector role. Key Activities: Private sector request for a regulatory framework in the country; review the request and its relevance to smallholder commercialization. Meet MoA officials and Input Director for consultation; prepare TOR and share draft with MoA and seek concurrence. Identify and hire consultant. Convene 117 workshop with 25 key investors, professionals, and MoA attending to review inception report and methodology and endorse; conduct desk review and key informant interviews with secondary data capture; organize final workshop; present recommendations addressing regulatory options. Participants/Stakeholders: MoA, Soil Fertility Directorate, EIAR, Input Directorate, Soil Resources Mapping Institute, Addis Ababa University, Regulatory Directorate, Soil Laboratory—a total of close to 30 persons including the private sector involved in inoculant production. Regions Involved: Amhara, Oromia, Addis Ababa, Federal. Outcome: This is a contribution to policy in input supply. The forum discussed current policy and regulatory practices in relation to commercialization of rhizobia inoculants used to boost production and productivity of chickpea. MoA has adopted the document to prepare a policy and encourage private sector investment in the sector. The MoA officially acknowledged the benefit of the document in a letter dated September 17, 2018. The MoA also uses the document as reference material for knowledge transfer. 5. Poultry Development and Marketing Regulatory Framework Objective: Review regulations and prepare a legal framework for poultry development and marketing practice in Ethiopia. Key Activities: Study requested by the State Minister for Marketing to refine regulations governing poultry development and marketing. Organize technical meeting and define the scope of the study in collaboration with the Ethiopian Poultry Producers’ and Processors’ Association (EPPPA) and MoA. Identify key issues for policy analysis; prepare TOR and STTA and hire professional consultants. Submit inception report for review by EVCA and MoA technical taskforce (one meeting). Introduce consultants to regions and launch field study/survey setting the sample (# 15 FGD, 10 key informants, 20 key processors and professionals). Complete the background study on marketing for legal framework amendment and present key findings to key stakeholders for validation. National policy workshop: 15 key stakeholders from private sector and government. Draft the legal framework; internal review by MoA and draft proclamation. Participants/Stakeholders: MoA Marketing and Input Directorate, Poultry Development Directorate, Regional BoA, Livestock Agencies, MoTI, etc.; private sector industries, feed producers. Regions Involved: Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Addis Ababa, and Tigray. Outcome: Background work completed. Draft proclamation is under way and expected to be submitted soon. This is a legal framework to formalize poultry development and marketing practice in the country. 6. Governance Structure and Sustainability Mechanisms of Primary and Tertiary Market Centers Objective: To provide general principles governing the structure and sustainability mechanisms for primary and tertiary market centers for efficient and effective operations. The goal is to establish a proper functioning agricultural market system with requisite management structure to enhance competitiveness in agriculture product marketing. Key Activities: A request from the Bureau of Industry and Trade in Amhara to conduct a study for improved agriculture marketing. Draft TOR to study the management and operation of the market centers in Bahirdar. Consultant hired and conducted preliminary consultative workshop with 10 key stakeholders; inception report submitted outlining major methodology and instruments for data collection; study conducted using FGDs and key informant interviews. Workshop involving more than 30 key stakeholders from the government and private sector in the region to deliberate on the findings. Participants/Stakeholders: Workshop participants include Bureau of Trade and Industry Head, Transport Head, BOTI Marketing Department Head, and Regional AGP Head, other experts from the Regional Bureaus of Agriculture and Trade. 118 Regions Involved: Amhara regional and zonal offices. Outcome: Complete documentation outlining the operation and management of the marketing centers handed over to the Regional Bureau of Trade; this was well received. However, to institute an effective operation and management in place, it was recommended for the government to introduce legislation. Accordingly, a regulatory guideline has been drafted and introduced by the BOTI. III. PPD Forums and Workshops 1. Maize Alliance Platform Objective: To discuss strategic issues in maize production, processing, and marketing and bring key issues to the attention of decision makers. Major focus areas include the status of maize production, market linkages and technologies, and fall armyworm control. Key Activities: A “National Maize Alliance” platform launched to discuss strategic issues involving maize production and marketing linkages with 90 stakeholders drawn from maize producers and processors, ATA, MoA, including representatives from the private sector. Similar events in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR to launch regional maize platforms. Key activities include workshops in collaboration with ATA and MoA; presentations on key issues (seed supply, production aspects, processing marketing and support services. Summarize outstanding issues and actionable points presented to policymakers. Participants/Stakeholders: Federal MoA, Ministry of Trade, Agricultural Transformation Agency, Input Directorate, Marketing Directorate, Quarantine and Phytosanitary, Research institutes, Traders, and other private sector actors. Regions Involved: MoA, Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Tigray, and Addis Ababa. Outcome: Outstanding issues discussed included commercialization of maize technology; input supply system, status of fall armyworm, and value chain alliance and experience. Panel discussion on maize market linkages and further follow-up mechanisms documented for action. One major outcome has been the recommendation for regulatory flexibility on seed production and supply to encourage private sector investment. 2. Chickpea National and Regional Platforms Objective: To create alliances among chickpea value chain actors and discuss postharvest handling technologies and market linkages (both domestic and export market); identify opportunities and challenges for chickpea value chain commercialization. Major Activities: Identified key stakeholders in consultation with national chickpea coordinator (EIAR). The forum discussed strategic issues in chickpea input supply—specifically, quality seed, production, and productivity. Marketing issues both domestic and international and enabling environment issues covering access to finance, mechanization, and postharvest handling. Regional platforms were also facilitated engaging key actors and stakeholders on similar issues with local context of chickpea production and supply. Participants/Stakeholders: More than 150 participants drawn from the chickpea industry, EPOSPEA, Research, Universities, ILRI, ICRISAT, ICARDA, Plant Protection, MoA, Input Directorate, ENTAG, Ethiopian Seed Corporation, Regional Research Institutes, and ECX. Regions Involved: National/Addis Ababa, Oromia, and Amhara. Outcome: Working groups established to follow up on the challenges with MoA Directorates and seek solutions to access quality seed. This responsibility was later transferred to ATA to coordinate both national and regional level. 119 3. Financial Forum for Coffee Objective: A forum to create awareness among potential borrowers on the various financing options available within the banking industry; aimed at facilitating finance for micro mill owners. Major Activities: A regional forum conducted with banks and private agribusiness operators and investors to set the agenda. Participants/Stakeholders: 72 participants drawn from Oromia representing various institutions, private banks, microfinance, cooperatives and unions, processors, and CIGs. Regions Involved: Oromia Outcome: Banks were able to provide loans to cooperatives and commercial farms; farmers were able to open accounts; scheduled follow-on joint monitoring agreed and training for potential loan applicants. This initiative has resulted in farmers accessing a 3.4 million ETB loan for coffee processing. This has improved the volume and value of coffee processed and exported. 4. Financial Forum for Agribusiness Objective: A tailored forum creating understanding of opportunities to finance agribusiness activities through commercial loans and the DCA scheme. Improving financial access to women-operated agribusiness featured as one of the agenda items. Major Activities: A tailored forum for agribusiness investors and financial service providers, including DCA banks, to improve commercial loans for agribusiness activities. Managers from financial institutions presented their loan products, eligibility criteria for loans, and their overall loan processing procedure and requirements. Matchmaking sessions were held for credit relationships between women/youth entrepreneurs and MSMEs. Participants/Stakeholders: Several rounds of meetings facilitated for 605 representatives of agribusinesses, cooperative leaders, private sector, associations, regional MFIs, MSMEs, processors, and CIGs in all four regions. The forum has also attracted five commercial banks from the private sector. Regions Involved: Oromia, SNNPR, Amhara, Tigray. Outcome: More than 100 value chain MSMEs are since linked with DCA banks and MFIs and supported to access finance and build their working capital. 5. Coffee Quality and Marketing Forum Objective: Demand-driven request from commercial farms and coffee growers, processors, and exporters’ association to convene a forum to map out strategies. Key Activities: Workshop involving coffee processors (both dry and washed coffee) and lead farmers to facilitate market linkages with potential buyers having specified both volume and quality. Participants/Stakeholders: 31 select coffee buyers, processors, cooperative leaders, and government representatives from Oromia participated in this marketing forum. Regions Involved: Producers and processors from Oromia regions, commercial farms, farmers’ unions from Amhara, and exporters mobilized from Addis Ababa. Outcome: Increased volume of dry and washed coffee export of 169 MT washed coffee and 85 MT dry processed specialty coffee in 2020/2021 alone. 6. International Conference on Pulses Objective: Facilitate B2Bs between international buyers and exporters with farmers and agribusinesses and promote export of chickpea and other pulse crops. 120 Key Activities: Co-sponsored this international forum. Technical support to EPOSPEA president and CITA in shaping the agenda and deliverables; facilitated the East African Grain Council representation; identified key participants and conducted orientation. Regions Involved: Private commercial farms, unions, exporters, and government stakeholders from the federal, Amhara, and Oromia regions. Outcome: Buyers from the Indian subcontinent have shown interest to buy Kabuli and Desi-type chickpea from smallholders and unions. Understanding of the quality standards required for export by farmer groups and exporters created. Subsequently, various B2Bs facilitated between unions and the Supporting Indian Trade and Investment for Africa office in Ethiopia. 7. Agrodealers’ and Commercial Input Suppliers’ Forum Objective: Create awareness of the new input marketing licensing procedures; establish reliable sources of commercial linkages for quality and timely input supply to farmers; serve as a medium for technology transfer to increase productivity and commercial activities. Key Activities: Organize a forum for agrodealers, input and technology suppliers, and MoA directorates to deliberate on the regulation governing licensing for input marketing. A secondary objective is to link legally operating agrodealers with commercial partners for quality-assured input and technology supply. Participant/Stakeholder: MoA Input Directorate, Regional Input Directorates, Agriculture Input Supply Corporation, commercial input suppliers, 60 agrodealers. Regions Involved: Federal, SNNPR, Oromia, Amhara, Tigray. Outcome: Commercial partners supply smallholders with quality inputs and technologies through agrodealers. Understanding reached on the need to change the current law demanding multiple licensing with a single licensing to operate as “one-stop shop.” Guidelines are being drafted by the MoT to adopt the revised licensing procedure as per regional context. 8. High-level Policy Forum on Contract Farming Objective: The Jimma forum organized at the request of MoA higher officials with the objective of understanding EVCA contribution on the ground and drawing input for the upcoming legislation on contract farming for commercialization in the country. The objective was also to draw some lessons for the 10-year development plan for the agriculture sector. Major Activities: Demand-driven workshop facilitated in Jimma for more than 50 officials (three State Ministers) and directors and private sector representatives on contract farming. This workshop was followed by a regional workshop in Bonga and a series of visits to nucleus commercial farms where contract farming has been promoted as a strategy for smallholder commercialization by VCA. Participant/Stakeholder: More than 50 participants in the workshop, about 40 participants in the field visit; more than 60 smallholders from Mizan and Bonga were also involved. Participants of the workshop were drawn from Federal MoA, Contract Farming Directorate, Investment Directorate, Advisors to the Minister, State Ministers, Extension Directorate, Input Directorate; Regional SNNPR Tea and Coffee Authority, Federal Tea and Authority. Regions Involved: Federal, Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR. Outcome: Lessons drawn from EVCA field experience and the workshop in Bonga and Jimma provided input for drafting the 10-year strategic plan for agriculture. The field visit to nucleus farms in Bongo served as input to the draft legislation on Contract Farming proposed by lawmakers. 121 9. Regional Forum on Coffee Seedling Commercialization Objective: Lack of officially sanctioned strategy posed a major challenge to commercialization and sustainably of coffee seedling production in the western region of SNNPR. Low prices offered by some NGOs and government-sponsored nurseries led to low-quality seedling supply threatening the viability of high-yielding and disease-resistant coffee seedlings by women and youth CIGs and cooperatives. FTFE VCA, in collaboration with the Coffee and Tea Authority of Kaffa and Bench Sheko Zones, organized a regional workshop for key stakeholders to deliberate on a strategy for commercial coffee seedling production and marketing. Major Activities: Workshop convened in Mizan and Bonga in consultation with zonal key stakeholders, including the Coffee and Tea Authority experts. Coffee nursery site owners demonstrated the challenges faced because of cut prices, lack of land for nursery expansion, rising costs of production, lack of certification. The workshop deliberated on the proposed strategies by zonal authorities, sought consensus, and introduced a strategy to spur commercial coffee seedling production in the region. Stakeholders/Participants: A total of 122 participants attended the workshop, including representatives of seedling producing cooperatives and CIGS; heads of zonal administration; investment; enterprise; cooperative promotion; women, children, and youth offices; woreda chief administrators; zonal land administration departments; woreda agriculture and natural resource departments; universities and agricultural colleges; Mizan plant laboratory; and seed quality control. Regions Involved: Kaffa and Bench Sheko Zones, SNNPR. Outcome: The Zonal Coffee and Tea Authorities adopted a strategy for private sector–driven commercial seedling production. The strategy encourages commercial seedling production and defines the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders involved in seedling production. An important outcome is also that government nursery sites were formally handed over to primary cooperatives and CIGs to produce seedlings on a commercial basis. Some woredas established new, youth-operated nursery sites and diversified production to include spices, forestry, and vegetables. Encouraged by the initiative, nurseries increased the volume of quality seedling production and supply, further reinforced by VCA technical support. Certification documents shared with zonal and woreda coffee and tea authority offices for their follow-up. 10. Regional Forum on Chickpea Seed Commercialization Objective: The forum promoted a sustainable improved chickpea seed supply chain, thereby expanding the production and productivity of the grain in Awabel, Dejen, and Enemay woredas, Amhara Region. Established a common understanding on chickpea seed and grain production in East Gojjam Zone. Activity: A forum in Debremarkos town for key stakeholders from commercial seed and grain producers and government offices. Regions Involved: Amhara regional BoA, East Gojjam Department of Agriculture, and the offices of agriculture in Awabel, Dejen, and Enemay woredas. Stakeholders/Participants: 28 participants from the private sector represented by Ghion FCU; Amhara Region BoA; Amhara Region Plant Seeds Quality Control and Quarantine; East Gojjam Zone Department of Agriculture; Offices of Agriculture; and Cooperatives in Awabel, Dejen, and Enemay woredas attended the forum. Outcome: The regional BoA facilitated the distribution of 361qtl certified chickpea seed for a value of more than ETB 1.67million. The remaining 45 quintal was purchased by two FCUs from South Gondar. A framework has been established on allocation of improved chickpea seed in the future. 122 11. Regional Forum on Dairy Processing and Marketing Objective: This forum for stakeholders from the private and public sectors deliberated on challenges involving dairy processing and marketing in SNNPR and mapped appropriate strategies. Key Activities: A regional dairy stakeholder forum in Hawassa discussed a range of issues in dairy processing and marketing in the region using Almi Dairy Processing and Training Institute as a case study. Stakeholders and Participants: 28 persons representing key government offices in the region, Hawassa University, the regional president’s office, development bank, dairy processing plants, MCCs, agroprocessing industrial parks, and private stakeholders as well as NGOs working in the dairy sector attended the forum. Regions Involved: Hawassa and woredas nearby, SNNPR. Outcome: The forum agreed to work collaboratively with the Regional Livestock Bureau while the Regional President’s office expressed its commitment to address the challenges identified by the forum. 12. Youth and Women Entrepreneurs’ Forum Objective: Facilitate improved access to finance to women and youth entrepreneurs and increase their investment in value chains and agribusiness activities. Activity: A tailored regional forum facilitated in Gondar and Debremarkos targeting youth and women entrepreneurs and local MFIs for improved enabling environment. Participants/Stakeholders: 92 (32 percent women) persons involved in fattening, poultry, dairy, and other value chain activities, representatives of cooperative agency, and the regional MFI. Regions Involved: Amhara. Outcome: With improved understanding and enabling environment, youth entrepreneurs in particular are proactively engaging financial institutions with business plans for loans. 13. Direct Seed Marketing Workshop Objective: Facilitate a regional forum to deliberate on direct seed marketing, improve the efficiency of the seed system, and encourage commercial investment and adoption. Activity: VCA organized a B2B event with commercial seed producers for direct maize seed marketing through agrodealers and licensed private seed marketing agents. Participants/Stakeholders: 76 participants, including officials from Amhara BOA, quarantine authority, ATA, seed companies, private seed marketing agents, and agrodealers, attended the event. Regions Involved: Amhara. Outcome: Amhara Seed Enterprise sold 280 tons of seed directly to agrodealers and this is expected to be one of the supply channels in the future. 14. National Workshop on Scaling up Hermetic Storage Technology Objective: Facilitated a national workshop to wrap up the campaign on HST bags across the country. The objective was to promote HST bags for postharvest loss reduction, raise policymakers’ awareness, and encourage private sector investment in manufacturing the products. Activity: The forum discussed the opportunities that HST provides for reducing postharvest losses, improving food and nutrition security, and associated health benefits. The meeting, supported by technical papers presented by specialists, discussed the strategy and associated policy framework that needs to be adopted by the MoA and MoT for further expansion and adoption of the technology. 123 Participants/Stakeholders: 117 participants drawn from the MoA, research institutions and universities, model farmers, venders including cooperative unions and commercial farm service centers, and development partners including USAID, Sasakawa Global Africa, SNV, GIZ participated in the meeting. Regions Involved: Federal, SNNPR, Oromia, and Amhara. Outcome: Created awareness with the stakeholders and built a consensus with the Government extension to take up the HST as part of mechanization. 124 ANNEX 14: CUP OF EXCELLENCE AUCTION DATA See the table below for the two years of cup of excellence results. Auction Type No. of Farmers COE Auction Remark Lbs. of Green Coffee Total Value (USD) Auction result 2020 39 65,749.51 $1,506,249.33 local Auction 2020 84 199,209.70 $328,012.30 Ex rate 36.22 Total (2020) 123 264,958.7 $1,834,261.63 Auction result 2021 39 73,744.54 $1,962,524.06 ECX auction 2021 33 12623.67 $88,751.16 Ex rate 43 Total (2021) 72 86,368.21 $2,051.27 ANNEX 15: COMPLETE LIST OF PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS Effectiveness Recommendations Duty Bearer Prioritization 1. Follow-on programming needs to be more intentional about the selection of VCs that are appropriate for women and youth, who typically do not enjoy equal access to land or finance as do men or non-youth. This would involve conducting gender- and youth-specific research to identify and design an activity that addresses the needs of these vulnerable groups. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 2. Follow-on programming should also explore strategic ways to work with women and youth at institutional levels to have greater impact on VC participation and influence. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 3. Given the complexity of land governance issues within the African context, the Mission realizes that it is not realistic for programs like VCA to attempt to take this on; however, future programming should include gender analysis to inform policy, research, and extension, particularly around access to land and capital for women and youth. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 4. It would be beneficial for VCA to prioritize support to market actors (e.g., agribusinesses, cooperatives/associations, MCCs, and abattoirs) to develop quality control mechanisms to ensure that the role these institutional actors serve providing training, market information, and linkages remains at a high level and reaches smallholders in hard-to-reach kebeles. a. This could include the creation of a tripartite steering committee Fintrac, USAID, and GOE 1–3 months that includes GOE, agribusinesses, and smallholders that holds quarterly meetings to address VC-related priorities linked to production, technology, training, quality control, and access to markets. 5. VCA should consider working with the GOE and key market actors to support the creation of a strategy to sustain and expand this approach for each VC in light of VCA’s eventual closure. Fintrac, USAID, and GOE 1–3 months 6. Follow-on programming will need to consider how to mainstream gender, youth, and nutrition into interventions aimed at increasing access to markets. a. One way to achieve this is to diversify interventions into other VCs. Potential VCs include horticulture, spices, honey, and home-based vegetable gardens. b. There is a clear need to scale up gender and youth interventions at the community level and in community-level institutions to ensure sustainability. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 7. Follow-on programming should focus on increasing smallholder and agribusiness preparedness to access financing and ensure that MFIs are included in any DFC program to provide accessible and appropriate access to capital products to this demographic. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 8. Ensure that any outstanding training on business management and bookkeeping is completed and an assessment conducted to identify and create a list of VCA smallholders and agribusinesses that successfully complete the full course of training and are potential clients to access loans through formal institutions. Fintrac, USAID, and GOE 1–3 months 9. USAID and VCA should continue to urgently work with Ethiopian financial institutions to develop financing models that are appropriate and viable for livestock and crop VC actors. Fintrac, USAID, Ethiopian Financial Institutions, and GOE Urgent and ongoing 10. Where possible, USAID and the GOE should seek to create spaces for tripartite collaboration and communication between the private sector, GOE, and farmer organizations to ensure that Activity successes are Fintrac, USAID, and GOE 1-3 months 125 Effectiveness Recommendations Duty Bearer Prioritization more sustainable and to continue to encourage public-private collaboration and problem resolution. These entities should be created from the national to the kebele levels. i) VCA and AGPII should work together to institutionalize the demonstration initiatives under the GOE leadership to support sustainability and continuity. 11. The backbone of VCA’s gains in expanding private sector activities and markets for new resources and technologies is linked to the infusion of capital for Ethiopian private sector VC actors. VCA and USAID should continue their efforts to advocate for improved conditions surrounding access to capital and financing in Ethiopia, including the issue of foreign exchange. USAID, Development Partners, and GOE Ongoing and urgent Outcome Recommendations Duty Bearer Prioritization 12. Future VC activities should scale up the size of the horticulture VC interventions and the provision of home gardening kits provided to smallholder households to improve their nutritional outcomes and increase access to nutritious, low-cost foods. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 13. Follow-on programming design should include a focus on building advanced business management and operations capacity among VCA agribusinesses and smallholder beneficiaries to further support their income diversification outcomes. USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 6–12 months 14. Future programming should consider taking a more targeted approach over a demand-driven, all-inclusive approach to working on policy issues that involves strategic engagement on a select set of priority VC policy issues as well as coordinated sustained engagement. Some priorities raised during this evaluation included the following: 1. Foreign exchange and access to capital 2. Access to land and capital for women and youth 3. A tripartite (GOE, agribusinesses, and civil society/smallholders) steering committee to facilitate continued VCA outcome sustainability 15. VCA should assess the policy work conducted thus far and resolve and complete any outstanding policy work deemed feasible within the remaining implementation period. For all remaining policy and advocacy work, the VCA exit strategy should include policy status and identify a duty bearer that will be responsible for taking the Activity forward within AGP II. Fintrac, USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 1–3 months Efficiency Recommendations Duty Bearer Prioritization 16. VCA management, stakeholders, and USAID may want to consider workshops to identify and document the best practices emerging from working in such a complicated context, including the COVID-19 pandemic and civil instability. Fintrac, USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 1–3 months 17. Because of delays at the outset of the program and the ongoing pandemic, USAID and Fintrac may want to discuss the merits of a no-cost extension as a vehicle to consolidate the Activity’s accomplishments and finalize outstanding Activity efforts. Fintrac and USAID 1–3 months 126 Sustainability Recommendations Duty Bearer Prioritization 18. A clear and well-communicated sustainability plan and exit strategy for VCA should be put in place down to the kebele levels as soon as possible. 1. A participatory process should be engaged with GOE/AGPII, and VCA stakeholders at all levels. Fintrac, USAID, GOE, and Development Partners 1–3 months 19. VCA stakeholders and USAID should continue advocacy efforts with the GOE and the African Union to address issues such as foreign exchange and business-unfriendly policies and practices. Fintrac, USAID, GOE, and Development Partners Ongoing and urgent 127 128 ANNEX 16: TEAM BIOS, STATEMENTS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS Name: Ahmed Yesuf Position: Nutrition Specialist Key Qualifications Mr. Yesuf has more than 10 years of experience working on health and nutrition programing. In the last seven years, he has contributed to health and nutrition project design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), in the latter case through application of qualitative (e.g., key informant interviews and focus group discussions) and quantitative (e.g., surveys) data collection methods. He has managed multiple projects on reducing acute and chronic malnutrition, especially in children under five and pregnant and lactating mothers, through implementation of integrated programs, including community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM); water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); integrated management of neonatal and childhood illness (IMNCI); infant and youth child feeding practices in emergencies (IYCF-E); integrated community case management (ICCM); and other nutrition-sensitive interventions in both emergency and resilience programming. Mr. Yesuf has both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in public health, as well as extensive training in development and health. He has worked locally and with large NGOs to address health and nutrition needs. 129 130 131 Name: Mekbib Hilegebrile Seife Position: M&E Specialist Key Qualifications A highly motivated, resourceful, and results-oriented expert with 14 years of professional experience (eight years working in international NGOs), Mekbib has a strong managerial background with senior￾level experience and cross-sector exposure in all aspects of program design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, the latter of which includes significant experience in both qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies. He has good strategic appreciation and vision, as well as proven people management skills, with the ability to communicate effectively with work colleagues at all levels, including key stakeholders and senior managers, to deliver quality and value for money. He has solid management experience with donor-funded programs and extensive knowledge of contractual requirements. In addition to his broad experience in nutrition, health, food, resilience, crisis modifiers, human resources, and financial management, he has ample knowledge of the Ethiopian government’s policies and strategies, as well as technical skills that have helped him lead large programs with compliance. 132 133 134 Name: Efrem Tesfaye Position: Agribusiness Specialist Key Qualifications Mr. Tesfaye has been working in the agriculture sector for the past 10 years with emphasis on agribusiness, value chains, and program management. His agribusiness work has specialized in financial access, capacity and market needs, and enabling environments to support agri-linkages and develop financial and business services for agribusiness. He has worked and aided in private, public, international, and nongovernmental organizations while based primarily in Addis Ababa. He also has a history of working on USAID and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation projects. His work experience demonstrates strong technical skill, meticulous attention to detail, and the ability to work with a diverse and high-profile clientele. He is a strong asset in both collaborative and independent work environments, meeting demanding priorities with composure, focus, and patience. Other areas of specialty include Business Development, Renewable Energy, Agriculture and Agribusiness, Green Economy, and Sustainable Development Facilitation and Training. Mr. Tesfaye holds a master’s degree in business administration from the International Leadership Institute and a bachelor’s degree in business management from Jimma University. He speaks Amharic, English, and Oromiffa proficiently. 135 136 137 Name: Brandy Jones Position: Team Leader Key Qualifications Dr. Brandy Jones has more than 16 years of experience as a gender specialist and team leader in project evaluations, monitoring and evaluation, governance, and agriculture. Dr. Jones also has significant experience leading evaluations and assessments, having led or worked on more than 15 evaluations for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Department for International Development (DFID), various United Nations (UN) agencies (including UNDP, UNOPs, UN Women, UNEP, and UN Habitat), and several international and national nongovernmental organization (NGOs). She has worked extensively in Africa, including in Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal, among others. In 2019, as Team Leader and Senior Evaluation Specialist for two evaluations of the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Final Evaluation for Mercy Corps in Kyrgyzstan, Dr. Jones oversaw a team of consultants and a local data collection firm and was responsible for the evaluation process from inception to data collection to analysis and report writing. In 2018–2019, as Senior Technical Assessor and Evaluator for UNOPs, she provided technical review and evaluation of Local Governance Assessment frameworks for 19 countries throughout Africa on behalf of Cities Alliance in preparation for a continent￾wide publication. This review included constitutional, policy, and institutional-level research and analysis to confirm or revise appraisals for the local governance environment within the national context across 12 predetermined local governance criteria. For USAID, Dr. Jones most recently served as Team Leader and Evaluation Specialist on evaluations in Haiti (Integrated Financial Management System Project in 2017– 2018) and the DRC (USAID DRC Food for Peace Portfolio 2015–2016) as well as working as a team member in Senegal on the evaluation of the Senegal Projet Assainissement – Changement de Comportement et Eau pour le Senegal (ACCES) in 2016–2017. Also for USAID, in DRC, as Team Leader and Senior Program Quality and Design Specialist 2016–2017, she participated in the design of a multiyear, $10 million Integrated Youth Education and Training Activity to be executed under Transitional Objective 3: Foundation for durable peace strengthened in eastern DRC. Dr. Jones holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in Political Science from the University of Michigan and a B.A. in American Studies and Political Science from the University of California-Berkeley. 138 139 Name: Beredu Tessema Goskora 140 Name: Beredu Tessema Goskora Position: Gender Specialist Key Qualifications Ms. Goskora has been working in the gender sector for the past 10 years. She has experience designing, coordinating, and implementing integrated development and emergency programs on gender and gender￾based violence (GBV) with emphasis on social accountability, social inclusion, livelihood promotion, ethical and inclusive business development, and women’s socioeconomic empowerment in rural, marginalized, and pastoralist communities. She has conducted both qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis, and reporting at many levels while performing her monitoring and evaluation and gender assessment duties. Ms. Goskora has also developed guidelines on social inclusion and participation for coffee and cotton value chains and conducted surveys on women and nutrition. With cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity to gender and cultural difference and human rights, Ms. Goskora collaborates well with teams to bring the crucial gender lens to a variety of implementation areas. 141 142 143 ANNEX 17: EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PEEL TASK ORDER EXPRESSION OF INTEREST – END LINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A) Identifying Information Activity Name Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (VCA) Implementing partner Fintrac Inc. Cooperative Agreement Cost plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)-Completion Type Contract Total Estimated Cost $60,229,208.00 Life of Activity Jan 2017 – Dec 2021 Activity Geographic Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray Regions Regions Mission DO DO1 USAID Office EG&T Activity AOR Getinet Ameha Activity Funding Agriculture B) Development Context 1. Problem or Opportunity Addressed by the Project/Activity being evaluated Under the GoE’s AGP II, the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity builds on USAID’s contribution to AGP I, including, but not limited to, USAID/Ethiopia’s Feed the Future AGP-Agribusiness and Market Development (AMDe), AGP-Livestock Market Development (LMD), Capacity to Improve Agriculture and Food Security (CIAFS), and Ethiopia Sustainable Agribusiness Incubator (ESAI) activities. AGP-II is designed to increase geographical coverage, consolidate past investments, and meet the emerging challenges of the agricultural sector, especially those related to targeted value chains and market systems. VCA functions as the principal contributor to Component 4 of AGP-II: Agriculture Marketing & Value Chains, in the four regions of Tigray, Amhara, SNNPR, and Oromia of Ethiopia. Priority value chains include coffee, chickpea, maize, dairy, poultry, and meat & live animals. VCA also mainstreams nutrition, gender and youth to ensure transformative community change, and monitors progress from baseline to quantifiably report on impact. With an overall objective of improving agricultural productivity and commercialization of smallholder agriculture, VCA support focuses across the private sector, which plays a key role in transformational change through investing in market linkages and new products, driving technology innovation, and clustering business impact through effective platforms. 2. Intended Results of the Project/Activity being evaluated The purpose of the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity is to improve the performance of the agricultural sector. The sub-purposes are: Sub-Purpose 1: Increased nutrition-sensitive productivity of targeted value chains inclusive of women and youth 144 1.1 Strengthened and scaled up input supply system’s delivery of affordable, high-quality technologies and services. 1.2 Expanded use of improved technologies and practices by male and female smallholders, including youth. 1.3 Increased availability of, access to and consumption of safe, diverse foods. Sub-Purpose 2: Strengthen inclusive market systems and trade 2.1 Strengthened market access and organization of the market systems. 2.2 Increased access to financial services. 2.3 Increased access to non-financial supporting services. 2.4 Strengthened lead firms, including agribusinesses, agro-processors, and FCUs. 2.5 Increased trade in domestic, regional and international markets. Sub-Purpose 3: Improve the enabling environment in support of agricultural transformation 3.1 Strengthened capacity of MoANR and improved cooperation with ATA at federal, regional, and local levels for developing, implementing, and monitoring policies. 3.2 Strengthened public and private sector dialogue related to policy review and implementation. 3.3 Strengthened policies, regulations and laws to support an improved business and investment environment around the selected value chains, particularly through the New Alliance Cooperation Framework. The activity will contribute to national and Feed the Future goals. As such, it will be measured by appropriate indicators at the mechanism, national, and zone of influence levels for impact level results. The purpose-level indicator focuses on gross margins. Although subject to a variety of influences which may or may not be directly addressed by this activity, gross margin is a helpful way to measure the extent to which value chains lead to economic benefits for Smallholder producers. 3. Target Areas and Groups VCA functions as the principal contributor to Component 4 of AGP-II: Agriculture Marketing & Value Chains, in the four regions of Tigray, Amhara, SNNPR, and Oromia. Priority value chains include coffee, chickpea, maize, dairy, poultry, and meat & live animals. VCA also mainstreams nutrition, gender and youth to ensure transformative community change, and monitors progress from baseline to quantifiably report on impact. With an overall objective of improving agricultural productivity and commercialization of smallholder agriculture, VCA support focuses across the private sector, which plays a key role in transformational change through investing in market linkages and new products, driving technology innovation, and clustering business impact through effective platforms. At the start of the activity, VCA is being implemented in 43 AGP-II woredas located in Oromia, SNNPR, Amhara, and Tigray regions. During 2018/2019, this geographic coverage expanded across 17 additional woredas. In addition, VCA works with 82 Milk Collection Centers in 42 woredas, some of which are outside of AGP-II, to sequence on previous USAID investments in the dairy sector. 4. Approach and Implementation The Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity is an inclusive value chain and market systems development activity that integrates nutrition-sensitive interventions, climate smart agriculture, and USAID/Ethiopia’s Push-Pull strategy. Its focus is value chain and market systems development. It stresses inclusive growth (youth, gender and women’s empowerment), improved resiliency and the integration of information communications technology (ICT). 145 VCA’s interventions are market-led and private sector partners are instrumental in delivering products and services through cost-shared alliances and partnerships. The main approaches of implementation are: • Direct implementation through in-house capacity and consultants. • Partnerships using subcontracts and grants; partners include cooperatives, unions, NGOs, agribusinesses, private firms, and commercial farms. Partnerships using subcontracts and grants are a primary mechanism for channeling targeted, market-led technical assistance to producers further integrating cross-cutting themes. VCA collaborates with other donor-funded projects as well as key government entities, private sector agribusinesses, associations, NGOs, the key directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) and the Ethiopian Coffee and Tea Authority. C) Existing Data The quantitative data will largely come from Fintrac data base, AGP M&E office and Regional Ag offices. The evaluation team will have available for their analysis a variety of program implementation documents, and reports. II. EVALUATION RATIONALE A) Evaluation Purpose The purpose of this end line evaluation is to assess how the Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (VCA) has progressed from inception to closing (December 31, 2021). The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will be used to guide future USAID programing and the design of follow on or related activities. In particular, lessons learned from this Activity’s implementation will help inform USAID’s future approach to support the GOE’s Agriculture Growth Program (AGP). Audience and Intended Uses The primary users of this evaluation are USAID, the implementing partner and the local Government entities working in the Agriculture sector. The findings of this evaluation are expected to inform future similar programming. In particular, lessons learned from this Activity’s implementation will help inform USAID’s future approach to support the GOE’s Agriculture Growth Program (AGP). B)Evaluation Design 1. Evaluation Design The contractor/evaluation team will be responsible for developing an evaluation strategy and methodologies that include a mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The contractor should present evaluation questions matrix showing the source of data, method of data collection and data analyses methods for each of the evaluation questions. Methodology limitations should be identified as well as measures taken to address those limitations should be identified and discussed. 2. Data Collection and Sources The evaluation will utilize a mixed methods approach of qualitative and quantitative methods. A qualitative approach should include at a minimum literature review, key informant interviews, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions with beneficiaries, CATI and direct observation (if feasible). The most appropriate respondents are direct and indirect beneficiaries, Woreda AGP focal points and development agents, Regional AGP coordination office and regional Ag experts and AGP coordination office, ATA, Coffee and Tea Authority, Cooperative Agencies Ministry of Trade and MoA. 146 3. Data Analysis In the Evaluation Plan, the evaluation team is expected to provide a detailed data collection and data analysis plan; for example, what quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques will be used, how focus group responses will be documented and analyzed, etc. As this evaluation mainly collects qualitative data, the evaluation must employ an appropriate analysis tool for qualitative data in order to categorize, rank and rate the responses of the interviewees and discussants. Very insightful or special description of interviewees and discussants should be quoted as appropriate to highlight findings. All data collected and presented in the evaluation report must be disaggregated, as appropriate, by sex and geographic areas. C. Evaluation Questions Key evaluation questions, listed in order of priority, are the following: 1. To what extent did interventions change the economic structure of beneficiary households? Which value chains were successful in 1) engaging more women and youth, 2) significantly increasing yield and income, and 3) contributing to improvements in household nutrition? 2. Did the program’s services, products, and resources reach their intended beneficiaries in terms of geographic coverage and value chain penetration. 3. What were the major achievements in the partnerships FTFEVCA built (Government, private sector, development partners, others)? What were the critical success factors and failures of each? How well did the current arrangement of partnership based on component sharing with government work? What are the recommendations to improve engagement, especially, but not exclusively with the government? 4. Does USAID’s DCA support and grant mechanism (in kind or cost sharing) work for all value chain actors in accessing finance? if ‘no’ why? What are the obstacles and the recommended changes (in policy and others)? 5. How did FTFEVCA’s exit strategy change overtime as a result of internal and external changes? 6. How has Fintrac’s management of FTFEVCA evolved over time due to internal and external changes? What were the major lessons learned from these changes and change management process? What lessons can be drawn for USAID in designing complexity aware programming and allow for adaptive management? N.B. • Q1. is meant to understand if and how FTFEVCA’s support inspired farming households to explore and take up livelihood diversification options and engage in non-farming IGAs . • Q6. aims to understand how internal and external changes such as staff turnover, budget cut, civil unrest, COVID 19 etc. affected activity implementation and achieving results as well as how the changes were managed to maintain smooth activity implementation. III. TIMEFRAME & TRAVEL A) Timeframe The ideal start date for the evaluation is February 15, 2021 with the data collection completed by April 30, 2021 (due to the upcoming election). The timeframe will be finalized between USAID and the Contractor. B) Travel The team will travel to Addis Ababa and to selected provinces in each region where program activities are being implemented. These provinces are: Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, and Tigray (if possible). 147 IV. DELIVERABLES & DESIGN A) Deliverables 1. Concept Note: This will be a high-level description of the end line evaluation, including the finalized evaluation questions, team description and updated timeline. 2. Draft and Final Evaluation Plan: This will include: a) the overall evaluation design, including the proposed methodology, data collection and analysis plan, and data collection instruments; b) a list of the team members and their primary contact details while in-country, including the e-mail address and mobile phone number for the team leader; and c) the team’s proposed schedule for the evaluation. The final evaluation plan shall include the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited (in situations where site visits are feasible). 3. In-briefing: Upon arrival in country, the evaluation team will have an in brief meeting with USAID/Ethiopia’s Program Office, EG&T office, and VCA offices for introductions; presentation of the team’s understanding of the assignment and initial assumptions. 4. Out brief and Fieldwork Debrief: The evaluation team is expected to provide the COR for VCA with periodic updates on the status of the evaluation through a variety of means, including emails, phone call, etc. Immediately after the team’s completion of the fieldwork, the team shall provide an out-brief to USAID to discuss on and learn about field level data collection experiences as well as the evaluation team members’ preliminary impression on evaluation findings. 5. Web-based presentation (PowerPoint Presentation) to USAID and relevant partners that includes a summary of key findings and key conclusions related to evaluation questions. A copy of the PowerPoint file will be provided to USAID, The COR for VCA shall compile comments from participants in this presentation and submit it to the contractor/evaluation team for consideration during the preparation of the report. 6. Draft Evaluation Report: The content of the draft evaluation report is outlined in Annex A below, and all formatting shall be consistent with the USAID branding guidelines. The focus of the report is to answer the evaluation questions and may include factors the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. 7. Final Evaluation Report will incorporate final comments provided by USAID. The length of the final evaluation report should not be more than 45 pages, not including Annexes and Executive Summary. The Final Evaluation Report submission should also include a two-pager briefer (infographic) including graphics on key qualitative and quantitative findings and conclusions relative to the evaluation questions. 8. Datasets and all supporting documentation qualitative and/or quantitative data should be submitted as part of ADS 579.3.2.6. The final report will be uploaded to the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse. V. TEAM COMPOSITION Team compositions will be considered with clear justification of how they will produce the deliverables listed in Section IV. The evaluation team shall consist of at least a team leader with experience evaluating agriculture, value chains and agri-business related activities. The core evaluation team must have a clear understanding of Ethiopia’s country context, must be fluent in English and have strong writing skills, with local experts proficient in English and Amharic and/or any other local language(s). The combined expertise and knowledge of the team should include agriculture, agribusiness, nutrition, communications, and monitoring and evaluation. 148 VI. MANAGEMENT The contractor shall identify, hire and manage the evaluation team. EG&T Office and the implementing partner (Fintrac) will assist the contractor/evaluation in facilitating introductions and arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified for consultations/interviews. The evaluation team will organize other meetings as identified during the course of the evaluation, in consultation with VCA COR. The Contractor is responsible for all logistical support required for the evaluation team, including arranging accommodation, security, office space, computers, Internet access, printing, communication, and transportation. The evaluation team will officially report to the contractor and the contractor is responsible for all direct coordination with the USAID. From a technical management perspective, the evaluation team will work closely with Getinet Ameha Activity COR and Activity Manager for this evaluation. In order to maintain objectivity, all final decisions about the evaluation will be made by the Program Office. USAID Evaluation Report Standards 1. Identify the evaluation as either an impact or performance evaluation per the definitions in ADS 201. 2. Include an abstract of not more than 250 words briefly describing what was evaluated, evaluation questions, methods, and key findings or conclusions. The abstract should appear on its own page immediately after the evaluation report cover. 3. Include an Executive Summary 2–5 pages in length that summarizes key points (purpose and background, evaluation questions, methods, findings, and conclusions). 4. State the purpose of, audience for, and anticipated use(s) of the evaluation. 5. Describe the specific strategy, project, activity, or intervention to be evaluated including (if available) award numbers, award dates, funding levels, and implementing partners. 6. Provide brief background information. This should include country and/or sector context; specific problem or opportunity the intervention addresses; and the development hypothesis, theory of change, or simply how the intervention addresses the problem. 7. Identify a small number of evaluation questions. 8. In an impact evaluation, identify questions about measuring the change in specific outcomes attributable to a specific USAID intervention. 9. Describe the evaluation method(s) for data collection and analysis. 10. Describe limitations of the evaluation methodology. 11. In an impact evaluation, use specific experimental or quasi-experimental methods to answer impact evaluation questions. 12. Include evaluation findings and conclusions. 13. If recommendations are included, separate them from findings and conclusions. 14. Address all evaluation questions in the Statement of Work (SOW) or document approval by USAID for not addressing an evaluation question. 15. Include the following annexes: • Evaluation SOW. If the SOW is revised, the evaluation report should include the updated SOW as an Annex rather than the original SOW. 149 • A description of evaluation methods (if not described in full in the main body of the evaluation report). • All data collection and analysis tools used, such as questionnaires, checklists, survey instruments, and discussion guides. • All sources of information—properly identified and listed. • Any “statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. • Signed disclosures of conflicts of interest from evaluation team members. • Abridged bios of the evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. 16. Include enough information on the cover of the evaluation report so that a reader can immediately understand that it is an evaluation and what was evaluated. The evaluation cover should: • Include a title block in USAID light blue background color. • Include the word “Evaluation” at the top of the title block and center the report title underneath that. The title should also include the word “evaluation.” • Include the following statement across the bottom of the cover page: “This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by [list authors and organizations involved in the preparation of the report].” For an internal evaluation team, use the following statement: “This publication was produced at the request of [USAID/Mission] and prepared by an internal evaluation team comprised of [list authors and affiliation].” • Feature one high-quality photograph representative of the project being evaluated and include a brief caption on the inside front cover describing the image with photographer credit. • State the month and year of the report. • State the individual authors of the report and identify evaluation team leader. USAID Criteria for Quality Evaluation • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports must address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology must be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings address person-level outcomes and impact, they should be assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific.